Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Offlineunlikelyhero
Ramblin' Man

Registered: 12/31/02
Posts: 106
Loc: Lancaster (Uni), Darlingt...
Last seen: 14 years, 30 days
RAF sells Hawk jets to India
    #1904432 - 09/11/03 08:43 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

September 11, 2003


MEDIA ALERT UPDATE: THE BBC'S DIRECTOR OF NEWS REPLIES ON SALE OF HAWK JETS TO
INDIA


On ITN?s Lunchtime News, political editor Nick Robinson described how ?hundreds
of [British] servicemen are risking their lives to bring peace and security to
the streets of Iraq?. (ITN, September 8, 2003)

The first part of the description is accurate ? the servicemen are indeed
risking their lives. What is interesting about the claimed goal of the
occupation is not just that it is sanitised of all offensive aspects of reality,
but that the unwritten rules of media reporting mean that it had to be. Can we
imagine an ITN or BBC correspondent reporting how ?hundreds of servicemen are
risking their lives to pacify local resistance to Western control of the world?s
second largest oil reserves??

It is simply deemed ?beyond the pale? to suggest that British servicemen are
risking their lives, and indeed dying, so that small groups of powerful people
can make money out of Iraqi oil, out of arms budgets bloated on hyped threats,
and as a result of business backhanders from grateful American elites. US
presidential candidate and congressman, Dennis Kucinich, wrote in March:

?Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the
obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march
to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of US policy in the
Persian Gulf.? (?Obviously Oil?, Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet, March 11, 2003)

The truth of the suggestion is irrelevant; what matters is that it contravenes
the first rule of ?patriotism?: If our troops are fighting and dying, then we
must ?support? them in what must be declared ?a noble cause?, no matter how
cynical or vicious the actual cause - even if ?supporting? them in fact betrays
them and allows them to continue being killed for no good reason.

Ministerial devotion to the welfare of our troops is an obligatory lie. In the
1930s, the anarchist thinker Rudolf Rocker declared the truth that is always as
obvious in hindsight as it is unthinkable in the present:

"We speak of national interests, national capital, national spheres of interest,
national honour, and national spirit; but we forget that behind all this there
are hidden merely the selfish interests of power-loving politicians and
money-loving business men for whom the nation is a convenient cover to hide
their personal greed and their schemes for political power from the eyes of the
world." (Rudolf Rocker, Culture and Nationalism, Michael E. Coughlan, 1978,
p.253)

Why is this so often obvious only in retrospect? Thoreau explains:

"Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new."
(Thoreau, Walden, Penguin, 1983, p.68)

One result of this ?patriotic? support is that we have to convince ourselves
that the US has increased spending by $87 billion in order to ?bring peace and
security? to Iraq in an unprecedented act of generosity by a notoriously
cynical, far-right US administration packed with fossil fuel fundamentalists
willing to sacrifice the very habitability of the planet to short-term profit.
If we find the idea of their munificence too difficult to swallow, we can always
declare, as the Guardian does, that the money is ?to fight the war on terror in
Iraq?. (?How the bill breaks down?, The Guardian, September 9, 2003)

Both Nick Robinson and the Guardian unwittingly make clear that they are
essentially echoing government propaganda. Later, in the same news report,
Robinson repeated the ?peace and security? objective of British reinforcements,
adding: ?That?s how the Defence Secretary presents today?s announcement?. It was
also, unfortunately, how Robinson presented it. Likewise, on the same page as
its note on the ?war on terror in Iraq?, the Guardian quoted US national
security adviser, Condoleeza Rice:

?What we are now seeing is a central battle in the war on terrorism, and these
terrorists know it. That is why they are going to Iraq.? (Oliver Burkeman and
Suzanne Goldenberg, ?Bush changes strategy with $87bn gamble?, The Guardian,
September 9, 2003)

With its enthusiasm for channelling the latest government deceptions undaunted
by recent events, the BBC comments from America:

?The war with terror may have moved from these shores to Iraq. But for how
long?? (Matt Frei, BBC News At Ten, September 10, 2003)

It could not be more obvious that pre-invasion Iraq had nothing to do with ?the
war on terror?. There never was any evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein
and his mortal enemy, al-Qaeda, and none has turned up in the four months since
the fall of the Iraqi regime. And, as we now know, Saddam possessed no weapons
of mass destruction with which to arm terrorists with whom he had no links.

The idea that Iraq was a front in ?the war on terror? can therefore be
confidently dismissed as completely fraudulent, but now it is being repackaged
and resurrected as Truth! And the Guardian, like the BBC, is again busy
repeating the latest government version of events as if the earlier lie had not
been exposed. In the same article quoting Condoleeza Rice, the paper concludes
with the views of Judith Kipper, from the Council on Foreign Relations, who
argues that Iraq was not part of the war on terror before but has become so as a
result of the US attack:
?Iraq is now a global threat. It was not before. But it is now.?

But this, too, involves a repetition of the deceptive government line, as Robert
Fisk notes in the Independent:

?There is so far not a shred of evidence that the latest Bush administration
fantasy - ?thousands? of foreign Islamist ?jihadi? fighters streaming into Iraq
to kill Americans - is true?. (Fisk, ?Don?t say we weren?t warned about this
mess?, The Independent, September 7, 2003)

Once again, the whole weight of ingrained beliefs ? that our government has to
be taken seriously when it identifies a ?threat?, that we have to show
solidarity in belief and action in countering these ?threats? ? maintains a kind
of perpetual lunacy that is immune to events in the real world. Guardian, BBC,
ITN and other journalists inhabit this stifling, self-contained universe ? it is
their job to make it seem sane and real to the rest of us.


Killing With Impunity

The immunity of the propaganda version of the world to reality was powerfully
communicated to us in a recent exchange with one of the country?s leading
editors.

On September 5, Media Lens published a Media Alert: ?Feigned Media Psychosis -
The BBC, The Hawks and Nuclear War?. Coincidentally, shortly after sending the
alert, we received a reply from Richard Sambrook, the BBC?s Director of News, in
response to a letter sent on September 3. This was our original letter:

?Dear Richard

Hope you're well. Today's lunchtime news described the sale of 60 Hawk jets to
India. Why did Anna Ford describe the Hawks as "trainer jets"? Do you accept
that they have also been used as ground attack aircraft (for example by
Indonesia in East Timor)? Should this not be mentioned given the threat of war,
indeed nuclear war, in the region? And should not the morality of the sale,
again given this threat of war, also have been presented as an issue for
discussion?

Best wishes

David Edwards?

Sambrook replied:

?Dear David,

Thank you for your e-mail of 3 September.

I appreciate that these jets have been used as attack aircraft by some
countries. However, the RAF currently use them only for training purposes and
that was the stated reason for their sale to India.

Unfortunately in a very short item we didn't have the space to go into the
history of their use or the morality of trade in them.

Thank you for sending me your thoughts.

Best wishes.

Richard Sambrook?

Sambrook notes that ?the RAF currently use [the Hawks] only for training
purposes and that was the stated reason for their sale to India?.

This is a jaw-dropping response! The RAF use of Hawks is clearly of no relevance
whatever to the discussion, and ?the stated reason? for the purchase should not
for one moment be deemed sufficient to deter an independent media from asking
further questions on such an important issue. The stated reason for invading
Iraq, after all, was to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction. The fact
that the jets will be used to train pilots to fly nuclear bombers also remains
at issue.

Sambrook continues:

?Unfortunately in a very short item we didn't have the space to go into the
history of their use or the morality of trade in them.?

There is no space to discuss the provision of weapons by a leading participant
in the ?war on terror? to a nation recently on the brink of war and armed with
nuclear bombs ? the ultimate terror weapon.

We often hear the ?lack of space? defence from journalists. In reality, space in
the media is not a natural phenomenon; it is allotted as a result of all too
human judgements on the significance of a given story. In the same week that BBC
1 Lunchtime News devoted around twenty seconds to the sale of the Hawk jets, it
provided in depth coverage on the story of a teenage couple who had eloped from
the Isle of Wight. On consecutive days, the BBC interviewed police officers,
family members, psychologists, and one of the teenagers themselves. It is
understandable, then, that the BBC ?didn?t have the space? to discuss British
profiteering from potential nuclear conflict.
With a kind of psychotic glaze, the media focuses fixedly on the retail terror
of official enemies, but blinks not an eye when we ourselves provide the fuel
for a conflict that could result in mass death on an awesome scale.

The BBC is not always unmoved by efforts, indeed even alleged efforts, to send
weapons to zones of conflict. On the BBC?s Newsnight in March, presenter Kirsty
Wark fiercely challenged Bouthaina Shaaban, Syria's Director of Foreign Media.
Wark demanded a response to the ever-reliable Donald Rumsfeld's claims that
Syria had supplied weapons to Iraq. Failing to receive an answer that was to her
satisfaction, Wark all but shouted her questions:

"Miss Shaaban, can I ask you just a very simple yes and no question?"
(Newsnight, BBC, March 28, 2003)

And then:

"So you have +never+ supplied night vision goggles to Iraq?"

Maintaining the same high volume, Wark continued her courtroom-style barracking:

"So, will Syria give an assurance that Syria will not supply any military or
intelligence equipment to Iraq at any point in this war?"

When we supply ground attack aircraft worth ?1 billion to an impoverished
country which will use them to train pilots to fly nuclear bombers to their
targets, there is no screaming, no courtroom barracking, no outrage ? just
silence.

And nurtured by this silence, forever protected from injury and harm, is the
sure and certain belief that, of everyone in this world, just we are a basically
good and benign people. And it is under cover of just this conviction that our
governments kill with impunity.


--------------------
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference - Bill Hicks


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: RAF sells Hawk jets to India [Re: unlikelyhero]
    #1904460 - 09/11/03 09:08 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

If somebody sells you a knife and you stab yourself are they responsible?


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: RAF sells Hawk jets to India [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #1904756 - 09/11/03 11:31 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Of course it does. No one is responsible for their own actions silly.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunlikelyhero
Ramblin' Man

Registered: 12/31/02
Posts: 106
Loc: Lancaster (Uni), Darlingt...
Last seen: 14 years, 30 days
Re: RAF sells Hawk jets to India [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #1912073 - 09/13/03 09:21 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

st0nedphucker said:
If somebody sells you a knife and you stab yourself are they responsible?



That's your argument? A knife has a wide-range of uses whereas a Hawk Jet... not so many. If UK is preaching about stopping terrorism and being against terror then maybe it should stop supplying aircraft to countries who don't have a very good record with these sorts of things.

UH


--------------------
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference - Bill Hicks


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunlikelyhero
Ramblin' Man

Registered: 12/31/02
Posts: 106
Loc: Lancaster (Uni), Darlingt...
Last seen: 14 years, 30 days
Re: RAF sells Hawk jets to India [Re: unlikelyhero]
    #1912218 - 09/13/03 11:30 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Are you trying to say that selling someone a knife is a good analogy for the UK government selling Hawk Jets to India? There's no hypocrisy involved there? Do you not think the UK media's response to it is a little suspect? Is that all you can say in reply to that article?

UH


--------------------
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference - Bill Hicks


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* US figher jets not so great
( 1 2 all )
cb9fl
1,441 24 06/22/05 01:24 PM
by Rose
* US Retaliates after Black Hawk Crash PsiloKitten 472 4 11/08/03 09:20 PM
by SquattingMarmot
* Israel Lobby at its best - India Bans Arab TV Channels Under Pressure From Israel
( 1 2 3 4 all )
MAIA 4,940 63 08/08/06 08:11 PM
by zappaisgod
* China Selling Fake Pharmaceuticals DiploidM 400 0 10/31/07 05:29 PM
by Diploid
* Why do drug dealers sell drugs like this? Learyfan 1,927 6 04/30/06 04:52 AM
by monamine
* 46 dead in India blasts wingnutx 482 3 08/25/03 12:58 PM
by shakta
* India Mulls Pre-Emptive Pakistan Strike, Cites U.S. Iraq War RonoS 332 2 04/15/03 03:06 PM
by Azmodeus
* India Censors the Internet DiploidM 332 0 07/18/06 06:53 PM
by Diploid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
393 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 19 queries.