From the Jungles of Ecuador to Times Square
punditman says...
It never ceases to amaze me how utterly incorrigible the mainstream media have become as they service their political masters. Two items in the March 7th Globe and Mail, both of which concern the ever-present topic of "terrorism," make this point crystal clear.
The first is an editorial pertaining to Colombia's recent incursion into Ecuador, their killing of Luis Edgar Devia Silva, a.k.a. "Raúl Reyes," spokesman for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and sixteen guerrillas and the resultant hullabaloo and threats of war amongst Latin nations. (I'd link to it, but the silly ninnies want me to buy an online subscription)...Anyway, the Colombian Army, with US aid, and right-wing paramilitaries, have been fighting the Marxist FARC insurgents for over four decades. Toss in the overlapping, corrupting influence of the drug war for good measure, and it is no surprise that all sides have horrendous human rights records.
But never mind the complexities and gray areas that inevitably beset any civil war. And forget you ever heard the old maxim that one person's terrrorist can be another's freedom fighter.
Globe and Mail editors have more important duties.
They report as gospel the claim by Colombia's right-wing President Alvaro Uribe, that Venezuela's left-wing President Hugo Chavez, is financially supporting FARC insurgents. Colombia's army stumbled across the "evidence" when they captured Reyes' laptop. Being the right stooge of Washington and no doubt familiar with its Orwellian-Rovian ways, Uribe claimed that FARC are trying to build a dirty bomb with $300 million (U.S) provided by Chavez. Why not? (claim it, I mean).
There's only one problem: The Globe and Mail apparently took no time to do their journalistic jobs and actually consider the supposed "evidence." Fortunately, Greg Palast, award-winning investigative journalist and best-selling author, did:
So there you have it, folks: a Bush-league style hoax.
But that did not stop lazy editors from portioning out their propaganda. Not at all--in fact, mere accusations against President Chavez are enough for the Globe and Mail to go into hysterics and label Venezuela a "state sponsor of terrorism." FARC you see, are the only terrorists here, not the Colombian army or the right wing paramilitary death squads--they are merely "other belligerents." Predictably, the US press was in lock-step as well.
I don't know whether Hugo Chavez has ever sent any money to FARC guerillas in Colombia, and by the way, neither does the Globe and Mail. Certainly, the note on the laptop does not prove this; in fact, it appears to be about the recent hostage exchange and nothing else.
The point is: why should we automatically believe anything that comes from a corrupt and brutal US ally like Colombia while automatically dismissing anything that comes from a US adversary such as Venezuela? By extension, why should we believe anything that comes from the Bush administration, who, of course, weighed in as supporting Colombia's claims. With its legacy of lies, corruption and wars of aggression (known in honest circles as "state terror"), surely at this late date, the Bush administration should have zero credibility on the truth scale (but that is another matter--perhaps best reserved for my fantasy world where big media actually challenge power--what a concept!).
Instead, we tolerate a world in which the "truth" is dispensed at Washington press conferences or from "friendly" capitals like a new drug that hits the street--while sycophantic media mandarins line up to get their fixes. And though it may arrive in the form of half-truths, bold-faced lies, even false flag operations, it is this very poison, we are told, that can only come from official enemies--and not from our side, the "good guys."
Meanwhile, "terrorism" is defined by the same "good guys," who, incidentally, only fight it and never engage in it.
Which leads to the next item from my esteemed morning paper. A Reuters wire story explains that a small explosion occured at a US military recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday morning. There were no injuries.
But here's the kicker: "White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism."
Translation: We can't pin it on Muslims or Marxists so therefore it isn't terrorism.
Truly amazing.
We live in The Matrix, people. Awaketh from thy slumbers!
UPDATE: Latin American leaders have now agreed to end the crisis.
So much for terrorist sponsors and dirty bombs.
punditman says...
It never ceases to amaze me how utterly incorrigible the mainstream media have become as they service their political masters. Two items in the March 7th Globe and Mail, both of which concern the ever-present topic of "terrorism," make this point crystal clear.
The first is an editorial pertaining to Colombia's recent incursion into Ecuador, their killing of Luis Edgar Devia Silva, a.k.a. "Raúl Reyes," spokesman for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and sixteen guerrillas and the resultant hullabaloo and threats of war amongst Latin nations. (I'd link to it, but the silly ninnies want me to buy an online subscription)...Anyway, the Colombian Army, with US aid, and right-wing paramilitaries, have been fighting the Marxist FARC insurgents for over four decades. Toss in the overlapping, corrupting influence of the drug war for good measure, and it is no surprise that all sides have horrendous human rights records.
But never mind the complexities and gray areas that inevitably beset any civil war. And forget you ever heard the old maxim that one person's terrrorist can be another's freedom fighter.
Globe and Mail editors have more important duties.
They report as gospel the claim by Colombia's right-wing President Alvaro Uribe, that Venezuela's left-wing President Hugo Chavez, is financially supporting FARC insurgents. Colombia's army stumbled across the "evidence" when they captured Reyes' laptop. Being the right stooge of Washington and no doubt familiar with its Orwellian-Rovian ways, Uribe claimed that FARC are trying to build a dirty bomb with $300 million (U.S) provided by Chavez. Why not? (claim it, I mean).
There's only one problem: The Globe and Mail apparently took no time to do their journalistic jobs and actually consider the supposed "evidence." Fortunately, Greg Palast, award-winning investigative journalist and best-selling author, did:
What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)
I read them. While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez is this:
“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”
Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.
Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line:
“To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”
As to the 300, I must note that the FARC’s previous prisoner exchange involved 300 prisoners. Is that what the ‘300’ refers to? ¿Quien sabe? Unlike Uribe, Bush and the US press, I won’t guess or make up a phastasmogoric story about Chavez spending money he doesn’t even have.
So there you have it, folks: a Bush-league style hoax.
But that did not stop lazy editors from portioning out their propaganda. Not at all--in fact, mere accusations against President Chavez are enough for the Globe and Mail to go into hysterics and label Venezuela a "state sponsor of terrorism." FARC you see, are the only terrorists here, not the Colombian army or the right wing paramilitary death squads--they are merely "other belligerents." Predictably, the US press was in lock-step as well.
I don't know whether Hugo Chavez has ever sent any money to FARC guerillas in Colombia, and by the way, neither does the Globe and Mail. Certainly, the note on the laptop does not prove this; in fact, it appears to be about the recent hostage exchange and nothing else.
The point is: why should we automatically believe anything that comes from a corrupt and brutal US ally like Colombia while automatically dismissing anything that comes from a US adversary such as Venezuela? By extension, why should we believe anything that comes from the Bush administration, who, of course, weighed in as supporting Colombia's claims. With its legacy of lies, corruption and wars of aggression (known in honest circles as "state terror"), surely at this late date, the Bush administration should have zero credibility on the truth scale (but that is another matter--perhaps best reserved for my fantasy world where big media actually challenge power--what a concept!).
Instead, we tolerate a world in which the "truth" is dispensed at Washington press conferences or from "friendly" capitals like a new drug that hits the street--while sycophantic media mandarins line up to get their fixes. And though it may arrive in the form of half-truths, bold-faced lies, even false flag operations, it is this very poison, we are told, that can only come from official enemies--and not from our side, the "good guys."
Meanwhile, "terrorism" is defined by the same "good guys," who, incidentally, only fight it and never engage in it.
Which leads to the next item from my esteemed morning paper. A Reuters wire story explains that a small explosion occured at a US military recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday morning. There were no injuries.
But here's the kicker: "White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism."
Translation: We can't pin it on Muslims or Marxists so therefore it isn't terrorism.
Truly amazing.
We live in The Matrix, people. Awaketh from thy slumbers!
UPDATE: Latin American leaders have now agreed to end the crisis.
So much for terrorist sponsors and dirty bombs.
