Recently there has been an outbreak of neoconservative organisations popping up in the UK. These organisations exist to support the US/Israeli cause of hegemony and domination in the Middle East and US hegemony and domination throughout the rest of the world.
Two that have just recently appeared in the UK are the ‘Henry Jackson Society’ and the ‘Euston Manifesto’. A swift examination of the various ‘signatories’ of both organisations will reveal exactly what these organisation are and are about. First, the same old names keep appearing. Some of them are well known neoconservative academics and commentators including The Times columnist Oliver Kamm and academic John Bew for example. The ‘Henry Jackson Society’ is also heavily patronised by such well-known US warmongering neoconservatives as Richard Perle, William Kristol, Irwin Stelzer, Robert Kagan, Clifford May, Joshua Muravchik and James Woolsey.
Both of these organisations have set out to deliberately con the Left in to thinking that this is what being ‘on the Left’ today is all about. Many of its members and supporters are drawn from what could loosely be described as the ‘Left’. The problem is that many of these people still think of themselves as ‘Left’, indeed some think of themselves as ‘New Left’ or even ‘New new-Left’. The reality is that, like the original Jewish-American neoconservatives, who used to be to the ‘Left’, have now changed political track one hundred and eighty degrees and are now hard right; though of course, they would never admit that.
In reading some of the comments that have been left by signatories of the ‘Euston Manifesto’, there seem to be many who sincerely believe that they are still of the ‘Left’ and, worse still, sincerely believe that the ‘Euston Manifesto’ is a Leftist organisation.
Lets be quite clear about this; the ‘Henry Jackson Society’ and the ‘Euston Manifesto’ are out-and-out right-wing neoconservative organisations set up deliberately to confuse and belittle the Left. They are supported directly by wealthy American neoconservative organisations and are simply front organisations to project American image and US foreign policy by manipulation of the naivety of some of those on the Left who seem to have fallen into their trap.
These organisations have been formed specifically to polarise the Left and alienate the Islamic world from the Western World by creating an environment based on a fear of ‘terrorism’, and to counter the toll that so-called ‘anti-Americanism’ is having on US foreign policy influence as a result of their disastrous adventure into Iraq and the prospect of further failure in their quest to gain regime change in Iran.
While these two organisations are getting lots of attention from their mainstream media promoters, the reality is they are very small organisations with no more than a few thousand supporters – and most of them belong to both organisations. In other words, they are simply a very noisy bunch of warmongering neocons just like their American cousins in the US.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
EVEN MORE BLATANT DECEIT FROM THE MASTER DECEIVER, WILL HOWARD OF WEBDIARY!
Will Howard, a pro right-wing Zionist supporter and commentator at Webdiary has continued his deceitful practices with his latest post entitled ‘The Repeal of Israel’.[1] The piece is simply distractive waffle designed purely to deflect the reality of the crimes that are being committed daily by the Israelis against the Palestinian people in pursuit of a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people. It’s full of ‘woe is us, why do we always get the blame’ rhetoric that has no relevance. As usual, Will Howard lies and attempts to deceive. He pretends to care about the problems, both historical and contemporary, that Muslims are experiencing throughout the world as if they are relevant to the current situation in Israel/Palestine. He talks of history being abused polemically to push a point of view, yet in doing so does exactly the same himself with the added effrontery of attempting it with history that has no relevance at all.
He says, for example: “I'm sure the Iranian children sent to clear minefields are resting peacefully knowing they died or lost limbs striking a blow against the Zionist Entity.” This is utter nonsense. One needs to ask what a dead Bassiji volunteer fighting against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war has got to do with Israel.
This is typical of Will Howard’s deceit and attempt to hoodwink Webdiarists. It is supported by several of Webdiary’s other Israeli and right-wing Zionist apologists, Chris Parsons, (who has also recently proved himself to be a liar by the simple expediency of denying his name is Chris), and, of course the warmongering lunatic Geoff Pahoff.
Chris Parsons attempt to deceive and hoodwink is as blatant as Will Howard’s efforts. In several of his comments Parsons has deliberately alluded to Iran’s nuclear program in such a way as to infer that he is referring to Iran’s nuclear program as a nuclear weapons program, which Iran does not have. He links this directly with comments made by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner, who said: “Aside from being economically justified, it (Iran’s nuclear development programme) has become a cause of national pride for an old nation with a glorious history.”[2] The deception is in the way Parsons attempts to demonstrate that Shirin Ebadi supports a non-existent nuclear weapons program which in Parsons twisted mind actually exists despite the total lack of evidence.[3] In fact, all she is supporting is Iran’s right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy via its own research and development.
Increasingly, the warmongers and right-wing Zionists are exposing themselves for the liars they really are.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘The Repeal of Israel’, Webdiary, 24 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1493 Accessed 25 May 2006.
[2] Cited by Chris Parsons, Webdiary comments, 22 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50847 Accessed 25 May 2006.
[3] Chris Parsons, Webdiary comments, 20 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50777 Accessed 25 May 2006.
He says, for example: “I'm sure the Iranian children sent to clear minefields are resting peacefully knowing they died or lost limbs striking a blow against the Zionist Entity.” This is utter nonsense. One needs to ask what a dead Bassiji volunteer fighting against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war has got to do with Israel.
This is typical of Will Howard’s deceit and attempt to hoodwink Webdiarists. It is supported by several of Webdiary’s other Israeli and right-wing Zionist apologists, Chris Parsons, (who has also recently proved himself to be a liar by the simple expediency of denying his name is Chris), and, of course the warmongering lunatic Geoff Pahoff.
Chris Parsons attempt to deceive and hoodwink is as blatant as Will Howard’s efforts. In several of his comments Parsons has deliberately alluded to Iran’s nuclear program in such a way as to infer that he is referring to Iran’s nuclear program as a nuclear weapons program, which Iran does not have. He links this directly with comments made by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner, who said: “Aside from being economically justified, it (Iran’s nuclear development programme) has become a cause of national pride for an old nation with a glorious history.”[2] The deception is in the way Parsons attempts to demonstrate that Shirin Ebadi supports a non-existent nuclear weapons program which in Parsons twisted mind actually exists despite the total lack of evidence.[3] In fact, all she is supporting is Iran’s right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy via its own research and development.
Increasingly, the warmongers and right-wing Zionists are exposing themselves for the liars they really are.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘The Repeal of Israel’, Webdiary, 24 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1493 Accessed 25 May 2006.
[2] Cited by Chris Parsons, Webdiary comments, 22 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50847 Accessed 25 May 2006.
[3] Chris Parsons, Webdiary comments, 20 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50777 Accessed 25 May 2006.
Monday, May 22, 2006
MORE DOUBLE TALK FROM THE LYING TYRANT HOWARD?
It looks as though the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is trying to pull the same stunt about the prospects for war with Iran as he did prior to going to war with Iraq. Howard has told CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer that he would prefer to see the matter resolved by the United Nations. He did not rule out the idea of “…war being the last resort to stop Iran pursuing its nuclear ambitions”, according to yesterday’s The Australian newspaper.[1]
Howard, of course, knows full well that the UN will not be resolving this issue as both Russia and China, upon whose support any UN resolve must rely, will not be forthcoming. Howard knows this now as the US and Israel try to push this nonsense about Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’ through the UN Security Council just as he knew back in January of 2003 a resolution to attack Iraq based on it’s supposed ‘nuclear ambitions’ would not succeed. The attack on Iraq went ahead anyway.
Howard told Blitzer: “Both America and Australian [sic] believe in trying to achieve a diplomatic solution to this very difficult problem, and I think in the first instance we should exhaust the United Nations process before we start examining alternative approaches.”[2] Readers could be forgiven if they find that this sounds familiar.
In an interview with Tracy Grimshaw on Channel Nine’s Current Affair program on 10 January 2003, just a couple of months before Australia joined the US in invading, occupying and plundering Iraq, Howard said: “Well I want to first of all give the Security Council resolution an opportunity of succeeding… In the meantime, we are preparing in case there were some kind of Australian military involvement. But it remains the priority of the Government, the desire of the Government, the overwhelming desire of the Government, to resolve this issue without military conflict.”[3]
The big question now for Australians is; to what extent will Australia be involved in the US and Israeli plan to effect ‘regime change’ in Iran and are, indeed, Australian Special Forces already in Iran?
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘War on Iran a last resort: PM’, The Weekend Australian, 21 May 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19210763,00.html Accessed 22 May 2006.
[2] John Howard, ‘Transcript of the Hon John Howard MP interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN. united States’, 21 May 2006. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1945.html Accessed 22 May 2006.
[3] John Howard, ‘Transcript of the Hon John Howard MP interview with Tracy Grimshaw, A Current Affair, Channel Nine’, 10 January 2003. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview164.html Accessed 22 May 2006.
Howard, of course, knows full well that the UN will not be resolving this issue as both Russia and China, upon whose support any UN resolve must rely, will not be forthcoming. Howard knows this now as the US and Israel try to push this nonsense about Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’ through the UN Security Council just as he knew back in January of 2003 a resolution to attack Iraq based on it’s supposed ‘nuclear ambitions’ would not succeed. The attack on Iraq went ahead anyway.
Howard told Blitzer: “Both America and Australian [sic] believe in trying to achieve a diplomatic solution to this very difficult problem, and I think in the first instance we should exhaust the United Nations process before we start examining alternative approaches.”[2] Readers could be forgiven if they find that this sounds familiar.
In an interview with Tracy Grimshaw on Channel Nine’s Current Affair program on 10 January 2003, just a couple of months before Australia joined the US in invading, occupying and plundering Iraq, Howard said: “Well I want to first of all give the Security Council resolution an opportunity of succeeding… In the meantime, we are preparing in case there were some kind of Australian military involvement. But it remains the priority of the Government, the desire of the Government, the overwhelming desire of the Government, to resolve this issue without military conflict.”[3]
The big question now for Australians is; to what extent will Australia be involved in the US and Israeli plan to effect ‘regime change’ in Iran and are, indeed, Australian Special Forces already in Iran?
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘War on Iran a last resort: PM’, The Weekend Australian, 21 May 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19210763,00.html Accessed 22 May 2006.
[2] John Howard, ‘Transcript of the Hon John Howard MP interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN. united States’, 21 May 2006. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1945.html Accessed 22 May 2006.
[3] John Howard, ‘Transcript of the Hon John Howard MP interview with Tracy Grimshaw, A Current Affair, Channel Nine’, 10 January 2003. Available online: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview164.html Accessed 22 May 2006.
Friday, May 19, 2006
MORE LIES AND ARROGANCE FROM JOHN HOWARD
John Howard seems to think that the world needs American influence now more than ever. It demonstrates just how out of touch with reality Howard is. He says: “None of our global challenges, from defeating terror, to widening economic opportunity, to building a world order based on mutual respect, can be secured without American power and American purpose.” He goes on to say, “No dominant power in history has brought to bear the righteous force or generous countenance of the United States of America.” He prattles on about “…the voices of anti-Americanism around the world”,[1] as though the American people themselves haven’t had enough of what their President has given them – war, misery for the families of the dead and wounded American servicemen and the fraudulently mispent fortunes of American taxpayers money that have deprived Americans of the essential services of life.
What Howard fails to see is that it isn’t anti-Americanism that the world is voicing its dissent over but anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-lies, anti right-wing Zionism, anti-occupation of Palestine, anti-occupation of Iraq, anti-wanton killing in Afghanistan, anti-torture, anti-US atrocities, anti-threats of nuclear weapons use against a nation that insists it isn’t interested in nuclear weapons, but most of all what the world, including the peoples of America, are really fed up with is the gross hypocricy that the world has had to put up with over the years. Bush has no ‘righteous force’, there is no ‘generous countenance’. All that Bush and his criminal government has given to the world is lies, war and death. And Howard, together with the UKs Tony Blair have been a party to those crimes.
Howard also says: “I share your President's resolve to prevail in Iraq. Australia is with you. We will stay the course. We will finish the job.”
Australia is with you?!! As far as Iraq is concerned the vast majority of Australians have never been ‘with you’. Howard went to war against Iraq based on lies and without the support of the Australian people. To tell the American people that Australia supports the President is another lie and another demonstration of Howard’s arrogance.
No, John Howard. The reality is the world will be a far better place once you and your fellow criminals have been removed from power. Only then can the world can start to work toward peace and mutual respect.
ENDNOTE
[1] Phillip Coorey, ‘We all need Uncle Sam: PM’, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 May 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/we-all-need-uncle-sam-howard/2006/05/18/1147545460833.html Accessed 19 May 2006.
What Howard fails to see is that it isn’t anti-Americanism that the world is voicing its dissent over but anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-lies, anti right-wing Zionism, anti-occupation of Palestine, anti-occupation of Iraq, anti-wanton killing in Afghanistan, anti-torture, anti-US atrocities, anti-threats of nuclear weapons use against a nation that insists it isn’t interested in nuclear weapons, but most of all what the world, including the peoples of America, are really fed up with is the gross hypocricy that the world has had to put up with over the years. Bush has no ‘righteous force’, there is no ‘generous countenance’. All that Bush and his criminal government has given to the world is lies, war and death. And Howard, together with the UKs Tony Blair have been a party to those crimes.
Howard also says: “I share your President's resolve to prevail in Iraq. Australia is with you. We will stay the course. We will finish the job.”
Australia is with you?!! As far as Iraq is concerned the vast majority of Australians have never been ‘with you’. Howard went to war against Iraq based on lies and without the support of the Australian people. To tell the American people that Australia supports the President is another lie and another demonstration of Howard’s arrogance.
No, John Howard. The reality is the world will be a far better place once you and your fellow criminals have been removed from power. Only then can the world can start to work toward peace and mutual respect.
ENDNOTE
[1] Phillip Coorey, ‘We all need Uncle Sam: PM’, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 May 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/we-all-need-uncle-sam-howard/2006/05/18/1147545460833.html Accessed 19 May 2006.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
ROSLYN ROSS MAKES SENSE OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE SITUATION – AND MAKES FOOLS OF WILL HOWARD AND GEOFF PAHOFF!
What a joy it is to read Roslyn Ross’ arguments about Israel’s history and role in Palestinian affairs particularly, and in Middle Eastern affairs generally, over at Webdiary.[1] She certainly has got the intellectual betterment of the likes of Webdiary’s resident right-wing Israeli apologists Geoff Pahoff and Will Howard![2] So much so in fact that she utterly frustrated the pair of them, reducing both to gibbering and, in the case of Pahoff at least, foul-mouthed wrecks.[3]
The fact is Roslyn has successfully argued this particular brace of liars and deceivers into the ground and has achieved this in a way which is both learned and educational. Astonishingly refreshing. Thank you Roslyn.
ENDNOTES
[1] Roslyn Ross, ‘We can live in truth or lie in death’, and various comments, Webdiary, 15-16 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1476#comment-50544 Accessed 16 May 2006.
[2] Will Howard, comments at Harry Heidelberg/David Davis’ blog, 15 May 2006. Available online: http://kramgasse.typepad.com/harry_heidelberg/2006/05/keep_voting_lib.html#comment-17308769 Accessed 16 May 2006.
[3] Geoff Pahoff, comments at Harry Heidelberg/David Davis’ blog, 15 May 2006. Available online: http://kramgasse.typepad.com/harry_heidelberg/2006/05/keep_voting_lib.html#comment-17277925 Accessed 16 May 2006.
The fact is Roslyn has successfully argued this particular brace of liars and deceivers into the ground and has achieved this in a way which is both learned and educational. Astonishingly refreshing. Thank you Roslyn.
ENDNOTES
[1] Roslyn Ross, ‘We can live in truth or lie in death’, and various comments, Webdiary, 15-16 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1476#comment-50544 Accessed 16 May 2006.
[2] Will Howard, comments at Harry Heidelberg/David Davis’ blog, 15 May 2006. Available online: http://kramgasse.typepad.com/harry_heidelberg/2006/05/keep_voting_lib.html#comment-17308769 Accessed 16 May 2006.
[3] Geoff Pahoff, comments at Harry Heidelberg/David Davis’ blog, 15 May 2006. Available online: http://kramgasse.typepad.com/harry_heidelberg/2006/05/keep_voting_lib.html#comment-17277925 Accessed 16 May 2006.
Monday, May 15, 2006
WEBDIARY LIARS AND DECEIVERS ARE AT IT AGAIN!
I note that Will Howard is attempting yet again to deceive Webdiarists with the assertion that “…Israeli intelligence and military analysts are actually far more cautious and sober about military action against Iran's nuclear facilities than are their American counterparts.”[1] (At least he concedes that the Israelis do have their counterparts in the US.) The Israelis are nonetheless – and this is where Will Howard attempts to deceive by virtue of neglecting to mention this – just as adamant that Iran should be neutralised. And, of course, they are quite happy to let their American allies do this for them; that way the comeback on the Israeli’s from their Arab neighbours is minimised. The right-wing Zionists can then always point the finger of blame toward America.
Webdiarists should be aware that US policy toward Iran is driven exclusively and solely by Israel’s desire to neutralise Irans ability to intervene in Israel’s long-term ambitions of creating a Greater Israel utilising the lands of the West Bank and Gaza that belong to the Palestinians.
Webdiarists should also be aware that noted Israeli apologists and propagandists Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff, who form part of the full time ‘Israeli Lobby’ in Australia by pushing their lies and deceit on various blogs, are well known for their warmongering ways.
In the past Will Howard has said that Israel believed that Iran was more of a threat to Israel than Iraq[2] – and this was long before President Ahmadinejad’s speech in which the Israelis and Americans claim that Ahmadinejad said that ‘Israel should be wiped of the map’. Now Will Howard is desperately trying, together with his fellow liar and deceiver Geoff Pahoff, to whip up hatred of Iran to support the Israeli cause of Greater Israel and the demise of Palestine.
In his latest post at Webdiary Will Howard has compounded his deceit by linking to a partial translation of Ahmadinejad’s speech published by the neoconservative think-tank and Israeli Lobby group, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which specialises in creating pro-Zionist propaganda from Middle East media resources.[3] Webdiarists should take note that part of the deceit that Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff practice is to link to sites that are invariably run by pro-Zionist or right-wing Zionist or neoconservative front organisations and think-tanks both in Israel and the US.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard comment at Webdiary. 14 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50404 Accessed 15 May 2006.
[2] See various comments at Webdiary, 17-20 July 2005. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50404 Accessed 15 May 2006.
[3] Will Howard comment at Webdiary, 15 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50463 Accessed 15 May 2006.
Webdiarists should be aware that US policy toward Iran is driven exclusively and solely by Israel’s desire to neutralise Irans ability to intervene in Israel’s long-term ambitions of creating a Greater Israel utilising the lands of the West Bank and Gaza that belong to the Palestinians.
Webdiarists should also be aware that noted Israeli apologists and propagandists Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff, who form part of the full time ‘Israeli Lobby’ in Australia by pushing their lies and deceit on various blogs, are well known for their warmongering ways.
In the past Will Howard has said that Israel believed that Iran was more of a threat to Israel than Iraq[2] – and this was long before President Ahmadinejad’s speech in which the Israelis and Americans claim that Ahmadinejad said that ‘Israel should be wiped of the map’. Now Will Howard is desperately trying, together with his fellow liar and deceiver Geoff Pahoff, to whip up hatred of Iran to support the Israeli cause of Greater Israel and the demise of Palestine.
In his latest post at Webdiary Will Howard has compounded his deceit by linking to a partial translation of Ahmadinejad’s speech published by the neoconservative think-tank and Israeli Lobby group, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which specialises in creating pro-Zionist propaganda from Middle East media resources.[3] Webdiarists should take note that part of the deceit that Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff practice is to link to sites that are invariably run by pro-Zionist or right-wing Zionist or neoconservative front organisations and think-tanks both in Israel and the US.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard comment at Webdiary. 14 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50404 Accessed 15 May 2006.
[2] See various comments at Webdiary, 17-20 July 2005. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50404 Accessed 15 May 2006.
[3] Will Howard comment at Webdiary, 15 May 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1475#comment-50463 Accessed 15 May 2006.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
ARE THE LYING TYRANTS MEETING TO PLAN THEIR LAST HURRAH?
The baseless conspiracy theory that Iran is in search of nuclear weapons is continuing to be pushed unabated by those that are most practised at pushing baseless conspiracy theories. Despite a letter written by President Ahmadinejad of Iran[1] explaining for the umpteenth time that Iran is only interested in enriching Uranium to a level that it can be used as fuel for energy generation, the US, quite predictably, has rejected the notion and are insisting on their baseless nonsense that Iran wants to enrich Uranium to a level that can be used for nuclear weapons. Since the letter did not specifically mention Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapon grade material (because it isn’t seeking any) the US are saying that the letter ‘ducks the nuclear issue’.[2]
Despite all the hype from the Lying Tyrant Bush and his administration, there has still been no evidence whatsoever to back their conspiracy theory of Iran wanting nuclear weapons with even the IAEA saying they have found no evidence to support Bush’s claims.[3]
Nonetheless, Bush is itching for war regardless of the lack of evidence and is beginning to gather in his old friends and allies who supported him in his attack against Iraq. Next week Australia’s Prime Minister, the Lying Tyrant John Howard, well be visiting his old warmongering chum.[4] It seems that the third member of the Lying Tyrant trio, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has put off joining the meeting in Washington due to the overwhelming ill-feeling present in Britain over the UKs role in Iraq.[5] No doubt, however, Blair, who has already refused to rule out military action against Iran,[6] will be going along with whatever plans the liars dream up in order to go to war with Iran.
One has to wonder, indeed, if Blair’s reluctance to resign just yet in the face of overwhelming demands from most of his party[7] doesn’t have something to do with the imminent clash between Iran and the Coalition of the Killing. Does he feel he needs to be around to ensure the UK is going to be in on the attack on Iraq? The chances of any of the Trio of Lying Tyrants ever being elected to government again are non-existent so is this going to be their last hurrah and will Blair be able to resist turning up in Washington to help plan their last hurrah?
ENDNOTES
[1] Steven R. Wiseman, ‘Iranian Writes to Bush; No RSVP Is Likely’, The New York Times, 9 May 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?hp&ex=1147147200&en=401a50d7fe9ee2b7&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 9 May 2006.
[2] Robert Tait and Ewen MacAskill, ‘US rejects Iran’s first letter in 27 years after it ducks nuclear issue’, Guardian, 9 May 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1770635,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[3] Scott Peterson, ‘Iran’s nuclear gambit – the basics’, The Christian Science Monitor, 9 May 2006. Available online: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0509/p01s04-wome.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[4] Steve Lewis and Geoff Elliott, ‘Bush rewards PMs terror stance’, The Australian, 8 May 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19057302,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[5] Hasan Suroor, ‘Blair put off visit over Iraq?’, The Hindu, 1 May 2006. Available online: http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/01/stories/2006050100291500.htm Accessed 9 May 2006.
[6] David Clark, ‘The neocons strike again’, Guardian, 8 May 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1769900,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[7] Beth Gardiner, ‘Blair Vows to Remain U.K. Prime Minister’, Guardian, 8 May 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5808338,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
Despite all the hype from the Lying Tyrant Bush and his administration, there has still been no evidence whatsoever to back their conspiracy theory of Iran wanting nuclear weapons with even the IAEA saying they have found no evidence to support Bush’s claims.[3]
Nonetheless, Bush is itching for war regardless of the lack of evidence and is beginning to gather in his old friends and allies who supported him in his attack against Iraq. Next week Australia’s Prime Minister, the Lying Tyrant John Howard, well be visiting his old warmongering chum.[4] It seems that the third member of the Lying Tyrant trio, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has put off joining the meeting in Washington due to the overwhelming ill-feeling present in Britain over the UKs role in Iraq.[5] No doubt, however, Blair, who has already refused to rule out military action against Iran,[6] will be going along with whatever plans the liars dream up in order to go to war with Iran.
One has to wonder, indeed, if Blair’s reluctance to resign just yet in the face of overwhelming demands from most of his party[7] doesn’t have something to do with the imminent clash between Iran and the Coalition of the Killing. Does he feel he needs to be around to ensure the UK is going to be in on the attack on Iraq? The chances of any of the Trio of Lying Tyrants ever being elected to government again are non-existent so is this going to be their last hurrah and will Blair be able to resist turning up in Washington to help plan their last hurrah?
ENDNOTES
[1] Steven R. Wiseman, ‘Iranian Writes to Bush; No RSVP Is Likely’, The New York Times, 9 May 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?hp&ex=1147147200&en=401a50d7fe9ee2b7&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 9 May 2006.
[2] Robert Tait and Ewen MacAskill, ‘US rejects Iran’s first letter in 27 years after it ducks nuclear issue’, Guardian, 9 May 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1770635,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[3] Scott Peterson, ‘Iran’s nuclear gambit – the basics’, The Christian Science Monitor, 9 May 2006. Available online: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0509/p01s04-wome.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[4] Steve Lewis and Geoff Elliott, ‘Bush rewards PMs terror stance’, The Australian, 8 May 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19057302,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[5] Hasan Suroor, ‘Blair put off visit over Iraq?’, The Hindu, 1 May 2006. Available online: http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/01/stories/2006050100291500.htm Accessed 9 May 2006.
[6] David Clark, ‘The neocons strike again’, Guardian, 8 May 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1769900,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
[7] Beth Gardiner, ‘Blair Vows to Remain U.K. Prime Minister’, Guardian, 8 May 2006. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5808338,00.html Accessed 9 May 2006.
Friday, May 05, 2006
SEEKING THE TRUTH WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR
Webdiary commentator Richard Tonkin is having what he calls an ‘ethical crisis’ with regards to various ideas he has had that some may consider to be ‘conspiracy theories’.
Well, Richard, I hope you get around to reading this; it may be of some help.
First, while gut feeling can get you thinking about events that have occurred and lead you to conclusions that do not align with the explanations that have been given, you should, after having been awakened by your gut feeling, ignore it entirely without actually discarding it and then pursue the evidence. In other words, use your gut feeling only to get you started. After that you must vigorously set out to find evidence but – and this is the important bit – don’t just look for evidence that you feel will support your gut feeling; you must consider ALL the evidence.
The best kind of evidence, of course, is prima facie evidence; evidence that is irrefutable and totally tangible. The next best evidence is circumstantial evidence. It’s not quite as good as prima facie but, when properly used might just as well be. These are the only tools you need with which you can build your case.
Rather than try to prove a theory, search instead for the truth. Tell yourself that the only thing that you are interested in is the truth regardless of how painful it might be to you or others whose beliefs may be tested if and when the explanation that they believed to be fact is proved wrong or that you are wrong. The truth is the ONLY thing that matters; not how you may feel if you are found to be wrong or how others may feel if they are found to be wrong. One occasionally needs to be fairly thick skinned in searching for the truth particularly if the consensus of opinion is against you and you are ridiculed because of the position you have taken. If you take it personally and discontinue your search for the truth, then, of course, you will never find it.
You must take into consideration the fact that the vast majority of people are ignorant. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense but in purely realist terms. The vast majority of people may well have an opinion about an event but that opinion is more than likely based on some vague snippets of information that have been gleaned from various equally vague sources like TV, the internet, newspaper, etc., that are totally unqualified. Most people are willing to accept without qualification the explanations given to them by their government via the news media with an expectation that their government never lies. Most will opt to believe the version that is most morally acceptable to their particular value system – and their government is usually part of that value system – with the alternatives invariably being too unpalatable to accept even when the evidence supporting their preferred belief is based on evidence that is flimsier even than the morally unacceptable alternative.
One should remember that those that deny so-called conspiracy theories the most vehemently are usually the ones that have provided the consensually accepted one in the first place. Since this usually is a government it follows that peoples that are its subjects will usually become those that accept the official explanation and join in with the government when they ridicule or reject alternative explanations. In some cases people are too frightened of accepting an alternative explanation because in doing so one is going against the government and consensual opinion; a line that many are unwilling to cross especially in a pluralistic society where there is a government and an opposition but where the opposition support the governments explanation of events.
Sometimes it is the government itself that puts up the ‘conspiracy theory’ and sometimes the government gets caught out. Witness, for example, the government conspiracy theory that certain trailers found in Iraq shortly after the invasion were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. Alexander Downer was foremost in his insistence that this is what they were. Even after it was revealed that they were nothing more than mobile hydrogen generators for meteorological and artillery ranging balloons Downer continued to insist that they were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. It was only recently that the US government finally conceded that they were indeed hydrogen generators that we stopped hearing about Downers conspiracy theory. Downer at on stage even insisted that the story about them being hydrogen generators was just a conspiracy theory!
And, of course, we shouldn’t forget the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was in pursuit of nuclear weapons and that he was a direct threat to the US, the UK and Australia and should be attacked immediately. Most of the peoples of the world did not believe the governments of the US, the UK and Australia and the peoples of those nations protested the likelihood of invasion. This did not deter the governments of the US, the UK and Australia. Such was the determination of these governments that they were willing to invade Iraq despite the UN being unwilling to endorse such an attack. Those that were against the war and saw through the lies that were being told to start the war and who suggested that there were other ulterior motives for the US, the UK and Australia to attack Iraq were accused of being ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Most of the world now knows and accepts that Iraq was invaded under false pretences. We now know that governments do lie and create false and malicious conspiracy theories in order to achieve certain objectives that would not receive public support or overall consensus if the reality of those objectives were known to the public. Would the world have supported the governments of the US, the UK and Australia had those governments said they wanted to invade Iraq in order to have control of Iraq’s oil, to rid Israel of Saddam Hussein’s support of the Palestinian cause and to have Western domination of a region that is generally wealthy in natural resources in order that China and Russia be denied that influence?
And if governments are willing to lie to its people and create conspiracy theories in order to pursue their own agendas which result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, do we not, then, have the right to question other events through recent history that have led directly to those governments creating those lies?
Well, Richard, I hope you get around to reading this; it may be of some help.
First, while gut feeling can get you thinking about events that have occurred and lead you to conclusions that do not align with the explanations that have been given, you should, after having been awakened by your gut feeling, ignore it entirely without actually discarding it and then pursue the evidence. In other words, use your gut feeling only to get you started. After that you must vigorously set out to find evidence but – and this is the important bit – don’t just look for evidence that you feel will support your gut feeling; you must consider ALL the evidence.
The best kind of evidence, of course, is prima facie evidence; evidence that is irrefutable and totally tangible. The next best evidence is circumstantial evidence. It’s not quite as good as prima facie but, when properly used might just as well be. These are the only tools you need with which you can build your case.
Rather than try to prove a theory, search instead for the truth. Tell yourself that the only thing that you are interested in is the truth regardless of how painful it might be to you or others whose beliefs may be tested if and when the explanation that they believed to be fact is proved wrong or that you are wrong. The truth is the ONLY thing that matters; not how you may feel if you are found to be wrong or how others may feel if they are found to be wrong. One occasionally needs to be fairly thick skinned in searching for the truth particularly if the consensus of opinion is against you and you are ridiculed because of the position you have taken. If you take it personally and discontinue your search for the truth, then, of course, you will never find it.
You must take into consideration the fact that the vast majority of people are ignorant. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense but in purely realist terms. The vast majority of people may well have an opinion about an event but that opinion is more than likely based on some vague snippets of information that have been gleaned from various equally vague sources like TV, the internet, newspaper, etc., that are totally unqualified. Most people are willing to accept without qualification the explanations given to them by their government via the news media with an expectation that their government never lies. Most will opt to believe the version that is most morally acceptable to their particular value system – and their government is usually part of that value system – with the alternatives invariably being too unpalatable to accept even when the evidence supporting their preferred belief is based on evidence that is flimsier even than the morally unacceptable alternative.
One should remember that those that deny so-called conspiracy theories the most vehemently are usually the ones that have provided the consensually accepted one in the first place. Since this usually is a government it follows that peoples that are its subjects will usually become those that accept the official explanation and join in with the government when they ridicule or reject alternative explanations. In some cases people are too frightened of accepting an alternative explanation because in doing so one is going against the government and consensual opinion; a line that many are unwilling to cross especially in a pluralistic society where there is a government and an opposition but where the opposition support the governments explanation of events.
Sometimes it is the government itself that puts up the ‘conspiracy theory’ and sometimes the government gets caught out. Witness, for example, the government conspiracy theory that certain trailers found in Iraq shortly after the invasion were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. Alexander Downer was foremost in his insistence that this is what they were. Even after it was revealed that they were nothing more than mobile hydrogen generators for meteorological and artillery ranging balloons Downer continued to insist that they were mobile chemical or biological weapons factories. It was only recently that the US government finally conceded that they were indeed hydrogen generators that we stopped hearing about Downers conspiracy theory. Downer at on stage even insisted that the story about them being hydrogen generators was just a conspiracy theory!
And, of course, we shouldn’t forget the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was in pursuit of nuclear weapons and that he was a direct threat to the US, the UK and Australia and should be attacked immediately. Most of the peoples of the world did not believe the governments of the US, the UK and Australia and the peoples of those nations protested the likelihood of invasion. This did not deter the governments of the US, the UK and Australia. Such was the determination of these governments that they were willing to invade Iraq despite the UN being unwilling to endorse such an attack. Those that were against the war and saw through the lies that were being told to start the war and who suggested that there were other ulterior motives for the US, the UK and Australia to attack Iraq were accused of being ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Most of the world now knows and accepts that Iraq was invaded under false pretences. We now know that governments do lie and create false and malicious conspiracy theories in order to achieve certain objectives that would not receive public support or overall consensus if the reality of those objectives were known to the public. Would the world have supported the governments of the US, the UK and Australia had those governments said they wanted to invade Iraq in order to have control of Iraq’s oil, to rid Israel of Saddam Hussein’s support of the Palestinian cause and to have Western domination of a region that is generally wealthy in natural resources in order that China and Russia be denied that influence?
And if governments are willing to lie to its people and create conspiracy theories in order to pursue their own agendas which result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, do we not, then, have the right to question other events through recent history that have led directly to those governments creating those lies?
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WILL THE WORLD FALL FOR THE OLD UNITED NATIONS ‘CREDIBILITY’ NONSENSE AGAIN?
It tells you a lot about the arrogance of the people who run or represent the governments of the Coalition of the Killing when then say that the United Nations will lose its ‘credibility’ if it doesn’t come across with the result that these criminals are looking for.
In the latest stoush between Iran and the US and its allies over Irans nuclear ambitions, Australia has waded in with its Ambassador to the UN, the ex Minister of Defence Robert Hill, regurgitating this ‘credibility’ nonsense[1] close on the heels of Condoleeza Rice’s recent questioning of the UN’s ‘credibility’[2].
Hill says: “This is another instance where the international community has a right to expect that it [the UN] meet its responsibility.” It hasn’t occurred to Hill that the UN actually IS the international community and that when they don’t endorse a resolution then that is the democratic voice of the international community.
The world heard all this ‘credibility’ nonsense the last time the US and its Coalition of the Killing allies wanted to make war on a nation that was of no threat to them. They ignored the voice of the international community who saw through their lies and then, when they discovered that they’d never get a resolution up to invade Iraq, withdrew from the idea of putting up a resolution. They then ignored the voice of international public opinion and went ahead with their invasion, occupation and plundering anyway.
The world has been once bitten and is now twice shy. The only credibility at stake this time round is those of the Coalition of the Killing – which includes the war-criminal government of Australia.
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Iran resolution ‘a UN test’’, The Australian, 3 May 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19010735-1702,00.html Accessed 3 May 2006.
[2] David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi, ‘Iran Is Described as Defiant on 2nd Nuclear Program’, The New York Times, 25 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html Accessed 1 May 2006.
In the latest stoush between Iran and the US and its allies over Irans nuclear ambitions, Australia has waded in with its Ambassador to the UN, the ex Minister of Defence Robert Hill, regurgitating this ‘credibility’ nonsense[1] close on the heels of Condoleeza Rice’s recent questioning of the UN’s ‘credibility’[2].
Hill says: “This is another instance where the international community has a right to expect that it [the UN] meet its responsibility.” It hasn’t occurred to Hill that the UN actually IS the international community and that when they don’t endorse a resolution then that is the democratic voice of the international community.
The world heard all this ‘credibility’ nonsense the last time the US and its Coalition of the Killing allies wanted to make war on a nation that was of no threat to them. They ignored the voice of the international community who saw through their lies and then, when they discovered that they’d never get a resolution up to invade Iraq, withdrew from the idea of putting up a resolution. They then ignored the voice of international public opinion and went ahead with their invasion, occupation and plundering anyway.
The world has been once bitten and is now twice shy. The only credibility at stake this time round is those of the Coalition of the Killing – which includes the war-criminal government of Australia.
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Iran resolution ‘a UN test’’, The Australian, 3 May 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19010735-1702,00.html Accessed 3 May 2006.
[2] David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi, ‘Iran Is Described as Defiant on 2nd Nuclear Program’, The New York Times, 25 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html Accessed 1 May 2006.
Monday, May 01, 2006
DESPITE NO EVIDENCE AND NO PLANS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS THE US INCREASES ITS THREAT RHETORIC AGAINST IRAN.
The warmongering rhetoric against Iran by the US government, the Israeli government and the Israeli lobby in the US is continuing unabated. Condoleeza Rice has been quoted as saying: “I think they're [Iran] playing games. But obviously, if they're not playing games, they should come clean. They should stop the enrichment, suspend the enrichment.”[1] The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has “…denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “psychopath” and said the West would never permit Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb.”[2] And over at the Israeli lobby’s predominant mouthpiece, The Weekly Standard, William Kristol is urging the Bush administration that ‘this is no time for Washington to be scary’ as Bush tries to con the Europeans into believing that ‘diplomacy’ will be tried first.[3]
The next step is for the IAEA to bring Iran up before the UN Security Council where the US will ask for sanctions to be applied against Iran knowing full well that this will not happen because Russia and most likely China will use their veto power to prevent it.[4] The US will then mumble indignantly stuff about UN ‘credibility’, as, indeed, they already are,[5] just as they did in the lead up to the invasion, occupation and plundering of Iraq.[6]
Iran, of course, will not budge[7] from its stated goal of enriching Uranium sufficient for reactor fuel for its energy program. However, thus far there has been no evidence whatsoever to say that Iran wishes to enrich Uranium to the level required for nuclear weapons[8] and has, indeed, stated that is not what it wishes to do.[9]
This warmongering will only end in disaster, as it does every time the US threatens another nation, and serves only to fatten the profits of the big oil companies at the expense of the peoples of the world.
ENDNOTES
[1] Libby Quaid, ‘Rice: Iran is ‘Playing Games’ with offer’, AP via Yahoo! news, 30 April 2006. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran Accessed 1 May 2006.
[2] Abraham Rabinovich, ‘Olmert likens Iran leader to Hitler’, The Australian, 1 May 2006. Available online: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18983255-401,00.html Accessed 1 May 2006.
[3] William Kristol, ‘Iran is not Iraq’, The Weekly Standard, 8 May 2006, Vol. 011, Is. 32. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/148vqpff.asp Accessed 1 May 2006.
[4] Vicki Allen, ‘Rice says US could pressure Iran outside UN’, Reuters, 2 May 2006. Available online: http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-01T055655Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-247178-1.xml&archived=False Accessed 1 May 2006.
[5] David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi, ‘Iran Is Described as Defiant on 2nd Nuclear Program’, The New York Times, 25 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html Accessed 1 May 2006.
[6] William Safire, ‘And now: Op-Ed Diplomacy’, The New York Times, 3 February 2003. Available online: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30814FA385C0C708CDDAB0894DB404482 Accessed 28 April 2006.
[7] ‘Defiant Iran warns against UN sanctions’, Associate Press via Chinadaily.com, 1 May 2006. Available online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-05/01/content_581717.htm Accessed 1 May 2006.
[8] Atul Anega, ‘IAEA says no evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons plan’, Globalresearch.ca, 2 March 2006. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ANE20060302&articleId=2055 Accessed 1 May 2006.
[9] Javad Zarif, ‘Iran has No Nuclear Weapons Program, Statement by Iran’s Ambassador to the UN’, Globalresearch.ca, 10 April 2006. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ZAR20060410&articleId=2227 Accessed 1 May 2006.
The next step is for the IAEA to bring Iran up before the UN Security Council where the US will ask for sanctions to be applied against Iran knowing full well that this will not happen because Russia and most likely China will use their veto power to prevent it.[4] The US will then mumble indignantly stuff about UN ‘credibility’, as, indeed, they already are,[5] just as they did in the lead up to the invasion, occupation and plundering of Iraq.[6]
Iran, of course, will not budge[7] from its stated goal of enriching Uranium sufficient for reactor fuel for its energy program. However, thus far there has been no evidence whatsoever to say that Iran wishes to enrich Uranium to the level required for nuclear weapons[8] and has, indeed, stated that is not what it wishes to do.[9]
This warmongering will only end in disaster, as it does every time the US threatens another nation, and serves only to fatten the profits of the big oil companies at the expense of the peoples of the world.
ENDNOTES
[1] Libby Quaid, ‘Rice: Iran is ‘Playing Games’ with offer’, AP via Yahoo! news, 30 April 2006. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran Accessed 1 May 2006.
[2] Abraham Rabinovich, ‘Olmert likens Iran leader to Hitler’, The Australian, 1 May 2006. Available online: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18983255-401,00.html Accessed 1 May 2006.
[3] William Kristol, ‘Iran is not Iraq’, The Weekly Standard, 8 May 2006, Vol. 011, Is. 32. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/148vqpff.asp Accessed 1 May 2006.
[4] Vicki Allen, ‘Rice says US could pressure Iran outside UN’, Reuters, 2 May 2006. Available online: http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-01T055655Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-247178-1.xml&archived=False Accessed 1 May 2006.
[5] David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi, ‘Iran Is Described as Defiant on 2nd Nuclear Program’, The New York Times, 25 April 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html Accessed 1 May 2006.
[6] William Safire, ‘And now: Op-Ed Diplomacy’, The New York Times, 3 February 2003. Available online: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30814FA385C0C708CDDAB0894DB404482 Accessed 28 April 2006.
[7] ‘Defiant Iran warns against UN sanctions’, Associate Press via Chinadaily.com, 1 May 2006. Available online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-05/01/content_581717.htm Accessed 1 May 2006.
[8] Atul Anega, ‘IAEA says no evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons plan’, Globalresearch.ca, 2 March 2006. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ANE20060302&articleId=2055 Accessed 1 May 2006.
[9] Javad Zarif, ‘Iran has No Nuclear Weapons Program, Statement by Iran’s Ambassador to the UN’, Globalresearch.ca, 10 April 2006. Available online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ZAR20060410&articleId=2227 Accessed 1 May 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)