In the last 24 hour news cycle it has been introduced in all mainstream media that the government of Syria used weapons of mass destruction against its citizens. No source for this is given other than the Obama Administration, in what appears to be a propaganda effort to get the American people behind yet another war.
Since it appears to be nutty that Syria would deploy serin gas, bringing on an American attack, one should look to the usual suspects, as this claim has been used to “justify” an illegal attack on the people of Iraq and is currently being used, without evidence, as acasus belli for an attack on Iran.
1. Usual suspect #1 would be the government of Israel, which occupies the Golan Heights belonging to Syria, has a particular hatred for Syria, and is often caught lying about its human rights abuses and war crimes. Israel may have planted a small amount of serin gas to draw the USA directly into a war with Syria. It was Israel and its supporters that pushed the Iraq War from inside the Bush administration and through its “neocon” supporters in the Pentagon.
2. Usual suspect #2 would be the Pentagon and its Nuclear Mafia sponsors, worrying about spending cuts from the sequestration. Nothing grows funding faster than a new war.
3. Usual suspect #3 would be the “Syrian resistance,” working with usual suspects #1 and or #2, above. This band of cutthroats and religious fanatics has shown a willingness to kill Syrians and blame it on the Syrian government, again and again, so would think nothing of using serin gas on Syrians in order to goad the USA directly into the war. It should also be noted that the Russian press have estimated that more than 70% of the “Syrian resistance” are foreigners.
US ground troops would be extremely unlikely in this one because the troops are exhausted, with suicides at an alarming rate from the impact of repeated combat tours. There is also the problem of US troops being extremely unpopular in the region, thereby drawing Muslims from around the world into the conflict on the side of the Syrian government. What those who want more war are looking for is US aircraft– a no-fly zone grounding Syrian aircraft– a situation like what happened recently in the attack on Libya.
David Swanson has an excellent piece on this titled “Libyan Door to Syrian Door to Iran,” writing from Texas, where he is protesting the new Bush library honoring the father of the war on terrorism.
Common Dreams has a piece beginning, “‘Take our planet, and we’ll take your money.’ This is the warning 10 cities across the U.S. are issuing the fossil fuel industry as the campaign to divest from the industry wreaking havoc on the planet gains steam.”
The New York Daily News published a piece yesterday beginning, “United Nations anti-Semite-in-chief Richard Falk has pinned blame for the Boston Marathon bombing on America and, you surely guessed, Israel.” What these lying bastards don’t say is that Falk is Jewish and stands for higher principles than the entire staff of the fawning mainstream media.
The long knives are out for Falk because he speaks truth to power and mainstream media’s “journalists” are too cowardly to do that, occupied as they are kissing ruling class butt. Falk has committed the media transgression of telling the truth about what Israel is doing to the people of Palestine– not allowed here in the Land of the Free.
His latest media transgression is pointing out that attacks on Americans come because of the violence we have committed on others. Some of the lowest vermin in the media world have crawled out from under rocks to attack him. These groups have a habit of destroying the credibility of people with whom they disagree, any who do not cover up for Israeli war crimes or human rights abuses, because they have carte blanche in mainstream media to do that, even to their own when they stray from doctrinal propaganda (Dan Rather comes to mind).
In the following piece, Jeremy Hammond defends Falk against these scurrilous attacks. The purges of writers disagreeing with propaganda about the Boston Marathon attacks has begun. If we allow others to be attacked, all of us will be stabbed with the same daggers in time, until there is only one opinion, that one must wave the flag and attack any who disagree with Israel’s right to steal Palestinian land, and to put forward, as our only response to such terrorism as that which happened in Boston, revenge, with more violence and bloodshed –Jack Balkwill
The Zionist organization UN Watch has cited a commentary by Professor Richard Falk on the Boston bombings in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon demanding that that Prof. Falk be reprimanded for it. Prof. Falk, who serves as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, originally posted the commentary on his blog and I republished it, as I often do his writings, with his kind permission, in Foreign Policy Journal, which version UN Watch links to in its letter. As one should expect, the letter from UN Watch is characterized by its dishonesty and vain attacks on Prof. Falk’s character that deflect attention away from and fail to address the substance of what he wrote.
The UN Watch letter begins with the lie that Prof. Falk in his article “justifies the Boston terrorist attacks”. The UN Watch letter also falsely claims that Prof. Falk blamed the Boston terrorist attacks on Israel and characterized the attacks as “due ‘retribution’ for American sins”. Where Mr. Falk discusses Israel in the article, it is in the larger context of blowback for U.S. foreign policies, including the 9/11 attacks, which, as the 9/11 Commission noted in its report, were motivated in no small part by U.S. support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Nowhere in his commentary does Mr. Falk blame Israel for or otherwise connect Israel to the bombings in Boston. As for the word “retribution”, where it appears in Mr. Falk’s article, it is in the context of a quote from someone else. What Falk actually wrote was:
Listening to a PBS program hours after the Boston event, I was struck by the critical attitudes of several callers to the radio station: …. Another caller asked “is this not a kind of retribution for torture inflicted by American security forces acting under the authority of the government, and verified for the world by pictures of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib?”
Nowhere did Falk say the attack was “due” or “justified”. The letter goes on this way with its fabricated charges against Falk’s character. At the UN Watch blog, the letter is prefaced with the remark that Falk “was recently expelled by the Human Rights Watch [HRW] organization”. The link directs readers to a video embedded in another UN Watch blog post claiming that Falk was “Removed For Anti-Semitism”, the source for that claim being none other than Hillel Neuer, the Executive Director of UN Watch and author of the letter to the Secretary-General. In fact, the reason Mr. Falk left HRW’s local support committee in Santa Barbara, California, was because of HRW’s “longstanding policy, applied many times, that no official from any government or UN agency can serve on any Human Rights Watch committee or its Board. It was an oversight on our part that we did not apply that policy in Richard Falk’s case several years ago when he assumed his UN position.” But the truth just doesn’t serve Neuer’s or his organization’s agenda, so he prefers to make up lies to demonize an honorable man.
The UN Watch’s lies have been parroted elsewhere by unscrupulous so-called “journalists” who don’t let little things like honesty or integrity get in the way of an opportunity to manufacture a sensational headline.
Ann Beyefsky, for example, at Breitbart, unashamedly lies that “Richard Falk has published a statement saying Bostonians got what they deserved in last week’s terror attack” before accusing him of “antisemitism” for his criticisms of Israeli policies in his role as Special Rapporteur for the U.N. The fact that Mr. Falk is himself Jewish shouldn’t cause anyone to be surprised that he would face such a charge; indeed, this kind of intellectually and morally bankrupt accusation is standard fare for apologists of Israel’s constant violations of international law. It certainly comes as no surprise that Beyefsky is unable to produce any quotes from Mr. Falk to back up any of her disgraceful lies about him.
The JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency) repeated in a headline the lie that Falk “pins blame for Boston Marathon bombing on ‘Tel Aviv’” and repeats the falsehood that Falk “called the Boston attack ‘retribution’ for the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan”, which leads one to wonder whether the author of the JTA story even bothered to read Falk’s article or relied entirely on UN Watch’s distortions of it for its own reporting.
The Times of Israel also picked up the story, stating that Falk “has a history of provocative and outrages [sic, i.e., “outrageous”] statements, both supporting Islamic terror and bashing Israel.” The Times of Israelwould have a very hard time indeed finding any substantiation for its lie that Falk has made statements “supporting Islamic terror”; and “bashing” Israel is the usual euphemism for legitimately criticizing Israel’s constant violations of international law. Just as instructively, the “outrageous” statement referred to in this case is Falk’s remark that “The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance… the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks”. The Times of Israel spins this observation into the dishonest headline, “UN official says US had Boston attack coming”; the idiom “to have something coming” meaning, of course, that the outcome is deserved. This headline is just another lie. Yet Mr. Falk neither said nor implied that the U.S. deserved the attacks in Boston.
To offer several more examples of the disingenuous responses to Mr. Falk’s article, Mark Leon Goldberg at UN Dispatch calls Falk’s commentary a “dumb” “diatribe” and feigns not to understand Mr. Falk’s rather elementary point that the U.S. government’s policies create hatred towards the country and result in blowback such as the 9/11 attacks. John Hinderaker at the Power Line blog repeats the lie that Mr. Falk said “Boston had it coming”. Hinderaker reveals his remarkable ignorance by saying that Falk’s statement that “the neocon presidency of George W. Bush, was in 2001 prior to the attacks openly seeking a pretext to launch a regime-changing war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”, among others, is “false” (the truth of that and other of Mr. Falk’s statements is hardly a secret and not in the least bit controversial). Hinderaker goes on to dismiss Falk as “a lousy writer”, “insane”, “a psychopath” who has a “demented frame of reference, that we associate with mental illness”, “a nut; a crank”, “a mental case”, someone who “should seek treatment for his mental illness.” Bryan Preston at PJ Media similarly repeats the lies that Falk “Justifies” the bombing in his article and said that the U.S. “had this coming”. The Global Dispatch likewise parrots the lie that “Richard Falk said in a statement that Bostonians got what they deserved”.
One is just not supposed to tell the public that U.S. foreign policy results in what intelligence analysts call “blowback”. This is a forbidden truth, reminiscent of the 2007 presidential debate when Rudy Giuliani condemned Ron Paul for making the completely uncontroversial statement that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” for U.S. foreign policy, to which Dr. Paul replied by standing firm and repeating the uncomfortable truth before the audience. It is a point that Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, Alec Station, has also made in a commentary on the Boston bombings published atForeign Policy Journal, in which he remarks that “it is blatantly obvious from the evidence the authorities have presented to date that the attackers were motivated by what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world”.
It is clear from the hysterical reactions to Mr. Falk’s commentary on the Boston bombings that his own sin is in speaking uncomfortable truths many Americans don’t want to hear about their government’s policies, as well as for his courageous stand against Israel’s lawlessness in the face of such demonization by its Zionist apologists.
Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the author of The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict and Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis. He is the founding editor of Foreign Policy Journaland can also be found on the web at JeremyRHammond.com.