Monday, November 16, 2015

Nov. 16: only the Irving press could....

...put out a trivial and boring newspaper today. So let's save it until  the end.

I was quite shocked by CBC TV coverage of news of the  Paris killings. It was almost  as unprofessional as Irving press always is. One news cast ended with a sad and mournful scene of people setting candles and flowers on a Paris sidewalk in mourning. Now, it is sad. But where were all those mourners when France was torturing and murdering the people of Algeria and Indo-China?  And how come we never saw that on TV news?

Where were  the news stories when France, leading up to that terrible day in Paris, was bombing ISIS in Syria? In fact, how come almost no news story has mentioned that?  How come we didn't see pictures of mourners lighting candles then? Is killing bad only when the other side shoots back?

In fact, France has been bombing Syria, full-time,  for over a year.Where are the candles on sidewalks for all the Syrians killed by France. And how come none of the news media seem to have mentioned that bombing? France has has also been selling weapons to the rebels - and to ISIS, despite an embargo on such supplies. It happily supplies anybody who can pay. (And, by the way, where did ISIS get the cash to buy those weapons? Think Saudi Arabia which is also France's major weapons customer.) France is the world's fourth largest arms exporter. And its arms industry recently announced its best year ever. War has been good to French war industry capitalists.

The purpose of journalism is to tell us what is happening. It is not to take sides. But CBC coverage of the Paris shootings is heavily devoted to expressing sorrow for France. It is, certainly, terrible that those innocent civilians were killed. (Our side kills innocent civilians every day. Where are the candles on our sidewalks?) But I didn't see any sympathy in our news media when the U.S. invaded Iraq,killing almost a million innocent civilians in an invasion preceded by lies about the reason for it.

The world has been killing civilians as a major and deliberate target for decades.
That's what bombing was about in World War Two. Civilians were the major targets for both sides. Killing civilians began because bombs really couldn't be aimed. Anything within five miles of the target was considered a hit - not very helpful when bombing a factory. The switch to deliberately bombing civilians continued even after bombing accuracy improved. It continued because killing civilians killed workers and destroyed morale. That's why the U.S. fire-bombed Tokyo, and then nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why it bombed Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Everybody does it. All the time. We could call it terrorism because terrorism is what it is. But we only call it that when the other side does it. Actually, Canada always says it never bombed civilians deliberately. That's a lie. Everbody bombed civilians in World War Two.

B4 has the charming story that Obama wants to end the civil war in Syria. This isn't reporting. This is propaganda.

There is no civil war in Syria. What we have is hired mercenaries paid for and supplied by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. This "civil war" was started by Obama. Who can even guess how many civilians it has killed? Where are the candles for them on our sidewalks?

At no point did Syria attack the U.S. Nor could it. It was the other way around. And it wasn't to bring peace to Syria.  Syria had peace. The U.S. destroyed it. The purpose of the war is to let American oil barons get control of the Syrians.

CBC also had the news (which the Irving press didn't, though it was available yesterday) that Canada has commandos (special ops) entering the fighting in Iraq.

Oh? When you send troops to fight, that's called going to war. Now, every Nov. 11 of my life I have heard speeches that  our soldiers in World War One died to give us the right to declare war on our own.  (That was never true, by the way. We got the right to declare war on our own after WW1 because Britain didn't expect to need us any more - and it was afraid to have any commitment to Canada because it feared this could create conflict with the U.S. And Britain needed the U.S. more than it needed Canada.)

So, when did parliament meet to declare this war?  So much for democracy.

CBC news also referred to Syrian "rebels" as the 'moderate' opposition. What the hell is moderate about rebelling and killing people? This is the sort of propaganda language we're accustomed to hearing in the private news media.

It also said that the soft targets (civilians) that were killed in Paris were a "jihadist's dream".  Hey! That's a nice touch of hate-smearing But the world's biggest killers of soft targets have been nations of the Christian west.

To add to the insanity, Donald Tump has advanced in the polls by promising to bomb the 's--t' out of ISIS - just about guaranteeing the Christian vote. Watch for Britain to join the U.S., the Syrian rebels, France, Russia, possibly Turkey and Canada and Denmark in fighting ISIS - all of them tangled in the same space, and each or them fighting for a different reason.

That's an excellent way to start a world war. And then we'll have a chance to burn lots and lots of candles on our sidewalks - if we have any sidewalks left.

Oh, yeah, Obama has also been quoted re the Paris killings - "...an attack on the civilized world." That's so true. Us civilized nations only attack the savage world. You know - people who look different from us or whose religions are different.

I found no news service that mentioned how all of this killing started - it began, and continues, because western and Russian super-capitalists  all want to control the middle east.

The site below sums up my views pretty well, though I would add some questions like - Why did we send Canadians to die in Afghanistan? And, if it was important,  why did we pull them out? Why did we send aircraft to bomb Libya? In what way did that help Libya?  (Actually, it's quite possible that the chaos we created in Libya might soon make it an ISIS nation.) Why is the U.S. helping Saudi Arabia to bomb and starve the people of Yemen? Why is the U.S. the only nation to have over a thousand military bases all over the world?

However - here's the site.....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43421.htm

In other news which flew under the Irving press' radar, here's something that will make you think of who the real bastards are in this world. It's about a pharmaceutical company which makes a drug essential for the survival of babies who are struck by spasms. The drug was selling profitably at $750 for a three- week treatment. Then the company suddenly raised the charge to $17,000. That's 2.000%. We can't just let infants die, so it will have to met by medicare.

When it comes to pure evil and greed, they are few who can match the bosses of the pharmaceutical industry. Expect more of this,- and much more if the Trans-Pacific trade deal goes through.

Gee, Norbert, tell us another story about how business people should run our hospitals and schools because business people are so much more efficient.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43421.htm
_________________________________________________________
There's a term that hasn't made the news; but it's worth knowing it, and what it means. The term is false flag. It means to cause a war while making it seem someone else started it.

The Iraq war as a false flag war. George Bush and Tony Blair told the world that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction". Now, Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator. That's why the U.S. supported him for years, and supplied him in his war against Iran. But he was showing signs of acting with more independence. So Bush needed an excuse to kill him - a false flag.

When Japan, in the 1930s, needed an excuse to invade Manchuria, it blew up a train, and blamed it on Manchuria. It has become known as the Manchurian incident. And it worked. Japan invaded.

When the U.S. wanted a change of regime in Syria in order for American capitalists to control it, it created a 'rebel' force to set off a war in Syria. That was a false flag.

When the U.S. needed an excuse to invade Canada in 1812, its false flag was that it was protecting American shipping against the British. (Actually, the coastal states opposed the war and, anyway, it's not clear how attacking Niagara Falls did anything to protect American shipping.)

How many false flags are we seeing now? I don't know. And most of our press doesn't even ask.  There are possibilities in the downing of an airliner in Ukraine, the Russian airliner in Sinai, even in the Paris attack. False flags are really so common as to be almost the rule.
_________________________________________________________
The Irving press has close to nothing. A1 has a good story about attracting refugees as immigrants. I quite agree with it. I've seen at close hand the difference that immigrants - European, African, Asian, Middle East - can do.
They made Montreal richer, more varied in cultural tastes  (as in getting beyond the musical top ten in sales), in restaurant life...It was a golden age.

But that's it for Section A news.

The editorial is the usual bozo job. This one is about how good the Energy East Pipeline will be for all of us. It's just a coincidence that the major beneficiary will be the man who owns the newspaper - and the editor. I'll comment further on this at the end of this blog.

The opinion columns are all worth reading. I'll just add a few lines about Alec Bruce's topic of learning a second language.

People learn a second language because they need to. Where they feel they don't (or shouldn't) need it, they resist learning. In Quebec, the English resistance to learning French was potent. Life was sad and lonely for French teachers.

Working class French kids had much the same problem. It was possible for them to live in a unilingual, French world. So they didn't learn English. But the better-off French received intense English training in private schools. They needed it for the more international world of big business. That's why a Justin Trudeau speaks excellent English.

The exception to this was the film world. The French kids I grew up with would boo if a French movie came on at the local church/cinema. They wanted Hollywood, and with no translation.

At the height of separatism, when some separatist leaders wanted to ban English-language movies, their followers told them to back off. They wanted English movies.

In New Brunswick, Acadians who live in relatively cut off areas are, I suspect, less likely to learn English because they don't feel they need it. But most want to learn English because it's necessary in order to make a living - and there's lots of English TV.

English will resist learning French because they know they can get good jobs without it. And some will reject it because they've been brought up to think of French as undesirable.

The result is that Acadians can be much more flexible in their job choices, and much broader in their view of the world. Some English will resent that but, hey, if I'm a basketball coach, I'm going for the kid who's seven feet tall, not the one who's five feet.

Section B has nothing you don't already know.

And that takes us back to the editorial.

Yes, it says, we need more oil and way into the future.  I mean, it creates jobs. And we need oil for heating - and it will be needed for a long time. So let's be sensible about this.

Okay. Let's be sensible because this is the fiftieth year since the climate change debate began.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today.

In that fifty years, almost nothing has been done. Why not? Is it possible that the oil industry doesn't want anything to be done?  (Yes, I know that holding up essential change for fifty years is both greedy and stupid. But greed and stupidity are not unknown among the "better sort" in our society.)

So, Mr. or Ms. editorialist, how much time is left after fifty years?  Can we even guess at it? And do you ever have a clue of what you're taking about?


2 comments: