Rapid Response Media Alert: Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins

[ViolentPanda]

Twenty six years ago The Shah was their monarc
he wasnt perfect but he was better than the Ayotollas's
Thats what Iranians have told me.

I am shure you know better than them whats best for their country.

You certainly don't know better.
Who comprises most Iranian expat communities? People who mostly had something to lose because they had links to the Shah and his family. You really think you're getting a neutral viewpoint from your Iranian acquaintances?

There was pretty much no difference (except the promotion of revolutionary Islam) between the regimes of the Shah (himself the descendant of a "puppet" ruler installed by the US & UK) and that of the Ayatollah. Same secret police torturing people, same oppression. One of the few noticable differences was the death of institutionalised corruption in the Iranian Civil Service. People don't tend to solicit or accept bribes if it means that your hand gets summarily amputated.

 

[hipipol]

The USG did not fund the IRA

Well, not as far as I know, however, they were fully aware for years of the fundraising and arms buying that their citizens were involved in.
They did not freeze their bank accounts, they did not arrest them in fact they did fuck all to interfer and warned the uK not to "do a mossad" and send anyone after them on US soil.
(It was the American people privately who supported terrorism.)
Very different from when they get hit, hundreds of innocents have had their accounts frozen, poor govts forced to close Hawla networks down(virtually the only way Somalis can get any cash back to their families) hundreds locked up, and hey presto, lots prosecuted for "Funding" crimes.
I cant help but find it spineless, snivelling and "Mine eyes shall hold no pity for them"

 

[fishfingerer]

Looks like we'll soon have to learn how to pronounce another bunch of places we've never heard of.

 

[ernestolynch]

Iran's fucking massive and more mountainous than Iraq - I reckon the Septics will bite off more than they can chew thise time. Conscription beckons.

 

[maomao]

Conscription beckons.

And the inevitable consequence of conscription?

More fragging

 

[DexterTCN]

Oh look...Iran can be a link between the Caspian Sea and The Gulf.

What an oil-tastic coincidence.

 

[DexterTCN]

will the septics be in tanks?

 

[ernestolynch]

And the inevitable consequence of conscription?

More fragging

Yup! To hell with it, I'm looking forward to this one - the Seps are gonna take a real pounding. To paraphrase the monkey -

"Bring it on!"

Live on Sky News - should be a good un.

 

[phildwyer]

The war is in your head. The war has been invented to preserve and consolidate the position of the dominant hegemony (I know you don't either understand or believe such things).

You can't have a war on a word or an idea.

Very true. And al-Quaeda was always more of an idea than an organization. The War on Terror may have destroyed the organization, but it has made the idea far stronger than it was before.

 

[bigfish]

Very true. And al-Quaeda was always more of an idea than an organization. The War on Terror may have destroyed the organization, but it has made the idea far stronger than it was before.

The name al-Qaeda appears to have been contrived during Clintons term by his counter-terrorism Czar, Richard Clark (who also served under Bush II), as a generic or catchall term enveloping a multitude of disparate Islamic fundamentalist groups scattered across the Muslim world. The reason for doing this is to enable the trained corporate media, when they are reporting on so and so's group in Morocco, or such and such a group in Turkey, for example, to link these groups to what then becomes a self-inflating spectre of "al-Qaeda". It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[phildwyer]

The name al-Qaeda appears to have been contrived during Clintons term by his counter-terrorism Czar, Richard Clark (who also served under Bush II), as a generic or catchall term enveloping a multitude of disparate Islamic fundamentalist groups scattered across the Muslim world. The reason for doing this is to enable the trained corporate media, when they are reporting on so and so's group in Morocco, or such and such a group in Turkey, for example, to link these groups to what then becomes a self-inflating spectre of "al-Qaeda". It's all smoke and mirrors.

Well I don't know about 'all.' The term 'al-Qaeda' translates as 'the foundation,' it can refer to an organization or to a political/theological principle. OBL did use it of his organization, and he did fund and train terrorists in a fairly systematic fashion. But they didn't 'belong' to his 'group,' they'd just turn up with an idea to blow up something and he'd either help them or not, depending on whether he fancied their idea. And the US invasion of Afghanistan has put a stop to that. The problem is, it has also laid this 'foundation' more deeply in the minds of thousands of angry Islamists the world over, with incalculable but probably horrendous consequences for the future.

 

[pk]

"The BBC Propaganda Begins"

Fuck off Bigfish you shit-talking cunt, you know NOTHING about the BBC, so stick to your hologram fantasies about 9/11, it's all you're good for.

 

[bigfish]

"The BBC Propaganda Begins"

(edit expletive bf) Bigfish (edit expletive bf), you know NOTHING about the BBC (edit lie bf).

But what about medialens psycho killer? After all, it's their words your citing above, not mine. Do they know anything about the BBC do you think? Or do they just issue their alerts to stir up shit for no reason?

As for myself, what I know about the BBC is that it is pretty much polluted, nowadays, by self-infatuated, jelly-spined prima donna's and right wing Islamatoads (like yourself), peddling spudcheese propaganda to the unsuspecting and gullible (just like the Church) and that its 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock sermons are a travesty of the human intellect and spirit.

 

[mears]

Half the worlds nation states are currently, or have been in the past, enagaged in promoting terrorism outside their own borders - and Iran is nothing like as accomplished in this strategy as its chief exponent - the USA (do we have to bring up central america again?).

"Before the war on Terror is over all the "We hate America" Arab countrys will have new governments."

Is this from the first draft of Bush's acceptance speech?

Dangerouslly deluded, ignorant bollocks - and I suspect Bush and the neo-cons will be defenestrated by the old school real politik crowd if he seriously thinks of launching a war against Iran. The neo cons may control the white house, but they dont control wall street.

'Where do you think OBL is? IRAN!'

Have you just invented this out of your fevered imagination or is this the latest nonsense coming out of the pentagon?
I dont know weather to laugh or cry.

You need not either laugh or cry but offer suggestions. How should the west deal withg Iran?

I think the US and Europe must work together to deal with Tehran. If Iran chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage Iran to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up westen investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the US, have diplomatic relations with Iran someday.

Of course the west could cut deals left and right like the Indians and Chinese are currently doing in Iran, but that gives our enemies more ammunition. The west deal with and supports our corrupt regimes like those in Riyad and now Tehran, But I digress.

What do you think?

 

[mears]

Very true. And al-Quaeda was always more of an idea than an organization. The War on Terror may have destroyed the organization, but it has made the idea far stronger than it was before.

What idea is that?

 

[ernestolynch]

Does Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE have democracy?

 

[mears]

Does Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE have democracy?

The only countries resembling democracies in the ME are Israel and Turkey.

The countries supported by the US like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are almost a comical ripoff 19th century European autocracy. But countries not dealth with, who are shunned like Syria also represent the autocratic version. So you support them and they are authoritarian (SA, Kuwait) you shun and isolate them (Iran, Syria) and they also are authoritarian.

Maybe it not western diplomacy or imperialism that explains their retarded forms of government.

It could very well be their own fault.

 

[ernestolynch]

Why don't you bomb and invade them then?

 

[nino_savatte]

You need not either laugh or cry but offer suggestions. How should the west deal withg Iran?

I think the US and Europe must work together to deal with Tehran. If Iran chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage Iran to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up westen investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the US, have diplomatic relations with Iran someday.

Of course the west could cut deals left and right like the Indians and Chinese are currently doing in Iran, but that gives our enemies more ammunition. The west deal with and supports our corrupt regimes like those in Riyad and now Tehran, But I digress.

What do you think?

Why don't we just do to Iran what we did to Iraq, that is what you're saying isn't it?

 

[bigfish]

You need not either laugh or cry but offer suggestions. How should the west deal withg Iran?

I think the US and Europe must work together to deal with Tehran. If Iran chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage Iran to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up westen investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the US, have diplomatic relations with Iran someday.

Of course the west could cut deals left and right like the Indians and Chinese are currently doing in Iran, but that gives our enemies more ammunition. The west deal with and supports our corrupt regimes like those in Riyad and now Tehran, But I digress.

What do you think?

I think that Europe, China, Japan and Iran must work together to deal with Washington. If America chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage America to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up Eurasian investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the World, have diplomatic relations with America someday.

 

[mears]

I think that Europe, China, Japan and Iran must work together to deal with Washington. If America chooses to build nuclear weapons there must be consequences in the form of economic sanctions. We should encourage America to have a real democracy, not elections where a bunch of old men decide who can and can't run. If they play ball we should open up Eurasian investment to the country and I would like to see my country, the World, have diplomatic relations with America someday.

Thats good, sarcasm is what keeps these boards lively.

Now do you believe Al Queda was invented by the Clinton administration and not Osama Bin Laden and his group.

Is that right?

 

[nino_savatte]

AQ is a fiction but perhaps, it is a fiction that you would rather believe in mears, since the idea of actually thinking critically and rationally on this subject has not occured to you.

It is easier to accept a lie than to search for the truth.

 

[mears]

Twenty six years ago The Shah was their monarc
he wasnt perfect but he was better than the Ayotollas's
Thats what Iranians have told me.

I am shure you know better than them whats best for their country.

I have been on this board since may of 2003, and I really enjoy it. Its a good place to get some commentary from different thinking folks, to say the least.

I have only put one person on my ignore list and that is nino savette. I have found that he is not worth my time. He offers nothing but anger, and pointless drivel. He tries to rework your words to put you on the defensive because he lacks substance.

And he is dumb as a sack of rocks.

You might want to ignore him as well. Just a suggestion.

 

[nino_savatte]

I have been on this board since may of 2003, and I really enjoy it. Its a good place to get some commentary from different thinking folks, to say the least.

I have only put one person on my ignore list and that is nino savette. I have found that he is not worth my time. He offers nothing but anger, and pointless drivel. He tries to rework your words to put you on the defensive because he lacks substance.

And he is dumb as a sack of rocks.

You might want to ignore him as well. Just a suggestion.

You're playing games mears. The only one you are fooling is yourself.

You don't have me on 'ignore' at all, you only pretend to ignore me.

Edited to add: so desperate for allies is mears, that he's resorted to cosying up to the dimmest brain on the block!

 

[editor]

As for myself, what I know about the BBC is that it is pretty much polluted, nowadays, by self-infatuated, jelly-spined prima donna's and right wing Islamatoads (like yourself), peddling spudcheese propaganda to the unsuspecting and gullible (just like the Church) and that its 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock sermons are a travesty of the human intellect and spirit.

And so your news source of choice is....?

 

[bigfish]

It is easier to accept a lie than to search for the truth.

Especially when it's a real whopper, like al-Qaeda's imagined "links" with Saddam or of Iraq's imagined "weapons of mass destruction, for example." Or Toby B Liars imagined "45 minutes" claim or Lord Brian Hutton's imagined "Doctor Kelly took his own life" verdict. Of course it serves the ends of filthy reaction all the more sweetly having Big Lie type Broadcasting Corporations, replete with "on-message," wonga-trousering hacks under its control, whistling the same dull tune over and over and over. More than anything else, the Big Lie must be endlessly repeated to keep it anchored in the collective psyche, as nothing else will. On the other hand, any real attempt at meaningful journalism is strictly prohibited today, by order of the Board of Governors.

 

[nick1181]

According to that Power of Nightmares that was on TV this week, a transcript (and videoette) of which is here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm, Al Qaeda is essentially a fiction, created from evidence of one Jamal al-Fadl, who was a paid witness, and who was on the run from OBL, having stolen from him.

There is, apparently, no evidence that OBL used the term Al Qaeda until after 9/11 - until after he'd had this myth created for him - and apparently, very little evidence that Al Qaeda, as it is imagined by the west, actually exists.

Or to put it another way, AQ was created by the Neocons, who desperately need enemies to justify their existance.

 

[Main Street]

On Sept 11, 2001, we entered a time of war, like it or not.

I don't see why anyone should be surprised that Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't be the only theatres of war.

The US will only bring the war home if it continues along this path

 

[Main Street]

Attacked by a bunch of failed revolutionaries reduced to living in run down shacks in Afghanistan? A WAR????
How snivellingly spineless are the Yanks?
Fuck it guy, the US PAID for the IRA to attack us over a 20 years period, we DID not attack Belgium as a result( Cos they weren't involved, just like Iraq wasn't with 9/11)
NB It has just been pointed out to me that Canada would in fact be a better target as they had NOTHING to do with the 1000s of deaths caused by Noraid et als funding, but they happen to be near and speak the same language as the Great Butthole
Go back to your comic book collection, seems to be subtle enough to keep you happy, Wanna Be yanky

JC2 speaks for himself not for Canada

 

[Main Street]

There's no way the US could justify an invasion of Iran. Blair supported Bush in his Iraq invasion but there's no way he could support an invasion of Iran - and Bush couldn't pull it off without a major ally.

What is Blair saying? Do you think he will follow Bush again?