This morning Australians heard the news that the so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in Iraq will soon be down to just one member.

After the last troops from a humbled, bloodied, bankrupted Britain exit the country, only troops from a humbled, bloodied, bankrupted USA will be left.

Greg Sheridan: an Australian Zionist War-Liar, works for News Corp

In just a couple of days the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq will be a coalition no more.

The only troops remaining will be American, and even they’re continuing to reduce their role towards making a complete withdrawal by the end of 2011.

Those of us who opposed this disgraceful episode in murderous imperial barbarity prior to March 2003 were often accused of ‘appeasement’ . It was facile reference to events in Europe in the late 1930s, based on a skewed, simplistic view of the history of that era.

The blatant dishonesty of these 21st Century war liars has gone unpunished.

In Australia, a cavalcade of pundits and ‘experts’ were paraded before us in 2002/3 to stir up popular enthusiasm for war. Most of them remain on our screens and in our newspapers today.

They were never particularly successful in generating real war fervor – but helped persuade most conformist politicians their interests lay in regurgitating the same nonsense and going along with the media-sponsored war.

Andrew Bolt: another Australian Zionist War-Liar, works for News Corp

The reputations of these war-mongers should now be in tatters. They survive only through collective amnesia and a general reluctance (breached only occasionally) to point out they are a proven pack of fools and/or liars.

Why were these fraudulent ‘experts’ so utterly wrong about Iraq?

Why should we take them seriously on any other subject unless and until they deal honestly with that question?

Helen Thomas, the extraordinary 89 year old American reporter, whose coverage of US Presidential politics spans five decades, was interviewed a couple of years ago about the quality of the White House press corps in the Bush era.

Her account is damning. Although Helen Thomas didn’t spell it out, the conclusion is inescapable that there was a large measure of collusion in the way the press corp pursed a common agenda.

Helen Thomas

Who decided, from the time Bush arrived in the White House, to hype up the ‘threat’ posed by Iraq? That kind of convergent bias doesn’t happen by accident.

The Bush Administration itself played ball, but virtually no-one in the press corps asked Bush and Cheney hard questions about 9-11, the ‘Patriot Act’, the Anthrax attack, the War on Terror, Afghanistan, Iraq… and Israel.

From 2001 until Bush was elected for a second term, the Bush Administration and US mass media engaged in an orgy of mutual admiration, all directed towards a massive expansion of America’s military and ‘security’ budget, the launch of new illegal wars to serve Israel’s agenda that helped bankrupt America, the establishment of police state machinery with the USA and the drastic curtailment of Americans’ civil liberties.

This is what Helen had to say:

Hat-tip to HomePageDaily where I spotted this video, It’s a fine online news service by the Australia’s one and only Richard Neville that goes beyond the enervating mainstream consensus.

One of my favourite blogs is Atheo News. The blog subtitle is ‘dauntless dissent’. I’d add ‘intelligent’, ‘savvy’ and ‘grown-up’ (in the best sense).

David Edwards & David Cromwell of Media Lens, winners of the 2007 Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award : keeping an eye on mainstream media spin

The most recent post on Atheo News quotes a recent story covered by MediaLens. It’s a story about a story. Tales like this would be an integral part of the curriculum in a highly-evolved society. If institutions such as the BBC are spinning like tops on a regular basis, people need to know about it.

The sad fact is that they are; the good news is more of us are finding out about it. Every day, the stench of lies gets worse. Why doesn’t the British Government simply sell off the BBC to the same corporate interests who control most of the western mass media and arms industry? Fake public interest broadcasting is more dangerous than none at all.

Incidentally, the same practice of “if in doubt, it’s Al Qaida” is followed faithfully by the ABC – Australia’s equivalent to the Beeb. It must be a shared values thing…

Here’s the story:

Al-Qaeda – Who Else?

On March 23, BBC online reported another bloody day in Iraq:

“It was the second bomb attack in Iraq on Monday, with an earlier explosion near the capital. Baghdad, killing at least eight people.

“The BBC’s Hugh Sykes, in Baghdad, says al-Qaeda have launched several attacks in Diyala since losing support in other parts of Iraq.”

Marcus Agius: Zionist. Chairman of Barclays Bank and senior non-executive director, BBC's executive board. Why shouldn't plutocrats have a voice as they bankrupt the nation?

The foe, naturally, was the global bad guy, “al-Qaeda”. Thirty years ago the BBC would have declared them “Communists” or “Marxists”. We [MediaLens] wrote to the BBC’s “man in Baghdad” the same day:
________________

Dear Hugh

Hope you’re well. A BBC online report today says:

“The BBC’s Hugh Sykes, in Baghdad, says al-Qaeda have launched several attacks in Diyala since losing support in other parts of Iraq.”

What is the evidence that al-Qaeda, rather than some other insurgent group, were behind the attacks, please?

Best wishes

David Edwards
_________________________

Sykes replied the following day:
___________________

Hello David

This was a speedy and amicable reply from Sykes. But we hesitate to call it serious journalism. “As a man in Jalawla told Reuters”! How to describe this level of evidence in response to a serious question on a matter of such importance?

Sykes wrote:

“No proof, but circumstantial evidence and reasonable presumption of AQI involvement.”

And yet when we asked why the BBC had failed to report the use of banned weapons by US forces in their November 2004 assault on Falljuah, the BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden, told us:

For sale from the Northland Poster Collective

“We are committed to evidence-based journalism. We have not been able to establish that the US used banned chemical weapons and committed other atrocities against civilians in Falluja last November [2004]. Inquiries on the ground at the time and subsequently indicate that their use is unlikely to have occurred.” (Email forwarded by numerous Media Lens readers, July 13 onwards, 2005)

The BBC later accepted that such evidence did indeed exist.

Sykes also asked:

“And…who else would do this?”

There is no proof, just circumstantial evidence, presumption… and we can’t think of anyone else, so: “al-Qaeda have launched several attacks”.

Sykes’s indifference to evidence is understandable. In a sense it is beside the point – enemies of the West are killing people, and enemies of the West are currently labelled “al-Qaeda”. It was ever thus…

Why does it matter whether bombing outrages in Iraq are being carried out by ‘Al Qaida’ – or by Iraqi insurgents? After all, bombs have the same devastating impact… and if the assailants are ‘suicide bombers’, they end up dead anyway.

It matters because of the implications. If atrocities are being carried out in Iraq by ‘Al Qaida’, that suggests the root problem is an international Islamic conspiracy, largely directed against western interests. That helps justify occupation and ongoing military interference.

On the other hand, if the assailants are part of a popular resistance movement against the occupation – or sectarian forces within Iraq unleashed since the invasion of 2003 – then the occupation itself is likely to be viewed as the root problem.

There is a third possibility which the BBC/ABC definitely prefer not to discuss. That’s the possibility that at least some of these mysterious ‘suicide bombings’ are carried out by elements with western forces.

Spooks: Propaganda that's good fun

There have been rumours of American, British and Israeli false flag operations in Iraq since soon after the overthrown of Saddam Hussein. None of the relevant cases, as far as I’m aware, have ever been investigated or exposed by the BBC.

Officially, the BBC runs a entertainment program called Spooks.

Cynics suggest the reality is the exact opposite.

Phillip Adams of Late Night Live: Sceptic - or Spook?

The following letter of complaint is self-explanatory.

I don’t believe in writing private emails to these folk anymore. It’s too lonely.

So I publish the letters I send, on the rare occasions when I bother to correspond with them. If I ever receive a sensible reply, I’ll publish that too.

But I won’t, as the saying goes, hold my breath…

Dear Sir/Madam

I formally object to the title ‘Canberra Babylon‘, which is currently used to define a segment of the ABC’s Late Night Live program – the segment in which Australian national political tittle-tattle is discussed by a so-called ‘Canberra insider’.

Babylon, as you may know, is an ancient World Heritage site, situated close to Baghdad. It was occupied by US and Polish troops in 2003 and has been substantially damaged as a result of a most inconsiderate military occupation.

It appalls me that you compare Canberra with Babylon.

Australia is a brave and independent country and has never suffered occupation by unwanted US military forces.

Any time an Australian Government wishes the US to vacate its bases in Australia, the latter will undoubtedly do so without a murmur. The fact this request has never been made is a clear sign of broad public support in Australia for the siting of US  ’facilities’ in this country.

The Lion of Babylon: may have survived US occupation

Iraq, by contrast, is less well placed to assert its national independence: hence the US invasion and occupation of Babylon.

Can anyone imagine US tanks parked outside a World Heritage site in Australia, such as the Sydney Opera House or Uluru?

I request formally that the name of this segment of LNL be changed, to so it more accurately reflects the realities of the current geopolitical situation.

Australia is not a victim of US policies.

Australia is a very enthusiastic protagonist of – and co-participant in -  US military adventurism (in the middle east) – thanks in no small measure to the slavering pro-Zionist posture of our beloved national broadcaster, a posture exemplified by the groveling Philip Adams on Late Night LIve.

With kind regards,

Syd Walker
Kuranda
Far North Queensland

Tanks at Uluru: the US would never do this to Australia, because we're mates

UPDATE 1:

Within minutes, I received an email as follows:

Syd,

The reference to Canberra Babylon has nothing to do with anything current, especially NOT the US occupation.

Yes, Babylon is an ancient World Heritage site which has been substantially damaged during the occupation – the sort of damage we have discussed many times on the program.

Our reference to Babylon refers to the fact that Babylon was a small town that grew rapidly and by the third millennium BC had attained cultural and political prominence with the rise of the first Babylonian dynasty. That is the comparison we have drawn with Canberra.

You may not be aware that we have been calling LNL’s Canberra segment, “Canberra Babylon” for more than 10 years – a long time before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Chris Bullock,
EP, Late Night Live.

Which goes to show that if you ask these people a stupid question, you may get a prompt answer.

If, on the other hand, you ask an intelligent question, such as why the amazing and unprecedented  collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11th 2001 has never been reported or discussed on LNL – or why valiant journalists such as Philip Adams never seem to ask politicians why there hasn’t been an inquiry or inquest into the 1996 Port Arthur atrocity (or the London bombings of 7th July 2005), in my experience you are likely to receive no answer at all.

Why not try it yourself and see what happens?

UPDATE 2:

An hour later, another email from Late Night Live arrives in my Inbox:

Syd,

I forgot to mention the other reference that early LNL staff (from the early to mid 90s) refer to – the book, “Hollywood Babylon”, by Kenneth Anger, which is a series of scandalous stories about Hollywood actors.

Chris.

All of which may well be true (although why ancient Babylon, in our era, is considered a more notable exemplar of sleaze than Hollywood itself is a profound mystery).

In any case, I was brazzen enough to send a follow-up email:

Hi Chris

Thanks for your detailed responses.

I feel rather embarrassed, as my initial email was really just an attempt at irony. I honestly did not expect you would take the trouble to reply.

Given your dedication, however, I am prompted to ask the rather more serious questions that, it seems to me, never receive a proper answer from the ABC.

I have corresponded with Philip Adams about these matters – and others – in the past. My experience has been it’s like like mud-wrestling with an eel.

In my blog post which describes this correspondence, I mention a couple of concerns:

1/ Why the amazing and unprecedented collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11th 2001 has never been reported or discussed on LNL?

2/ Why Philip Adams and other ABC journalists never seem to ask politicians why there’s never been an inquiry or inquest into the 1997 Port Arthur atrocity – or the London bombings of 7th July 2005?

I have more questions, but those two questions are good starting points.

In each case (Port Arthur, 9-11 and 7/7), there was considerable loss of life. In each case, Australia’s laws were changed sinificantly, purportedly as a direct consequence. They are all newsworthy events, of considerable import to Australians, to say the least.

Please let me know if I am wrong about the assertions I make in these
numbered points (and if so, please cite specific references).

If I am correct, in the immortal words of Ms Pauline Hanson, ‘please explain’.

With regards,

Syd Walker