America Is Led And Informed By Liars

As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the non-existent “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons ... The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best--lying through their teeth. The US “mainstream media” repeats the lies as if they were facts. The US “media” is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media's main interest is to please the US government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations... Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?

more...

Full Spectrum Dominance

William Engdahl on his book Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.



Was the recent uprising in Iran a "colored revolution," a genuine movement for democracy - or both?

The War Which Will Help McCain Win
Yuri Baranchik, Strategic Culture Foundation

Georgia has done a great job as the proving ground during the five-day war. With the help of this war, those who are promoting the Republican nominee in the US presidential race have found out all they needed to know.

It was a part of Washington's plan that Russia would respond resolutely to the US-prepared Georgian incursion into South Ossetia. As a result of Russia's repelling the aggression, the US Administration obtained the information it needed to analyze the consequences of future armed conflicts in the post-Soviet space and Senator J. McCain's chances to become the next US President got a real boost. Besides, Washington had the opportunity to probe into the positions of Europe (obviously, the EU would not follow the US in the case of serious tensions with Russia) and China (which would rather not intervene).

In the US, practically all the benefits from the situation which emerged due to the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia were drawn by the Republicans, as the evolution of McCain's rating clearly shows. McCain was 7% behind his rival B. Obama by the early August but the gap began to shrink when the conflict in the Caucasus broke out, and by August 23 both presidential hopefuls had 47%. The process stopped at this point, though, as the war ended. Subsequently, Obama began to lead again – now he has 50% vs McCain's 42%.

In other words, the conflict in the Caucasus was provoked by the Republicans in the hope to gain advantages in the presidential campaign. The five-day war triggered exactly the electoral reaction they expected – it appeared at the moment that the US needed a President who would make a better military commander, and Vietnam-war veteran McCain seemed better fit for the role than his relatively young rival. The logic behind the voting on November 4, 2008 became completely obvious.

Thus, it takes a war for McCain to win. It takes more than just a small war which only made it possible for him to catch up with Obama. It has to be a serious one with an impressive death toll, and then the triumph of the Republican hawk on November 4 would be guaranteed. A war between the US and Iran would serve the purpose.

For the Republican elite which is ready to unleash a war with Iran for the sake of McCain's victory, what is at stake is not one but three presidential terms. Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin will have good starting positions in the 2014 presidential race. Republican politicians no longer worry about oil prices as the margin from the domestic sales of imported oil is theirs anyhow, and the financial crisis in the US simply cannot be prevented, so the main question at the moment is who is going to be at the helm during the crisis to reap the benefits stemming from the redistribution of the global and US domestic markets.

What have the Republicans already gained thanks to the military experiment in the Caucasus?

First, it transpired that Russia will react harshly to military expansion attempts in the post-Soviet space. Confronting a serious enemy in international politics is a situation generally advantageous from the Republican standpoint.

Secondly, it became clear that the EU as a whole is not a dependable partner for the US and the US must rely on bilateral ties with some of the EU countries (Great Britain, Poland).

Thirdly, China, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization would easily abandon Russia and opt for non-intervention.

Fourthly, a small country like Georgia cannot present a sufficiently big problem to paralyze Russia. The task would take involving Russia in two conflicts at once, hence the role of Ukraine. Making Ukraine a part of the “arrangement' would also be a way of punishing the defiant Europe by destabilizing its energy supply routes.

Currently there seems to be an informational lull, but the impression is perfunctory. A major war and the transfer of control from Bush to McCain in the situation of a massive armed conflict are of vital importance for the forces which advance McCain and hope to go on running the US for the next 12 years.

In this light, the likely scenario for the future is as follows:

New conflicts in the post-Soviet space will be organized with the help of the already outgoing US puppets Saakashvili and Yushchenko. The process will probably begin in Ukraine. Yushchenko will resort to the use of force against his opponents to amass power in his hands. Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is already targeted: she is under practically undisguised surveillance and will be interrogated by the prosecutor on September 11. The interrogation is likely to be followed by arrest, now or later. After it, Yushchenko will issue a decree introducing the presidential rule “until the situation normalizes”. The regime will be marked by a witch-hunting campaign with numerous provocations against politicians – and not only politicians – known for pro-Russian leanings. In case this would not be enough, provocations targeting Russian warships docked in Sevastopol and their personnel should be expected.

Since there are at least three influential political clans in Ukraine and the country is already being torn apart by President Yushchenko's irresponsible politics, by the early October a number of local conflicts will quickly evolve into a civil war (unless by that time Yushchenko gets arrested for treason instead). The result will be the disintegration of Ukraine.

This time, Russia will try to avoid getting directly involved in Ukraine's domestic conflict and limit its efforts to implicitly supporting pro-Russian forces in the Ukrainian elite as well as in the country's eastern regions and in the Crimea.

In case the situation in Ukraine remains under control, Russia is going to have a much greater potential to influence the international situation when the US strikes Iran. On the other hand, if the temperature of the conflict gets high and it spills beyond Ukraine's borders, Russia will have to fight for its interests as it did in the Caucasus.

Tentatively, Moscow will decide what to do about Ukraine by mid-October.

Following the developments, Saakashvil's thugs rearmed with the US assistance will get back into play after some rest in late October.

The US stock market will see a partial drop as the security of the energy transit routes from Russia to Europe will be affected and the global fuel prices will soar. The US population will panic and the neocons will frighten it further by pictures of “the global chaos” until the no-return point is reached.

By that time Russia will be confronted by a total information war.

In late October Cheney's political group will organize a provocation against the US of proportions comparable to those of September 11. The death toll will be high and Iran will be blamed. Several days prior to the November 4 elections, President Bush will declare another crusade in the name of democracy which will in practice mean a “pre-emptive” war against Iran.

Under the circumstances McCain will be a natural choice in the US as the leader capable of fighting the global terrorism and the rogue countries all the way to the logical completion.

Campaigning on the day of the elections may be prohibited, but McCain will do well without it. Media reports from conflict zones in Georgia, Ukraine, and Iran will be the background of the elections on November 4. The public will see Eurasia in flames and ask for a strong-handed US politics as the way to cope with the global chaos.

Early morning on November 5, McCain will declare himself as the winner determined to carry the light of democracy all over the world.

______________________________

SEE ALSO:

New crisis envelopes UkrainePresident threatens Ukraine with a state of emergency


The West's Phantom Pains

The End of the World is Nigh

The End of the World is Nigh

Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek:

"At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon."

"The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence."

"Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

Read the rest here. If you're yet to be persuaded that the purpose of this increasingly hysterical rhetoric is to prepare the ground for a possible war, you may be interested in this interview in Esquire:

"Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again."

"In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say."

Read the rest here. And see my earlier posts giving background on the Iran situation here, here, and my radio interview on the subject with Nadim Mahjoub here.

from The Democrat's Diary

Bush heats up words with Iran and Russia



Link

Further evidence how Bush's threats of an attack on Iran are built-up on a series of falsehoods which are constantly repeated by a complicit mainstream media and his vassals in France and Britain.

Sanctions: a Prelude to War?



Link

More Warnings Of A US War On Iran
By Peter Symonds
http://www.countercurrents.org/symonds291007.htm

The Bush administration’s unprecedented decision last week to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a weapons proliferator and its Quds Force as a “supporter of terrorism” has heightened tensions with Tehran and undermined European efforts at negotiations, setting the stage for a US attack on Iran


'War On Terror' Is Now War On Iran
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.countercurrents.org/escobar291007.htm

Scores of middle-aged, mild-mannered, bearded gentlemen - the technocrats of the Iranian military bourgeoisie - are now officially enjoying the status of "terrorists", at least from a Washington point of view


The Devil’s Playground
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich291007.htm

I make an effort to understand this President turned dictator and his reasons for planning genocide. Given Russia’s stark warning and Europe’s precarious stance in that 25% of it’s oil and 40% of its natural gas is supplied by Russia, a military confrontation with Iran would likely drag in other nations. What reason other than sheer madness would he have for doing this?

from Countercurrents

'Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control'

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Amsterdam-based military historian Gabriel Kolko talks about the prospect of war with Iran and argues that many in the US military now view the White House as being 'out of control.'

Read it here

"Pariah nation": look who's talking!

There's no getting away from it: the MSM is the tyranny of the new aristocracy chattering to itself. Fed up of the endless state propaganda spouted daily by the BBC, the so-called Independent Television News and the "community centered" Channel 4 News, I turned to More 4 News in the hope of intelligent comment.

No such luck.

Yesterday, for example, More 4 News' newest dolly-bird, Kylie Morris, presented an envious piece concerning the diplomatic success of Iran in forming a non-aggression pact between Caspian countries. Iran's friendship with Russia was received with cynical comments about Russia's 'need to stay friends for Iran's oil'.

No mention of the fact that both Iran and Russia work through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which unites the two countries' economic interests. No observation that a non-aggression pact is meant to preserve the peace and that the only aggression that both Iran and Russia faces today is likely to come from the war criminals hiding in the White House.

Any mention of that would ensure Ms Morris being fired immediately from her job. So instead we get nasty little comments such as Iran being a "pariah nation".

Pariah nation? Who says so, Ms Morris? Iran's Middle Eastern neighbours? No. The European Union? No.

Then who?

Oh, that rogue in the White House again! He who is eminently more describable as a pariah then any other person or nation on this planet.

And More 4 News, an ostensibly British enterprise, is obliged to act as the Number One pariah's conduit. Well, what more can you expect in a vassal state like Britain which, in the days of the Thatcher/Reagan Arms Race in the 'eighties earned itself the Orwellian label of being 'Airstrip One' for the USA?

So Bye, bye More 4, & Hello the Real News



Link

Oil, Israel, and America: The Root Cause of the Crisis
By Scott Ritter

The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’
by Scott Ritter

Iran's Revolutionary Guard branded "terrorists"



Link

The Doomsday US Wargames Continue

Like a lot of folk these days I don't watch the tube anymore to learn of world events. The Net has really exposed the propaganda-mongers for what they really are with, in Britain, that inveterate liar and tired old Aunty BBC heading the list of worst offenders. Actually 'worst offenders' is being kind. They are warmongers and hence war criminals.

When I do switch on the telly for some entertainment --I agree with John Pilger, that's what mainstream media news is today, entertainment -- I watch it through the heaviest megafilters of discrimination and distrust, just to see what the propaganda-mongers are saying. I listen to what they say and believe something approximating the opposite.

At present, Sky News is busily massaging the public (though bludgeoning would be a better description) to accept the new would-be nuclear (Bush lingo) "terrist" enemy to be Pakistan. You can be sure that this new episode of public brain-washing comes ahead of a new Bush crusade against the terrists in Pakistan and the assassination of the dictator Musharraf by the CIA who will then conveniently blame it on 'Islamic fundamentalists.'

Just watch the thing as it develops.

Meantime, it seems that the demon Cheney has been foiled in an attempt to carry out an unannounced bombing of Iran with nuclear Cruise missiles. Thanks to the brave actions of some honourable folk in the US Military his murderous plan was thwarted just in time

See here

and here

and here

It's a miracle that the diabolic duo, Bush and Cheney, with their AIPAC minions haven't yet succeeded in attacking Iran but, at the end of the day, they are only the puppets of the big oil and gas company multinationals who aren't yet ready to kill the golden goose which lays their eggs. An excuse for a war in Pakistan, on the other hand, will extend the theatre of military actions from Afghanistan and give the Anglo-Saxon Alliance an excuse to expropriate that area of north-western Asia for at least the next decade.

Thus the neocons' Project for a New American Century will have been fullfilled. And, as usual, the warmongers who rule US foreign policy and the Anglo-Saxon Alliance are keeping all their options option.

Back here in Britain, it is all the more imperative that the maximum pressure possible is brought to ensure that Gordon Brown totally dissociates his country from a US attack on Iran and that he is persuaded to withdraw all British troops from not only Iraq but Afghanistan while preventing the US war-machine using British bases for its future global aggressions.

Britain simply has to stop behaving like a third-rate vassal-state banana republic pretending to play the nuclear imperial power it no longer is.

Les jeux de guerre Doomsday des USA continuent

Comme beaucoup de gens de nos jours je n'observe plus le télé pour apprendre des événements du monde. Le Net a vraiment exposé les vendeurs du propagande pour ce qu'ils sont vraiment, en Grande-Bretagne, ce menteur invétéré, la vieille tante fatigué, le BBC étant à la tête de la liste des plus mauvais contrevenants. En fait l’expression les « plus mauvais contrevenants » est aimable. Ils sont des « warmongers » et par conséquent des criminels de guerre.

Quand je voir la télévision pour un divertissement - je suis d'accord avec le journaliste britannique, John Pilger, c'est ce qui sont aujourd'hui les nouvelles des « mainstream media » ou MSM sont un divertissement - je l'observe par les megafilters les plus lourds de la discrimination et de la méfiance, voir juste ce que les machines de propagande indiquent. J'écoute ce qu'ils disent et croient quelque chose qui rapproche l'opposé.

Actuellement, les nouvelles de SKY massent le public (matraquer cependant serait une meilleure description) pour accepter le nouvel ennemi nucléaire potentiel de « terrist » pour être le Pakistan. Vous pouvez être sûr que ce nouvel épisode de public soumettant à un lavage de cerveau vient en avant d'une nouvelle croisade de Bush contre ses terrists (sic) au Pakistan et de l'assassinat du dictateur Musharraf par la CIA qui le blâmera alors commodément sur « les fondamentalistes islamiques. »

Montre juste la chose comme elle se développe.

En attendant, il semble que le démon Cheney a été contrecarré afin d'essayer d'effectuer un bombardement inattendu de l'Iran avec les missiles nucléaires de Cruise. Grâce aux actions braves de quelques gens honorables dans les militaires des USA son plan meurtrier a été contrecarrée juste à temps

Voyez ici

et ici

et ici

C'est un miracle que le duo diabolique, Bush et Cheney, avec leurs subordonnés d'AIPAC n'ont pas encore réussi à attaquer l'Iran mais, à la fin du jour, ils sont seulement les marionnettes des grandes multinationales de compagnie de pétrole et de gaz qui ne sont pas encore prêtes à tuer l'oie qui pond leurs oeufs d’or. Une excuse pour une guerre au Pakistan, d'une part, prolongera le théâtre des actions militaires d'Afghanistan et donnera à l'alliance d'Anglo-Saxon une excuse pour exproprier cette région de l'Asie du nord-ouest pour au moins la décennie suivante.

Ainsi le projet des neocons pendant un nouveau siècle américain aura été accompli. Et, comme d'habitude, les warmongers qui règnent la politique étrangère des USA et l'alliance d'Anglo-Saxon gardent toute leurs options.

Ici en Grande-Bretagne, il est plus impératif que la pression maximum possible soit apportée pour s'assurer que Gordon Brown dissocie totalement son pays d'une attaque des USA sur l'Iran et qu'il est persuadé de retirer toutes les troupes britanniques non seulement d'Irak mais d'Afghanistan tout en empêchant la machine-de-guerre des USA en utilisant les bases britanniques pour ses futures agressions globales.

La Grande-Bretagne simplement doit cesser de se comporter comme une république de banane et d'état de vassal de troisième-taux feignant pour jouer la puissance impériale nucléaire qu'elle n'est plus.

Staging Nukes for Iran?

*********

Cet article est maintenant à la Nouvelle civilisation sur Wordpress

What an attack on Iran really means: Gwynne Dyer’s Secret

Chycho.com

Gwynne Dyer is probably one of the most respected military analysts in the world. His book “War” and the accompanying TV series solidified his place in history as a prolific writer and communicator. He can state the obvious insanity of the proliferation of the war in a manner that can be understood even by the least among us.

One of his recent pieces, Bush's hawks size up Iran, outlines a scenario of possible events that will transpire if the United States attacks Iran. I can only assume that since Mr. Dyer’s commentaries are syndicated to so many newspapers around the world, he is restricted by space, and limited to a certain number of words. This allows him to describe only the minimum consequences of certain conflicts. In this article especially, he happens to describe the best case scenario that one could envision: A catastrophic global economic collapse that will force the United States to halt its bombardment of Iran. The end result of which would be that the “US would suffer a far greater humiliation than it did in Vietnam, while Iran would emerge as the undisputed arbiter of the region”.

To meet his editorial guidelines and save space, what Mr. Dyer must have left on the cutting room floor are the following:

1. The boundaries that we see on world maps marking the territories of countries are just what we see: lines on a piece of paper. Iranians are not confined to lines drawn by European powers decades ago. Iranians live not only in Iran but also, en masse, in all the countries in the region. Certain parts of Iran’s neighbors even speak dialects of Farsi. So if the United States bombs Iran, since there is no way they have any intentions of invading, they would be declaring war on parts of every country surrounding Iran. This would mean that the United States would be at war with every country in the region since civil war would breakout in all the US installed puppet regimes. This could explain why the United States has created a a new map of the Middle East.
2. Not only are Iranians spread out in the region, they are also living, en masse, in the rest of the world. The Iranian Diaspora Population map shows that approximately 2.5 million live in the US alone, 700,000 in the Canada, 300,000 in the UK, and 2 million in India. If a war breakouts between the US and Iran then what transpired with the internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians during World War II will become a distant memory and a travesty that will be repeated. Unfortunately it appears that the United States is prepared for this scenario, since it has already built 800 FEMA prison camps which are fully operational and ready to receive prisoners.
3. Mr. Dyer goes on to state that Iran could stop exporting oil and/or “get tough and close down all oil-tanker traffic that comes within range of (its) missiles–which would mean little or no oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or the smaller Gulf states”. This is a very likely scenario, but what exactly does this “global oil rationing, industrial shutdowns, and the end of the present economic era” mean? One way to fully understand the impact of such an event is to look at Africa. The population of Africa at the present is approximately 1 billion. According to a recent presentation at a United Nations conference, it is estimated that “nearly 75% of the continent could come to rely on some sort of food aid by 2025”. If there is “global oil rationing” then it is safe to assume that feeding Africans would become a low priority operation for the rest of the world. This would mean that 750 million people could starve to death in Africa.
4. Just to put things into perspective, making sure that it is fully understood what the impact of an attack on Iran really means, consider this. The United States has already stated that they will use nuclear weapons in an aerial bombardment campaign against Iran. Since the creation of the atomic bomb, it has been accepted that once nuclear weapons are used again in any war, then they will continue to be used until there is no one left to kill. As the saying goes, you do not bring a knife to a gunfight, so once a nuclear weapon has been used on any country then that country and its people have a right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation. Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. I personally hope that we will not fulfil Einstein’s prophecy.

After reading countless articles by Mr. Dyer, I now finally understand how he has been able to educate so many people over the years. He presents an optimistic point of view, making his work accessible to the majority.

Gwynne Dyer’s commentary on Iran was not meant to let us know how many people would die if the US attacked Iran, it was meant to let us know who would win. He predicts that Iran would end up being the victor. However, considering that hundreds of millions of people would actually die if the US starts a war with Iran, my conclusion is that no one would be the winner of such a conflict.

So even though Mr. Dyer’s secret appears to be his optimistic analysis of the final outcome of conflicts between warring nations, I do not believe hoping for the best case scenario will manifest the least amount of death and destruction.

Related Articles
• Noam Chomsky warns of possible “terminal nuclear war”
• Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
• The Iran Plans
• US Attack on Iran Imminent
• Degrees of Separation, the Numbers Game, and How to Bring Peace to the World

Anglo-Saxon Alliance Preparing to Attack Iran?

This latest comment needs maximum publicity. It looks like Britain's armed forces are on High Alert, most likely in preparation for Bush's attack on Iran

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post " The War Criminal in the Living Room by Paul C...":

Going through Oxfordshire, yesterday, there was a considerable amount of military aircraft, flying to and from Brize Norton.

Returning from the frozen north today, though the hills near Beatock, the Hawke trainers, were buzzing through the valley, below the motorway. I haven't seen them doing that in years.

Maitreya

The War Criminal in the Living Room by Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, September 3, 2007

informationclearinghouse.info - 2007-08-31

The media is silent, Congress is absent, and Americans are distracted as George W. Bush openly prepares aggression against Iran. US Navy aircraft carrier strike forces are deployed off Iran. US Air Force jets and missile systems are deployed in bases in countries bordering or near to Iran. US B-2 stealth bombers have been refitted to carry 30,000 pound "bunker buster" bombs. The US government is financing terrorist and separatist groups within Iran. US Special Forces teams are conducting terrorist operations inside Iran. US war doctrine has been altered to permit first strike nuclear attack on Iran and other non-nuclear countries. Bush's war threats against Iran have intensified during the course of this year. The American people are being fed a repeat of the lies used to justify naked aggression against Iraq. Bush is too self-righteous to see the dark humor in his denunciations of Iran for threatening "the security of nations everywhere" and of the Iraqi resistance for "a vision that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power." Those are precisely the words that most of the world applies to Bush and his Brownshirt administration. The Pew Foundation's world polls show that despite all the American and Israeli propaganda against Iran, the US and Israel are regarded as no less threats to world stability than demonized Iran. Bush has discarded habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, justified torture and secret trials, damned critics as anti-American, and is responsible, according to Information Clearing House, for over one million deaths of Iraqi civilians, which puts Bush high on the list of mass murderers of all time. The vast majority of "kills" by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians. Now Bush wants to murder more. We have to kill Iranians "over there," Bush says, "before they come over here." There is no possibility that Iranians or any Muslims who have no air force, no navy, no modern military technology are going to "come over here," and no indication that they plan to do so. The Muslims are disunited and have been for centuries. That is what makes them vulnerable to colonial rule. If Muslims were united, the US would already have lost its army in Iraq. Indeed, it would not have been able to put an army in Iraq. Meanwhile the US media focuses on whether Republican Senator Larry Craig is a homosexual or has offended gays by denying to be one of them. The run-up for the public's attention is why a South Carolina beauty queen cannot answer a simple question about why her generation is unable to find the United States on a map. The war criminal is in the living room, and no official notice is taken of the fact. Lacking US troops with which to invade Iran, the Bush administration has decided to bomb Iran "back into the stone age." Punishing air and missile attacks have been designed not merely to destroy Iran's nuclear energy projects, but also to destroy the public infrastructure, the economy, and the ability of the government to function. Encouraged by the indifference of both the American media and Christian churches to the massive casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians, the Bush administration will not be deterred by the prospect of its air attacks inflicting massive casualties on Iranian civilians. Last summer the Bush administration demonstrated to the entire world its total disdain for Muslim life when Bush supported Israel's month-long air attack on Lebanese civilian infrastructure and civilian residences. President Bush blocked the attempt by the rest of the world to halt the gratuitous murder of Lebanese civilians and infrastructure destruction. Clearly, turning the Muslim Middle East into a wasteland is the Bush policy. For Bush, civilian casualties are a non-issue. Hegemony uber alles. The Bush administration has made its war plans for attacking Iraq and positioned its forces without any prior approval from Congress. The "unitary executive" obviously doesn't believe that an attack on Iran requires the approval of Congress. By its absence and quietude, Congress seems to agree that it has no role in the decision. In the improbable event that Congress were to make any fuss about Bush's decision to attack yet another country, the State Department has devised legalistic cover: simply declare Iran's military to be a "terrorist organization" and go to war under the cover of the existing resolution. The "Iran issue" has been created by the Bush administration, not by Iran. Iran, like many other countries, has a nuclear energy program to which it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The Bush administration has brushed away this fact, which should be determining, just as the Bush administration brushed away the fact that weapons inspectors reported, prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administration managed to disrupt the work of the pesky IAEA weapons inspectors in Iran. Iran has been working successfully with the IAEA and has achieved what a senior IAEA official recently described as a milestone agreement. The Bush administration instantly went to work to discredit the agreement and unleashed its new lapdog, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to threaten "the bombing of Iran." The Bush administration's position is legally untenable and is really nothing but a contrived excuse to start another war. Bush claims that Iran, alone among all the signatories of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, must be denied its right under the pact to develop nuclear energy, because Iran, along among all the other signatories, will be the only country able to deceive the IAEA inspectors and develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, Iran must be denied its rights under the agreement. Bush's position on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is as legally untenable as his position on every other issue--the Geneva Conventions, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, habeas corpus, the constitutional separation of powers, and presidential signing statements that he cavalierly attaches to new laws in order to override the legislative power of Congress. Bush's position is that the meaning of laws and treaties varies with his needs of the moment. Bush has declared himself to be the "decider." The "decider" decides whether Americans have any rights under the Constitution and whether Iran has any rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As the "decider" has decided that Iran has no such rights, the "decider" decides whether to attack Iran. No one else has any say about it. The people's representatives are just so much chaff in the wind. Whatever form of government Bush is operating under, it is far outside an accountable constitutional democratic government. Bush has transitioned America to caesarism, and even if Bush leaves office in January 2009, the powers he has accumulated in the executive will remain. Unless Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, there is no prospect of the US Congress and federal judiciary ever again being co-equal branches of government. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of the National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts from Global Research

USUK now in Perpetual World War

Get used to it. The USUK is now in perpetual World War.

If the MSM's endless chatter about whether or not or when troop withdrawals might take place in Iraq and Afghanistan is to be believed the idea is that troop withdrawals will take place sooner or later.

Reality Check: don't believe a word of it.

Why should you when they don't, pumping out interminable spin as they do, processed and fed them by the Bush and Blair governments?

The reality is that USUK troops are going to be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for decades.

Permanently.

A recent MoD paper, reported in The Telegraph, in the UK talks about five years:

Britain's "overstretched" armed forces will fight in Iraq for at least another five years ... troops will be serving on operations in the Gulf until at least 2012.

The contents of the document, distributed last month, appear to be in marked contrast to a statement made by Tony Blair in February giving the impression that British troops would remain in Iraq for less than two years. He said: "The UK military presence will continue into 2008". Mr Blair told the Commons: "Increasingly our role will be support and training, and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly."

Patrick Mercer, a former infantry colonel and former Tory homeland security spokesman, said: "The reality is that many troops will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future and continue to take casualties."

Senior commanders also revealed the number of troops committed to Afghanistan is likely to increase over the next two years.

In a recent report, A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War, on US National Public Radio, broadcaster Ted Koppel stated:

"Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senior military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty."

"In a recent interview with the New York Times," Koppel continues, "Senator Clinton emphasized that there are remaining vital national security issues [clearly oil] in Iraq and that these would require a continuing deployment of American troops."

"She didn't, in that interview, give any sense of how long U.S. forces might remain in Iraq during a Clinton administration."

And to an old military friend of Koppel's Clinton revealed how, were she to be elected and then re-elected, "she would still expect U.S. forces to be in Iraq at the end of a second term."

"When, oh when," Koppel despairs, "is that deadly serious issue going to become the topic of an equally serious and candid discussion? When, in other words, will we get the brutal truth in place of vapid and misleading campaign applause lines?"

Well, the brutal truth is finally seeping out, proving that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was, all along, to capture and occupy areas of strategic and economic importance to the U.S. led multinational corporations: oil and gas.

Now we have a ruling class toff, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles would you believe, the new UK Ambassador to Afghanistan, telling the ever servile Huw Edwards of BBC News 24 that the British will have to remain in Afghanistan for "a long time ... we should be thinking in terms of decades."

On being questioned why the British are building a huge new embassy in Kabul (as are the Americans in Baghdad) Sir Sherard admitted that "strategic interests" required it.

"Ministers realize we are here for the long haul."

All this fits in perfectly with the neocons' Blueprint for a New American Century which calls for geopolitical wars to seize and occupy areas of the world containing minerals and resources vital to the U.S. 'security (read corporate capitalist) interests.' It is also why U.S. generals have been telling their troops for some time now to get used to the idea of long, generational and endless wars.

And why our societies are being totalitarianized. No way out: this really is Armageddon.

Empire of Oil: the Hidden History of 911

This story now at Bellaciao and OpEdNews

USUK Preparations for the Apocalypse?

In an inexorable build-up of propaganda and military encirclement prior to a first strike attack on Iran, the Bush junta, along with its London quislings, have switched their anti-Iranian propaganda from nuclear issues to accuse the Iranian government of "meddling" in Iraq and supplying Iraqi guerillas weapons with which to fight the US and British occupying troops.

The evidence for such allegations was always sketchy and reminiscent of the concocted lies about Yellowcake Uranium and WMDs, used by Bush and Blair to drag their people into a genocidal war crime against a much weaker country.

Now, an independent research organization, the British American Security Information Council, has produced its own report on the alleged involvement of Iran in Iraq.

"Whatever the true extent and nature of Iranian military action in Iraq," the report concludes, "few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."

Instead, the report suggests that "other, more strategic motives also lie behind the considerable US political energy being expended on highlighting the Iranian role in Iraq. Iran may present a useful scapegoat to divert the blame for failures in Iraq away from the occupying powers."

"Recent allegations must also be considered in the context of the current crisis surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. If Tehran can be cast as a source ofregional instability in the eyes of the international community, then the US administration’s hand will be strengthened as it seeks support for stronger measures to oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions."

"In particular, should the administration decide to embark on a military strike – an option which it says is still ‘on the table’ – then garnering public and political support in advance would be vital. Without it, the global unpopularity for military action would likely greatly exceed the opposition to the invasion of Iraq."

Download the Pdf Report here

Meanwhile, in an extremely disturbing statement, John Reid, the UK's Home Secretary (Minister of the Interior) has threatened to implement emergency powers in order to derogate Britain's obligation to uphold the European Convention of Human Rights. If emergency powers were to be implemented as an excuse to extend the fake "war on terror" then Britain will, to all intents and purposes, become a naked dictatorship. And even if bully-boy Reid's stepping-down from office in late June were to put such a threat on the back-burner it is more than likely that his successor would continue with such a policy.

Derogation of the European Convention on the basis that there is an emergency threat would need the approval of both Houses of Parliament. But that would be a mere issue of technicalities to a dangerously Manichaean, Blair-Brown regime which, as before, would simply organize yet another Black Op crime against its people in order to plunge the country into a full blown totalitarian state prior to further domestic or international crises such as an apocalyptic nuclear attack on Iran.

I believe it is extremely significant that moves by Blair and Reid to steer Britain into a state of permanent emergency and dictatorship is happening at the very time when Bush is making similar moves in the USA. The two are taking place in coordination with each other as a transatlantic conspiracy to finally do away with so-called liberal democracy. And it is the chief players, the US and the UK, in the Anglo-Saxon alliance of 21st century imperialism that are leading the world into this darkness.

This article is now at:

Bellaciao

Come Don Chisciotte

Global Research, Ca

OpEd News. Com

Indymedia

Ziopedia.Org

US military encirclement of Iran

The Grauniad: An Unlimited Conduit for USUK's War Propaganda

Fed up of the garbage with which their mainstream media force-feeds them, North American as well as readers all over the world have turned to newspapers like the UK's Guardian in the hope of finding informed, intelligent reporting of world events. They will be disappointed. Today's Guardian is as much part of an Orwellian, Atlanticist, warmongering propaganda campaign as is the disgraceful New York Times.

Far from being the 'socialist' newspaper that our American cousins believe it to be, the Guardian has all along played an enthusiastic role in promoting the Bushblair war party's war crimes against the people of Iraq. Without admitting to it, and through its uneasy relationship with Blairism, it has moved away from Trilateralism to become, de facto, a promoter of the neocon worldview and its Blueprint for a New American Century.

Along with the rest of the western mainstream media (MSM) the quality of its reportage, now so dependent on 'embedded journalism', has taken a revolting downward lurch. A lurch made all the more disastrous since the appointment of a pimpish US government mouthpiece, Simon Tisdall, as its deputy editor.

British journalism has long been infiltrated by the intelligence services with newspapers like the Telegraph and its notorious Con Coughlin known to be MI5 stooges. Whether or not Tisdall is yet another is not certain but he certainly likes to play the cheerleader for US foreign policy on issues like the Iraq occupation and its anti-Chavism.

His latest piece of disinformation on Iraq, supplied him as the article repeatedly suggests by US "official sources", is not only full of nonsensical contradictions but the kind of blatant propaganda that could only have come straight out of Dick Cheney's Iran Policy Committee.

'Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq', begins with the hysterical allegation that, "Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say."

Note the last three words, "US officials say", which are to be found sprayed across the rest of this tripe. Any journalist who uses language such as "al-Qaida elements" without questioning the highly dubious CIA origins of the nebulous Al Qaeda is either naive in extremis or a fully fledged disinformer. Iran is a nation of Shiites who are no friends of the Sunnis. To suggest now that Iran is backing its mortal enemy takes us into a world so full of convoluted logic we could easily drown. Another classic ploy of the disinformer.

Iran expert and academic, Juan Cole, comments despairingly on his blog, "I suppose I have to link to this silly article by poor Simon Tisdall in of all places, The Guardian, whom someone is using to push a sinister agenda. Yes, its sources are looney in positing a coming offensive jointly sponsored by Iran, the Mahdi Army and al-Qaeda."

He continues, "At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it. And, it claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are shelling the Green Zone."

"The parliament building that was hit to day by such shelling is dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its paramilitary, the Badr Organization. Who trained Badr? The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are trying to hit their own guys . . . why?"

" It really is discouraging that Tisdall didn't report instead on what crazy things the US military spokesmen in Iraq told him. US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?"

Somebody should have warned Juan Cole that the Guardian is no longer the respected journal it was traditionally considered to be. But Cole's incredulity is common enough among North Americans who, it appears, haven't quite woken up to smell the Guardian's new, more bellicose brand of coffee. British readers are already more cynical:

"Not sure whether Tisdall has any intelligence links, and it doesn't matter if he has, but this looks very similar to the sort of material produced by Con Coughlin over at the Telegraph, and perhaps suggests that 'officials' and 'intelligence sources' are looking for other outlets now that Coughlin has been investigated twice for reporting spurious and unverifiable claims from the same type of sources in the past."

"This does look like a deliberately constructed story concocted through anonymous sources which provides a picture of the situation in the region that serves the purposes of the US and UK government perfectly."

"Tisdall's article blames Iran for the problems in the region and sets it up as the likely cause for any worsening of the confict in the summer, if that were even possible. This is justified solely by anonymous US government sources. The thrust of the article clearly serves the US government without any evidence."

"This is truly dreadful journalism."

Looks like a Placed Story!

"It would be laughable if it was not so malignant. That is, the absurd idea that Iran is preparing for a military "showdown" with coalition forces."

"The Guardian seems to be directly acting as an agent of US propaganda. Is this to prepare public opinion for a US attack on Iran?"

Re: war pimp Simon Tisdall serving up propaganda

"Exactly as it was intended:

“the labelling of news in some way as “official” (“Dublin Castle”, “GHQ”, etc) is the essence of the whole thing; the whole system of propaganda by news hangs on it. For by virtue of that label our news gets monopoly value, a sort of hall-mark or copyright. It is that hall-mark which gives to the news (in the eyes of the newspapers if not in the eyes of the readers) a news value so high that they cannot afford to be without it. Take away that hall-mark and you ruin the whole business.”

Re: Daily Telegraph playing the same game

"Merely repeating what unnamed US sources say, however outlandish, is what I'd expect from the Sun, not a proper newspaper. Shame on you - at this time more than ever we need journalists willing to fight the culture of spin and lies, before Brown turns into Blair Two."

WTF is going on at the Guardian?

Faced with a barrage of hostile criticism, the Guardian editors clearly panicked and put out an explanation stating that Tisdall had never been approached by US officials. Instead, it was he who had sought their views. That's all right then, so clearly this doesn't make him a stooge of US military propaganda! Further correspondence by email I had with the Guardian's Assistant Editor, Michael White, drew a series of hysterically defensive replies suggesting that the newspaper's editors are now well dug into their bunkers and suffering from severe shell shock.

Their latest PR attempt by the newspaper prompted this:

"Tisdall: please! please! give me a scoop, any scoop, I'll print anything you say, my editors assure me it will be on the front page, Cockburn over at the Independent just had a big scoop about the US trying to trap Sadr, and Fisk is an eyewitness to what's happening in Lebanon. I need something, we need something, quick. Anything you say we'll print, we won't ask for sources, we won't ask for any of those pesky anti americans to respond, you'll have the field to yourself."

"Unnamed US official: hmmm, your kneel is very convincing Tisdall, perhaps we can do business. But don't you think begging is a bit undignified for the independent fourth estate?"

"Tisdall: Oh, I was just down here looking for my integrity on the palace floor. You know, we could reprint the news from Jan 2003, change the names, dress it up with a headline and spread it over the front page and people would swallow it like honey. never underestimate the gullibility of the public."

"Unnamed US official: or the servility of journalists!"

How groveling of Mr. Tisdall!

Clearly, the purpose of this blatant piece of embedded journalism is to provide the Guardian's chattering classes with a drip-feed of US military propaganda meant to justify Bush's 'Surge Policy' and doubling of occupation troops. It is not Bush's intention or that of his London quislings, Blair and Brown, to withdraw their troops from Iraq. They plan to stay there for an awful long time to come.

And given Bush's domestic weakness it is quite possible that an outright first strike military onslaught on Iran might have been postponed. But that will not stop an ongoing build-up of US military forces in the Gulf and surrounding area which already encircles and threatens Iran. And now Bush has authorized a "CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions." The objective of all this fits in neatly with the neocon Blueprint whose purpose is to capture and occupy the Middle East as on oil producer solely to feed a greedy US appetite.

The greater number of guerilla attacks taking place in Iraq, it is now admitted, are being made against the Coalition occupiers and not on civilians (see GAO Report graph on p.39, Pdf). But you won't find that in the Guardian or anywhere else in the MSM. What you will find is the endless reporting of so-called terrorist attacks.

By using undercover terrorists to wreak havoc and terror, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, it is the long-term intention of the Bush regime and its European quislings --the latter comprised mainly of Brits-- to balkanize the entire area into a region of warring fiefdoms entirely under their control ... a major theatre of the many resource wars we can expect capital to enact during the coming years. And the CIA can expect to further enrich itself, as it has done in Afghanistan, on the rapid increase of opium poppy cultivation in Iraq.

All of this is being actively supported by the banana republic 'journalism' of the likes of Tisdall and the Guardian. Readers are encouraged to remind the Guardian's editors that a suitable definition of Tisdall's embedded propaganda is to be found in the candid observation of Sir Christopher Meyer, ex-UK Ambassador in Washington, who reminds us that the purpose of British foreign policy is to get as far up the arse of the US and to stay there.

**********

Listen here to Tisdall's clumsy attempt to justify himself

Condemnations of Tisdall's garbage article may be sent to

simon.tisdall@guardian.co.uk
alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
michael.white@guardian.co.uk

MEDIALENS ALERT: PENTAGON PROPAGANDA OCCUPIES THE GUARDIAN'S FRONT PAGE

Read it here

The BBC's Neocon Propaganda War

The BBC's approach to war and world affairs is, first and foremost, a reflection of the British puppet state's viewpoint. It is questionable that the BBC was ever an independent organization. But, along with the widespread damage to civil and judicial freedoms caused by the noxious Blair de facto dictatorship, the BBC's reputation has dropped to an all-time low of news-whoring.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am constantly warning them that the Mainstream Media (MSM) in both the US and the UK --or USUK for convenience-- is deliberately fuelling speculations that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and that, for this reason, the US and possibly Israel might carry out a 'preemptive' attack on that country.

The BBC's approach amounts to blatant warmongering. No amount of complaints appear to make the slightest bit of difference. Financed by a compulsory tax in the form of a licence fee, payable by anyone owning a television receiver in the UK, the BBC has huge resources to hand and is a major international satellite broadcaster.

BBC 24 News is received across the planet and many viewers mistakenly believe that it practises a balanced reportage. This is nothing more than a myth which the BBC is, itself, responsible for having perpetuated. The reality is that, particularly under the oppressive Blair regime, the BBC has become a servile tool for the broadcasting of USUK war propaganda.

This was reflected some time ago in comments made by Professor Professor Geir Lundestad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel committee, when he observed that "media organisations could receive the Nobel peace prize in future."

Prof Lundestad mentioned several contenders, such as CNN, the New York Times, Le Monde and El País.

However, he made a notable exception of the BBC. "Some years ago, the BBC would have been an obvious candidate because it was the international model for news organisations. Nowadays, it is more debatable." He added: "We all know about the problems the BBC has had in recent years," without elaborating.

(The Guardian, 7 October 2006)

What he wouldn't elaborate on was the manner in which Tony Blair had fired the then BBC Director, Greg Dyke, for his daring to criticize Blair on the Irak War and the --to say the least-- dubious circumstances surrounding the 'suicide' of the ex-IAEA inspector, Dr David Kelly, who was scapegoated by the Blair regime.

Ever since Dyke's 'resignation' (he was fired on Blair's instructions) the BBC has taken an extreme lurch to the neocon right and the promotion of the Bush-Cheney-Blair-Zionist war party. Greg Dyke was replaced by a leading zionist, Michael Grade.

Two recent instances of the BBC's highly propagandistic news coverage has been its anti-Chávez reportage on Venezuela and a complete news-blackout on the arrest and trial of two members of the neo-nazi British National Party who were caught with what was reported locally as the largest weapons-haul ever made by the British police.

Not to be unfair, that news-blackout affected the entire British MSM and appears to have been at the behest of Blair.

The above are just two instances taken at random. The actual list of the BBC's right-wing bias would be unending.

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING!

The BBC is preparing Britain and the rest of the world for US military aggression on Iran. Ever since Bush started his vicious propaganda campaign against Iran, the BBC has meekly followed suit. No doubt, on Blair's insistence.

Just last night on its News 24 programme it screamed out that the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) had 'leaked' a document proving that Iran was 'secretly developing weapons-grade' fissile material. It conspicuously failed to say anything more about this document so I conducted my own search and found this Reuters press release.

Can anyone find any evidence here that the IAEA is warning of Iranian nuclear weapons development? The Reuters/Yahoo article goes on to make the customary speculations but evidence there is none.

That didn't stop the BBC in its headlong rush to serve its neocon bosses in Downing Street and Washington, DC. Not only is the BBC sure that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb but that it threatens the continued existence of that famously peaceable nation, Israel, with the nasty terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, provocatively flying its flags along the Israel-Lebanon frontier.

The BBC then interviewed several Israeli 'experts' who, naturally, spoke in the most objective manner of how Israel was victim to threats from Iran and why a 'pre-emptive' attack against its nuclear reactors would, therefore, be the most sensible thing to do.

Of course, no mention was made by the BBC's jejune reporter, Matthew Price, of the terrible radioactive aftermath to which such an attack would lead, making Chernobyl pale into significance, or the even greater holocaust of a US-led attack using so-called 'low-yield' tactical nuclear weapons.

To get things into perspective, these 'low-yield' tactical nukes are capable of anything between a third to six times the destruction caused by the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs. The US Military now considers this level of destruction to be "acceptable." And so does the BBC apparently which keeps its lips sealed about the US nuclear option.

The BBC has, so far, failed to report on another significant statement from Iran that that country is reluctant to exit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it, unlike Israel, is a signatory.

So much for its 'balanced' reporting.

The BBC's approach to war and world affairs is, first and foremost, a reflection of the British puppet state's viewpoint. It is questionable that the BBC was ever an independent organization. But, along with the widespread damage to civil and judicial freedoms caused by the noxious Blair de facto dictatorship, the BBC's reputation has dropped to an all-time low of news-whoring.

Does it care? I doubt it. It and its employees now see themselves sliding down the slippery slope to privatization so, in the meantime, will do anything to ingratiate themselves with Britain's rulers. It's a very sad day when a well-known British dissident (himself a victim of Blair's tyranny), ex-Ambassador Craig Murray, admits to better treatment from Rupert Murdoch's SKY News than from the BBC.

Those in Britain who are concerned at the rapidity their country is being turned into a police state should, without any further delay, launch a popular campaign to expose the BBC's dirty warmongering. A vital part of such a campaign should be the promotion of a countrywide non-payment of the annual licence fee, the BBC's life-blood.

The BBC should also be subject to a mass letter-writing campaign in which it is warned that it and its employees would be held to be war criminals for their further promotion of illegal military occupations by the USUK and for their gleeful promotion of a possible upcoming war against Iran.

"Looking from the side."

It takes an Ozzie mainstream journalist in Britain to have the courage to warn us that Blair is conniving with the Bushistas to drag the West into an even more horrific holocaust in the Middle East: this time in Iran.

"We are being led towards perhaps the most serious crisis in modern history as the Bush-Cheney-Blair 'long war' edges closer to Iran for no reason other than that nation’s independence from rapacious America."

He uses a phrase, "looking from the side", used by a concentration-camp survivor describing how other Germans would stand and look as the victims were marched from cattle-trucks into the Bergen-Belsen camp. The phrase and the context in which Pilger uses it in his recent article, 'Iran May be the Greatest Crisis in Modern Times,' drives home what remains unsaid: we are all now living in a kind of open prison gulag managed by the Bush-Cheney-Blair troika. We are all being dragged into a hell on earth which these three are largely reponsible for having created. We find ourselves disempowered in the hands of these psychotic mass-murderers and their quislings in the mainstream media (MSM)

Perhaps that's how those Germans felt who 'looked from the side' as Hitler's victims were marched to their deaths? Very likely they must have done but the comparison must end there: those Germans lived under a perpetual state-of-terror where no one dared to oppose the Nazis. Only a few individuals like Martin Niemoeller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and small groups like die Weisse Rose (White Rose), the Edelweisspiraten (Edelweiss Pirates) and the Widerstand (German Resistance Movement) dared to resist Hitler during the darkest times.

To oppose the Nazis meant certain death. Those Wehrmacht generals who failed to assassinate Hitler were tortured and hanged with piano-wire on meathooks while the whole grisly affair was filmed for the Fuehrer's edification and entertainment. Germans lived in conditions of utter terror.

We, in the Anglo-Saxon world, do not. At least, not yet. The wholesale destruction of our freedoms and human rights by the Bushes, the Blairs and the Howards has not spread so far. But you only have to look behind what Pilger calls a 'one-way moral screen' to see how others have been and are already living under conditions of sheer terror brought to them exclusively by the Bush-Cheney-Blair troika: a troika of war criminals hiding in expensive suits, their bodylite armour-proof vests neatly hidden as they swagger about before a compliant MSM.

Who in the media, other than the honourable few like Pilger, would dare to describe this troika as the war criminals they are in the real world? Who in the MSM has questioned Bush's legitimate right to a presidency he stole twice from the American people with a little bit of help from a bent judiciary and fixed electronic voting? Or the fact that Blair was elected to power by no more than 20% of those qualified to vote?

Today, the MSM in both the United States and Britain are guilty of the same silence practised by their erstwhile counterparts in the German press when Hitler set fire to the Reichstag and used his thugs at the ballot-boxes in 1933. Despite the overwhelming evidence that points to 911 having been an inside-job very few in the pan-Atlantic MSM dare say so. Despite Blair's refusal to allow an independent enquiry into the highly dubious circumstances around the 7/7 bombings the MSM stay silent, choosing rather to exercise a racist mindset of putting the blame on 'Muslim terrorists.'

The MSM know full well that the Bush-Cheney-Blair troika are planning to extend their 'endless war' in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran. They know that its infernal Coalition already encircles Iran militarily and that the Cruise missiles could be fired-off at any moment. They know that when they are launched that some of the targets will be Iran's nuclear reactors which when blown-up will emit huge, radioactive clouds all over the Middle East, paling Chernobyl into insignificance. The MSM know what the blogosphere knows: that the US may decide to 'enhance' their conventional aerial strike by augmenting it with so-called tactical nuclear weapons, each with a yield of anything between one-third to six times that of Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

The pan-Atlantic MSM knows all this. "And yet there is a surreal silence, save for the noise of 'news' in which our powerful broadcasters gesture cryptically at the obvious but dare not make sense of it, lest the one-way moral screen erected between us and the consequences of an imperial foreign policy collapse and the truth be revealed."

Pilger goes onto quote the psychotic, John 'Bonkers' Bolton, who "formerly Bush’s man at the United Nations, recently spelled out the truth: that the Bush-Cheney-Blair plan for the Middle East is 'an agenda to maintain division and ethnic tension'. In other words, bloodshed and chaos equals control. He was referring to Iraq, but he also meant Iran."

The USUK media knows it too but, being the amoral opportunists and cowards they are, remain silent. Only their colleagues in the Islamic world might more honestly describe the plight of their compatriots in this new, genocidal chapter of Anglo-American imperialism.

Lest we forget the past glories of Rex Britannicus, Pilger reminds us (being a colonial, like me, he would wouldn't he?):

"In Late Victorian Holocausts, the historian Mike Davis documents that as many as 21 million Indians died unnecessarily in famines criminally imposed by British colonial policies. Moreover, since the formal demise of that glorious imperium, declassified files make it clear that British governments have borne 'significant responsibility' for the direct or indirect deaths of between 8.6 million and 13.5 million people throughout the world from military interventions and at the hands of regimes strongly supported by Britain. The historian Mark Curtis calls these victims 'unpeople'."

"Rejoice! said Margaret Thatcher. Celebrate! says [Gordon] Brown. Spot the difference." So much for British values.

The 'values' that miserable little shit, Blair, used to deny the human rights of the Chagos Islanders who went to the courts, asking only for the return of their home in the Indian Ocean. A home from which they were forcibly expelled by the nazis in the British Foreign Office just because the Americans told the Brits they wanted the islands to build a forward attack base for their heavy bombers.

Diego Garcia, or 'Fantasy Island' as US service personnel call it will be used when the green light flashes for a nuclear blitzkrieg on Iran. Only Pilger, amongst the amassed numbers of Brit journalists, had the decency to first alert Britain to the plight of the Chagos islanders. Much of the rest of Britain stays silent, unaware of the criminal behaviour of their masters. Criminal behaviour in which, with hardly an exception, Britain's media are accomplices.

For it is they who, in the interests of their owners, have created an artificial bubble of unreality the MSM calls 'news-reporting', who actively help perpetuate the corporate state's new fascists' rule. Fascists like the Bush-Cheney-Blair troika. "Look behind the one-way moral screen and you will distinguish the Blairite elite by its loathing of the humane principles that mark a real democracy."

It is no accident that in this Unreality the MSM has become part of a privileged, much-needed 'apparat' without whose constant support the troika would collapse and without whom its killing sprees be brought to an immediate halt. It is no accident that the troika travel around in heavily armoured limos and are unreachable, through that same one-way screen, by ordinary folk. For they, like Stalin, live in constant fear of the people they dupe over and over again and whose lives they sacrifice in such numbers in their endless wars.

In fact, what we now have in the West is a pre-revolutionary state of disaffection and collective anger. A state which terrifies the shit out of the troika, its media lackeys and its military alike. A state of unrest which will not go away but, instead, will grow as the tectonic plates of perception between the haves in their Media-led world and the have-nots, silenced except for the internet and the blogosphere, pull ever wider apart.

Up until now, the diabolic troika have used war and their pretend "War on Terror" to control and distract the population. But they've been sussed. They stand exposed as the inhuman creatures they are, predators now preparing the world for Armageddon in Iran.

If we their victims --for sure as hell we'll all pay the price one way or another when the missiles start to fly-- cannot now awake out of the trance they have put us in and instead ignore the few warning voices that John Pilger represents, then we shall be no better than the Germans who 'looked from the side' as their Fuehrer drove them all to hell and the Goetterdammerung.