Roger Sheety

From the December 2008 massacre in Palestine (Gaza). The
murderous siege still is in place and many people are dying.

The recent killing of 25 Palestinians in Gaza and the wounding of at least 80 more within four days—March 9-12—requires some context as the majority of western mainstream media outlets are either unwilling or unable to provide any.

More often than not these mainstream media reports in some form or another refer to the Palestinian dead as “militants.” The term militant is defined simply as “vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause” and “engaged in warfare; fighting.” Synonyms listed include “belligerent, combative, and contentious. See: fanatic.” Already then, Palestinians, even as they are killed in large numbers by the most sophisticated weapons money can buy, are marked as the aggressors. Further, as implied within the definition, they are fanatics, irrational and bent on destruction—the victim in this case being poor, nuclear-armed and US-protected Israel.

Virtually none of the major western media outlets ever ask questions such as: who exactly are these “militants”? Why are there so many of them in such a small place as Gaza? Why, if they are such an existential threat to poor Israel, are they always being killed in such substantial numbers? And why do the dead always include scores of women, children, the elderly and the sick? These, apparently, are taboo questions in the free western media and therefore beyond the realm of permitted discussion.

Here, however, is some background to help answer these supposedly unspeakable questions.

More »

Bill Van Auken

Since the naming last Friday of the soldier charged with massacring 16 Afghan civilians, the media has sought to make this horrific crime comprehensible by delving into the history and personal problems of Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, while studiously ignoring the criminal nature of the war itself.

Bales, who is being held at the US military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is charged by the military with walking away from his outpost in the Panjawi district in southern Kandahar Province in the predawn hours of March 11 and breaking into homes in two nearby villages, shooting, stabbing and killing the Afghans, nine of them children. In one house, he is said to have piled up his victims’ bodies and set them on fire.

He is now universally described as a “rogue” soldier. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, have all issued formal statements assuring the world that Bales’ actions do not reflect the values and attitudes of the US military. According to this official story, the only question to be answered is: what made him “snap”?

The factual basis of this story has been called into question by the Afghan villagers, the country’s US puppet president, Hamid Karzai, and an investigative commission formed by the lower house of the Afghan parliament, all of whom have charged that the killing spree was the work not of a lone gunman, but of as many as 15 to 20 US troops. The parliamentary panel presented its findings over the weekend, which included the charge that two of the women slain in the massacre had been sexually assaulted.

Even if the US military’s version of these bloody events is proven true, and Bales did act single-handedly, the fact that the overwhelming opinion among Afghans is that a number of US troops were involved in the bloodbath is telling. Clearly, they do not see this as the act of a madman or a “rogue,” but rather as an all too routine episode in a decade-old war and occupation that has taken the lives of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller now writes Times op-eds on alternate Mondays, as well as articles for The New York Times Magazine.

Too bad his columns get failing grades. Scoundrel journalism is featured. Truth and full disclosure are excluded. His March 18 article is typical.

Headlined, "Falling In and Out of War," it began well. He admitted he's been wrong on war and wants "to avoid repeating the mistake." To his credit, he also said "it's immeasurably more true for those in a position to actually start a war."

He stopped short of explaining the vital role media scoundrels play, especially The Times as America's most influential broadsheet. It's major front page stories get global attention. As executive editor, and earlier as managing editor, he decided what got featured.

Many promoted war and support for wealth and power. Populism was excluded. So was and remains telling readers what they most need to know. Suppressing it is standard Times policy.

In his latest article, Keller wrote:

"What are the right questions the president should ask — and we as his employers should ask — when deciding whether going to war is (a) justified and (b) worth it?"

He asked five "plus two caveats, and some thoughts about how all this applies to" America's wars and prospective ones. Too bad he omitted what most need saying. More on that below.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Already embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and numerous proxy wars in Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, central Africa, and elsewhere, evidence suggests Obama's preparing for more.

Washington-generated Syrian violence rages out of control. Efforts for nonviolent resolution are systematically subverted. Saturday's Damascus terrorist attacks and a Sunday Aleppo one reveal America's true intentions.

At least 27 Damascus lives were lost. Around 140 others were wounded, many seriously. Two deaths and about 30 injuries occurred in Aleppo, Syria's commercial hub and largest city.

On Saturday, cars packed with explosives detonated outside Syria's air security intelligence center and police headquarters. Heavy damage was caused besides the human toll.

The attacks came two, then three days after millions around the country rallied supportively for Assad on the uprising's one-year anniversary. It showed Washington won't tolerate peaceful resolution. Regime change is planned by any means, including war. Expect it.

Outrageously, major media scoundrels spuriously accused Assad of targeting his own facilities. Al Jazeera quoted opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) member Bassma Kodmani saying:

"I don't think any of the opposition forces or the Free Syrian Army has the capacity to do such an operation to target these buildings because they are fortresses. They are very well guarded. There is no way anyone can penetrate them without having strong support and complicity from inside the security apparatus."

Al Jazeera shamelessly lost all credibility. Run by Qatar's pro-western regime, propaganda replaced truth and full disclosure. It's legitimacy no longer exists. It's no different from BBC and other Western media scoundrels.

More »