censorship during war Re: [LINK] Guardian: Al-Jazeeratells the truth about war

[Robin Whittle]

Richard Archer wrote:

> Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> 
> > the democratisation of the middle east is a heroic step forward for 
> > mankind!
> 
> This is one of the most misguided statements I have seen in a long
> time.
> 
> This war has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with
> the U.S. attempting to extend their power in what they see as the
> natural right of the most powerful nation on earth to conquer the
> rest of us and force their politics and morals upon us all.

But take a look at:

  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

This is highly credible to me, since it concords exactly with what a
friend tells me, and my friend has been watching these
"neo-conservatives" from close range for decades.  

This indicates that the plan *is* to bring democracy to Iraq and other
countries.  Their nutty plan is based on the notion that the cause of
terrorism is caused by undemocratic regimes in the Middle East.  So
their fix is imposing US style democracy throughout the Middle East, if
necessary with cruise missiles and depleted uranium artillery.    

I have been led to believe by my highly informed source, though I am
willing to be corrected, that the neoconservatives are generally (or at
least to a significant extent) wealthy Jewish people descended from
Russian Jews who emigrated in the 1800s, rather than those who suffered
under Hitler.  They were generally lefties in their youth and twenties,
and avoided the Vietnam draft because of wealthy connections.  So these
are the "chicken-hawks" the war-mongers who have never been in, or even
smelt, war. (Arguably they would not be so keen if television was
improved so as to carry the smell of death and destruction.)  

They have this nutty thrill of imposing their black-white morality on
the world, and foolishly the US people didn't cast enough votes to
prevent W. Bush being elected, with these people in tow.  As the article
mentions, some of them were part of the Reagan administration in 1981. 
They apparently receive support from many Born Again Christians (W. is
one).  But these BACs apparently have another agenda even madder still: 
They want Israel to be strong.  So they support attempts to demolish the
regimes and countries which threaten Israel.   The BACs believe some
stuff which apparently has a Biblical basis: when Israel is strong,
Christ will come to Earth (I figure the Christians would spell it
"earth") in the Second Coming.  Then, the Jews will be vanquished and it
will be time for the RAPTURE.  This is when all the BACs go *instantly*
to HEAVEN (being a BAC absolves one from all past and future sins - its
a *personal* relationship with God) and the rest of us, if we fight the
good fight in this End of Days, might get the nod and be allowed into
Heaven too.

I have this on good authority from someone whose depth of knowledge in
such things I highly respect.  No-doubt it is documented on the Net
somewhere.

Its all entirely plausible to me, and I regard the above-linked article
as being highly credible.


I am really glad that people all over the world can read this article
and discuss these things via the Net.  How far would we get with the
mass media?  How far would the insightful journalists and columnists get
in figuring out this intrigue if it was not for the Net?   The
above-linked article came out days after the war started.  If it was on
paper, I would never have read it, and most people who do read it would
get it a week or so later.


> This whole mess is complete hypocrisy.

Yes, and insanity - and religiously inspired nuttiness and beligerence,
not to mention racist and being powered by hubris and self-delusion. 
What's more, its all happening in front of our eyes, and still, about
half the population of Australia and the USA support the war and are
unenquiring enough not to see the madness which is it.  This is a very
long conga-line of suckholes - all those Australians after Howard, who
is suckered firmly onto W. without any redeeming higher agenda as Blair
clearly has . . . W. may look to us like the leader of the conga-line,
but I think that in his mind, he is suckered onto God!



> > during war the government *must* release a tremendous amount of 
> > mis-information.
> >
> > we have no rights to the truth till *after* the war.
> 
> What an load of nonsense. In a democracy it is the absolute right
> and indeed requirement that the people know and understand exactly
> what it is their elected representatives are doing *at all times*.

I think that in times when the country is genuinely under threat, there
can be times when the government has to make decisions which cannot be
divulged to the public, and therefore the enemy, at the time.  I don't
think they need remain secret for long afterwards, however.   But this
does not apply now - we are not threatened, except by a handful of
terrorists, and our own utterly irresponsible government.

I also think that cabinet meetings and the like should be able to
operate under some kind of cone of silence, so that all sorts of ideas
can be tossed freely around without people having to worry that every
word they say will be quoted and probably misinterpreted in the press
the next day or even in the next few years - or probably ever.

For instance, cabinet members should feel free to raise ideas which seem
heretical to them at the time, such as that this war idea is utterly
wrong, without having to think about how that will play with anyone
outside the room.  They have enough trouble worrying about the people
inside the room!


 - Robin