"Peaceful EU"

The 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union (EU) "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". In other words, for not killing each other for six decades. What an achievement of civilization! European countries successfully managed to export war to other countries and keep their home clean of massacres. This has got to be celebrated! Almost a third (31%) of the world's weapon exports between 2004 and 2008 belonged to the EU: Germany (10%), France (8%), United Kingdom (4%), Netherlands (3%), Spain (2%), Italy (2%) and Schweden (2%), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). In its comment on the award, the institute consequently noted:

‘To be relevant for its citizens and to become a significant global player, the European Union must achieve peace and prosperity abroad as well as at home.’

In other words, the award is disregarding the EU's involvement in recent NATO wars and its often slavish following of the USA's hegemonic, aggressive, failed foreign politics. Let's not forget that among Bush's "coalition of the willing" (nations to invade Iraq) there were several EU countries (see Bush's White House Press Release, March 27, 2003). SIPRI's hint at "prosperity abroad" is also worth noting. Wasn't the EU and its citizens an essential part of the oppressive systems ruling in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia until the "Arab Spring"? (See e.g. Smart Villages and the City of the Dead).

Moreover, with similar arguments as given below, one could justify that the US warlords deserve the Nobel Peace Prize much more than the EU: there was no war on American soil since the American Civil War, 1861. (I don't count the conflicts concerning Hawai or Alaska because these US-controlled territories became official US-states only after these conflicts).

Wouldn't it be time to think of awarding people or organizations doing a real essential job in preventing or avoiding war? Isn't the international arms trade one of the most serious threats to peace? Isn't the uncontrolled and unpunished warmongering (of mass-media) one of the most serious threats to peace as well? Why aren't people and organisations awarded which successfully fight against international arms trade and warmongering? Because there are none?

Nobel Peace Prize Committee Press Release

"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European Union (EU). The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.

In the inter-war years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.

In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined the EU. The introduction of democracy was a condition for their membership. The fall of the Berlin Wall made EU membership possible for several Central and Eastern European countries, thereby opening a new era in European history. The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.

The admission of Croatia as a member next year, the opening of membership negotiations with Montenegro, and the granting of candidate status to Serbia all strengthen the process of reconciliation in the Balkans. In the past decade, the possibility of EU membership for Turkey has also advanced democracy and human rights in that country.

The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU's most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.

The work of the EU represents "fraternity between nations", and amounts to a form of the "peace congresses" to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.

Oslo, 12 October 2012"

Why Wait for a Military Incident?

Patrick Clawson - a warmonger with a long catalogue of sins (see the entry in the Right Web) - explains "the traditional way that America gets into war" as follows.

"I frankly find that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us into war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way that America gets into war is what would be best for U.S. interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II, as David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I, you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolineans had said would cause an attack.

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure.

I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, some day one of them might not come up, who would know why? We could do a variety of things if we wish to to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition, you know it’s just sanctions have to succeed or it’s other things.

We are in the games of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier."

You're nasty enough, terrorizing the world.

There is a little historical distortion in what Clawson said. There is no real (or false-flag) military incident necessary. In fact, the US take ANY opportunity to start a war or send their troops, if it serves their interests (political and financial hegemony). Empires and hegemonic powers have always been opportunists, trying to take advantage of EVERY situation that comes along, and so does the US:

- There is an earth-quake? Let's go to Haiti!
- There are two airliners crashing into two sky scrapers and three buildings are coming down (like in a controlled demolition)? Let's go to Afghanistan!
- There is a heart-breaking story of Kuwaiti babies taken out of their incubators and left to die by Iraqi soldiers? Let's go to Iraq! (see Nayirah, a classic of war propaganda)
- Mhm, there is nothing? Let's apply the Cheney Doctrine and go again to Iraq!

See the video of Clawson's speech

• How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout
• VIDEO: WINEP’s Director Of Research: U.S. Needs A False Flag To Start A War With Iran
• Breaking!! Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!

Die Sehnsucht nach Krieg

27-09-2012: Heute wird der derzeit amtierende Weltmeister in Kriegspropaganda, der Israelische Ministerpräsident Netanjahu, vor der UNO-Vollversammlung sprechen. Anlässlich dieses Ereignisses schreibt eine Frau Juliane von Mittelstaedt im Spiegel Online:

"Eilig geführte Umfragen ergaben angeblich, dass eine Mehrheit der Israelis diesen Krieg fast schon herbeisehnt, egal um welchen Preis. Nur lässt der Schlag gegen Irans Nuklearanlagen auf sich warten." (Der Krachmacher - Netanjahus Iran-Rede vor der Uno)

Diese Zeilen erinnern so stark an den heißen Sommer des Jahres 1939 und die Kriegserwartungen der Polen und Deutschen, daß einem schlecht werden könnte (vergleiche "Nervenkrieg" - Weichgekocht durch Propaganda).

update 28-09-2012: Netanjahus Rede stellte sich wieder einmal als Abfolge mythologischer Geschichten und Spekulationen heraus. Sie begann mit "vor 3000 Jahren herrschte König David über den jüdischen Staat (sic!) in unserer unteilbaren Hauptstadt Jerusalem". (Hier das english transcript). Ich erspare mir hier den Rest, außer dieser Sache mit der Schautafel, die er verwendete, um seinen Zuhörern zu erklären wie eine Bombe funktioniert, oder so ... (Österreicher werden sich an Jörg Haider erinnert fühlen, der 1994 als Erster bei einer Wahldiskussionsrunde im Fernsehen sein berühmtes "Schautaferl" auspackte.*)
Jedenfalls gibt es in der Blogosphäre seither eine neue Welle von Satiren über die "Bibi-Bomb" (ein Ausdruck der geprägt wurde, als sich der israelische Premier bei der Rückkehr Gilad Shalits vor Journalisten ein bißchen zu sehr in den Vordergrund rücken wollte).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A30w3dxCQAAc9gU.jpg

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/iran?before=1348794979

Bibi explains the Bullshit Meter: http://joequinn.net/author/joe/

Bibi explains why bags of potato chips consist mostly of air.
  http://israelity.com/2012/09/28/bibi-and-the-bomb/ 

*

aus Thomas Höfer: "Spin Doktoren in Österreich: Die Praxis amerikanischer Wahlkampfberater. Was sie können, wen sie beraten, wie sie arbeiten."

The Nice and Naive Mr. Powell (It Wasn't Me!)

“There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn't don't tell him that he doesn't,” Powell writes. “I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up. My infamous speech at the U.N. in 2003 about Iraqi WMD programs was not based on facts, though I thought it was.” read "Another War Criminal Cashes In"

Das Sirren über unseren Köpfen

"Auf dem Grat des Bergrückens, neben einer verlassenen Schäferhütte, liegt das traumhafte Ziel unseres Aufstiegs: Paschinkanda, eine Wiese an einer Quelle, umrahmt von majestätischen Tannen. Wenn nur das Sirren nicht wäre.
Es beginnt ganz leise, kommt näher, entfernt sich wieder - und ist das Geräusch der Drohnen der US-Armee, irgendwo im Himmel über uns."

 Austrian Armed Forces Photograph/Sigi Schwärzler
"http://www.bundesheer.gv.at

Das Zitat stammt aus dem Reisebericht "Die Andertaler" von Christoph Reuter in GEO, 06/Juni2012. Darin geht es um das afghanische Tal Darah-i-Nur im Grenzgebiet zu Pakistan, dessen Bewohner sich bis heute erfolgreich gegen einen Zutritt von US Militärs und von Taliban Kämpfern wehren. An das Sirren der Drohnen am Rande ihres Tals haben Sie sich gewöhnt ("Die Amerikaner bombadieren wieder einmal das Tal nebenan").

Das Gerät erfreut sich weltweit zunehmender Beliebtheit, besonders bei Geheimdiensten und Militärs, sogar in Österreich (Foto). Die Anzahl der bei US Drohnenattacken getöteten und verletzten Zivilisten ist allerdings hoch. In den USA werden unbemannte Drohnen auch schon zuhause zur Überwachung der störrischen Zivilbevölkerung eingesetzt ("domestic drones"), vorzugsweise bei Demonstrationen. Man kann gespannt sein, wie lang es dauern wird, bis auch die Europäer das Sirren über ihren Köpfen hören werden. Ob wir uns selbst auch Drohnen zulegen werden (können/sollen), wie die Occupy-Bewegung in den USA? (siehe "Occucopter")

Jedenfalls ist das Drohnengeschäft äußerst einträglich - das Überwachungsbusiness floriert. Der Kaviar-Kanonenindex zeigt unaufhörlich nach oben.

Und wie geht die Geschichte aus dem Darah-i-Nur Tal weiter?

"Langsam bezweifeln wir, daß es eine gute Idee war, mit einem halben Dutzend Mann und Waffen durch den Wald zu ziehen, ohne wenigstens eine Schafherde dabeizuhaben. Aus der Luft müssen wir exakt so aussehen wie jene, vor denen wir uns fürchten: die Taliban."

update 2012-07-03: Report: U.S. Firms Lobbying for Drone Sales Abroad
update 2012-09-13: Suicide-bombs without the suicides: why drones are so cool
update 2012-09-20: US-Medienforscher: Drohnen gehören zur Zukunft des Journalismus

Powellesque Warmongery

Powellesque Warmongery is by definition a (live) publication of unverifiable pieces of alleged evidence illustrating a possible (military) threat, designed to make the audience vote for aggression (war) but against any logic, counter-evidence and common sense; the presented Powellesque Evidence consists mainly of rumors, graphic files and videos showing alleged intelligence entirely undetermined and partly reproducible by any photoshop freshman; no way of telling facts from fake but fulfilling the Cheney Doctrine for entering into war; often Powellesque Evidence is manufactured by people other than the Powell (the one who presents the material, unchecked by himself); named after Colin Powell's (in-)famous speech before the U.N. General Assembly, February 5th, 2003.

Typical Powellesque Evidence for the existence of aliens

Usage:

"Did you hear the news "Iran 'digging mass graves for US troops' in case of invasion"?"

"Where did you get that Powellesque Warmongery from?"

"It's reported by FARS!"

"Do you have some link to the original source?"

"No"

"Any other evidence?"

"It was a revelation by former commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard General Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam."

"Who's that?"

"I don't know."

"What a Powell you are!"

"Jesus died and resurrected."
"Gosh! How did that happen?"
"It's written in the Bible"
"C'mon, Powellesque Evidence!"

Recent examples from a decade of Israel-Iran warmongery: It's Getting Powellesque Again

Hat der Teufel zwar so nicht gesagt, klingt aber gut!

Deshalb wiederholen wir das so oft wie möglich und distanzieren uns wieder irgendwann davon ...

Spiegel Online

14.05.2008: Ahmadinedschad: Die Verbalausfälle des iranischen Präsidenten

""Das Besatzerregime muß Geschichte werden."

Ahmadinedschad am 26. Oktober 2005 auf einer Konferenz zum Thema "Die Welt ohne Zionismus". Das Originalzitat "in rezhim-e eshghalgar bayad az safhe-ye ruzgar mahv shavad" wurde oft irrtümlich übersetzt mit "Israel muß von der Landkarte radiert werden." Das hat der iranische Präsident so nicht gesagt."

---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

Spiegel Online:
19.02.2009: Schröder trifft Ahmadinedschad

"Berlin - Dieses Treffen wird einige Empörung hervorrufen. Immerhin ist der Gesprächspartner jener Mann, der dazu aufruft, Israel "von der Landkarte" zu tilgen." 

Spiegel Online:
11.04.2009: Das geliebte Feindbild

"Aus seinem Wunsch, Israel von der Landkarte des Nahen Ostens getilgt zu sehen, hat Ahmadinedschad in der Tat keinen Hehl gemacht."

Spiegel Online:
20.04.2009: Israel protestiert gegen Schweizer Empfang für Ahmadinedschad

"Das Meeting zwischen dem Eidgenossen und dem notorischen Holocaust-Leugner, der gedroht hatte, Israel von der Landkarte auszuradieren, ist den Israelis sauer aufgestoßen." 

Spiegel Online
19.05.2009: Obamas unmögliche Nahost-Mission

"Obama weiß, dass Iran Israel nicht angreifen wird, denn so sehr sich die Ajatollahs und die Mullahs "eine Welt ohne Zionismus" wünschen und dass Israel von der Landkarte beziehungsweise aus dem Buch der Geschichte verschwinden möge, noch lieber leben sie in Saus und Braus - und schicken, wenn es sein muss, andere ins Paradies. Ein atomarer Präventiv- oder Gegenschlag Israels würde deren Luxusdasein unwiderruflich beenden."

Spiegel Online
26.09.2009: Zuckerbrot und Peitsche

"Hat Israel in Bezug auf Iran nicht allen Grund zur Sorge? Präsident Mahmud Ahmadinedschad will, dass Israel von der Landkarte verschwindet, und leugnet den Holocaust."

Spiegel Online
01.03.2012: Ein Krieg, den keiner gewinnen kann

"Doch Irans Weigerung, den vollen Umfang seines Atomprogramms offenzulegen nährt die Befürchtungen. Hinzu kommen wiederholte Drohungen des Regimes, Israel von der Landkarte tilgen zu wollen."

Spiegel Online

07.04.2012: Was taugt das Israel-Gedicht von Günter Grass?

"Deshalb noch mal ganz einfach: Iran will, dass Israel von der Landkarte verschwindet, das hat der verrückte Führer dort oft genug gesagt. Damit ist Iran erst mal der Aggressor in dieser Angelegenheit ..." 

Die Keule oder Das Verdikt "Antisemitismus" ist geläufig

Nicht ganz zehn Jahre ist es her, da erklärte die Friedensaktivistin, Autorin und Ex-Erziehungsministerin Israels Shulamit Aloni, was die Antisemitismuskeule ist, in den USA sowie in Europa, je nachdem.

Der kurze Ausschnitt aus einem Interview mit Amy Goodman (der Frontfrau von Democracy Now!) fehlt - wenig überraschend - im deutschen Wikipedia Eintrag, während er im englischsprachigen vorhanden ist:

Goodman: Yours is a voice of criticism we don't often hear in the United States. Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti-semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?

Aloni: Well, it's a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK. They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude is "Israel, my country right or wrong", identification. And they are not ready to hear criticism. And it's very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is justify everything we do to the Palestinians.

Nun, 10 Jahre danach, wurde die deutsche Öffentlichkeit wieder einmal Zeuge der großzügigen Anwendung dieser rustikalen wie einfachen aber auch äußerst erfolgreichen Methode, als der deutsche Schriftsteller Günther Grass letzte Woche ein Gedicht veröffentlichte, in dem er das Land Israel kritisierte (er hätte vielmehr verschiedene Regierungen Israels kritisieren sollen, denn Israel besteht ja nun wirklich nicht nur aus Kriegstreibern, ganz im Gegenteil). Logisch gesprochen ist die Keule ein argumentum ad hominem (also überhaupt kein Argument), praktisch gesehen ein Totschlagargument oder killer phrase. Und wie die Keule da niedersauste auf das Haupt des deutschen Nobelpreisträgers für Literatur! Grass hatte sie aber schon  im Gedicht selbst vorausgeschickt: "das Verdikt "Antisemitismus" ist geläufig." 

Das kann doch nicht wahr sein !?

"[...] Und dann haben wir den großen Konzern von Springer, den tonangebenden Konzern in den Printmedien, und Springer ist explizit, ausgesprochen verpflichtet amerikanischen und israelischen Interessen. D.h. jeder Redakteur, jeder Mitarbeiter muß bei Einstellung eine entsprechende Erklärung unterschreiben, daß er nicht anti-amerikanisch und anti-israelisch veröffentlicht [...]" Jürgen Elsässer in einem Interview über die Deutsche Medienlandschaft

Dem Springer Verlag gehören in Deutschland etwa

Bild, Bild am Sonntag, Die Welt, Welt Kompakt, Euro am Sonntag, Welt am Sonntag,

Hamburger Abendblatt, Berliner Morgenpost, B.Z., B.Z. am Sonntag,

Audio Video Foto Bild, Auto Bild, Bild der Frau, Bildwoche, Computer Bild, Computer Bild Spiele, 

Euro, Fonds&Co., Frau von Heute, Funk Uhr, Hörzu, Jolie, Mädchen, Markt und Mittelstand, 

Metal Hammer, Musikexpress, Popcorn, Rolling Stone, Sport Bild, Starflash, TV Digital, TV GUIDE, 

TVneu, Yam!, ...

Gibt es irgendwelche glaubhaften Bestätigungen für Elsässers Behauptung?

U.S. Soldiers in Israel

Part of a new strategy? Employing U.S. military in Israel, instead of invading other countries around? Really only a military exercise or war preparations?

--> Washington Post: Israeli and US troops gear up for major missile defense drill after Iran maneuvers

Sick People in a Sick War

New footage appearing to show US soldiers in Afghanistan urinating on dead bodies.

Did you really expect soldiers to behave humanly? Who's still believing all the gossip about "core values of  US marines", respect of international laws of war or the IDF's notorious "purity of arms"? What else do you need to know that war today is equally brutish as it was two thousand years ago?

Fisk on Torturers

Why do torturers really like to film their misdeeds?

"And we must forget, of course, that other American pictures from Abu Ghraib, which Obama the Good has decided we must not see, show the rape of Iraqi women and boys."

Correct, Mr. Assange!

Today, Wikileaks founder Assange lost his extradition fight in London in the first round. Details to this dubious case can be found on Sweden Vs. Assange. Let's return to what the man stands for. Two remarks really touching a nerve made by Julian Assange in an RT-Interview, published on May 2nd, 2011. 

WikiLeaks Logo

Mr. Assange makes clear what he thinks of mass media infotainment production and their involvement and participation in war preparations. His bad experiences with the so-called fourth estate are clearly first hand, after the disappointing collaboration with mass-media proponents like The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times and German Spiegel. Challenging the powerful has brought him and Wikileaks a witch-hunt orchestrated by the US and the blockade of WikiLeaks bank accounts by Visa, Mastercard and Paypal:*

"Our No. 1 enemy is ignorance. And I believe that is the No. 1 enemy for everyone – it’s not understanding what actually is going on in the world. It's only when you start to understand that you can make effective decisions and effective plans. Now, the question is, who is promoting ignorance? Well, those organizations that try to keep things secret, and those organizations which distort true information to make it false or misrepresentative. In this latter category, it is bad media.

It really is my opinion that media in general are so bad that we have to question whether the world wouldn't be better off without them altogether. They are so distortive to how the world actually is that the result is… we see wars, and we see corrupt governments continue on.

One of the hopeful things that I’ve discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media could've stopped it if they had searched deep enough; if they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could've stopped it. But what does that mean? Well, that means that basically populations don't like wars, and populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don't willingly, with open eyes, go into a war. So if we have a good media environment, then we also have a peaceful environment."

These are really questions worth to be considered. Of what use for the public are the mass-media, given the fact that selling information is done under the maximizing profit strategy of international corporations whose linkages to governments and other interest groups are highly dubious? And what are the alternatives? 

The internet is the most interesting stage where you can compare the opinions (and there are almost only opinions) published by the mass media with the opinions of the rest of the world. These two types are extremely diverging. One world of opinion seems to be publishing without investigations what governments, press agencies and others let out, and the other (mostly normal citizens but with common sense) wondering about the inconsistencies and absurdities of these published opinions. Warmongering is always a good example, another would be the half-religious beliefs of economy. The lies you get there are literally unbelievable but nevertheless repeated by the infotainment ad nauseam. On the other side, one should note that the rest of the world does not seem to let that go unchallenged. Most remarkable are some online newspapers having a mostly well-educated and critical readership (e.g. Austrian Der Standard): the articles and authors often being between average and ridiculous are court-martialled and shot by the readers in hundreds of comments in a most entertaining and often enlightening manner. The discrepancies between these two worlds becoming manifest more and more and in such a constant manner that it's really getting spooky.

The second thing Mr. Assange commented quite adequately is the role of the US in regard to international law.

"Obama has given up on closing Guantanamo and has decided to re-open the trial process. And we now have a situation where even the Obama administration says that 48 of those people still in Guantanamo are completely innocent and they should be sent somewhere, and they are not being sent anywhere. So, completely innocent people are incarcerated for years and years and years with no trial and no hope of relief. No country would agree to house them, including the United States. But the United States has made them its problem.

The United States was involved in rounding up these innocent people, setting up a process that was from the very beginning corrupt. There is a reason why they are in Guantanamo and not on the US mainland and not in an allied country. And that reason was to hide them and to keep them outside of the law. Just like you have Caribbean islands engaged in money laundering, the United States is engaged in people laundering."

Did you ever wonder about the US hegemon being called world's policeman? That's clearly a totally inappropriate euphemism: a policeman is supposed to execute law and to act according to law, but the US are trying to circumvent law whenever they can. So Outlaw seems to be fitting well.

*"The banking blockade against WikiLeaks is one of the most sinister developments in recent years, and perhaps the most extreme example in a western democracy of extrajudicial actions aimed at stifling free speech – made all the worse by the public support of numerous people sitting in the US House of Representatives."

Identify the War Hawks!

In 1953, the CIA together with British colleagues orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh. (For more information on that budget-friendly US-coup d'état see The Mossadegh Project or the entry in Wikipedia). After having accomplished the coup under the smokescreen of a non-existing communist threat regarding Iran, the US installed their proconsul - the oppressive, brutal and corrupt monarch Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi whose regime lasted for 26 years. Unfortunately, only radical Islamists could break the US-backed rule. That is why we have the Mullahs in Iran since 1979.
Since then there have been rumors circulating from time to time about the next US invasion target being Iran. Recently, the alleged plotting to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States has been sold as bargain to allegations and blatant threats against this country - rich of oil, desert and culture, reigned by prosperous Mullah businessmen who dislike US influence in the region, and inhabited by people who unfortunately have not forgotten the Shah-regime. In fact, the warmongers are attacking again - partly pretty much the same perpetrators called "experts" as experienced before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In order to restrict the destructive consequences of persons propagating organized barbarism against people, it is very useful 1) to know who these persons are, (2) to expose them together with their propaganda and (3) to publicly kill their propaganda by the means of rational arguments.
To start the list of war hawks, here are five examples of unmistakable, clear and direct appeals to start war against Iran, at least partly based on the recent cock-and-bull story of the planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador on US soil.
(WARNING: If you click through the links given below beside the names of the authors, you might be shocked and disgusted because of the radical militarist contents offered, displaying the US as the chosen people, as a paranoia-driven and fear mongering nationalistic militarist state, incurably hegemonic, islamophobic, and superstitiously believing in their self-invented American Exceptionalism. But that's simply the environment these perpetrators come from. If you are a decent, sensible person, you might want to abstain from visiting most of these sites.)

Btw, the author names are equipped with a link leading to the Right Web, a website dedicated to the monitoring of "militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy". The site offers an long list of warmongers, see Individuals)


William Kristol (founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, member of the Policy Advisory Board for the Ethics and Public Policy Center  - "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy", a director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, board members of Keep America Safe and the Emergency Committee for Israel)

"There’s been plenty of talk. But of course no action. This Iranian regime has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on its hands. It’s a sponsor and facilitator of terror organizations that have killed innocent Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, Afghans, Argentines, and many others. It’s a brutal dictatorship. And it’s seeking nuclear weapons while denying it’s doing so. It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force. And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade. [...] Congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program."

Jamie M. Fly (at present executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, before: director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council, assistant for Transnational Threats Policy at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, researcher at the Republican National Committee, and The Council on Foreign Relations)

"As developments this week make abundantly clear, our disgraceful attempts to “engage” the despotic regime in Tehran — even as Iranians tried to overthrow their leaders in 2009 and even as Americans were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the Qods force — have failed. Fortunately, there is a template for action from President Obama’s predecessors in the Oval Office. An appropriate response would be targeted strikes against key regime facilities that support Iran’s illicit activities. [...] It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response."

Reuel Marc Gerecht (former case officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations once said that the Iranians "have terrorism in their DNA", a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; before: a director of the Project for the New American Century's Middle East Initiative and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute)

"Khamenei probably approved a strike in Washington because he no longer fears American military might. Iran's advancing nuclear-weapons program has undoubtedly fortified his spine, as American presidents have called it "unacceptable" yet done nothing about it. And neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama retaliated against Iran's murderous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...] The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don't, we are asking for it."

Andrew C. McCarthy (senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism, columnist for National Review)

"It is one thing to pretend that a jihadist campaign by a sub-sovereign terror network is just a crime spree for which trial in the civilian justice system is an adequate response.Iran, however, is a state actor — not even arguably amenable to court prosecution. A state aggressor must get a political response, not a legal one. There is a range of possible political responses, of course, but given its three-decade campaign of aggression, the response to Iran must be military — and decisive. The regime must be destroyed."

James Carafano (Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Homeland Security expert, studied at the United States Military Academy at West Point, the US Army War College, and the Georgetown University - a private, Jesuit, research university)

"The U.S. is fully within it rights to conduct a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets in Iran. (In many ways, the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al-Qaeda in Pakistan.)"

-------------------tbc---------------------------

Anybody offering links to similar martial quotes: Thanks a lot in advance!

The One Percent Warmongers

Arthur Ponsonby (1871-1946)

Here's a recommendation: If you want to get sensitive for all kinds of war propaganda lies, read Arthur Ponsonby's Falsehood in Wartime, Anne Morelli's  Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre in quick succession, then inform yourself about the most famous case of warmongering by now - the Incubator Lie (Nayirah), sit back and relax while watching Colin Powell's infamous speech before the UN General Assembly (but don't forget to enjoy one or the other documentation about it) and finally remember Susan Rice's Viagra Hoax - it's only a few months ago! If this doesn't help, you're a hopeless case. If this does not give you a clue that, historically, politicians "have rarely been above the average, either morally or intellectually, [but] often below it", you will never be prepared for the worst.


This selection of crude propaganda hoaxes consists only of a small fraction of all the lies that led to wars or have been spread during wartime. If children and young people study a historiography defining wars as the main framework of history of mankind, then these lies ought to be studied in the first place.


Due to the very obvious incredibility of the "alleged plotting to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States", even mass media infotainment production around the world could not resist announcing serious doubts. "Why didn't the Iranians use tried and tested Hizballah networks and keep Iranian nationals, much less unknown Mexican narcos, out of it?" A deputy to the German Bundestag called the alleged plot "highly irrational, it wouldn't make any sense to attack this ambassador who is not even a big shot in the Iranian system, despite of all the rivalry between both countries. It doesn't make sense to perform such an action on the territory of a state, because it would be clearly the strongest possible provocation which would also carry the strongest possible reactions. This irrationality must not lead to an irrational response." [translation by base2014]


But irrational fiction has convinced whole populations in the the past and has led to military barbarism throughout history. The crux with propaganda lies is that they go a long way in the human mind, just as advertisement does. After a while the remembrance of the alleged plot on American soil will fade away, but the previous ones as well as the next one will add up to a pile of bias. For example, who still remembers the chock-and-bull story of "Iran digging mass graves for US troops in case of invasion", told by some unknown ominous "General Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam", just a little bit more than one year ago? Forgotten, but somehow still present. The picture of "le visage du diable (or l'affreux de service)" becomes clearer and clearer, political steps are taken one after the other, and finally they say war is inevitable.


Throughout history, wars have always been incited only by a handful of warmongers and war profiteers. The propaganda lies applied - even more surprisingly - only slightly differ from each other through time. Nevertheless - and this can be called another tragedy of human beings - virtually the same war propaganda lies are successfully applied over and over again to outwit whole populations and to postpone civilization.

Readiness for War of the European Population under US-American Leadership?

Recently in the German online magazine „Spiegel“: „Deutsche wünschen sich starke USA“ - („Germans Desire Strong USA“) - an uncritical summary of a per se questionable statistics. Quite a few German might have asked themselves: whom did they interview?

At least, the apprentice of this kind of copy & paste journalism indicated the source: the survey "Transatlantic Trends", contracted by the German Marshall Fund (GMF). The entry in the English Wikipedia displays the warning that the article on the GMF would „be written like an advertisement“ (say crude propaganda).

Exactly the same way – like propaganda – the article in the Spiegel is written. Marginally modified, it was adopted from the website of the GMF: Press Release: 10 Years After 9/11, Europeans Still Desire Strong U.S. Leadership in World. Here are the questions and „results“:

The questions taken as a whole aim at depicting readiness for war of the European population under US-American Leadership (just put the pieces together). According to the GMF, the survey was carried out bei the Compagnia di San Paolo  (sample size, where, how, when, why – details unknown). On its website that Compagnia is called a „charitable brotherhood, founded in Torino in 1563“. Moreover, the brotherhood is member of the European Foundation Centre  which – as a chief task – is preparing the smooth cross border operating of funds in the EU, and of the  ACRI – Association of Italian Foundations and Saving Banks.  Both are lobby organizations.

The question, „if under certain conditions war is necessary to obtain justice“ is a typical suggestive question. 

In the course of a live interview the interviewee probably will not be aware of the last part of the question containing the word 'justice'. And, of course, „some conditions“ can be imagined for almost everything ...

Die Kriegsbereitschaft der europäischen Bevölkerung unter US-amerikanischer Führung?

Kürzlich im „Spiegel“ online: „Deutsche wünschen sich starke USA“ - eine kritiklose Zusammenfassung einer an sich eher unglaubwürdigen Stastik. Da werden sich viele Deutsche gewundert haben: wen haben die bloß gefragt?

Wenigstens erwähnt der Copy&Paste Praktikant die Quelle: die Umfrage "Transatlantic Trends", in Auftrag gegeben vom German Marshall Fund (GMF). Der englischsprachige Eintrag in Wikipedia enthält die Warnung, der Artikel über den GMF sei wie eine Werbung geschrieben (sprich unkritische Propaganda).

Und genauso – wie Propaganda – liest sich der Artikel im Spiegel. Abgeschrieben wurde von der website des GMF: Press Release: 10 Years After 9/11, Europeans Still Desire Strong U.S. Leadership in World. Hier die Fragen und „Ergebnisse“.

Die Fragen insgesamt zielen darauf ab die Kriegsbereitschaft der europäischen Bevölkerung unter amerikanischer Führung darzustellen. Durchgeführt soll die Umfrage von der Compagnia di San Paolo worden sein (Stichprobenumfang, wo, wie, wann, wieso – Details unbekannt). Diese Compagnia beschreibt sich selbst auf ihrer Website als „karitative Bruderschaft, gegründet in Turin 1563“. Ferner ist sie ein Mitglied des European Foundation Centres, zu dessen Hauptaufgaben es zählt, das reibungslose Funktionieren von Stiftungen über EU-Grenzen hinweg vorzubereiten, und der ACRI – Association of Italian Foundations and Saving Banks -  zu deutsch: des Interessenverbandes der Italienischen Stiftungen und Sparkassen. Beide sind Lobby-Verbände.

Die Frage, ob unter gewissen Umständen Krieg notwendig sei, um Gerechtigkeit herzustellen, ist eine typische Suggestivfrage. Bei einem Live- oder Telefoninterview hört der Interviewte den letzten Satzteil mit 'Gerechtigkeit' wahrscheinlich gar nicht mehr. Und "gewisse Umstände" lassen sich für fast alles ausmalen.

Continuous State of War

"Israel does not see the missiles falling on communities along the border as a bad thing. On the contrary, they would be worried and even alarmed were it not for this fire [...] Israeli politicians are terrified of peace, they tremble with fear from the possibility of peace, because without war and without general mobilization they don't know how to live" Zygmunt Bauman

see article in Haaretz: Polish-Jewish sociologist compares West Bank separation fence to Warsaw Ghetto walls

The Westbank Wall (from the Palestine Chronicle)

The Warsaw Ghetto Wall (from Wikipedia)

Wars (Kriege)

for details see Jordi Colomer Matutano