MEDIA ROOTS – Netanyahu otherwise known as ‘BB’ alleges that Hamas has committed a “double war crime” by firing out-dated rockets out of self defense at the Israeli aggressors. Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, who predicted the aftermath of 9/11 with his amazing prophetic psychic abilities, says that Israel intends to “systematically destroy” anywhere in Gaza where rockets are being produced.

Wouldn’t it be ridiculous if someone in Detroit fired rockets outside of Michigan and Washington D.C. responded with an ariel bombing of Detroit? At Media Roots we think firing on a population contained in your own country with military force is beyond ridiculous. Once again it evokes mass surrealism how biased the media is, including CNN in justifying these events. 

Robbie Martin for Media Roots




Ehud Barak’s psychic abilities on display


****

CNN – “We are defending ourselves,” he said, arguing that Benjamin Netanyahu was looking to cement support in advance of an election in two months. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak denied that any politics are involved in the decision.

Speaking to CNN, Barak said Israel has destroyed most of the “heavy long range rockets” used by militants in Gaza and is working to “systematically destroy” installations in which other rockets are produced. “It will take some time,” he said, “and we are not going to stop until the whole thing will dramatically change” — with an end to the attacks from Gaza, he said.

Israeli forces are going after Hamas weapons, storage bunkers, weapons labs and workshops, an Israeli official told CNN. The official has direct knowledge of Israeli plans but declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the information. The Israeli army is moving nearly a division’s worth of troops — perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 — to the border, the official said.

Read More at CNN.com

MEDIA ROOTS – While it may be popular to blame George W. Bush for the terror war, it is actually President Obama who has escalated drone warfare from 45 strikes when he assumed office to an additional 292 strikes as of last month. This is in large part due to the relaxed standards this president has set with strikes occurring not just for specific (alleged) combatants but now include targets that merely appear to fit certain criteria.

To date, the office of the president has now approved of more slaughter from drones than the total number of victims on 9/11. The fear that once settled in America’s hearts following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon – attacks that were supposedly executed by manned aerial vehicles – hardly compare to the terror that Pakistanis now suffer from the unmanned drones. And while America is not officially at war with Pakistan, 74% of Pakistanis now consider the United States an enemy, according to a report released last week titled Living Under Drones. But why is this genocide continuing with virtually no outcry from the American citizenry?

No compassion, no coverage

The latest drone strike occurred just yesterday in Yemen. Military officials claim that four al-Qaeda militants were killed in the strike but there is simply no way to verify if this information is accurate. Virtually no American news agency covered the event and even fewer media outlets questioned authorities on its legitimacy.

The separation of general society from the terror war is comparable to the president and his weekly kill list or drone operators and their targets. As the war on terror enters its twelfth year on Sunday, almost no corporate media outlet deems this historical mark worthy of reflection thus continuing to alienate Americans from the horrors that are taking place daily in their name.

The president advises drone operators that potential combatants are men of military age – between 18 and 65 – and supports targeting them for assassination from the comfort of armchairs thousands of miles away. Additionally, anyone rushing to the aid of these victims is immediately considered a suspected terrorist and is frequently targeted just seconds later. The result has been the creation of dysfunctional societies that not only fear the skies but also helping one’s neighbor.

 “What is absolutely true is that my first job, my most sacred duty as president and commander-in-chief, is to keep America safe,” President Obama explained in an interview last month. But a much more dangerous precedent is now taking place. David Kilcullen, a former adviser to General Patraeus, explained that for “every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement.”

Several American antiwar activists, including some from the women’s group Code Pink, are now on the ground in Islamabad in preparation for a march to northwest Pakistan that starts tomorrow. They are marching in protest of the seemingly unending barrage of drone-strikes in the region and are led by Imran Khan, a Pakistani official known for his days as one of the nation’s top cricket players.

No end in sight

These crimes against humanity are staggering. But the general tolerance for these crimes by the American electorate is what is of particular concern. How many times must this president murder children before other parents stand up? And will voters actually re-elect such an evil administration that is only perpetuating this terror war? With President Obama and Governor Romney leading in the polls, the outcome appears inevitable.

***

Oskar Mosco for Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flickr user Jayel Aheram.

Living Under Drones is a video published by Brave New Foundation that highlights

a recent report that explains how drone warfare is terrorizing civilian populations.

MEDIA ROOTS – The Pentagon and the corporate media establishment are again attempting to control the 9/11 and War on Terror narrative by claiming that they are considering legal action against former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette (a.k.a. Mark Owen) for publishing his book No Easy Day. The supposed context for the publication of his story, scheduled for release on Tuesday, is that the veteran did not offer the manuscript to the Department of Defense for prior review and he now may face legal recourse from the agency. Additionally, his name was leaked by the Associated Press last week, resulting in possible threats to his life.

The book was originally scheduled for release on September 11 of this year. It was an attempt made by Owen to remain apolitical about arguably the most politicized event of the decade. But the current debate appears to be scripted for the history books as several hard questions about the death of bin Laden continue to be ignored and will most likely not be answered in the upcoming publication distributed by Dutton.

The first and probably the most obvious discrepancy is if military intelligence had known of his precise location for eight months prior to the raid, then why hasn’t more proof of his whereabouts been released to the American public? “Despite the intense surveillance effort the CIA was unable to obtain a photograph of Bin Laden or a recording of the voice of the mysterious man, presumed to be the al-Qaida leader,” states the Guardian the week after the raid.

With such precise knowledge of the bunker, why was bin Laden not captured for trial in a court of law? Attorney General Eric Holder answers that the operation was not only lawful according to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) but was simply an act of national self-defense. But in a nation where children are taught the belief of liberty and justice for all, it’s quite contradictory for this nation’s leadership to not protect and promote these ideals worldwide.

Furthermore, Owen recounts a scene where bin Laden may actually have already been dead upon their arrival. “At first it was funny because it was so wrong,” Owen reflected in his account of May 1, 2011. This version is in direct conflict with that of the White House in which bin Laden was allegedly reaching for a weapon at the time of the fatal shots. Owen confirms that the suspected terrorist was unarmed at the time of his death and their team may have just been on a kill mission.

But the greatest and most pertinent question has still not been asked: was Osama Bin Laden actually killed on May 1, 2011? This past March, the online hacker group Anonymous was able to obtain emails from the intelligence analysis group Stratfor which directly contradicts the official story about what happened with bin Laden’s body after the raid. While possibly the smoking gun of a White House cover-up, several news stories reported before the raid also directly contradict the official narrative. Below are a just few examples:

2001 – “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.” [Fox News]

2002 – “Pakistan’s president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.” [CNN]

2006 – “Saudi intelligence services seem to be sure that Osama bin Laden is dead. The elements gathered by the Saudis indicate that the head of Al Qaeda was the victim, while he was in Pakistan on Aug. 23, 2006, of a strong case of typhoid fever that led to a partial paralysis of his lower limbs.” [France’s Directorate-General for External Security]

2007 – “… he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” [Benazir Bhutto]

2008 – “The last relatively reliable bin Laden sighting was in late 2001.” [Time]

2009 – “What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror? Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.” [Daily Mail]

The War on Terror is riddled with unanswered questions that range in depth and consequence. From numerous eyewitness accounts of what actually hit the Twin Towers to this morning’s attack at a US military base, the corporate media hardly scratches the surface of investigation, often simply regurgitating government propaganda. But as more individuals combat societal ignorance, becoming proactively aware of the atrocities committed by their military establishment and the history of their empire, the War on Terror is destined to end.

Oskar Mosco for Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flickr user Ben Sutherland.

MEDIA ROOTS- The news that King Abdullah would permit women to vote and run in local elections in 2015 was met with the predictable array of responses in the corporate media. Very little was said about American-Saudi relations going back more than half a century. Unmentioned were the anti-egalitarian campaigns that the plutocrats of both societies colluded on, to squash any dissent and threat to the flow and control of oil or petrodollars. 

American policymakers may rehearse and make emphatic speeches in international meetings on human rights or the status of women in other countries, but it’s pretty clear that the policies of succeeding administrations since FDR have created income inequality, political disempowerment, widows, orphans, broken societies, lack of opportunity for education, populations vulnerable to sex trafficking, patriarchy, especially in the majority-Muslim world. 

Conservatives like Laura Bush and well-intentioned but counterproductive liberals often exacerbate the situation for women worldwide, and refuse to acknowledge the role that American foreign policy–serving the interests of a global capitalist class–has in perpetuating, amplifying, and worsening disparities and trauma of women.  

MR

***

SLATE– King Abdullah announced on Sunday that Saudi women will be allowed to vote and run for office in municipal elections beginning in 2015. Saudi watchers view the move as a weaker step than allowing women to drive, a right women have been demanding publicly for more than two decades. Why did Saudi women find it easier to get the vote than a driver’s license?

Because the right to vote is meaningless. Elections are mostly symbolic in Saudi Arabia. Only half of the seats on the municipal councils are up for election, while the ruling al–Saud family appoints the other half of the members and the mayors. The councils have little power. The government reserves the right to postpone elections, as it did in 2009. There’s no guarantee that the 2015 elections, in which women are supposed to participate, will happen on time, or at all. Moreover, King Abdullah’s announcement doesn’t carry the force of law. He could change his mind at any time. Or, if the 87-year-old king isn’t around in 2015, his successor could easily go back on Abdullah’s promise to Saudi women.

While voting in municipal elections is hardly a move toward true political authority, Saudi conservatives view female driving as the first practical step away from the kingdom’s guardian system, which keeps women reliant on men. As things stand, women in Saudi cities can’t get around unless they can afford a driver or have a male family member who’s willing to chauffeur them. (Young men with many sisters have it tough in the kingdom.) Public buses have separate doors and seating areas for women, but they are slow and unreliable. Some women are afraid to ride in taxis because there have been reports of inappropriate comments by Saudi drivers. (Foreign-born drivers don’t have the same reputation, because the Saudi criminal justice system has treated immigrants brutally.)

Read more about Why is King Abdullah Willing To Let Saudi Women Vote But Not Drive Cars?

© 2011 Slate 

Photo by Flickr user Dmunk–huulei