Living With Lies

HOW THE U.S. WILL ATTACK IRAN

2009-07-18T12:07:00.000-07:00

Western diplomats offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state

"Israel has chosen to place the Iranian threat over its settlements," said a senior European diplomat.

Bo-oh-oh-gus, rubbish from the Chinese Porn King, Chairman of Newscrap, etc., etc., Poop Murdoch.

If the Israelis were about to start behaving like decent human beings, they would have no reason to attack Iran, since they would have no real enemies.

Contrary to what Poop's Timesey is saying, the deal more likely is that if Israel launches the American war on Iran by prompting Iran to hit back at American targets, Israel can do what it pleases in the occupied territory.

America, currently the world's biggest bully, always pretends to be the victim as it launches a murderous assault on a third world nation: Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, New Hitler with WMP, Saddam Hussein, and now -- flourish -- Iran's new "new Hitler", President Ahm-Mad-For-Jihad.

Iran is about to be provoked into striking back at the enabler of a deadly aerial assault on its nuclear power generating and fuel processing facilities, which will make the poor, bankrupt, and arguably psychotic, United States of Agression once again a tragic victim and hence justified in slaughtering Iranians without limit.

The Iranian response to American-backed Israeli aggression will likely be with cruise missiles targetting one or more the U.S. naval vessels that menace the coasts of Iran.

Such an attack must be anticipated and it may also be anticipated that a ship, possibly an aircraft carrier, will be sunk. Most likely, the U.S., recognizing that its carrier forces are obsolete, is willing to a sacrifice a carrier and the 5000 sailors aboard to justify a massive U.S. "retaliation" against Iran.

If that is how events unfold, one can expect it to be co-ordinated with a huge propaganda exercise to portray the Iranian action as an unprovoked "sneak" attack on totally innnocent Americans: the second "Pearl Harbor of the 21st century," to use the George Bush's sophomoric terminology.

Canadians can expect their Zionist Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, Harper and Ignatieff, to echo the spurious arguments pouring from Poop Murdoch's numerous outlets, or should one say orifices -- from Fix News, to the Wanker's Friend (today's headline: "Virgin, sex act at wheel of train") -- to justify sending brave Canadian soldiers to die for the American empire in its war to control Iranian oil (see Why the U.S. will attack Iran).

New 7/7 Bombing Photo Contradicts Official Story

2009-07-08T12:37:00.000-07:00

Except to remind people of the brutal truth about the nature of western democratic government, it is futile to continue coverage of the 7/7 London Tube bombings.

To say that there is evidence contradicting the "Official Story" is in a way nonsense, since there was no judicial inquiry and, therefore, no "official story." The government may make statements from time to time about what happened but when these are shown to be false, the government can issue another story, or not, as it sees fit.

That there was no inquiry following the largest mass murder in British history is as clear evidence as one is likely to obtain that the British Government was either complicit in the killings or had reason to protect those it knew to be responsible. Any other evidence of an official cover up is superfluous.

How most Americans handle a big lie

2005-07-02T09:09:00.000-07:00

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."

George W. Bush -- September 17, 2003

On Tuesday night, speaking at Fort Bragg to an audience of 750 members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations unit, George Bush abandoned any last shred of integrity, objectivity or honor by repeatedly linking Iraq to 9/11, even though there is no credible evidence to support the allegation.

What is remarkable, is not that Bush would personally undertake to sell the big lie, but that so few were buying. From his captive audience, Bush received only one round of polite applause, and that prompted by his own staff. More ominously for the manipulators in the White House, the national television broadcast marked a career low for Bush. An average of barely 19 million watched, which means that more than 260 million did not.

How splendid. Ninety-three percent of all Americans did not listen to Bush's manic justification of the unjustifiable. How ingenious. With total spontaneity, Americans have adopted a brilliantly effective response to this fraudulent regime. Ignore it. Without lies, it cannot function. And without an audience, its lies are inoperative.

Archbishop hits out at web-based media 'nonsense'

2005-07-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was “close to that of unpoliced conversation”.
The Times

Well, you've got to agree, there's nothing good to be said for web-based "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry." But I think Archie could have taken this further. What about newspaper based "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry," or Fox News-based, or Whitehouse based. Like, wasn't all that stuff about a crusade and about Saddam's WMD and about Saddam and Al Quaeda, well paranoid fantasy, really, not to say self-indulgent nonsense reflecting a dangerous anti-Muslim bigotry?

One other thing, Archie, what you got against "unpoliced conversation"? Like, has the Anglican Church, in which I was christened, become a branch of the Police State, because if so, maybe its time I became a Buddhist or sompin' with more of a live-and-let-live attitude.

We are experiencing unusually high call volumes

2005-06-28T22:22:00.000-07:00

Experiencing? Experiencing? Why should we care what they are experiencing? It's not as if they'd said "We are experiencing an unusually severe storm off the coast of Newfoundland which has already dismasted our vessel and is threatening to drive us onto the rocks, in which event we will all surely perish." If they'd said that, we might have taken an interest in what they were experiencing. We might even have tried calling the Coast Guard to see whether assitance could be rendered. But it's only phone calls. What's to experience? Some lights blinking on a console? And why volume of calls? A telephone call is an occurence, an event. Events have frequency, but they don't have volume, whether high, wide or deep. So next time someone says "Your call is important to us," remember, what they really mean is that we have hired insufficient staff to serve our customers' needs without causing them inconvenience and annoyance, but be sorry for us because we are "experiencing an unusually severe storm of calls off the coast of Newfoundland which if attended to promptly would adversely affect our bottom line, not to mention our directors' bonuses."

The greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer

2005-06-27T19:23:00.000-07:00

You'd never know from the mainstream media that the guy who just called President Bush "the greatest disgrace that America has had to suffer" was a senior member of the Reagan Administration. And you would never know it for the simple reason that none of the mainstream outlets, from the New York Times, and the Washington Post to the (Toronto) Globe and Mail and the London Times, has reported that anyone, let alone a senior member of the Reagan Administration, considers George W. Bush "the greatest disgrace that America has had to suffer." And if you don't believe that, just search Google news for "the greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer". What you'll find is that today, June 27, five days after antiwar.com first published Paul Craig Roberts' article stating that George Bush is "the greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer" not a single mainstream outlet has reported on the remarkable fact that an important member of a former Republican administration has said publicly that George Bush is "the greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer." So, if you still believe that the media in the U.S., Britain, and Canada exist to keep you informed about the world, may I mention that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.