such dirty tricks deceit, obfuscation - oh yes, they are crooks

.. one law for the rich ...

  .. and another for the poor ...

    .. deliberately constructed injustice

-=*=-

Thesis/Subtitle: a fair exchange is no robbery

Concomitant: do unto others; do no harm

Corollary: those who harm = criminals

-=*=-

Preamble: A crime[3] has to do with some law, but since laws are man-made, IF law-makers are corrupt THEN their laws are likely to be too = the law often as ass. It's why I define criminals as those who do harm; in this schema, typical harms = lies, cheating, theft and/or murder.

Our 'western' democracies are so-called 'representative;' we the people 'agree' (were we really offered any valid choice?) to surrender 'people power' (to control our own lives, say) - to elected representatives, who are to do the job for us - but IF the representatives sell us out (to the 'big end of town,' say - which they have done), THEN the democratic covenant has been violated, as we may easily see (IF we look, as I have); trouble.

Considering lies, two stand out:

1. The US as the world's policeman,

2. Israel as 'brave little David' facing some monstrous Arab/Muslim Goliath.

Both of these (vicious) lies came to me via the same channel, namely the AusBC - without any warning as to veracity. Only a fully and fairly informed electorate may properly exercise their 'democratic obligations;' the AusBC deliberately fails its remit.

End preamble.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Shopping Option C for Syria
Arming the rebels is not a Goldilocks idea, it’s just wrong.
BY Marc Lynch | FEBRUARY 14, 2013
  «Whether or not Option C has any chance of actually working is almost an afterthought. For an example of how this works, see "the Afghan Surge," which lacked even a plausible theory of how it might work. In Syria, the most likely effect of arming the rebels is simply to set up the president for another decision point six months later as the battle rages and the rebels seem unable to close the deal. And at that point, the president would face an even starker decision: Option A, give up and be tarred forever for cutting and running; Option B, full-scale military intervention, which of course would be rejected; and Option C, escalation through some combination of no-fly zones, a bombing campaign, and safe areas.» 
[antiwar/foreignpolicy/Marc Lynch]

Comment 1: Option A = hands off; now & *before* any/all meddling! - but that's not what they are saying, since the meddling began years ago by fomenting anti-Assad revolution by such as NED&ilk.

Comment 2: Talk now of 'arming the rebels' is ridiculous, since it is known that the rebels are receiving arms from Saudi Arabia and Qatar (if not others), possibly, even probably, at least part US-made/supplied, and 'fighters' have been entering Syria via US/NATO-ally Turkey - possibly, even probably, arranged and/or supervised by US agents. Lies upon lies upon lies.

-=*=-

Same article, next snip:

  «It's difficult to produce a single example in modern history of a strategy of arming rebels actually succeeding. Please, please, don't offer the example of U.S. support for the Afghan jihad in the 1980s -- because I'll just see that and raise you a collapsed state, warlordism, rise of the Taliban, and al Qaeda. Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of the overt or covert provision of arms to a rebel group prolonging and intensifying conflicts, and lots of cases of rebel groups happily taking our money and guns to "fight communists" (or whatever) and then doing whatever they like with them. That doesn't mean that such a strategy couldn't work in Syria, but history is most definitely not on its side.» 
[antiwar/foreignpolicy/Marc Lynch ibid.]

Comment: This attempts to disguise the real US motive = resource rip-offs. Proof was given vis-à-vis the Nuremberg-class invasion of Iraq; only after *all other excuses failed*, did they start saying 'the US must ensure fuel-security' - in itself both risible and a lie, since the oil-lands live off selling their oil, and if the US was both serious and honest, it would simply buy its oil on a free market (where 'free' is defined by 'a fair exchange is no robbery.') What the US is after is the "stupendous source of (hegemonic) power" *and* the 'super-profit' = resource-rent rip-off available from 'vertical control' over the oil, from under the sand to final sales-point.

-=*=-

Same article, concluding snip:

  «That's not to say there isn't more the United States can be doing. I do think the administration missed a major opportunity to rapidly funnel significant humanitarian aid and non-lethal support through the National Coalition it laboriously helped construct, in order to give them something to offer Syrians on the ground. Fixing that should be a priority. The ever-escalating disaster in Syria cries out for more effective international diplomacy, vastly more humanitarian support for refugees and the displaced, and more work to strengthen the political structures of the opposition. Efforts should be focused on such initiatives, rather than on a poorly conceived Option C which drags the United States deeper into an abyss with no real prospect of victory.» 
[antiwar/foreignpolicy/Marc Lynch ibid.]

Comment: The 'sting in the tail' = "the United States ... prospect of victory."

Q1: Victory over who, for what? See 'free ... fair' above.

Q2: What business of the US is any other country?

Recall also 'the real US motive,' that the US *creates* these messes, *not* to benefit the natives, but to further enrich mainly US corporations.

-=*=-

Contrasting article:

Russia's Vladimir Putin says West is fomenting jihadi 'blowback'
By Fred Weir, Correspondent / January 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm EST
Moscow
  «Moscow is criticized for weak support of the Arab Spring, and for actively backing Bashir al-Assad in Syria. But the Kremlin says its policies are consistent and the West is exporting revolt.» 
[csmonitor/Fred Weir/Putin et al.]

Comment: Propaganda ('the West') meets pragmatism (Putin et al.).

-=*=-

Contrasting article, key snip:

  «The critique targets Western backing of anti-dictator rebellions in Libya and Syria, which, as Mr. Putin tells it, only fuels the spreading flames of extreme Islamist insurrection, including the current war in Mali and last week's terrorist strike on a gas complex in Algeria.
"The Syrian conflict has been raging for almost two years now. Upheaval in Libya, accompanied by the uncontrolled spread of weapons, contributed to the deterioration of the situation in Mali," Mr. Putin said at a meeting with new ambassadors in the Kremlin Thursday.» 
[csmonitor/Fred Weir/Putin et al. ibid.]

Comment: For 'the West' read US/Zs + SQSHsO; even if it were their business to foment trouble (disguised in the name of doing good!) - it almost always ends badly.

Contrasting article, concluding snip:

  «"When the West is helping to destroy a stable regime, and willfully opening the gates to the radical Islamists, we oppose it... We wish that Russia and the West could work together on this. We are willing, but we doubt the West is ready to cooperate with us," Mr. Markov says.
"Will it have to take a few more Western ambassadors being killed by the very forces they created before they will listen to us?"» 
[csmonitor/Fred Weir/Putin et al. ibid.]

Comment: Of course, it's not 'just' an ambassador or two; it's that the countries the US targets get totally smashed. It's a crime, a big one, of the Nuremberg-class, serially repeated (see 7 countries in 5 years Wesley Clark pentagon democracy now transcript, say.)

-=*=-

Argument; opinions may be trumped by facts:

Review of Current Trends, U.S. Foreign Policy, Policy Planning Staff, PPS No. 23. Top Secret.
by George Kennan
Written February 28, 1948, Declassified June 17, 1974.
  «Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population...
...
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.» 
[PPS23/George Kennan bold = my emphasis]

Comment 1: For 'Far East' now read 'rest of world.'

Comment 2: Kennan exposes the real US motive; summarised as extremely disproportionate resource use & control + hegemony, maintained by "straight power concepts" = mass-murdering for spoil, here mainly oil.

-=*=-

Musing: So far, I've been dealing with lie #1, the US as the world's policeman, which actually turns out to be the world's #1 rogue-regime.

What about lie #2, Israel as 'brave little David?' Well, what do you know, but the Zs actually turn out to be the world's #2 rogue-regime, see my "proof of vile criminality by Israel plus accessories," say. Even without this proof, the Zs' criminality screams at us: They have stolen almost an entire country by murdering violence (still persisting), and the crime-scene remains un-remedied; proof: Ask the Zs to show us the deeds they obtained from the ELO/Os by free and fair exchange - they simply can't, because they don't exist. (The hasbarah-excuse of 'spoils of war' is doubly-wrong; the wars result from Z-aggression, and land/property may not be acquired by war anyway.) The Zs' vile criminality may well explain why Jews might need a refuge - from the entire world!!? - in the 1st place, but of course, a refuge chosen to be *safe* would not involve continually attacking its neighbours. Think: Unsustainable.

This invokes another theme, that of self-insult. The Jews, self-claimed 'exceptional' - have, as their most important project indubitably shows - made themselves into the world's worst criminals. Perversely, they seem to *want* to be reviled - done, utterly, and for all time.

Enormous energy goes into the creation and maintenance of the rogue-regimes' 'lie-cloud' obfuscation-narratives, but seeing through them is possible once one realises that the MSM + PFBCs are *not* on we, the people's side, and are lying to us almost continuously. In turn, the lies prove the bankruptcy of the underlying crimes.

-=*=-

Fazit: Nothing can improve unless something changes, and the rogue-regimes will never change themselves. Some effective countervailing force is required and that can only come from us, we the people, since the whole of the existing, corrupt I/J/Z-plex + M/I/C/$4a†-plex are integral to those rogue-regimes. Saddest parts are the academics & Churches; they of all really should know better. There is nothing élite about criminals.

-=*end*=-

PS Force is the resort of the mentally bankrupt (exception: True self-defence); the world's worst two rogue-regimes prove their utter corruption = absolute opposite of 'exceptional' - except for exceptionally *bad*. A barrister who also should have known better (because it's a cowardly cop-out) maintained 'might is not right; it just works, mate.' Me: Only because those who should know better cave-in. We the people vastly outnumber the crims, it's only a matter of time & motivation before we, truth and justice prevail.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] deceive  v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit.  deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief.  deceiver n. [POD]

[2] lie2  -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] crime  n. 1 a offence punishable by law. b illegal acts (resorted to crime). 2 evil act (crime against humanity). 3 colloq. shameful act. [Latin crimen] [ibid.]

-=*=-

Abbreviations:

ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers

I/J/Z-plex; illegitimate IL squats on genocidally ethnically-cleansed = improperly alienated, mainly Palestinian ELO/Os' land/property = IL is an un-remedied crime-scene and *all* I/J/Z-plex (except any actively opposing) are guilty; sole remedy = reparations = revest where possible, adequate = acceptable recompense where not + *sincere* apology

M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.

MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'

neoliberalism = 'economic rationalism,' 'supply-side,' (wicked) privatisations, 'small govt.' = minimised to no égalité etc. + globalisation = wage arbitration etc. = <1% rips off 99%+

PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC

ppp-dd'd = pushed propaganda paradigm dumbed-down

PRopaganda = PR + propaganda, usual qualifier: 'lying'

SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on

the Enlightenment well summarised by liberté, égalité, fraternité

US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave., Hollywood

US&/Zs = the US of A and/or Zionists; sometimes indistinguishable

XS-CO2-CCC = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe

Zionism (latest post-Jabotinsky, '23) = permanent aggressive war