Chatting about mass slaughter

It's no surprise really, but watching, reading or listening to the mainstream media coverage of the Zionist regime's slaughter of the Palestinian people is nauseating in ways one finds hard to imagine in "normal times." 

No, it's not the images of mutilated bodies sprawled out on the ground, of children on life support in Gaza's dilapidated and depleted hospitals. No. It's the blithe, offhand way the carnage is tossed around - well, ignored, really - with all nonchalance by the mainstream "Western" media.

My case in point is an online conversation at the New York Times, something they call "Back Story." In a conversation with Times correspondent Ethan Bronner, the hosts focus exclusively on the goals pursued by Israel in its mass slaughter, what the outlook in all this there is for Israel, which of the war criminals stands to gain politically in Israel from the slaughter and so forth. Apart from merely noting the number of Palestinians murdered by the criminal Zionist state in the last three days, they show no concern whatsoever for how the Palestinians are faring, how they are able to deal with all this, how they are suffering and, yes, the political outlook for Palestinians. Listen to it yourself, on the front page of the New York Times.

This is the truest, most insidious face of genocidal journalism. Not the combative denial and naked pro-Israel and racist claptrap dealt out by Fox Noise and the like, but the calm, middle-of-the-road, analytical, reasonable, "liberal," level-headed analysis that ignores the mass slaughter being implemented, as these mainstream journalists instead carry on heated discourse about side issues, all with the intent of distracting people's attention from the central fact of what Israel is doing: committing a huge massacre with the intent of completing its depopulation of historic Palestine. 

Ultimately, the Times and other media outlets will have to be padlocked shut as were Nazi media organs at the end of World War II, as these are voices that justify murder and incitement to genocide. We should remember these people's names, as they must be held responsible both for what they are reporting and for what they are failing to report.   

Bush: "Wanna Leave Iraq? Then We'll Give You Another Terror Attack"

Aware of the overwhelming public opposition to the endless slaughter in Iraq, and fearful that an eventual Democratic victor in the presidential race just might yield - albeit grudgingly, and albeit only partially - to the will of the people, Bush has just threatened the US with another terror attack should the next Prez withdraw the troops "prematurely." (the link is to the Guardian article summarizing the key points, not the actual transcript of the interview, which is a nauseating foray into Bush's daughter's wedding, Bush's (non)use of e-mail, etc.)

Undoubtedly, Bush here, as always, is serving as the mouthpiece for sectors of the military-industrial-petroleum-media-banking-intelligence-mercenary complex who are simply making too much cold cash in Iraq to let this cow go out to pasture. Plus, the US and Israel want to use Iraq to attack Iran.

By the way, these are the forces that are probably stealing US elections (not something so dingy as the Republican "Party"), because the covert operatives, ex-special forces, ex-CIA, ex-DIA people and mercenary thugs working for this vast array of huge interests probably share Bush's mostly unfounded fear of the Democrats, even though the Dems have always been as war-friendly as anyone could be. But when hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, they figure, you can't take any chances. 

 

Empire Dusts Off New Toy: MEK

Yesterday, NY Times reporter John Burns filed a story from London on the UK courts' ruling that the weird "Marxist" sect, the MEK (Mujahedeen e-Khalq), the "People's Mujahedeen," should no longer be on the UK's list of terrorist groups. Abundant in its favorable descriptions rosy-eyed view of the group, Burns' story suggests that the MEK is being readied for use as a proxy in a prospective attack on Iran, much as something called the Iraqi National Congress and the infamous Ahmed Chalabi was used before the invasion of Iraq. Burns is alive to the implications of the decision, i.e., that the MEK would now be able to fundraise and organize in the UK and Europe, if they are indeed removed from the terrorist lists.
Don't be surprised if we soon see a motion in the US Congress to demand that the State Department remove the MEK from the US' own terrorist list.
Justin Raimundo has an interesting take on the MEK and Bush's recend presidential finding authorizing stepped up covert action against Iran.