Tag Archives: Saddam Hussein

Syrians, Occupiers And The Propaganda Campaign

2 Replies

Whats the difference between Syrian protestors and the occupy movement? the answer is not much, there is no fundamental difference between the two, apart from the fact that one group is operating in an arab nation which is pro-iran and an enemy of the US, and the other is a group operating in the worlds foremost superpower the US, you see the reason the Syrian revolution is called a revolution while the occupiers are called lunatics is simple, its called propaganda, only propaganda can turn a complicated civil-war in Syria into a united revolution, and only propaganda can turn a movement of thousands of working people like Occupy into a movement of lunatics and rapists alcoholics

First lets look at Syria and how propaganda has turned a historical ethnic and religious divide into a spontaneous revolution of the people, Syria is a nation divided on tribal lines, now the country is being led by Bashar Al-Assad who hails from the Alawi religious/ethnic group, he came to power in 2000 after succeeding his father Havez Al-Assad who ruled for 29 years.

His father rose to power in the 70s and purged the Syrian Ba’ath party in order to effectively  have an Alawi ruled Syria, this understandably created tension among other tribes who had lost power and influence in Syria, so ever since then there has being political dissesnt and protest in Syria in order to overthrow the Alawis and install some other tribe to power, and the current Syrian uprising is just the continuation of such political dissent, it is not a revolution in the western sense, as in it is not a united people fighting to overthrow one regime to install a regime of equality, instead it is a civil-war where you have many ethnic and religious groups  fighting to gain power for their group.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    So how on earth do people in the west believe the Syrian uprising is a spontaneous revolution by a united people to gain freedom from a horrible government? it is simple, the reason western citizens believe such complete nonsense is because of propaganda, the west is the most propagandized place on earth and America is the most propagandized nation in modern history a lot more so than nazi germany. Through a media technique that arose in the 70s/80s and called the propaganda model, Americans have become completely under the influence of propaganda created by the elitists to dumb people down so that the élite sector can go about its darker activities without the fear of  public interest in what they do, for example in a 2006 Harris interactive poll 50% of americans polled believed Saddam had WMDs, another HI poll in 2006 said 64% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had strong links to al-Qaeda, one more recent example found that 22% of america actually believe Saddam planned 9/11.

How can so many people believe such obvious lies ? again it is mass propaganda that is conducted by profit-first news channels who all go along with what politicians and the business sector want them to say. The reason the west and mainly the US does not want its citizens knowing the truth about the history of these middle east uprisings is because it fears americans and westerners in general will become aware of the long and mostly brutal western political and business involvement in the political and social life of numerous MENA countries. so instead of the political and financial élite telling the truth of the arab uprisings instead what they do is get their media buddies to broadcast black and white propaganda that makes the civil-war in Syria out to be a spontaneous revolution, this technique of historical revisionism not only distracts the population at home from past american involvement but it also creates a surge of support for new american military activity in the MENA region, and of course western politicians love to jump at any chance they get to increase their influence over third world countries.

Now lets look at the occupy movement and how propaganda by a profit first media has turned a legitimate political movement of concerned young and old people into a movement of crackpot rapists. The answer to such a smear is that the US media and other privately owned profit first news channels in the west media have completely set out from the start to smear the Occupy movement, for the simple reason that the people who own and make a profit out of the corporate media are part of the 1% that the occupy movement is fighting against, they are part of the capitalist system that most occupiers oppose, they are the enemy of the occupiers so why would the enemy of the movement broadcast positive news coverage and information on it? it would be complete stupidity for mainstream news and financial institutions to support a movement that wants to overthrow the system they currently profit from. The élite in politics, media and business fear the population becoming aware of their activities and that’s why since the 50s they have conducted a propaganda campaign to misinform the public in order to pacify a natural tendency to revolt, and the current negative coverage and misinformation on the occupy movement is just another example of the establishment trying to tame as Noam Chomsky calls “the great beast”, the public.

You see the Occupy movement is a movement not of lunatic alcoholic crackpots, it is a movement of educated and concerned citizens that include factory workers, builders, students, professors, and people from all walks of life that are concerned about their children, their rights, their freedom, they are concerned about the victims of american policy, they are not lunatics but rational compassionate people, after all they have had highly regarded supporters and speakers from such fields as economics, political science, history philosophy and journalism, from Amy Goodman to Norman Finkelstein, Steve Keen and even Chomsky. How can a movement which gets support from such figures be ignored by the mainstream as lunatic? the answer again is propaganda, the establishment wont support it because if it does then the majority of hard-working people in the west will support it and this will eventually lead to a political shift in power and economics that will affect their own interests politically and financially so the obvious thing for these media elitists to do is smear the legitimate concerns of working people in order to uphold their own grip on power that would be destroyed if occupy got its way.

Remember the difference between Syrian protestors and occupy protestors, is that Syrians have western propaganda on their side while occupiers have it against them, and it is hell of a lot easier to overthrow a corrupt regime when you have such propaganda and military power on your side. The media should stop being hypocrites again by supporting Syrian and arab protestors while at the same time denouncing their own concerned citizens who have the courage and dedication to get out on the streets and protest against the greed and abuse of power by figures in the politics, finance and media and to rightfully oppose violations of their political and economic rights.We need to look past the obvious propaganda that is out to strip citizens of their right to protest and their right to truth, we need to be rational when looking at such situations because we all know if the occupy movement happened in an arab country then the US and Its media mouthpieces would be openly supporting it as a “democratic revolution by the ordinary people” its just when the revolution affects their interest that they don’t support it.

Thanks for reading

Author -Darren M

Related articles

Conservative America In Denial Of True Cause Of 9/11

1 Reply

Rumsfeld meets Saddam During Iraq/Iran war                                                                 

I am writing this article in response to the American conservative media, public and politicians who refuse to accept that blowback from American foreign policy in the middle east was the cause of 9/11 rather than their accepted lie that it is “Muslim fundamentalist angry at Americas freedom and prosperity”.

To conservatives in America who are highly nationalistic accepting they had responsibility in causing 9/11 is near blasphemous!

The reason i am writing this article is because was once again I was watching Hannity tonight when he was talking to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Sean was angry at the fact that the Iman said soon after 9/11 during a 60 minutes debate that Osama Bin Laden was “American made” because of the foreign policy of America in Muslim lands for the last 50 years.
Sean like all on the American right refuses and I say again absolutely refuses to even consider the idea that America the bigger evil.

The reality that conservatives refuse to accept, is that for 40+ years America has implemented a foreign policy in the Middle East that has resulted in the death of millions of Muslims, the robbery of their oil and gas resources by American corporations in conclusion with dictators, the plunging of generations of Muslims into abstain poverty and other inhuman effects of American policy.

I wont go on long about the beginning of american foreign policy in the M.E. But quickly I will state that During the 60, 70s and 80s American administrations conducted numerous wars and military operations into Muslim countries in Asia and the Middle east which resulted in such American policy like the support of dictators in these countries like that of Mubarak in Egypt or Ben-Ali in Tunisia or Abdullah Saleh in The Yemen.
By supporting such dictators America quickly became hated by the muslim public who were being oppressed by these dictator friends of the US.

Now let’s come up to date with the history that most people will be aware of, In the 1980s during the Iraq/Iran war, Donald Rumsfeld as the representative of America started selling Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and other military technology because at this time Saddam was a friend of America whilst Iran was the enemy since the 70s when the ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran after his movement overthrew the American backed shah of Iran, America also tried to sell weapons to the Iran contras to overthrow the Iranian government this became know as the Iran-contra affair.
Also during the war Iraq supported by America with weapons, committed the genocide of Iraq’s kurdish population leaving 185,000 people dead. In the Public arena the Regan Administration condemned these actions but in reality done nothing to prevent it and in fact is part responsible for it by selling the WMDs to Saddam.

Then in 1990 Iraq-American relations worsened with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait but not before giving Saddam the go ahead for the invasion in the first place, this invasion that America first supported led to another American led coalition invasion of Arab lands in what is known as the gulf war, this invasion although supported by Arab friends of America was disliked by the ordinary Arab citizen because to them it was just the US invading and killing Muslims again.

Staying on the Iraq, as we all know in 2003 after a long propaganda battle and refusal to accept international law America with its Cronies in the Financial markets and other countries being led by neo-con/liberal politicians illegally invaded Iraq and during a couple of days using it’s so-called tactic of “shock and awe” it managed to plunge Iraq back centuries, the shock and awe campaign involved dropping more bombs on Baghdad in a couple of days than was dropped during the whole of ww2.
During these few nights possibly 100,000+ people were killed it is still unclear exactly how many were murdered by American bombs.
Once America had turned Iraq to rubble it sent over Paul Bremer to lead the “reconstruction” of Iraq, the first thing done by Bremer done was to disband the Iraqi army which instantly left 500,000 militarily trained people unemployed and desperate to survive in this “new” Iraq, Bremer then outlawed the Baath party and made it illegal for former Baathists to be in politics, this resulted in Many former Baathists and unemployed soldiers setting up paramilitary in Iraq to fight the American invasion and destruction of their power but also their society these newly formed paramilitaries became what is now known as the “Iraqi insurgency”.
The fact of what happened to Iraq’s resources after the invasion is another reason for hatred of America in muslim lands, after the invasion, Iraq’s oil and gas was shipped out in the billions of barrels, by American corporations who were giving the oil contracts by Bush and Cheney, all the profits from these resources went straight back to the American treasury and American corporations, it did not go to the Iraqi government and people, something which the Iraqi people had expected would happen after the invasion.
This squandering of Iraq’s wealth and resources by “Western invaders” was greatly despised by the Iraqi population who after decades of misery under Saddam thought they would finally get a better life only to be plunged into, so far, a decade long life of poverty, war and desperation.

Another policy of the US that is greatly disliked by the Muslim world is the unrelenting support militarily, financially and politically the US has given to Israel.
As I wrote about before, America for over 30 years has backed Israels wars against the Muslim world because Israel is their number one client state. For years America has vetoed UN resolution 242 year after year which has stopped any attempt to bring peace and prosperity to the Palestinian people.
The US has supported, with weapons, money and words of support, Israels invasion and war against Lebanon through the decades, most recent being the Israeli war with Lebanon in 2006.
Plus the fact the US let’s Israel have Nuclear weapons illegally but invades Muslims countries when an attempt factually or not to acquire similar weapons. This lack of double standard towards Israel has, like most of American policy, caused a distrust from the Muslim world towards America.

Lastly let us look at Osama Bin Laden and why Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf was correct to say he was “american made”, Iman Feisal meant “American made” as in Osama Bin Laden was created as a response to bad American policy in the M.E.
I will go further and state it is a well-known fact that during the Soviet War In Afghanistan through the 70s and 80s. America supported Bin-Laden, Osama who was then  a young man from a wealthy Saudi family went to Afghanistan to fight and lead the mujahideen resistance against the Soviet army, and America through Zbigniew Brzezinski met him in Afghanistan to commit themselves to supporting Bin-Laden with weapons and money to defeat the Russians,. It is also well-known That during the 70s and right up till about 1989 Osama was on the payroll of the CIA this is a well-known fact, so when the Iman states Osama is “American made” he is correct twice over, first he’s American made because of bad policy and second he’s American made because of the support he received from the Whitehouse during his early fighting days.
I am not saying Osama worked for CIA during 2001 and that 9/11 was an inside job what I am saying is, that if it was not for America supporting him in his early days then he would never have being in a position to plan such a large-scale attack like 9/11
And also if America was not so brutal in their foreign policy towards the Middle East then 9/11 would not have happened, it is American foreign policy that caused a group of people to become so hateful as for them to commit such an attack.
Al-Qaeda isn’t against America because they are jealous of American freedom and wealth they are fighting America because of very bad American Policy which has literally killed millions of Muslims and Arabs in general !!

So I say once again Conservative America must come out of the closet of denial and accept the reality that America not only has responsibility for 9/11 but also that Osama Bin Laden is “American made” by means of past support and bad policy.

Thank you for reading

Author- Darren M

Related articles

Christopher Hitchens: From Radical To Charlatan

3 Replies

Caricature Of Hitchens Transformation

My  homage to Hitch.

It has being one month since the passing of atheistic gladiator and political charlatan Christopher Hitchens. For four decades Hitchens has being a figure of love and hate, starting off like myself, as a Trotskyite, on the far left of politics, he then evolved to become a cheerleading pompous of the the far right US neo-conservative movement, following the attacks of 9/11.

In this article I will give my opinions on Hitchens from my admiration and respect for him on his religious principles and intellectualism on theology to my absolute loathing of him for selling out his political principles of Marxism and becoming a right wing ego-maniac. I mean no offence to his memory but as Hitch done with Mother Teresa, I will not hold back from my views regardless of what other think. For that personality trait I thank Hitch for inspiring it in me.

When it comes to religion bashing there was no greater intellectual advocate than Hitch, A man of great wit and intelligence who could brush aside any argument of creationism or the defence of religion as easy as he could brush the dust from his old Marxist beret.I’ve watched numerous debates between Christopher Hitchens the numerous creationists he destroyed intellectually and I must say as an atheist it gave me  immense joy as I listened to the intellectual truism of Hitchens and his loathing for religion in all forms, I would hang on every word as he eloquently made his case of anti-theism. Hitch was never one to censor himself he was one who always and a great narcissistic trait of self promotion and attention which he done through his controversial words, especially with quotes like this on Mother Teresa  “Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. His controversial remarks on the death of Jerry Falwell and his bashing of Islam made him the leftist baby of the mainstream media, always ready to debate religion Hitch gave the world some memorable speeches, and by himself rattled the very foundation of the Western Christian church as he ploughed through every spokesman they flung at him.

On the beatification to sainthood of Mother Teresa the Catholic Church needed a Devil’s Advocate to argue against her being sainted, well there was only one man for that job, that’s right the Hitchmister, He famously played Devil’s advocate against her to which he described as being like “representing the Evil One, as it were pro bono”. 

When it came to debating religion Hitchens was the best in the “business” A man of great charisma, eloquence, wit, intelligence and fierce passion for this I respect and admire him and for this he will be greatly remembered for generations to come and his books will continue to sell like he wanted.

Now here is why I call him a political charlatan(for which he is), From the early 60s till the mid 90s Christopher was a radical! A man of the Trotsky left who espoused socialism as its best, He spent 30 years of his life defending the oppressed, opposing war, railing against the corporations and politicians of America calling them what they were scum and conmen. He was a loved friend of the left, a man all defenders of freedom and opponents of war would happily call a friend and comrade and vice-versa. Back then Hitchens was politically knowledgeable and focused on politics not religion. It wasn’t till the mid 90s or later that Hitch became a radical atheist and this is when his understanding of politics began to diminish and he became a political charlatan and hate figure of many of his long time friends. You see when hitch became religiously obsessed he began to see politics through an anti-religious lens and this is his downfall. With the aftermath of the September 11th attacks hitch turned his back on his principles and friends and became a right-wing cheerleader for the neoconservative warmongering administration of George Walker “Texas Ranger” Bush. Hitch supported the illegal invasion or Iraq because he said he couldn’t stand by while Saddam Hussein was in power, but this is nonsense because for years in the 70s Mr. Hitchens stood silently by and once seemed to supported the regime of Hussein, once saying in a 1976 article for The New Statesman about Iraq “…. And it has a leader — Saddam Hussein — who has sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser.” The reason he supported the Iraq war was not because of outing Saddam but because he took it as an opportunity to give Islam a good beating to which he loved to do.

Hitchens defended The Bush Administrations illegal war activities  in such a pompous manner, He praised The Bush Administration‘s response to Hurrican Katrina even though it is widely accepted the Bush Administration failed in their response to Katrina, He went on to support the re-election of George W Bush in the 2004 US presidential election, He would speak of anti-war activist with such disgusting disrespect, especially when you consider most of the people involved in anti-war activities where once very close friends of his a year or 2 beforehand.

Hitchens taught he knew it all, so much so as to go and disrespect such great minds and his former hero’s Chomsky and Vidal, by claiming they are crackpots, anti-modernists, cowardly and harness facts in a very vulgar way, What an insult to two great independent thinkers of which Hitchens thinks he’s better than. When the Iraq war started Hitchens cheered it as loud as he could, praising Bush and the other Fascist’s in America for their interventionist views and actions, even if their actions cause the death of 600,000+ people. Hitch refused in his last days to accept that American policy was responsible for these deaths , going as far to say something on the lines of , if a radical Islamist blows himself up in an Iraqi market then It has nothing to do with America, But Hitch is being a warmongering ignoramus when he says such nonsense because anybody with a real understanding of war and politics will tell you that the atmosphere for suicide bombings didn’t just appear one morning in Iraq, the situation that allows suicide bombings was created not when America invaded Iraq(which also played a part) but decades beforehand when America decided to get militarily and politically involved in Middle Eastern politics, like their support of the racist terrorist regime in Israel to their support of Arab tyrants like Mubarak, The Shah of Iran or the royal family in Saudi Arabia which violates human rights on a massive scale, this kind of support is what created the situation that now allows the breading of anti-American views in the Arab world and ultimately the use of suicide bombing as a weapon by the poverty stricken people of the Iraqi insurgency, it is these facts that Hitchens ignored when he would spout his neo-con propaganda to his followers who swallowed it foolishly.

Here is an example of how Hitchens in his later years let his anti-religious obsession blind him from the reality of American responsibility in current Arab political instability, I once watch an episode of Real Time With Bill Maher in which Mr.Hitchens and George Galloway debated Bin Laden, In it Hitch put a religious twist on reality and said that it was Islam and its fascist tendency’s that created Osama Bin Laden, to which Galloway rightly so disputed and said it wasn’t religion that it was “America who created Bin Laden by supporting him politically, militarily and financially during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when Bin Laden was a leader of the Mujahedeen”. These are well known facts that Hitch most definitely knows but refused to recognise them even if he did so in the past.

So Let’s be realistic Christopher Eric Hitchens although a great mind and orator discredited himself in his last years when he sold out on his principles and became a media darling earning a small fortune from it, he chose money and wealth over principle and reality and for that I will never forgive him. Yes he was brilliant on religion and disproving it with such charisma but he was wrong on politics and most importantly he was wrong to alienate himself and lose his closest friends by choosing to support illegal wars committed by the oppressors of humanity, this is something he despised a few years beforehand only to become a proponent of war and murder for which he rightfully suffered alienation, He insulted his former close friends and comrades in such a way that it is of no wonder he became hated by the left. I once admired everything about Hitch but no longer, not since he sold himself to the corporate whores so he could gain attention and feel special. Noam Chomsky once said “If you think you are a radical and your getting mainstream attention then you should begin to question if you really are a radical”, Hitchens took himself as a radical and he was on religion and he was politically 20years ago but sadly in his last years he became a mainstream darling and anti-radical, his views were deemed by the establishment as acceptable because they supported the Administrations propagandistic views. This is why I say “Hitchens: from Radical to Charlatan” because It is exactly what he was, a former anti-war Trotskyite who became a right wing neo-con war monger.

This Article follows in the tradition of Christopher Hitchens, of denouncing someone soon after death for what they really were so I expect Hitchens apostles to accept it without insult as I mean no offence.

RIP. Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011 I’ll meet you on the other side

Author-Darren M

Related articles