Thursday, February 04, 2010

Daniel Pipes, if this is a man

I've stumbled across the bloodcurdling article journalist Daniel Pipes recently wrote for the National Review Online website, "How to Save Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran," and I've spontaneously wondered how can human nature be so inhuman.

This sort of academic/journalist must be very proud of his latest breakthrough: in fact, since Obama, "a President whose election he didn't even support," is plummeting in the polls, he (Pipes), in a burst of patriotic zeal, has revealed the secret that would allow him to get back on track. For the sake of the country, of course, as this seems to have become everybody's favourite slogan.

Basically, the brightest solution this "man" has managed to come up with is to bomb Iran, nonetheless. Impressive. What a man, what a macho.

His astute suggestion, however, brings some questions to mind.

1. Has Obama asked him for his poorly researched opinion? Pipes is acclaimed by other stenographers of regime as to be a Middle East expert: I've read some of his work and I have no doubt saying that this is not true. His articles, in fact, are very superficial, mainly his personal opinions without providing readers with accurate and authoritative sources. This process, aimed at giving the public mind quick "slogans" and easy concepts to keep in mind, rather than a bigger picture of the geopolitical context to help the public understand what we are talking about, cannot be considered information but propaganda. Trustworthy information cannot ignore the historic, economic, social and political background of a news, while propaganda gains strength by ignoring these crucial facts, causing a partial information that prevents readers/spectators/listeners from truly understanding. The fact that pamphlets such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post define him as an "expert" is the evidence that the regime wants to make him an authoritative voice.

2. Is the United States a nation of warmongers? According to the polls Pipes mentioned in his essay, 57% of the American people supports a military intervention in Iran. Have US citizens not learnt from the Iraqi lesson? Have they already forgot what such a disaster this has been? Do they know that a war against Iran will be far worse than the one against Iraq? Do they remember that war criminals such as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are still not in prison, where they should be kept for the rest of their lives? Do US citizens remember that they have elected President Obama because he was NOT Bush? Do they remember that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and not the Nobel War Prize? If these polls are wrong, the US citizens have the right to claim that they do not agree with a military intervention in Iran and to report to justice the lies published in their national papers, because such publications have the goal to incite hatred against US people in the world, in order to justify the invasion of other countries. This has always been a widespread routine: Zionists promote anti-Semitism to have the popular support to carry on with the genocide of the Palestinian people. The same way, US governments promote anti-US sentiments in order to provoke attacks against unarmed US citizens in the world and gain the necessary support for a military intervention.
US citizens need to understand that if their country is unpopular is not because the world hates "them", but because it hates their dangerous foreign policy.

3. Why is Pipes considered an expert? Like Pipes in the US, many other so-called "experts" feel entitle to "suggest" moves to Presidents and Premiers, feel authoritative enough to give us their opinions without fact-checking, feel strong enough to write articles crammed with lies and with no supporting evidence. How is this possible in so-called "democratic" societies? It happens because Western regimes need such servants in order to gain the support of the public opinion, kept in ignorance of the crimes their governments carry out in the name of the biggest corporations. Usually, there is a majour advertising strategy behind the names chosen to be the "experts", and this involves inviting them to tv shows, that usually are very poor but considered "mainstream" because they appear in the public tv and publishing their articles on widespread daily/weekly/monthly publications that don't need to carry out in-depth research because their sole job is to keep people in complete ignorance.
There are many no-no topics that mainstream media cannot cover. However, if such topics come to light, media are somehow "forced" not to ignore them: their routine in this case is to debunk them or start another "media case" (often about sexual scandals involving politicians, sport stars, actors or singers), with the aim to distract the population.
Today's journalism, far from being honest information, is actually the guardian of the power, and its main tasks are: mind manipulation, managing popular support, protecting the crimes of their governments and diverting public opinions according to political needs. This leads to my third and last question.

4. How can a civil society accept that men such as Daniel Pipes have a public voice? In the article I've mentioned at the beginning of this post, Pipes invites President Obama to bomb Iran in order to gain popular support. With this statement, Pipes, in a civil society that truly deserves this definition, would be considered a monster. In fact, bombs, no matter how "intelligent," kill, and Pipes is encouraging President Obama to commit murder. After having planned and carried out the deliberate genocide of the Iraqi population, in order to invade, destroy, divide and sell the country to big corporations, now the US administration is getting ready to destroy other Middle East nations, and since Iran doesn't want to blindly abide by US orders, it will be the first one to be attacked.

The United States have a very long history of terrorism: a) They put the whole South America on its knees, provoking the genocide in Guatemala, instigating coups d'état against democratically elected regimes to establish fascist dictators and imposing economic sanctions against unarmed civilians; b) Through big corporations they managed to destroy most of the African Continent. When their newspapers say that Africa is a poor country because of climate conditions, they lie: Africa is extremely rich in natural resources, and this is why it's constantly sacked and its population exterminated; c) From 1990 to 2003 the US administration planned and carried out the genocide of the Iraqi population: Jean Bricmont, in his book "Humanitarian Imperialism. Using Human Rights to Sell War" (which I strongly recommend), reports Marc Bossuyt's words:

«The sanctions regime against Iraq has as its clear purpose the deliberate infliction on the Iraqi people of conditions of life (lack of adequate food, medicines, etc.) calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It does not matter that this deliberate physical destruction has as its ostensible objective the security of the region. Once clear evidence was available that thousands of civilians were dying and that hundreds of thousands would die in the future as the Security Council continued the sanctions, the deaths were no longer an unintended side effect - the Security Council was responsible for all known consequences of its actions. The sanctioning bodies cannot be absolved from having the "intent to destroy" the Iraqi people. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations [Madeleine Albright] in fact admitted this; when questioned whether the half-million deaths were "worth it," she replied: "We think the price is worth it." The States imposing the sanctions could raise questions under the genocide Convention.»

With all this in mind, it appears very clear that Pipes knows very well the consequences of bombing a country and that he does not care if children, women, old people, men will be slaughtered during the massacre he's advicing President Obama to carry out.

As children are usually genuinely creative and don't have the desire to kill other human beings, I think Pipes became what he is now after being heavily brainwashed and promised a bright and successful future. He traded his soul and his personhood for money and wealth, and in order to comply to his contract, he writes such disgraceful atrocities, that have no other goal than prepare the public mind to a future war.

A war against Iran will cause massive destruction in Mideast and immediately near European and African countries. Since Pipes has no human sentiments, I think he doesn't even feel scared, so I would suggest him to go to live in Gaza, constantly under the risk of being slaughtered by his friends' bombs. From there he could keep advising President Obama to further destabilise the region. So far, the United States and Israel are the most dangerous nations in the world, I do not feel safe knowing that they can freely dispose of nuclear weapons, because they use them indiscriminately and put in danger us all. Their political leaders do not care about world's peace but only about their personal interests, unlike what the press releases published in their papers say.

Pipes is encouraging a behaviour against humanity: we, as human beings who share the same planet, have the right to feel in danger by his attempts to manipulate the public mind and support terrorist ideas, and must demand that such journalists are forced to provide correct information. If we don't, we cannot claim we live in a "civil" society.

No comments:

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin