AusBC & propaganda (Anne Barker)

.. person, position - or policy? ...

  .. Anne Barker is back ...

    .. dare I say it: 'barking mad?'


Subtitle: The 3 Ps as above, then ¬P, ¬C & ¬R; let's see.

The 'Meister' MEP Anne Barker is back[0], apparently full of beans[2]. Whether the beans are 'merely' metaphorical or of the musical-fruit variety is a question best answered on the evidence.

Another P and a C: so-called 'professionalism,' so-called 'credibility' as in gap[1];  '¬' = not.

More (metaphorical!) map-wiping?


The trigger item:

Iran threatens to destroy Israel if attacked
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker
Posted September 29, 2009 08:02:00
  «But Iran's Defence Minister Ahmed Vahidi has warned of Israel's demise if it does, saying the result would be "the Zionist regime's last breath".» 

More detailed item:

Iran's missile test a warning against Western interference
Anne Barker reported this story on
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 07:19:00
  «AHMED VAHIDI (translated): Definitely, if that happens which of course we don't predict, the only result of it would be the acceleration of the final breaths of the Zionist regime and its transient life which is already numbered will come to an end very soon.» 

Possible Barker (intermediate) source item:

17:09 28/09/2009
Iran: Attacking us will expedite Israel's last breath
By Haaretz Service and Agencies
  «Vahidi, a former commander in the elite Revolutionary Guards, said that in the event of an Israeli attack its "lifespan, which is today coming to an end, would be speeded up."
He added that the "Zionist regime", the term Iran uses for Israel, was on a "slope of destruction."»

Probably Barker's actual, or root-source item:

Israel, Saudi Arabia, US, UK Join Forces As Iran Fires Nuclear Capable Missiles
By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency
  «Jerusalem, Israel ---- September 28, 2009 ..... As Iran test fires missiles on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur - nuclear missiles capable of hitting Israel, Saudi Arabia, Europe and US bases - Saudi Arabia has granted the use of their air space to Israel to take out Iran nuclear facilities.
Vahidi, a former Revolutionary Guards commander, said that in the event of an Israeli attack its "lifespan, which is today coming to an end, would be speeded up."
He added that the "Zionist regime", the term Iran uses for Israel, was on a "slope of destruction".»
[The Israel News Agency disseminates direct news feeds from the Israel Government Press Office, Prime Minister's Office, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Ministry of Defense, the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Ministry of Trade and the Israel Ministry of Tourism]

From Iran, possibly the true source item:

DM: Israel closing to its collapse
9/28/2009 4:46:49 PM
  «IRI Defense Minister said the Zionist regime is closing to its collapse.
Gen. Ahmad Vahidi stated that Israeli officials threatening words of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is a sign of their growing terror.
Gen. Vahidi ruled out possibility of an attack by the Zionist regime and said if this happened that would hasten collapse of the regime.»


As for the musical-fruit, Barker's veracity is a question best answered on the evidence.

Fazit: Speaking of credibility brings another word into play: responsibility. The last word here: vis-à-vis the sheople, and IMHO as usual and of course, Barker demonstrates *none*.


PS My own partial analysis (all should do their own):

In writing any headline, there should be some basis in fact.

Q: Is Barker's headline "Iran threatens to destroy Israel if attacked" justified on the info she provided? On any of the info cited? On any info at all? Or only on someone's sick fantasy?

As in proving a lie, one must provide checkable, accessible quotes.

Q: Are either of Barker's quotes checkable?

A: No; at least, not by me at time of writing. Of course I tried - that's how I built my 'evidence trail.'

In writing any item, any single lie puts the whole into (terminal!) doubt.

Q: Is this statement "As Iran test fires missiles on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur - nuclear missiles ..." - and here, we are looking especially at the last two words in their full context - true?

A: Absolutely not! Comment: This item comes direct from Z-propaganda central. As such, the info is not merely 'suspect,' as a 'default starting position,' any and all of it may be strongly suspected of being outright lies. That's exactly what the Zs do.

The 'best' one may say of any propaganda is that it is a distortion of the truth, when not outright lies. The only reason to lie or to deploy propaganda is to hide or distort some truth - inconvenient to or destructive towards some policy or action. It is only logical, that something hidden is not in the sheople's interest, otherwise why try to hide it? Ergo, both lies and propaganda are totally undemocratic. When the AusBC does so, they are being traitors to their remit – which is to honestly & completely inform us, we the voters.

The 'original' map-wiping, Holocaust-denying, the evil allegations made on or behalf of the so-called 'West,' via and/or by the corrupt & venal MSM, including publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC, all have a similar modus operandi, being based as they are on deliberate falsification of the source materials or some crooked translation of same.

Q: Cui bono; who benefits?



[0] MEP = Middle East Propagandist.

[1] credibility n. 1 being credible. 2 reputation, status.

credibility gap n. apparent difference between what is said and what is true.

credible adj. believable or worthy of belief. [Latin: related to *credo]

Usage Credible is sometimes confused with credulous. [POD]

[2] Idioms:
full of beans
1. Energetic; frisky: The children were too full of beans to sit still.
2. Badly mistaken: Don't believe him; he's full of beans.


  1. more propagandistic s**t from Barker

    AusBC/justin headline:

    to allow inspectors in

    Posted October 2, 2009 07:35:00
    Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors into the country to view a controversial second uranium enrichment plant it had tried to keep hidden from the West.
    Tags: nuclear-issues, world-politics, iran, united-states;


    Q: How can they justify "tried to keep hidden?"

    A1: The plant is under construction.

    A2: The plant is 18mths from completion.

    A3: There is no radioactive material there.

    A4: The Iranians declared it themselves.

    A5: What interest is it to 'The West' anyway?

    A6: If any, what about Israel?

    A6: What about, say, this delightful little snip?

    «At a point ... I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying… You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?”
    ..., Golda replied, without the shortest of pauses for reflection, ..., “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”»
    (emphasis added)


    We can see that Ramb-O has dropped any pretence. Hard anyway, since their framing is of a picture hardly related to reality. Back to the same old game, making (illegal!) threats of "All options!" - the Zrael tail wagging the rabid US dog.

    We in the US, UK, Aus & Z-rael have all had our own recent 'regime' changes, some to 'opposition' parties, some to 'more of the (ugly!) same.' In all cases, nothing much has changed; we're still getting (ever more) war.

    As for the AusBC, also no pretence, just shameless ...

      .. and utterly immoral.

    Boo! Hiss!

  2. Just *how* stupid does the following make the AusBC look?

    From the latest GG:

    «Glenn Greenwald
    Friday Oct. 2, 2009 07:03 EDT
    Iran: more accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats

    Here are two stories from the last 24 hours which provide an interesting and glaring contrast:
    1) McClatchy, reporting on yesterday's meeting with Iran in Geneva:
    Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.
    2) Eli Lake, The Washington Times, this morning:

    President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.
    Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.
    3) In addition to agreeing to allow full inspections of its Qom facility, Iran yesterday also did this:
    ... agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program...»


    Sooo, OK; now to a few more questions;

    Q1: Can't have been too serious about 'covert,' or did Iran suddenly 'roll over' in the face of 6 years of "All options!" (Haw.)

    Q2: Why does the US have a 'secret understanding' which flies in the face of international law, allowing Z-rael to avoid the NPT? What's about 'nation(s) of laws??!'

    Almost every item about Iran from the AusBC says 'the West' fears a non-existent Iranian A-bomb, why doesn't the AusBC tell us to fear a 200 * A-bomb-equipped Z-rael? Be afraid ...

    Q3: Just how 'seriously' could Iran allegedly be pursuing A-bombs, when it is so easily prepared to enrich *outside* its territory?

    Could Ahmadinejad be quivering in his boots? Undoubtedly; look what the US did to Iraq: 1.3mio+ dead, brutally occupied = neo-colonised, culture gone, patrimony stolen.

    The 'best' one might be able to say about the AusBC is that it has no talent to tell when it's being led down the garden path... the worst (I favour this option), is that the AusBC deliberately lies at us, we the sheople, we the voters, we, whose taxes they take - and then abuse our trust - haw, indeed!

    Where is justice via truth, where are the Enlightened adults?

  3. The latest Cole, via GG; verbatim plus a few quibbles:

    The top ten things you didn't know about Iran

    The assumptions most Americans (& others) hold about Iran and its policies are wrong
    By Juan Cole
    Oct. 1, 2009

    Thursday is a fateful day for the world, as the U.S., other members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany meet in Geneva with Iran in a bid to resolve outstanding issues. Although Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had earlier attempted to put the nuclear issue off the bargaining table, this rhetorical flourish was a mere opening gambit and nuclear issues will certainly dominate the talks. As Henry Kissinger pointed out, these talks are just beginning and there are highly unlikely to be any breakthroughs for a very long time. Diplomacy is a marathon, not a sprint.

    But on this occasion, I thought I'd take the opportunity to list some things that people tend to think they know about Iran, but for which the evidence is shaky.

    Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.

    Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

    Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

    Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

    Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."

    Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.

    Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"

    Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all


  4. [cont#1] The top ten things you didn't know about Iran

    Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?

    Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is [me: may be]), nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

    Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

    Reality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

    Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

    Reality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility [me: questionable; coerced 'additional protocol' not ratified, rejected by Iran]. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.


  5. [cont#2] The top ten things you didn't know about Iran

    Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

    Reality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians. [me: I think this is a reversal by Cole, not yet checked by me.]

    Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

    Reality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. [Me: Haw - massive understatement.] In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The U.S. elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

    Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

    Reality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.

  6. As they say in 'the classics,' any more questions?

  7. Gordon Prather .. usual fact based material.

    His hopes might be misplaced.

    President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said. 

    More on "breaking rules" or not.

    But they persist with the spin.

    Yet nary a word ....

    Israel has taken delivery of two German-made submarines capable of launching missiles with nuclear warheads.

    "We have received two Dolphin-class submarines built from Germany," Israel and Arab media reported quoting an anonymous Israeli military spokesman.

    Called U212s, the submarines were upgraded in Germany by Israeli technicians and engineers in order to enable them to carry nuclear warheads.

    Let's see if Ms Barker makes anything of that.

  8. all her own work?

    .. a busy little bee

      .. is 'our' AusBC's Barker ...

        .. I wonder who writes her orders?


    G'day Bob, and thanks for the link-list (perhaps more on those later), but 1st to 'our' Ms Barker. In the time since my headline item, according to Google she's contributed to six new AusBC items; here are snips from two:

    Iran's missile test a warning against Western interference
    Anne Barker reported this story on
    Tuesday, September 29, 2009 07:19:00
      «ANNE BARKER: Iran's missiles carried with them a clear and provocative message just days before it meets the five permanent members of the UN and Germany to discuss its nuclear ambitions.
    The Foreign Ministry spokesman in Tehran is Hassan Qashqavi.
    "The main purpose of the missile tests is of a defensive nature," he says." We have made progress in missile technology, so we need to perform such tests, just like the other countries."»

    Q: Where does she get her "provocative message," which is in direct contradiction to the official Iranian spokesperson? Is it her opinion (or 'fed' to her); shouldn't we be told the difference between news & opinion, and whose? The item goes on with "(Iran has) made it clear it will retaliate;" a bit different from Barker's prior "destroy Israel" headline, eh? Note further down, she maligns Iran's Defence Minister by hearsay; Q: Do we wonder where that 'tip-off' might have come from? Possible A: She's based in Z-rael.


    Iran to allow inspectors in
    By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker for AM
    Posted October 2, 2009 07:35:00
      «Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors into the country to view a controversial second uranium enrichment plant it had tried to keep hidden from the West.
    That and other small concessions have come at a rare meeting in Geneva with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.»

    Q: Where does she get her "tried to keep hidden"- it is at least contested, it was declared by Iran *before* Ramb-O-bama started making his allegations; it is conceded that US-intel already knew about it - my 1st archived story from 27Sept - also from the AusBC includes this:

      «The United States has given a cautious welcome to the announcement by Iran that it will open its newly-disclosed uranium enrichment plant to international inspection.» 
    [US welcomes Iran nuke inspection]

    Ms Barker's "Iran has agreed" to inspection was not news on 2ndOct. Does she not know her arse from her elbow?

    More than enough; she's just not worth it. Final query Q: Is what she's doing actually legal, do you suppose?


    IF Ms Barker is 'a little loose' with the truth, THEN she's not the only one. Coined for Howard, "All politicians lie!" was destined for wider use. As we learned from the run-up to Iraq (illegal invasion now morphed into brutal occupation = neo-colonized, 1.3mio+ dead, 2mio displaced, 2mio fled, culture gone, patrimony to be plundered); the intel can be and often is fixed around the policy. Chris Floyd points us to Arthur Silber's "Fools for Empire (I)" - wherein he tells us we "must never argue about the intel."

  9. October surprise

    .. no more "All options!" ...

      .. the Zs can 'take a walk' ...

        .. best: one right in Barker's eye - a *big* one


    Consider a few 'way-points:'

    The Zs sent one of their subs through the Suez canal - a 1st for the Zs, and upping the Z-attack threat against Iran.

    The Zs are rumoured (by their own lying propaganda, one supposes), to have prevented the Arctic Star delivering S-300s to Iran.

    The Zs announced that S.Arabia would allow Z-overflight rights, on the Z's way to bombing Iran.

    The Zs have continuously urged the US to screech "All options!" at Iran.

    The Zs continuously threaten to attack, again their via own lying propaganda.

    Any and all such threats are *strictly illegal* under UN/international law. (Q: Why isn't legal action taken against the Zs? A: Continual US vetoes.)


    Consider a few 'counter-points:'

    The Russkies are now assisting US logistics vis-à-vis Afghanistan.

    The US has cancelled the planned 1st strike capability aimed at the Russkies by not deploying the Czech radar site and the interceptor missiles to Poland.

    S.Arabia has denied that they might allow Z-overflight rights.

    Despite all Barker's rabid reports, some listed above; her eternal, unfounded allegations that Iran wants an A-bomb, her snide, unfounded allegations of "anti-Semitism," ditto that Iran was threatening to destroy Z-rael, that Iran is provoking 'the West,' we've just have a v.damp-squid experience - but an entirely positive one, i.e. the US-Iran meeting in Geneva:

    Middle East
    Oct 3, 2009
    October surprise in US-Iran relations
    By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
      «NEW YORK - Defying the onslaught of pessimistic predictions, the Geneva meeting on Thursday of Iran and the "Iran Six" nations did not end in failure, given the recent revelations of a second Iranian uranium-enrichment plant.
    At this point, with the glass of US-Iran diplomacy now half full after an initial encounter that has opened the possibilities for future dialogue, there is sufficient ground for cautious optimism of a de-escalation of Iran's nuclear crisis.»

    Me, a prediction: That Ramb-O-Bama is most serious about 'winning' in Afghanistan - he just *cannot afford* anything but. And so, he's getting the Russkies on board, and most important, both for Iran (big-time relief - and about time the US 'got over' its indecent, 30-year psychotic obsession) and for Z-rael (a real, biggest-time loss). Possible proof: A successful test-firing of a S-300 type defence by Iran. Countries should be allowed to mount a self-defence within their own borders; especially against bloody, 61+ year long murdering for land regimes.

    .. no more "All options!" ...

      .. the Zs can 'take a walk' ...

        .. best: one right in Barker's eye - a *big* one


    No more filthy, lying propaganda, please. We the sheople pay the AusBC wages - and will have fair value - or they can 'take a walk' too. Suffer, Barker. Emigrate. Aus doesn't need you or your ilk.

  10. Can "news media" get any more ridiculous than this being "reported" here?

  11. Iran's 'new Hitler' is/was a J*w?

    .. what silliness next? ...

      .. well spotted; g'day orana gelar


    Notice that theAge has a differently slanted headline, "Could ... actually be a Jew?" (with a "?") as opposed to tele,UK's "revealed to have Jewish past;" a bald statement. The two headlines, referring to the same item/event, have divergent meanings.

    What they're both talking about is A's previous family-name, gleaned, so they allege, from a picture of A's passport.

    Q1: What's in a name? A: It is alleged, that a) the name was changed some time in the 50s, i.e. when A was still 'at foot', and (obviously 'the hook') b) the name is allegedly a J*wish one. Gasp!

    Q2: So what? Well, no matter what, the story is 'getting legs;' I did a few searches, they show that the item itself seems to have originated with the tele,UK datelined 2Oct, at the time of this writing, a text selection gets about 1,520 hits (your kilometre-age may vary.)


    Another search I did turned up the fact, pointed out by a humble blogger: "Too good to check," that this 'revelation' is not exactly new; you could look back to 2005 here, say.

    Q3: What changed?

    A: Perhaps the US talking (civilly) with Iran in Geneva...

    Since then, the Zs have been acting like a turned-over beehive, see the first two antiwar headlines, say:

    UN Staffers Say Iran Has Data to Make a Nuke (Note: NYT; recall Judith Miller & her lies? No spot-changes expected here.)

    Israel Names Russians It Says Are Helping Iran Build Nuclear Bomb (Q: Who would take seriously anything Israel said? I mean, they're not exactly detached, not exactly trustworthy...)

    But, but - the IAEA and the '07 NIE, plus lots of people who should know - say that there is nooo evidence - and the CIA, say, ort'a know? (Note: This is *not* me saying that I would believe anything the CIA says, nor any of the raging hoards of other lying Amis either.) But allegations of an Iranian A-bomb are so, so - well, last week, daaarlings!


    It's simply Mossad/Z-propagandists gone berserk. And they are pretty simple; who else could keep murdering to steal land for 61+ years, and claim to have the most honourable military on the planet, eh? (Haw!)

    The Zs never stop lying and they won't stop their murdering for land-theft either - unless the rest of the world gets some guts, and makes effective moves to reverse the ugly, thieving dispossession of Palestine. Ramb-O-Bama could help; he/the US could stop arming/supporting the Z-criminals.

  12. The more she reports, the more Barker lies

    .. looks to me ...

      .. a) based on 'wishful' intel ...

        .. and/or b) outright (US,Z) lying propaganda


    As usual, the AusBC megaphones corrupt US/Z lying propaganda.

    At best, this story is filled with (unfounded) speculation, at worst it's warmongering designed to 'pave the way' for an illegal, Nuremberg-class attack on Iran.

    Q: Who is 'responsible?' - it must be bipartisan (we get 'more of the same' irrespective of Lib or Lab); which is totally, filthily undemocratic - not to mention hideously unjust.

    Boo! Hiss!

  13. Indeed, a good Q: Who is 'responsible'?

    I tried to answer that the other day in relation to 'our' AusBC's Barker.

    I found that 'our' AusBC is opaque when it comes to identifying who is in command making editorial decisions on what and what not to broadcast of all that is put to tape by 'our' AusBC's Barker.

  14. BTW 'our' AusBC's Barker and her supervisors deem it 'news' on Monday Oct 5 when it had been published as 'news' by AP's George Jahn back on Tuesday Sep 17.

    Q. Why?

  15. On that timescale, orana (G'day), it will be quite a while before we can expect Ms Barker to report on the upgrading of the Israeli submarines as reported above. Or Mohammed ElBaradei view on the real danger in the ME.

    Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.

    At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

    "Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

    Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.

  16. *no* responsibility

    .. *no* care at all ...

      .. filthy lies as 'news' ...

        .. means *no* proper democracy possible


    G'day orana gelar, always nice to 'see' you.

    Here, a verbatim extract from an incoming eml:

      «... The person to whom I spoke had admitted his "part" in preparing news bulletins for broadcast. "Hey, I'm only local, we don't prepare international news!"

    He then passed my call to the Xxx newsroom. Eventually I was able to speak to the Yyy Desk. This fellow was quite open and friendly and agreed that, yes, news about these things was fairly scarce now but he did recall something recent about the IDF and Gaza. I knew that he was going to tell me that Israeli goons had killed (slaughtered) 2 Palestinian *militants* last week. Where this is all heading is that he admitted that they had nothing to do with creating or controlling the information that they conveyed to the people. In fact he left me with the understanding that his role was that of a highly paid, and educated paper shuffler, taking *news* from the teleprinter connected to AAP or CNN or Fox... whoever, and passing it on, eventually to be spewed out as THE NEWS.

    So, as you have asked, is it possible to ever find a person who is responsible for the content of the propaganda flood to which the world that we inhabit is continuously subjected? Do these people take their lesson from the examples of "Tokyo Rose" and "Lord Haw Haw," who were arraigned as war criminals after the 39 - 45 hostilities?»

    Make of that what you will.


    Now, to 'tin tacks.' We do know, that B, B & H told us lies; not just 'little whites' but hideous *whoppers*, those lies were echoed, worse amplified - and worst added to by the MSM, with the AusBC included - some proof of AusBC perfidy is given in this thread. Exactly *because* of those proven lies, *nothing* they come up with now can be trusted. All we can go on is what we see - and that through the distorted lens of the corrupt & venal MSM as it 101% obviously is. THEN, we (speaking for myself) started to look more closely at recent history. Backtracking, we saw that the A-bombing of 250,000 largely innocent civilians was not quite as it was portrayed (massive understatement!) - and that the foundation of 'modern' Israel was itself a crime both against the legal owner/occupiers (the Palestinians) in particular, and against humanity in general. Then working forwards, we can see all sorts of monstrous crimes perpetrated by the purported 'world leader' and its illegitimate 'side-kick.'

    Returning to the current case, we can easily see the demonization of Iran; the lies and accusations etc. Here we recall Silber and his "don't argue intel" injunction; what of the policy?

    A pause; g'day Bob. This is from ElBaradei on the IAEA site itself:

      «Because there is no stability, in my view, there is no enduring security in the Middle East without having the Middle East free from all inhumane weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical or biological weapons.» 

    Here, a Q: Exactly who in the ME already has nukes?

    We know what's driving the US (oil-theft, domination) and Z-rael (land- & water-theft).

    Try this (Netanyahu 'sending a message' to Obama) - i.e. straight from the devil's mouth:
      «... “This [an alleged, non-existent, impossible except as self-defence deterrent Iranian A-bomb] is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region - Washington or Tehran?”» 

    Sooo, to the next Q: Is murder for spoil, as practised by the US & Z-rael OK?

    Repeat: Any more questions?

  17. More BTW (late as my attention wandered elsewhere a while), back in July 2008 the AP's George Jahn wrote an article headlined "Iran ends cooperation with UN nuclear arms probe".

    Jahn claimed to base his story on comments made by Gholamreza Aghazadeh (head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation) in a press conference after a meeting with Elbaradei. He misrepresented those comments, which were spoken in Farsi and which (to his undoing) were broadcast.

    Aghazadeh's actual comment (translated): "The two sides were conscious that the so-called alleged studies is a side issue and does not affect our ongoing and bilateral cooperation with the Agency. Iran has done whatever it could in connection with the alleged studies case and the IAEA will draw necessary conclusion on the issue at an appropriate time."

    Note that side issue ...

    ... the alleged "weaponisation" studies ...

    ... aka the alleged "Green Salt Project".

    George Jahn has been pushing that barrow for a bit. He was doing so back in August.

    Big-Z and now J-Post columnist/propagandist Caroline Glick was pushing it waaayyyy back in October 2003.

  18. Whoops make that 2008 and some cleaner for my dirty specs!

  19. While on the topic of time, check out Time in 2006.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

  20. Did someone say it's the Times for a coordinated (neocon-comeback) campaign to throw mud at ElBaradei today?

  21. All lies!

    (Preliminary, *rush* comment - sooo much reading, sooo little time (and/or speed).)

    No, the lies are not orana gelar's comments, but in some of the cited material; *certainly* most of the lying propaganda from Z-land, almost the same proportion of the rubbish from the US.

    'They,' the propagandists, a) seek to trigger fear, b) always maintain that the US/Zs are the 'good guys,' the 'opposition' are always militants, extremists, Islamic terrorists, Islamofascists; the list is looong. Then c) give all the 'good' reasons (actually, of course bad, purely pathological ( adj. 1 of pathology. 2 of or caused by physical or mental disorder (pathological fear of spiders).  pathologically adv.) [POD]) - reasons why the US/Zs should attack the 'enemy du jour.' (Usually, owners of some coveted resource - like oil, land or water.)

    A 'classic' was broadcast on SBS (wholly publicly funded, or following filthy neoliberalism, now partly to the point of having to 'grab' at 'ads' = commercials) - the classic was film of ('Western') military 'protecting' Iraqi oil resources. (Sadly no longer to be to the benefit of the sovereign owners, the Iraqis themselves.) The voice over was something like "IF we don't do this [me: steal from Iraqis] THEN you might have trouble getting gas [petrol/diesel] for your [obscenely humungous] SUV/4WD.)"

    More later perhaps - if I survive, & still can.

  22. "Iran has the know-how ...". Back in the 60s the US wanted to know how easy it would be to make a bomb ...

  23. Q: (Thinking aloud;) - the verbal/print attack against Iran is getting pretty intense.

    (Q: What's the crescendo gunnu look/sound like? Possible A: "Shockin' Whore?") ...

    Try again: Are we missing some filthy finagling going on behind the (distracted) scenes?

  24. Straight from a different horse's mouth:

    «48. Mr SOLTANIEH (Islamic Republic of Iran), speaking in explanation of vote, said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution in the light of his country’s position regarding the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
    49. His country would continue to support all measures aimed at pressuring on the Zionist regime of Israel into destroying its nuclear weapons and placing all its nuclear facilities under full-scope Agency safeguards, as Israel’s nuclear capabilities continued to pose a threat to the security of the Middle East and the world at large.
    50. The adoption, by an overwhelming majority, of paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, reading “Calls upon all States in the region to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, was a clarion call for Israel to accede to the NPT. The international community would not tolerate the status quo, and the United States and Israel had isolated themselves still further by voting against the adoption of that paragraph.»
    [iaea/Vienna, Saturday, 4 October '08(.pdf)]

  25. sad to say this, but

    .. tut, tut! ...

      .. (still, kindly) ...

        .. attention! - framing refresher


    One of the *critical* aspects of framing, is the usage of words (well, natch!) - but a bad choice of words may invoke an 'enemy' frame - which can put the 'justice via truth' seeker at an immediate - but totally avoidable - disadvantage.

    Two (of the very worst!) examples: (1) by referring to some criminal by using a pet-name (like "bibi," say), or (2) by describing some act - a) on the one hand, possibly quite negative/criminal (i.e. calling the Nuremberg-class offensively aggressive IDF '08/09 attack on Gaza 'self-protection,') or b) on the other, describing something entirely justified (i.e. elBaradei's negative comments about the US or Z rogue-regimes) - as "chutzpah."

    (Both so "quoteds" are hateful Z-speak; almost infinitely worse than the near-universally detested Ameri-speak. (Spit, to the power of infinity!))

    Some people may think that using some sort of 'insider-talk' illustrates a high degree of subject-familiarity. BUT (there's almost always one or more buts); IF that 'insider-talk' invokes a deleterious frame, THEN they've lost control of the argument, and that on the spot.

    (This little comment triggered by orana gelar's citation (warning!) contains nausea-inducing propaganda.)


    Last words (here;) smile, lighten up!

  26. well, so now we know ...

    .. almost any fool could do it ...

     .. that's what I call a 'soft' psyop ...

      .. militants, extremists, Islamic terrorists, Islamofascists; the list is looong ...

       .. and certainly (seen from some Anglo/Judaic 'here'), 'any fools' all


    G'day orana gelar, I'm assuming lots of us have heard about the "Manhattan Project," which «eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value).»

    The two results, the Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy, was made from uranium-235, and the Nagasaki bomb, Fat Man, was made primarily of plutonium-239, a synthetic element. Probably, 'any fools' could look that up.

    Here, a 'snip:' «The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945,[4] roughly half on the days of the bombings. Amongst these, 15 to 20% died from injuries or illness attributed to radiation poisoning[5]. Since then, more have died from leukemia (231 observed) and solid cancers (334 observed) attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs[6]. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.»

    Perhaps less known, is that both bombs were heavy, (in the neighbourhood of 4,545Kg), so huge & heavy in fact, that the best planes for 'the job' had to be reinforced; they needed v.special engines and of course, v.special props to match. Such 'blobs' would not be so easily fitted onto the relatively primitive rockets that Iran has so-far demonstrated... but, no matter; read on. Specifically, read orana gelar's citation: "How two students built an A-bomb."

    I always wondered, how some 'towel-heads,' wandering the back-blocks of Af-Pak accompanied only by their shadows and possibly a camel or two, could duplicate Manhattan. But now, thanks to that article, we know. Oh, and the rocket problem? Easy-peasy, daaarlings!

    Also in the article: «Dobson, meanwhile, felt so uncomfortable that he left the sector entirely. "It was one thing to work on a project which was hopefully going to illuminate the decision makers so they could see that weapons were easily designed," he says. "It was a rather different thing to go in and say, 'OK, for example, let's make a thermonuclear device that's only four inches in diameter.' That's an acceleration of the arms race, and I didn't really want to do that."»

    All blasé like, as if they could have.

    A snack really; and now you can see why, like 'soft' porn, I call that article a 'soft' psyop.

  27. A-bomb PS: Admittedly, the 'towel-heads,' (or the camels) would probably have to have physics PhDs.

  28. Then 'soft' disagreements, but *NO* real evidence, not even a little bit soft, let alone any hard - which, one thinks, might actually be a requirement, before one sets out to administer another murdering-for-spoil dose of "Shockin' Whore".

    Porter is 'hot;' we've had another bewdy from him recently, thanks & g'day again Bob.

  29. Gareth Porter on dodgy documents. Yes, the latest effort to stir up up hysteria are based on old documents of questionable provenance.

    Juan Cole and latency.

    Chris Floyd on cobbling and framing.

    Again, as with "intelligence," the goal is to seize the terms of the debate, to frame it so that it excludes all other alternatives but the one that suits power's agenda. Sanctions don't work, the story tells us. So what tools are left for leaders who must "do something" about Iran? (The idea of not doing something about Iran is, of course, inconceivable for imperial policymakers; the logic and telos of the militarist cult of domination impels them to slap down Iran one way or another until Tehran goes down on bended knee. And our cultists aren't concerned in the slightest if Iran has a brutally repressive government or is run by religious extremists (see Saudi Arabia); all they want is acquiescence, and access to the local loot.) The logic is clear: if you must meddle, and sanctions are ineffective, then that leaves only military action.

    And to whom does the Times turn for "expert" opinion on the inefficacy of sanctions against Iran? The sole analyst quoted is Michael Jacobson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy – a highly partisan extremist organization that was one of the chief instigators and incubators of the murderous war crime against Iraq, and one of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for throttling Iran. There was of course not a single scrap of background or context regarding WINEP in the Times story. It was presented simply as an objective center for policy analysis. Whereas even the mildest, most moderate and milquetoasty "progressive" think-tank would invariably be described as "left-leaning," or identified as, say, "having opposed the Iraq War" or "a frequent critic of American foreign policy," etc.

    But then again, those who advocate war in an imperial system based on war really need no further description; in such a system, the warmongers are thoroughly objective, mainstream, quite literally in the center of the prevailing worldview.

    And all down the line the material is cut ansd pasted by journalists (and I user that term loosely) who lack discernment at best.

  30. Finally (for now), some 'soft' excuses (not especially good, except perhaps for this old/new insight: «This repackaging would require a bit of convoluted convincing since national security adviser Ret. General James Jones told the media that "fewer than 100 Al-Qaida (the bogeymen of Islamic terror) are operating in Afghanistan."»). Then, it occurred to me, that not only does 'every US president need a war,' but each one has to show more 'testosterone' - by being incrementally more brutal. That's why Af-Pak is splashing ever more blood around, especially ever more slaughtered rag-head's blood. Iran is the old 'wounded pride' bit, added to the more usual psychopathic 'make the already obscenely rich even richer' murder for spoil trick.

    Q: Where have all the (Enlightened) adults gone?

  31. It's the Cold War mentality ... from Tomdispatch Ira Chernus.

    Countering the conniptions - Muhammad Sahimi.

    And you have to have the right tool to do the job. But which job is the reason for the UON (Urgent Operational Need) for a very large bunker buster?

    There are far too many right tools involved.

  32. time to get tough ...

    .. no more 'Mr. Nice Bloke' ...

      .. our poor democracy is stuffed ...

        .. and we *must* shoot the corrupt & venal messenger


    1st, consider this:

    US Foreign Policy, Rudyard Kipling, and the Libertarian Theory of the State
    by Justin Raimondo, October 07, 2009
      « ...Go here[1] for the list of the wars we have fought: it conjures a litany of folly and reckless wilding unrivaled in world history. Only the British and the Romans come anywhere close to the sheer scale of our world-spanning imperial ambition.
    Of course, ideologues both Right and Left will contend that these wars were purely "defensive," that we were fighting some threat – fascism, communism, terrorism, or some other equally world-threatening and sinister -ism – and in doing so we were simply fulfilling our duty. You’ll note, however, that the Right and the Left pick and choose their wars. Vietnam was a righteous crusade to the Right, a shame-inducing albatross for the Left. For the "progressive" Left, Clinton’s Balkan adventure was a heroic reenactment of World War II, albeit on a less dramatic and destructive scale; for the Right, it was a case of international do-gooding that enabled our Islamist enemies to rally their forces.»

    Then, this:

    Send more troops or lose the war: Howard
    Posted October 6, 2009 11:06:00
      «Kirt Bisschoff:
    06 Oct 2009 11:43:11am
    Nothing new here - Howard's biggest concern seems to be a possible loss of "American prestige", much like it appeared to be during his time as Prime Minister. He seems to display very little concern for Australia, and has acted as though we are a province of the American empire, to be sacrificed as required for the benefit and gain of others.»

    The 1st above is talking about US perfidy/criminality, and the 2nd about a former so-called 'leader' of Aus, now gone, banished, personally dis-elected and leaving behind a purposeless, talent-less rabble. Why is Howard back in the 'news?' Well, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Faux News via 'our' Aunty AusBC. The suspicion that the AusBC was being traitorous to us, we the sheople, was because their audience was thought to be of "Drs' wives" stripe - but looking at the web-feedback, not so. The letters I perused were mostly super-critical - as they bloody-well ought to be. Howard was a puppet-satrap toady, a so-called leader of the grovelling, vassal state that Aus has become, the 'house organ' of which is the traitorous AusBC - much like the totalitarian Pravda was. The AusBC is a force on its own - and overwhelmingly, a force for evil. 

    Time the sun set on the whole rotten lot.



    [1] Timeline of United States military operations

      «This is a timeline of United States military operations. Since 1776, there have been hundreds of instances of the deployment of United States military forces abroad and domestically. The list through 1975 is based on Committee on International Relations (now known as the Committee on Foreign Affairs). Dates show the years in which U.S. military units participated. The bolded items are the U.S. wars most often considered to be major conflicts by historians and the general public.» 

    One can get a similar list from Blum, "United States bombings of other countries"

    It's not a small list, nor is much of it - if any - honourable.

    In fact, it's mostly murder for spoil.

    Off to gaol with 'em! 

  33. Not so much BTW but definitely for the record, my Blum citation is the source for this:

    "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force

  34. Of course, my research into US bombing outrages was stimulated by Bob Wall (g'day!) and his UON(MOB) citation.

    In my research, I encountered Blum's above quote, and a few others. Here then are those others, basically a random collection provided by a blogger called "Fraser T":


    Split due to the 4096 limit, quotes part 1:

    "We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had - the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism."
    Howard Zinn

    "Intolerance of dissent is a well-noted feature of the American national character."
    Senator J. William Fulbright

    "To criticize one's country is to do it a service ... Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism - a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
    J. William Fulbright

    "The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about."
    Noam Chomsky

    "If the test of patriotism comes only by reflexively falling into lockstep behind the leader whenever the flag is waved, then what we have is a formula for dictatorship, - not democracy... But the American way is to criticize and debate openly, not to accept unthinkingly the doings of government officials of this or any other country."
    Michael Parenti

    "If the U.S. really believes that supporting terrorists makes you as guilty as the terrorists themselves, then it would have to put on trial most of its military and political leadership over the last handful of administrations, and more."
    Peter McClaren

    "Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on."
    Michael Parenti

    [to be continued]

  35. Split due to the 4096 limit, quotes part 2:

    "This country is in the grip of a President who was not elected, who has surrounded himself with thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth... The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war on innocent people in other countries, but it is also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the superrich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House."
    Howard Zinn

    "Somebody's paying the corporations that destroyed Iraq and the corporations that are rebuilding it. They're getting paid by the American taxpayer in both cases. So we pay them to destroy the country, and then we pay them to rebuild it. Those are gifts from U.S. taxpayer to U.S. corporations..."
    Noam Chomsky

    "The U.S. record of war crimes has been, from the nineteenth century to the present, a largely invisible one, with no government, no political leaders, no military officials, no lower-level operatives held accountable for criminal actions... Anyone challenging this mythology is quickly marginalized, branded a traitor or Communist or terrorist or simply a lunatic beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."
    Carl Boggs

    "Our leaders are cruel because only those willing to be inordinately cruel and remorseless can hold positions of leadership in the foreign policy establishment ... People capable of expressing a full human measure of compassion and empathy toward faraway powerless strangers ... do not become president of the United States, or vice president, or secretary of state, or national security adviser or secretary of Defense. Nor do they want to."
    William Blum

    "Odd that Bush and Cheney are so delighted to put us at war when, during Vietnam, they were both what we used to call draft dodgers."
    a World War II veteran

    "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it ..."
    US General Douglas MacArthur

    "Americans cannot teach democracy to the world until they restore their own."
    William Greider

    "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
    Martin Luther King, Jr.


    Adding another thing MLK said:

      «Without justice, there can be no peace.»


    As orana gelar said above, «Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.»

    Q1: How did *we*, the sheople, let the crims take over?

    Q2: What will *we*, the sheople, do about it?

    Tip; A: SFA is *not* acceptable.

  36. Note: the quotes were originally posted during the reign of emperor GWB; i.e. a little time ago now.

  37. Ooops! UON(MOB) = UON(MoaB); Urgent Operational Need, for a Mother of all Bombs - to blow the largely innocent Iranians to kingdom-come.

    Recall that Iran has been pushed into a corner by the wholly psychopathic US regimes, 30+ years long - and the UK long before that.

    Q1: Who gives the Amis any right, to attack any and/or all oil-owners?

    Q2: What will *we*, the sheople, do about it?

    Gotta stop this criminality.

  38. ME peace process? What ME peace process?

    Results 1 - 50 of about 6,300 from abc.net.au for middle east peace process. (0.24 secs)

    Results 1 - 50 of about 678 from abc.net.au for kick start middle east peace process. (0.36 secs)

    Comment: IMHO, "kick-start" is a really stupid expression - but it reveals a subtle truth, namely that there is no such valid concept as a "middle east peace process," or at least not so long as the Zs illegally occupy any part of Palestine (as existed before the illegal invasion and subsequent bloody 61+ year long brutal occupation by the Zs, starting '47/8.)

    Now, the latest from Barker ("Peace goal an illusion: Israel's FM") actually tells us some reason why: a) The Zs are not interested, and b) the US fully backs the Z-criminality.

      a) «Israel's foreign minister says he plans to tell the visiting US envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, that there is no chance of a peace deal with the Palestinians for many years.» 

    IMHO, that quote contains an outright lie: what is said is «... no chance ... for many years,» what is meant by the Zs is «... no chance ... ever.»

      b) «But any attempt to secure security council action on the report is likely to face a veto by the United States, Israel's closest ally.» 

    Comment: So much for democracies and the rule of law. Boo! Hiss!

    Yes, "illegally squatting." On the one hand no-one, and certainly not the UN, ever had a valid ground for dispossessing the hapless Palestinians, on the other, the Zs violate the UN rules on a regular & ongoing basis, one simply cannot claim the UN as legitimising authority, while simultaneously and egregiously violating that supposed authority's laws.

    End of this story, but (there's almost always a but:) why does the AusBC in general, and Barker in particular, never report or otherwise inform us, that the Zs are illegally squatting on land stolen from the legal owner/occupiers, the pre-'47/8 Palestinians? It's such an obvious and vile crime; why is this heinous crime continually covered-up?

    On and off for almost all of my life, I've listened to the AusBC as my 'prime source' of 'news' - as part of my democratic duty of keeping myself informed, and never (until my self-studies via the internet) did I learn anything like the actual truth of the (middle east) matter.

    Why not, Aunty? Truth aversion? Pro-criminal accessory? Hmmm?

  39. G'day friends, apols for not joining the conversation these past few days. Been a bit busy with work to be done by a looming deadline.

    It appears that the narrative is being rolled-out. Three legs have been put up:

    1) Demonise the 'enemy' - "They will do it!"
    2) Talk up the 'enemy' capability - "They can do it!"
    3) Talk up the urgency - "They're about to do it!"

    Now we await the forth leg:

    4) Claim necessity - "We have no option but to do it to them first!"

  40. I just read Tomgram: Ira Chernus, Cold War's Ghost Blocks Mideast Peace. Thanks, Bob.

    Ira's analytical conclusion is sound: "If they can rid themselves of their Cold War-style Iranian obsession, another path is possible."

    To roll-back that four leg pro-war narrative, start by not demonising the 'enemy'.

  41. G'day orana, a problem with changing paths is one of awareness and perceptions. Here is a piece from Tom Engelhartdt on the matter as it pertains to Af/Pak - "War of the Worlds, London, 1898, Kabul, 2009.