BBC Propaganda by Jonathan Marcus
 
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:39:31 -0500 (CDT)

Hypothetical: Country X carries out an attack on country Y, bombing
an installation.

Question: Which country "has some explaining to do"?

According to BBC's Jonathan Marcus, it's country Y, the country that
was bombed. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7064263.stm]

Never does he suggest that Israel, the country which carried out the
attack has any "explaining to do"

Syria and Syria alone has "some explaining to do"
intones Mr. Marcus, even after admitting, in the passing that

"Think back to the briefing by the then US Secretary of State Colin
Powell at the United Nations in February 2003 when he marshalled an
impressive array of satellite images, communications intercepts and
other intelligence data to make the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq
still maintained active weapons of mass destruction programmes.The
only problem was that he was wrong" (obviously that false statement
would be deliberately made is simply beyond the pale...something we
are not allowed to contemplate for a second about the Bush
administration; "mistakes" and being "wrong" are the only allowable
alternatives]

One has also to contemplate why Israel has remained so silent if it
had any juicy details about a nuclear weapons program, even at the
earliest of early stages, given the currency

But much more broadly the mainstream media pundits going along with
the imperatives of framing the issue in accordance with how
 US/Israeli hegemony would have them framed, must ask why even mere nuclear
_power_ is such a no-no for Syria to even think about, when (away from
the notice of most mainstream media reading Americans)  Oil-Rich
Bahrain
[http://www.tradearabia.com/news/newsdetails.asp?Sn=CM&artid=12936]

as well as Jordan
[http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000198915&fid=942]

as well as Egypt
[http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/19/news/egypt.php]

among others have been planning nuclear power build-ups.

The answer is as obvious as it is uncomfortable: countries under
sufficient control by the Hegemon, get treated differently than those
charting an independent course -- completely unrelated to issues of
human rights or democracy, as evidenced by decades of support for
"Friendly" dictatorships in Iran (before 1979), Saudi Arabia (nation
where most 9/11 terrorists came from) etc...

In fact if you're Saudi Arabia you can even talk about obtaining
nuclear WEAPONS as it did (in a story that died the very next day and
about which nothing has been heard since) after the first talk of US
troop pullout from Saudi Arabia into their new bases (not empire! oh
no! other countries have empires...not us, not the US, oh my no!) in
Iraq.

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =

= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** New email: econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com