First stop Damascus – next stop Tehran?
al-Hariri assassination followed by character assassination
Recent utterances by the Bush administration about Syria have a predictably ominous ring to them that when coupled to the massive car bomb that killed the former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, fit a pattern that prepares the ground for more aggressive actions, more than likely to be carried out by its proxy in the region, Israel.
And immediately after the assassination the US recalled its ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, for “urgent consultations”.
Predictably of course, the corporate/state-run media is full of thinly veiled accusations that blame Syria for the assassination but without presenting a shred of evidence to back up the assumptions. The BBC for example, tells us that “many people blame Syria [for the assassination]” (BBC Radio 4 News at One 16/2/05), though conveniently, we are not told who these people are. And true to form, the BBC has continued with this line of ‘reasoning’ by inserting vague and unsubstantiated claims of Syrian involvement in the assassination but without directly accusing Syria in what amounts to character assassination by association. So on BBC Radio 4 AM News (17/2/05), we hear that “in Lebanon, many [people] believe that Syria is behind the assassination” but where are the voices of those who believe that it could be the US or its proxy in the region, Israel?
By contrast al-Hariri’s former consultant Mustafa al-Naser told IRNA Monday evening that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency was behind the assassination
But a scan of the Western media reveals not a word that contradicts the assumption that Syria is the culprit. A piece in the Guardian without actually blaming Syria nevertheless put Syria at the centre of its alleged analysis and therefore by implication blames Syria for the bomb (’Battlefield in a larger conflict Lebanon is used by and against Syria in this struggle for power’, David Hirst in Beirut, Tuesday February 15, 2005). The article doesn’t even mention Israel’s role in Lebanon, the invasion and occupation in 1982 nor about the larger ambitions of the United States and Israel in the region.
Also not reported in the Guardian was the statement by Rime Allaf, Middle East analyst at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London who said
More stating of the obvious that points to the fact that an uninformed public is most vulnerable to these kinds of insinuations for what do they have to compare this kind of ‘reportage’ with?
between the lines’
Clearly, whoever set-up the assassination were, by most accounts, professionals. Again, unreported in the Western media we read
Rashwan goes on to say
One need only look at the record of Israel’s Mossad in state-sponsored assassinations in Lebanon and elsewhere to see that Israel is the most likely culprit, Israel stands the most to gain from destabilising Lebanon as the history of their actions show. So why not a single report in the Western media that at the very least raises the question of Israel’s involvement?
Again, Diaa Rashwan hits the nail on the head
Stating the obvious
The nature of the Western propaganda process is best illustrated by the following BBC report. Under the heading “The claim of responsibility could well be a false trail”. The report, by Paul Reynolds goes on to say
But then in what can best be described as a bizarre turnaround, Reynolds goes on to tell us
Further reading of the report fails to tell us why the video is so strange. Indeed, the comment exists in a journalistic vacuum, its only claim to fame being how it plants a connection between ‘Islamists’ and the assassination. What is strange is why Reynolds used the word in the first place. But read on, as Reynolds reveals the subtext of the report when he says
But what “equation” has changed? Ah – it’s “Islamic violence” and it’s Reynolds himself who has “changed the equation” by introducing the red herring of the Saudi royal family.
But why would Syria be “in their sights”? Syria, which is a close ally of Iran, seat of “evil” according to the US, is surely the last place on earth that “Islamist violence” would target. Reynolds attempts to substantiate his claim by saying that after all
Though Reynolds fails to connect this with the current situation. Instead, Reynolds returns to the ‘false trail’ idea but instead of connecting it to the most obvious culprits, Israel and the US, he writes
The problem Reynolds aka the BBC propaganda department has is how to draw attention away from the most obvious culprit/s without ending in a speculative dead-end? He tries to achieve this impossible objective by disassociating the assassination from reality entirely by saying
So now it’s “fringe elements” (whoever they are) and without realizing it, uncovers the real reasons for the assassination by saying
But why has “anger against Syria … increased”? Reynolds completely ignores the US propaganda assault and threats (and obviously the BBC’s complicity in the process) that directly presage the assassination. By Reynolds own ‘logic’, it is surely obvious that it is the US and Israel who stand to gain the most by directing attention away from their involvement and pin the assassination on Syria. But search the BBC Website for a single story that even obliquely suggests US/Israeli involvement in destabilising the region.
The contrast between those who have a real understanding of what’s going on in the Middle East and Western media coverage is painfully obvious. Further searching of the Web reveals a wealth of background news and analysis that paints an entirely different picture than the one we get in the West as the sources I have used demonstrate. Sources moreover, that are freely available to those stalwart searchers for the truth ensconced in BBC Radio Orwell.
For clearly the Western media’s objective is in the way of yet another ‘softening up’ procedure as part of the process of preparing us for the next step in the US takeover of the Middle East, thus preparing the ground for the future subversion first of Syria through the use of terrorist tactics (the assassination of al-Hariri) that seeks to split the alliance between Syrian and Iran. First stop Damascus, next stop Tehran?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.