rational denial of oppression and the media that hide it
i have to admit, it peaked my interest earlier this week when i was looking around the internet at news and discovered that the international herald tribune had a story about the disappearance of an egyptian diplomat and despite scouring the new york times, i was unable to find any reports of the kidnapping.
of course, the reports came in the next day. i suppose you could argue it had something to do with the time difference. and that is probably the situation, but for a second, i was thinking it was that the new york times was suppressing the news.
but then, when i looked at the tribune today, i see that there has been yet another attack on a diplomat to iraq from an arab nation. his name is hassan malallah al-ansari, and he is the chief diplomat from bahrain. bahrain is an american bitch. like most of the arabic nations, it is ruled by a corrupt and archaic government. but of course, it is a very rich government -- largely because of geopolitical placement.
the plan of the insurgents is quite clear. make it extremely trying on the united states and its allies to continue the oppression of a free iraq. i am not sure that americans realize that it is a free iraq. remember, our government went in there and freed them from the evil dictator that was saddam hussien. i think that the tendency for americans is to think that because we gave them their freedom, they could not possibly be asking for said freedom from us.
bahrain is, obviously, very important to the raping of iraq. bahrain itself does not have the large oil quantities of its neighbors. the country relies more on refining and export for its riches, as it is conveniently placed for mass distribution -- also unlike its neighbors. large amounts of the oil that is stolen from iraq "to help pay for reconstruction" will undoubtedly go through bahrain. my money says that al-ansari was in iraq helping lay the foundations for trade. just a hunch.
back to the point ... the tribune article was from the associated press. that's right, not exactly the cutting edge of alternative media. and in the article, the attack was paired with the new declarations from some (presumably) hard-lined sunnis that sunni iraqis ought to prepare to vote and take part in the formation of the new government (possibly finally realizing that the best way to succeed in an american environment is to play ball).
so this time, when i flipped to the new york times, i figured that i could work two angles in the double checking of the "breaking news." sure enough, the top story for the iraq war (which rarely makes the top stories for the times, but consistently is the top story for the tribune) is that clerics were calling for the involvement in elections. but yet again, there was no mention of this attack.
soon after sept. 11, when the distrust and disenchantment was at a peak, people with a more liberal perspective and a more peaceful approach to foreign policy often suggested that the mainstream media were not doing their jobs helping people understand current events and their ramifications.
more than one person pointed a finger at the times and said that any corporate media was untrustable and often stood to benefit from the new america. i am sure that a lot of that was hippie paranoia and rhetoric. but i look at this, and the only motivations i can give the times is to help the government create this image that all is going relatively fine in iraq.
of course, i am sure that by the time that i have posted this entry, the new york times will have the attack up on its web site, and that all of my conjecture has been in vain.
either way, i think it is important to look at things in iraq on an honest level from time to time. of course, to do that, we must assume that all that has happened was supposed to happen and did so just according to plan. and in that, we start here, with the united states in the role of the in-house oppressors who stand to gain trillions upon trillions of dollars with the continued occupation, and that without said occupation, the entire nation of iraq would grow into a mess far beyond what it is now.
from there, we should as the single most important question: why not have peace?
me, i am going to say that peace is the best answer, even now. that tomorrow, bush should announce a total and complete withdrawal from iraq. that the united states has done its job, and that iraq is now free. and that just like every free nation that has before it thrown off the shackles of oppression and made its way into the future, iraq will have to make the rest of the journey on its own.
oh fuck. once again, i have rambled on senselessly, and without resolution. i am tired. that's it. time for me to sleep. oh, the photo. this is the diplomat from the attack. i will just say before i go that peace in the region will never be possible until the west decides that there is a place in democracy for islamic fundamentalism, and the islamists understand that god doesn't really give a fuck about how other people live their lives. god created you, and you created god. it is a personal relationship that is completely independent of any relationships with other living things.
of course, the reports came in the next day. i suppose you could argue it had something to do with the time difference. and that is probably the situation, but for a second, i was thinking it was that the new york times was suppressing the news.but then, when i looked at the tribune today, i see that there has been yet another attack on a diplomat to iraq from an arab nation. his name is hassan malallah al-ansari, and he is the chief diplomat from bahrain. bahrain is an american bitch. like most of the arabic nations, it is ruled by a corrupt and archaic government. but of course, it is a very rich government -- largely because of geopolitical placement.
the plan of the insurgents is quite clear. make it extremely trying on the united states and its allies to continue the oppression of a free iraq. i am not sure that americans realize that it is a free iraq. remember, our government went in there and freed them from the evil dictator that was saddam hussien. i think that the tendency for americans is to think that because we gave them their freedom, they could not possibly be asking for said freedom from us.
bahrain is, obviously, very important to the raping of iraq. bahrain itself does not have the large oil quantities of its neighbors. the country relies more on refining and export for its riches, as it is conveniently placed for mass distribution -- also unlike its neighbors. large amounts of the oil that is stolen from iraq "to help pay for reconstruction" will undoubtedly go through bahrain. my money says that al-ansari was in iraq helping lay the foundations for trade. just a hunch.
back to the point ... the tribune article was from the associated press. that's right, not exactly the cutting edge of alternative media. and in the article, the attack was paired with the new declarations from some (presumably) hard-lined sunnis that sunni iraqis ought to prepare to vote and take part in the formation of the new government (possibly finally realizing that the best way to succeed in an american environment is to play ball).
so this time, when i flipped to the new york times, i figured that i could work two angles in the double checking of the "breaking news." sure enough, the top story for the iraq war (which rarely makes the top stories for the times, but consistently is the top story for the tribune) is that clerics were calling for the involvement in elections. but yet again, there was no mention of this attack.
soon after sept. 11, when the distrust and disenchantment was at a peak, people with a more liberal perspective and a more peaceful approach to foreign policy often suggested that the mainstream media were not doing their jobs helping people understand current events and their ramifications.
more than one person pointed a finger at the times and said that any corporate media was untrustable and often stood to benefit from the new america. i am sure that a lot of that was hippie paranoia and rhetoric. but i look at this, and the only motivations i can give the times is to help the government create this image that all is going relatively fine in iraq.
of course, i am sure that by the time that i have posted this entry, the new york times will have the attack up on its web site, and that all of my conjecture has been in vain.
either way, i think it is important to look at things in iraq on an honest level from time to time. of course, to do that, we must assume that all that has happened was supposed to happen and did so just according to plan. and in that, we start here, with the united states in the role of the in-house oppressors who stand to gain trillions upon trillions of dollars with the continued occupation, and that without said occupation, the entire nation of iraq would grow into a mess far beyond what it is now.
from there, we should as the single most important question: why not have peace?
me, i am going to say that peace is the best answer, even now. that tomorrow, bush should announce a total and complete withdrawal from iraq. that the united states has done its job, and that iraq is now free. and that just like every free nation that has before it thrown off the shackles of oppression and made its way into the future, iraq will have to make the rest of the journey on its own.
oh fuck. once again, i have rambled on senselessly, and without resolution. i am tired. that's it. time for me to sleep. oh, the photo. this is the diplomat from the attack. i will just say before i go that peace in the region will never be possible until the west decides that there is a place in democracy for islamic fundamentalism, and the islamists understand that god doesn't really give a fuck about how other people live their lives. god created you, and you created god. it is a personal relationship that is completely independent of any relationships with other living things.
posted by jeames morgan at
4:16:00 AM
0 Comments:
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home