You Can’t Trust the Headlines

Standard

(I should start by saying that Palestine always has the right to use violence against Israel as long as Israel continues to occupy stolen Palestinian land.   This is true even according to international law and the international community.  People living on stolen property are never innocent. Unfortunately, Palestinians don’t have an organized state or military powerful enough to rid themselves of the illegal occupying power.)

This is what actually happened leading up to the 2014 Gaza massacre:

“Something had to be done, and an occasion arose on June 12, when the three Israeli boys were murdered in the West Bank. Early on, the Netanyahu government knew that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie.

One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.”

The 18-day rampage after the kidnapping, however, succeeded in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members on July 7.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.”

(via  Noam Chomsky: The Nightmare in Gaza)

Hamas denied responsibility for the attacks, but many headlines would eventually say that Hamas claimed responsibility for the attacks.  Examples:

NPR: Hamas Admits To Kidnapping And Killing Israeli Teens

CBC: Hamas admits kidnapping 3 young Israeli men, setting off Gaza war

CNN: Hamas leader admits militants abducted slain Israeli teens

However, when one actually reads the articles, one quickly realizes that Hamas did not claim responsibility:

Aruri said the operation to abduct the teens was not approved by the Hamas leadership or its military wing, the Qassam Brigades.

(via CNN: Hamas leader admits militants abducted slain Israeli teens)

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who is in exile in Qatar, denied knowledge of the abduction but praised its perpetrators.

(via CBC: Hamas admits kidnapping 3 young Israeli men, setting off Gaza war)

Being from a dissident clan from the same region, the real perpetrators of the crime likely had weak ties to Hamas.  Some of them might have been members of Hamas in the past.

The man, Hussam Qawasmeh, 41, part of a sprawling clan in the West Bank city of Hebron with ties to the militant Islamist Hamas movement, was convicted last week of handling $60,000 in five installments from the Gaza Strip to buy two cars, two M-16 rifles and two pistols for use in the operation. In September, Israeli troops cornered and killed the two men they believe carried out the kidnapping and murders: Marwan Qawasmeh, 29, a relative of Mr. Qawasmeh’s, and Amer Abu Aisha, 33.

Having ties or former association with Hamas does not mean Hamas was responsible.  Hamas praising the act does not mean Hamas carried out the act.

Likewise, the fact that some of the alleged suspects behind the Paris attacks have/had some affiliation with the Islamic State is still not proof that the Islamic State itself was behind the Paris attacks:

The Expanding Web of Connections Among the Paris Attackers

Capture Web Paris Attacks

The Islamic State praising the Paris attacks is not proof that the Islamic State was behind the Paris attacks.

Advertisements

ISIS Didn’t Do It.

Standard

People have to be very careful when reading these articles. The headline and first paragraph say ISIS claimed responsibility:

http://www.nytimes.com/…/isis-claims-responsibility-for-par…

However, they specifically imply throughout the article that ISIS did not claim responsibility. (The New York Times and many papers did this with Hamas during the 2014 Gaza massacre. The headlines would say Hamas claimed responsibility while the rest of the article implies that they didn’t.)

ISIS celebrated the attacks. They never said they did it. Here is a translation of one of the messages from the groups encrypted messaging accounts:

https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/…/is-claims-paris-attacks-wa…

In fact, throughout The New York Times article, there is continued debate between whether to blame ISIS or Al Queda. (Obviously, if ISIS had actually claimed responsibility, they wouldn’t be debating between blaming ISIS or Al Queda throughout the article.)  The reality is that it might not have been either group but they need to pin it on either ISIS or Al Queda so they can declare war. If it was just homegrown terrorism exploiting Islam, they would not be able to go to war, so they pretend it’s not even a possibility.

Additionally, if ISIS was going to claim responsibility and declare open war on France, an encrypted internal communique isn’t going to achieve that.

(Another scenario is that ISIS was trying to do it in secret, didn’t want France to know, and the internal communique accidentally exposed that they were responsible. However, the encrypted message only showed that ISIS knew of the attacks and praised the attackers. They never said they did it.)

The best evidence they have linking ISIS to the crime is the encrypted internal communique which actually implies ISIS didn’t do it.

ISIS say they were impressed with the way the Paris terrorists executed the attack and applauded them on a job well done, but imply that the Paris terrorists were people they didn’t actually know.

Additionally, if ISIS had orchestrated a terrorist attack they considered impressive and successful, why wouldn’t they be patting themselves on the back for a job well done? Why wouldn’t they be cockier and more full of hubris?

If ISIS had done it, they would have been more arrogant and self-congratulatory rather than merely applauding the work of others.

Thus, I highly doubt it was ISIS.

 

Charlie Hebdo Has the Right to Free Speech—As Do We.

Standard

Charlie Hebdo has the right to utilize free speech.  However, sane members of the general public should employ their rights to free speech to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s juvenile fetish for trivializing the death of Muslim children.

Charlie Hebdo will say they are actually making social commentary.  Again, this is easy to test:  Would they ever depict the death of French or American children in the same fashion?  Of course not.

Thus, Charlie Hebdo’s true motive is to toy around with images of dead Muslim children.  I’m sure they think they are being very clever by disguising it as social commentary, but their true motives are pretty clear.

“Christians Walk on Water…Atheist Children Sink.”

Standard

Charlie Hebdo says they are making a religious critique by displaying a Christian walking on water while a Muslim child drowns.  In my opinion, Charlie Hebdo merely wants to display images of Muslim children drowning to desensitize Westerners to the death of Middle Eastern children.

Charlie Hebdo is creating imperialist propaganda.  They know that most Westerners are still Christian and they are exploiting Christianity to turn Christian Westerners against Muslim Middle Easterners as a way to maintain imperialism.  They are also trying to show that the life of a Muslim child is something that should be shrugged off.

Charlie Hebdo will say that they are critiquing Christianity.

Well we can test that.

Would Charlie Hebdo ever depict a French or American child who grew up in an atheist household drowning?

Charlie Hebdo1

Why not display the words “Christians walk on water…children of atheist Westerners sink” as a way to critique Christianity?

The fact that Charlie Hebdo would never do the same with the children of atheist Westerners proves my point that they are merely trying to make Muslim children look expendable so it doesn’t matter how many of them are wiped out by Western militarism.

They are trying to imply that shamelessly letting a Middle Eastern child drown is acceptable.

This is how much people actually care:

Standard

Obviously, Western media is going crazy over the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall as they would over anything commemorating end of apartheid in South Africa.  However, the wall surrounding Gaza also represents horrendous oppression & apartheid.  The amount of attention that wall gets in Western media represents how much genuine concern there is for such matters. The amount of extra time the Berlin Wall gets over the Gaza blockade is how much time/energy is dedicated to creating the illusion of a liberal democracy.

ISIS not enough? How about another Cold War?

Standard

Both Western as well as Russian media sources seem to want to create another Cold War.  (Yes, some people are that evil.)  We can’t forget that within every authoritarian regime there have been propaganda agents diligently working to maintain some type of diversion so that oppression/elitism/inequality are never discussed.  Western propaganda is no different.

This is very dangerous because media trying to stir up Cold War conditions just so they have a constant scare tactic (and a constant source of eye-catching news) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BBC logo

Gorbachev

(Click for link)

RT Logo Question More

Noam Chomsky

(Click for link)

From my perspective, I don’t think the Cold War was nearly as big of a deal as it was portrayed.  I’m positive the elitists on both sides quickly developed a common understanding that such things could be exploited to divert attention away from more pressing matters.  As much as I dislike George Orwell, he was right in depicting three global superpowers dominating the world with a piece left as undisputed territory.

Let’s pretend the West is Oceania, Russia is Eurasia, China is Eastasia and that the Middle East and Africa represent the disputed territories.  Despite the mental gymnastics one must do to visualize something so otherworldly, once this mental analogy is solidly in place, one can begin to see that the tactics of constant warfare, fighting for global dominance, and shifting of alliances seen within the novel also apply to the real world.

Russian media genuinely tries to make the West out to be a bad guy while Western media does the same to Russia (as well as China.)  Both Russian and Western media use chaos and terrorism within “the disputed territories” to their advantage.  However, if that tactic is becoming too obvious, neither have a problem recreating another Cold War stalemate that can be exploited by both sides.  Upon hearing about possible warfare, right-wing extremists will immediately start calling for greater military investment (just like during the Cold War, just like Nineteen Eighty-Four, just like Ancient Rome, etc.) just like they did when Putin and the West first tussled over Crimea:

Daily Signal Logo

Putin Obama

(Click for link)

People pathologically push for conditions where their natural/instinctive drives are selected for.  If someone is a natural born slave driver, they need a system that is oppressive (it doesn’t matter which one as long as there is a demand for slave drivers.)  If somebody is pathologically wired to constantly call for investment in warfare, they will do so regardless of common sense or lessons from history.


(However, there are also those who genuinely do want a more fair and harmonious world and try to push for such conditions since it’s a complete waste of time/energy/resources maintaining gross inequality purely for the sake of those who are good at maintaining it.)

In Chomsky’s defence, I feel RT sensationalized what he was saying:

Chomsky:

“…it’s come ominously close several times in the past…”

Headline:

‘World ominously close to nuclear war – Noam Chomsky to RT’