Monday, August 26, 2013

More CBC War-mongering

On August 26, CBC online published an article about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government. As usual it was unbalanced and strongly suggesting that the Syrian Government is guilty as claimed and deserves to be attacked by the US and its allies.

The article included this paragraph:

The United States strongly suspects that Assad's regime was behind the Aug. 21 attack on the eastern outskirts of Damascus. That suspicion is supported by the international aid group Doctors Without Borders, which reported that 355 people were killed in an artillery attack that also included the purported use of a toxic chemical weapon.

The organization's president, Mego Terzian, has said the group is "100 per cent" certain that some sort of neurotoxic gas was deployed.


CBC is distorting the words of Doctors without Borders. Terzan's report did confirm that poison gas was probably used, but he also reported that he does not know which side in the conflict actually used it. CBC has written this paragraph to make it appear that Terzan is supporting the accusations against Assad, WHICH HE DID NOT.


This is a good example of the corrupted, war-mongering reporting on the Middle East that CBC is producing on a regular basis. 

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Chemical Weapons in Syria

CBC online has carried many articles over the past week on a chemical weapons massacre near Damascus.

Although it has quoted Syrian Government sources a few times saying they were not responsible, the bulk of the reporting clearly pointed the finger of responsibility at the Syrian Government.

CBC knows that the US and its allies, especially Britain, but also Canada, have stated that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government would be a justification to intervene and massively expand the scale of Syria's civil war. So when CBC writes articles and drafts headlines pointing the finger at the Syrian Government, it is practising war journalism. It is aiding the war-mongers.

If CBC wanted to be fair and balanced, in the hundreds of lines on this topic, somewhere it would have asked the following questions:

Knowing that that the use of chemical weapons would bring the combined military might of the US and its allies on their heads, why would the Syrian Government use chemical weapons? Since they are currently winning the civil war, and are more massively armed than the rebels, why would they use chemical weapons when they do not need to use them? Why would they target women and children in their capital city, rather than rebel fighters? Why would they do this when UN inspectors are about to arrive in Damascus? Knowing they are losing the war, and desperately need US help, why wouldn't the rebels create a "false flag" attack, then try to blame it on the government? 

It is hard for any rational person to believe that the Syrian Government would be so stupid as to do the thing that would guarantee its destruction, and that Assad would authorize a thing that would guarantee he joined Gaddafi and Saddam as a murdered victim of a US intervention.

It is easy to believe that the rebels who are they only ones who would benefit from this chemical attack, because it would bring the US in on their side. and who are losing their fight, would carry out a "false flag" chemical attack.

Why does CBC not make these points anywhere in its reporting? Where in CBC's charter does it say they must not practice peace journalism, but always must be touts for war in the Middle East???

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

It's settlements, not prisoners, that are important

CBC has made an unnaturally big deal out of the Israeli prisoner release, and has paid much less attention to the much more fundamental issue of continued expansion of Israeli settlements (that is, Israel eating the pie while slowly negotiating how to divide it).

There have been several headline articles over the past week about the prisoner release, but only one about settlement expansion:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/11/israel-settlements.html

Israel approves nearly 1,200 new settlement homes

However if one looks at this article, even here about half of the words are about how painful it is for Israel to release a hundred or so of its 4,500 Palestinian political prisoners.

On August 14th we have this latest of several articles on the prisoner release:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/13/israel-frees-palestinian-prisoners-appeals-rejected.html

Israel frees 26 Palestinian prisoners before peace talks

Israel will free 104 Palestinian prisoners before Wednesday's peace talks

Notice how CBC goes to the extent of naming the victims of Palestinian violence:

"Among those released Tuesday was a Palestinian convicted in the 1994 slaying of Isaac Rotenberg, a 69-year-old Holocaust survivor who was attacked with an ax as he was working at a construction site where he was a contractor. Others were convicted in the slayings of Ian Feinberg, an Israeli lawyer killed in a European aid office in Gaza in 1993, and Frederick Rosenfeld, an American slain while hiking in the West Bank in 1989."

The fact is that 3 Palestinians are killed by Israelis for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, and the ratio is as high as 5 to 1 more Palestinian children and youths being killed. How often are we given the full names and details of these killings.

What exactly is CBC trying to prove by going into such detail on Israel's supposed generosity in releasing a few prisoners, and offering so little detail on Israel's duplicity in expanding settlements? Why not give the full names and details of Palestinians killed, injured, or simply illegally dispossessed of their homes and land by Israel? Why not more details on how painful the actual new construction will be for Palestinians living nearby?

CBC, if you think we need to know the names of victims, give us the names of the hundreds and thousands of Palestinian victims as well!

And lets have more details about what actually is happening with the expansion being announced by Israel. There is a campaign of ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from East Jerusalem which is being furthered by this expansion; the settlement (colony) of Ma'ale Adumim literally divides the West Bank in half so expanding this is a death blow to Palestinian sovereignty. Why are details like this absent from CBC's reporting? Why do we need to know the name of Isaac Rotenburg who was killed almost 20 years ago?

If this is balance for CBC, I shudder to think what would be considered imbalance by these so-called journalists.

Friday, August 2, 2013

So What?

On August 2nd CBC online used the headline:    IRAN'S PRESIDENT-ELECT CALLS ISRAEL A "WOUND" 

The article then quoted Israeli PM Netanyahu (Oh, how CBC loves to echo Israelis!) claiming that the new Iranian leader was thus threatening to destroy Israel. Of course, Rowhani said nothing about attacking or destroying Israel. This is just another war-mongering claim by Netanyahu who dearly wants to destroy Iran. Why does CBC repeat it without pointing out that Netanyahu is misrepresenting Rowhani's words? Is CBC into war-mongering as well? What do you think?

So what if Rowhani called Israel a wound. If the Japanese had invaded and occupied southern California, and were daily expanding their territory at the expense of Americans, would American leaders call the Japanese mini-state on their territory a dimple or a beauty spot? No "scar", "wound", "blemish" "shame" would all be more likely words, and that is exactly how hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims feel about the Jewish/Israeli occupation of their traditional territories.

Just because Rowhani is expressing the true sentiments of almost a billion Muslims, does not constitute a threat to destroy Israel. Is CBC or the Associated Press too stupid to know this, or so malicious that they knowingly echo war-mongering falsehoods? How in Heaven"s name would a war against Iran serve anyone in Canada? Who is CBC working for?


Saturday, July 20, 2013

Distorted News

The following article published on July 20 makes much of an Israeli gesture:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/20/palestinian-prisoners-to-be-released.html

The whole article seeks to portray Israel as making a magnanimous gesture in favour of peace. However it only mentions as a brief aside a much more significant fact:

But, Steinitz said, other Palestinian demands will not be met, such as a freeze on settlement building and defining the 1967 lines as borders ahead of the negotiations.

If the Palestinians have agreed to waive their demand of an end of settlement building during negotiations, this is a truly significant development. This is much more worthy of a headline and a long article than Israel releasing a few prisoners. This is a much more dramatic and magnanimous gesture than Isreal's. Why is it not given a higher profile?

If Abbas has agreed to waive the demand of a freeze on settlement building, he has quite simply failed his people again. This demand was entirely reasonable and should never have been waived. When you have seen negotiations drag on for decades, while Israel steals more and more land, it is unreasonable to agree to another set of negotiations when the Israelis are demonstrating such bad faith by building settlements while negotiating.

While Israel and Palestine are negotiating how to divide a pie, Israel, the party that has already gobbled up over 80 per cent of the pie, is insisting on the right to keep eating the pie while negotiating.

By playing up Israel's gesture, and ignoring the enormity (and perhaps stupidity) of the Palestinian gesture, CBC is doing Israel's propaganda work. These negotiations are doomed to fail, as all have in the past, because of Israel's total insincerity and bad faith, but CBC and Israel will try to blame the failure on the Palestinians.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Mrs Nicole Benoite Marois.

 
Dear Beloved Friend,

I am Mrs Nicole Marois and i have been suffering from ovarian cancer disease and the doctor says that i have just few days to leave. I am from (Paris) France but based in Africa Burkina Faso since eleven years ago as a business woman dealing with gold exportation.


Now that i am about to end the race like this, without any family members and no child. I have $3 Million US DOLLARS in Africa Development Bank (ADB) Burkina Faso which i instructed the bank to give St Andrews Missionary Home in Burkina Faso.But my mind is not at rest because i am writing this letter now through the help of my computer beside my sick bed.


I also have $4.5 Million US Dollars at Eco-Bank here in Burkina Faso and i instructed the bank to transfer the fund to you as foreigner that will apply to the bank after i have gone, that they should release the fund to him/her,but you will assure me that you will take 50% of the fund and give 50% to the orphanages home in your country for my heart to rest.


Respond to me immediately via my private email address (mrs_nicolemaroisfrance@ymail.com) for further details since I have just few days to end my life due to the ovarian cancer disease, hoping you will understand my point


Yours fairly friend,
Mrs Nicole Marois

Monday, June 24, 2013

Ad Nauseam

The following article on June 24, 2013, repeats again the position that Israel always acts in response to provocation from Palestinians, with no attempt to state the fact that rockets are fired at Israel by Palestinians in response to Israel's brutality and injustice against them.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/24/wrd-israel-gaza-strip-airstrike.html



These are the first two lines of the article:


Israeli aircraft pounded targets in the Gaza Strip early Monday after rockets were fired at Israel from the territory, the military said, unsettling a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.



The military said its aircraft struck two weapons storage facilities and a rocket launch site. No injuries were reported.
Rocket fire from Gaza has declined since Israel carried out an eight-day military campaign last November in response to frequent attacks.



This grossly unbalanced, biased, and inaccurate reporting is repeated by CBC ad nauseam. Palestinians are subject to a brutal occupation, and their rights are trampled on disgracefully. The reality is that Israel is trying to bomb them into submission, and Israel uses the excuse of these silly rockets, which are virtually token acts of legitimate resistance to this occupation, to maintain its cruel suppression of Palestinian life and society.


When will CBC and the Associated Press get tired of falsifying reality so blatantly?


The same article had the following tucked away at the end:


Meanwhile, Israeli police said that vandals slashed the tires of 21 cars in an Arab neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. The vandals also scribbled slogans on nearby walls.
It was the latest in a wave of crimes linked to Jewish extremists that has targeted mosques, churches, monasteries, dovish Israeli groups and even Israeli military bases to protest what they perceive as the Israeli government's pro-Palestinian policies in the West Bank. Vandals call the attacks the "price tag" for the policies they oppose.


There are a number of problems with this.

1) First, why wasn't this a headline? It is as significant a provocation as the silly rockets.
2) Why are they calling the perpetrators "vandals". These were political acts perpetrated by Israeli nationalists, designed to terrorize Palestinians. The word "vandals" just suggests "naughty boys", but this is much more political and serious than that. The use of the word "vandals" is intentionally misleading.
3) Why don't they publish the wording of the slogans? It is likely that these would reveal the political, nationalist, and racist intent of the so-called "vandalism".
4) Why do they describe the few decent acts of the Israel Government as "pro-Palestinian"? The extremists were protesting "pro-justice" and "pro-decency" acts of the Israeli Government. Describing these actions as "pro-Palestinian" seems to suggest that Israel's acts were somehow biased and worthy of opposition.

Ad Nauseam

The following article on June 24, 2013, repeats again the position that Israel always acts in response to provocation from Palestinians, with no attempt to state the fact that rockets are fired at Israel by Palestinians in response to Israel's brutality and injustice against them.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/24/wrd-israel-gaza-strip-airstrike.html



These are the first two lines of the article:


Israeli aircraft pounded targets in the Gaza Strip early Monday after rockets were fired at Israel from the territory, the military said, unsettling a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.



The military said its aircraft struck two weapons storage facilities and a rocket launch site. No injuries were reported.
Rocket fire from Gaza has declined since Israel carried out an eight-day military campaign last November in response to frequent attacks.



This grossly unbalanced, biased, and inaccurate reporting is repeated by CBC ad nauseam. Palestinians are subject to a brutal occupation, and their rights are trampled on disgracefully. The reality is that Israel is trying to bomb them into submission, and Israel uses the excuse of these silly rockets, which are virtually token acts of legitimate resistance to this occupation, to maintain its cruel suppression of Palestinian life and society.


When will CBC and the Associated Press get tired of falsifying reality so blatantly?


The same article had the following tucked away at the end:


Meanwhile, Israeli police said that vandals slashed the tires of 21 cars in an Arab neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. The vandals also scribbled slogans on nearby walls.
It was the latest in a wave of crimes linked to Jewish extremists that has targeted mosques, churches, monasteries, dovish Israeli groups and even Israeli military bases to protest what they perceive as the Israeli government's pro-Palestinian policies in the West Bank. Vandals call the attacks the "price tag" for the policies they oppose.


There are a number of problems with this.

1) First, why wasn't this a headline? It is as significant a provocation as the silly rockets.
2) Why are they calling the perpetrators "vandals". These were political acts perpetrated by Israeli nationalists, designed to terrorize Palestinians. The word "vandals" just suggests "naughty boys", but this is much more political and serious than that. The use of the word "vandals" is intentionally misleading.
3) Why don't they publish the wording of the slogans? It is likely that these would reveal the political, nationalist, and racist intent of the so-called "vandalism".
4) Why do they describe the few decent acts of the Israel Government as "pro-Palestinian"? The extremists were protesting "pro-justice" and "pro-decency" acts of the Israeli Government. Describing these actions as "pro-Palestinian" seems to suggest that Israel's acts were somehow biased and worthy of opposition.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

War Journalism by Omission

Obama and Harper agree that there is evidence that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against the rebels. CBC dutifully reports this. That's fine.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/14/syria-civil-war.html

Harper agrees Syrian regime used chemical weapons

Canadian PM's comments come day after White House announced it has conclusive proof


However it is obvious to even the most simple-minded observer that Obama is looking for an excuse to increase US military aggression against yet-another Muslim, Middle Eastern country, so the credibility of Obama's claim should immediately be suspect.

But even if CBC does not want to call Obama a liar, and Harper a sycophant, the article should have been balanced with a number of other facts that would have undermined the war-mongering potential of the Obama/Harper claims. Just echoing these claims, without providing the balancing information, constitutes war journalism. They are weaponized words. Peace journalism would require CBC to at least note the following balancing points:

- there is evidence, noted by the UN, that the rebels used poison gas against government forces
- there is evidence that the majority of rebels are not even Syrians, but are foreign extremists
- there is evidence that the rebels have committed terrible atrocities against Syrian civilians
- there is evidence that the rebels actually massacred women, and children in a Syrian Christian village, just because of their religion
- there is evidence that the Syrian Government has turned the tide of the fighting and has the rebels on the run (which is strong evidence that the government has significant support from both the Syrian military establishment and the general population).
- there is evidence that a rebel victory in Syria would at best create a divided, chaotic country, and at worst turn Syria into a Taliban-style extremist country.

Obama and Harper's hypocritical concerns about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government (which probably did not happen) are designed to justify the killing and maiming of thousands of Syrians due to military actions to be carried out and supported by the US, Canada and others. Sending more weapons to the rebels, or establishing a no-fly zone over Syria would be crimes against the Syrian people.

If CBC were not so keen to support Israel, a country that wants to see Syria crippled and divided, and has no reservations about seeing Syrian civilians dying in droves, maybe CBC would then not be so committed to war journalism, and tell the whole story. Canadians, who pay their bills, deserve a lot more balance and honesty from CBC than they are getting.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Two Articles on Iran - June 14th

CBC online published these two articles on Iran today:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/14/iran-election.html

Iran's Khamenei to U.S. election critics: 'the hell with you'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/13/f-vp-ayed-iran-presidential-election.html

Nahlah Ayed: Can Iran's democracy voices still be heard?

So what if Khamenei told America to go to Hell - considering the bullying and harm America is doing to Iran, this is actually extremely mild language. But regardless, it is a childish headline, unworthy of a real journalism. It's intention is fully in keeping with CBC's policy of making Iran look bad at every opportunity.

The second article by Nahlah Ayad is also fully in keeping with CBC's policy of demonising Iran as preparation for an illegal, criminal US/Israeli attack on that country. It is also in keeping with the spirit of 'war journalism". - using the media as a weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to conduct military operations.

Of course the election in Iran will not be fair, but it is not worse than the US election where the voters have a similar choice only between far right candidates (one of whom, Obama, just pretends to be less far right). Why is it so important for CBC to give so much coverage to this election? It is in order to make Iran look bad.

So what that Nahlah Ayad was denied a visa to go to Iran to observe the elections. CBC has published lies about Iran (see my earlier postings), and consistently seeks to demonise Iran. Why should a CBC crew be given visas, if it is so obvious that their intention is to look for dirt, and quite possibly create lies?

And Nahlah Ayad herself - why should Iran give her a visa? Her integrity is very much in question. She is a Palestinian-Canadian who works for an organization which is essentially an enemy of the Palestinian people. She writes regularly about all the weaknesses in Arab society. With this article she is playing CBC's game of demonising Iran as a prelude to war; yet she is a "Middle East correspondent" who never writes about the suffering of the Palestinian people or Israel's human rights abuses. She is a Middle East correspondent that never writes about the single most important issue in the Middle East. How much integrity does that show? Of course Iran does not trust her.

Two Articles on Iran - June 14th

CBC online published these two articles on Iran today:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/14/iran-election.html

Iran's Khamenei to U.S. election critics: 'the hell with you'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/13/f-vp-ayed-iran-presidential-election.html

Nahlah Ayed: Can Iran's democracy voices still be heard?

So what if Khamenei told America to go to Hell - considering the bullying and harm America is doing to Iran, this is actually extremely mild language. But regardless, it is a childish headline, unworthy of a real journalism. It's intention is fully in keeping with CBC's policy of making Iran look bad at every opportunity.

The second article by Nahlah Ayad is also fully in keeping with CBC's policy of demonising Iran as preparation for an illegal, criminal US/Israeli attack on that country. It is also in keeping with the spirit of 'war journalism". - using the media as a weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to conduct military operations.

Of course the election in Iran will not be fair, but it is not worse than the US election where the voters have a similar choice only between far right candidates (one of whom, Obama, just pretends to be less far right). Why is it so important for CBC to give so much coverage to this election? It is in order to make Iran look bad.

So what that Nahlah Ayad was denied a visa to go to Iran to observe the elections. CBC has published lies about Iran (see my earlier postings), and consistently seeks to demonise Iran. Why should a CBC crew be given visas, if it is so obvious that their intention is to look for dirt, and quite possibly create lies?

And Nahlah Ayad herself - why should Iran give her a visa? Her integrity is very much in question. She is a Palestinian-Canadian who works for an organization which is essentially an enemy of the Palestinian people. She writes regularly about all the weaknesses in Arab society. With this article is playing CBC's game of demonising Iran as a prelude to war; yet she is a "Middle East correspondent" who never writes about the suffering of the Palestinian people or Israel's human rights abuses and the glaring weaknesses in Israeli society. She is a Middle East correspondent that never writes about the single most important issue in the Middle East. How much integrity does that show? Of course Iran does not trust her.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Do CBC Editors Speak English?

The following brilliant abuse of English is found in this article from June, 2 2013:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/02/palestinian-president-pm.html

Quote: "Palestinians have faced political stagnation since the Islamic militant Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip five years ago."

Hamas won a legitimate election, covering both the West Bank and Gaza. Do the words "seized power" reflect this reality? Do CBC editors not speak English? Why do they use words like this that have no relation to reality?

Also it might be noted that the "political stagnation" referred to in the above sentence is the result of the fact that the democratic choice of the Palestinian people has not been respected. Abbas and his crew are illegitimate, and they do not hold elections because they know they will lose again. This salient fact is not mentioned anywhere in this article about Abbas's choice of a new president.

Are CBC's editors abysmally ignorant of both world affairs and the English language, or are they willful deceivers of their readers? If the latter, then who are they working for?

RE: Self-Defence For Syria - Not Allowed




From: terrygreenberg@hotmail.com
To: tgreenbe1.sendai@blogger.com
Subject: Self-Defence For Syria - Not Allowed
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 04:13:22 +0900

Russia is preparing to give Syria the ability to DEFEND itself from Israeli air attacks like the ones that happened earlier in May 2013. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/31/syria-fighting-mig-fighters-russia.html

US Secretary of State Kerry has made ridiculous remarks about Syria being able to defend itself as upsetting the region. It is highlighted in the sub-headline:

John Kerry says they could prolong civil war, hurts Israel's strategic interests

Yes, it is correct for CBC to report the inane remarks made by Canadian and American politicians, but journalism is not supposed to be just stenography - somewhere in the article CBC should have emphasized that the missile systems were defensive in nature and that every country has the right to defend itself, including Syria.

CBC never fails to quote the inane justification by Canadian and American politicians of every Israeli atrocity in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and elsewhere as "self-defence". In the interest of balance, why has CBC not highlighted the self-defence nature of the missile systems that the Russians are providing.

Instead CBC repeats Kerry's duplicitous words by emphasizing that these systems will "hurt Israel's strategic interests". Why does CBC not say what Kerry's words actually means? What Kerry is really saying is that it is in Israel's strategic interest to be able to ignore and offend against the sovereignty of all its neighbours at will. Anything that reduces Israel's ability to bully, interfere, and harm its neighbours is bad for Israel.

Real journalists do not just repeat and echo duplicitous, war-mongering words from people like Kerry. Real journalists analyze and explain what these words actually mean. CBC is not committed to real journalism - it is committed to promoting the interests and propaganda of war-mongers.


Friday, May 31, 2013

Self-Defence For Syria - Not Allowed

Russia is preparing to give Syria the ability to DEFEND itself from Israeli air attacks like the ones that happened earlier in May 2013. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/31/syria-fighting-mig-fighters-russia.html

US Secretary of State Kerry has made ridiculous remarks about Syria being able to defend itself as upsetting the region. It is highlighted in the sub-headline:

John Kerry says they could prolong civil war, hurts Israel's strategic interests

Yes, it is correct for CBC to report the inane remarks made by Canadian and American politicians, but journalism is not supposed to be just stenography - somewhere in the article CBC should have emphasized that the missile systems were defensive in nature and that every country has the right to defend itself, including Syria.

CBC never fails to quote the inane justification by Canadian and American politicians of every Israeli atrocity in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and elsewhere as "self-defence". In the interest of balance, why has CBC not highlighted the self-defence nature of the missile systems that the Russians are providing.

Instead CBC repeats Kerry's duplicitous words by emphasizing that these systems will "hurt Israel's strategic interests". Why does CBC not say what Kerry's words actually means? What Kerry is really saying is that it is in Israel's strategic interest to be able to ignore and offend against the sovereignty of all its neighbours at will. Anything that reduces Israel's ability to bully, interfere, and harm its neighbours is bad for Israel.

Real journalists do not just repeat and echo duplicitous, war-mongering words from people like Kerry. Real journalists analyze and explain what these words actually mean. CBC is not committed to real journalism - it is committed to promoting the interests and propaganda of war-mongers.


Thursday, May 16, 2013

Vomiting = Poison Gas???

Israel and the US Government want an excuse to meddle in Syria, so they have concocted an unlikely scenario that the Syrian Government has used poison gas. This is highly unlikely because Syria has much more sophisticated weapons (like fighter aircraft) and they know poison gas will bring foreign intervention. But since Israel and The US want to deceive the public, CBC goes right along with them.

In this article on May 16th, the evidence is so flimsy as to be laughable, but it warrants a screaming headline:

Signs of Syrian chemical weapons attack reported by BBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/16/bbc-ostensible-proof-syria-chemical-weapons-attack.html

Here is the evidence of poison gas given in the article:

Ian Pannell also visited a local hospital where doctors reportedly said eight people had been admitted with breathing problems after the town was attacked by government artillery on April 29. The doctors said some of the injured were vomiting, and that a woman named Maryam Khatib eventually died from her injuries.


Last month, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said doctors treating several people wounded in an air raid in Aleppo, near Saraqeb, showed signs of inhaling toxic gas, such as severe vomiting and irritation to the nose and eyes.

Difficulty breathing and vomiting are often symptioms of extreme fear and stress, like the kind caused by being in the middle of a war zone. One woman died from her injuries - given the context of this statement we are supposed to assume these injuries were caused by poison gas, but since the reporter does not explicitly say that, probably it was because the injuries were bombing-related and not from poison gas. The writer's goal was just to imply poison gas, without expressing the outright lie.

Bombing in an air raid makes fires, including the burning of plastics and other chemically-treated substances. Smoke from these fires will cause irritation to nose and eyes. This is not at all evidence of poison gas. Real evidence of poison gas would involve much more serious symptoms - like death, for example.

We know that Israeli propaganda assumes the world's people are all fools, but does CBC take Canadians for fools as well?

Sunday, May 12, 2013

CBC'S SILENCE REVEALS MASSIVE BIAS

On May 12, there was another article on the conviction of the Guatemalan dictator of genocide, with perhaps up to 200,000 native Mayans as his victims. His crimes also included mass rapes, and the whole range of human rights abuses. Still there is no mention of Israel's strong support to this dictator.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/11/guatemala-dictator-rios-montt-prison.html

Guatemalans celebrate as ex-dictator begins jail term

If the Guatemalan dictator had received support from Iran instead of from Israel, we can be absolutely certain that CBC would have mentioned the Iran connection in every headline, and provided extensive details in the articles.

When recently two men were arrested in Canada for plotting to bomb a VIA rail train, the tenuous, insignificant, irrelevant fact that they may have communicated in some innocuous fashion with someone in Iran, was played up in all the headlines, and the spurious Iran connection was discussed for several days. CBC was clearly trying to make the false connection between Iran and terrorism threats in Canada.

But when Israel is implicated in massive human rights abuses and genocide, it does not even rate two words of mention by CBC.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

CBC Silent on Israel's Proxy Genocide in Guatemala

CBC never fails to describe Hamas and Hezbollah as being supported by Iran. They often name Hezbollah as "Iran-supported Hezbollah" as if that is the salient information about Hezbollah. Of course, this is Zionist-inspired nonsense.

But in this article about the recent conviction of the Guatemalan dictator of genocide, there is not a word about the massive role played by Israel in his brutal suppression of the native people of Guatemala. Probably Israel played a bigger role in this dictator's activities than Iran has ever even dreamed of playing in the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/10/guatemala-dictator-convicted-genocide.html

Guatemalan ex-dictator convicted of genocide

Strongman responsible for slaughter of over 1,700 indigenous Mayans, proescutors argue


Reporting on the dictator's conviction in the North American Congress on Latin America website (www.nacla.org/news) are the following paragraphs:

Known as "Brother Efraín," a fundamentalist convert of the California-based
"Church of the Word" (Verbo), Rios Montt thanked his God in heaven for
anointing him as Guatemala's president, but on earth he thanked Israel for
establishing his March 1982 military coup. Israeli press
reported that 300 Israeli advisors helped execute the coup, which succeeded so
smoothly, Brother Efraín told an ABC News reporter, "because many of our
soldiers were trained by Israelis." Through the height of *la
violencia*("the violence") or *desencarnacíon *("loss of flesh, loss of being"), between the late 1970s
to early 1980s, Israel assisted every facet of attack on the Guatemalan
people. Largely taking over for the United States on the ground in
Guatemala (with Washington retaining its role as paymaster, while also
maintaining a crucial presence in the country), Israel had become the
successive governments' main provider of counterinsurgency training, light
and heavy arsenals of weaponry, aircraft, state-of-the-art intelligence
technology and infrastructure, and other vital assistance.


A February 1983 CBS Evening News with Dan Rather program reported, Israel "didn't send down congressmen, human rights activists or priests" to strengthen Israel's special relationship with Guatemala. Israel "taught the Guatemalans how to build an airbase. They set up their intelligence network, tried and tested on the [Israeli-occupied Palestinian] West Bank and Gaza, designed simply to beat the Guerilla." Time magazine (03/28/83) chimed in that Guatemalan army "outposts in the jungle have become near replicas of Israeli army field camps." At one of these Israeli outposts replicated in Huehuetenango (among the areas hardest hit by the genocide, with the second highest number of massacres registered by a UN truth commission), Time continues: "Colonel Gustavo Menendez Herrera pointed out that his troops are using Israeli communications equipment, mortars, submachine guns, battle gear and helmets." Naturally, as Army Chief of Staff Benedicto Lucas García had stated previously: "The Israeli soldier is a model and an example to us."


Was CBC unaware of the Israeli support, or did they think it was not relevant? If the level of support Israel gave to the Guatemalan genocide is not relevant enough to mention in their report, how does CBC dare to pretend that Hamas and Hezbollah are somehow proxies for Iran and mention this ad infinitum?

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

CONGRATULATIONS CBC

Finally CBC has published an article that puts Israel in a bad light.

The BDS Campaign (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) organized by Palestinians as part of their NON-VIOLENT resistance to Israeli abuses of Palestinians is an extremely honourable and news-worthy activity, that has received short shrift from CBC and other North American media, precisely because it does two things:

1) highlights Israeli abuses of Palestinians
2) highlights the fact that the main initiative of Palestinians in resistance to Israeli abuses is non-violent.

Stephen Hawking is one of the highest profile supporters of the BDS campaign.

Stephen Hawking boycotts major academic conference in Israel

It would have been appropriate though if CBC had given a lot more background on the BDS campaign. The failure to do so, given the dearth of reporting on it up to now, is a sign that the CBC bias is still there.

This is all they provide by way of background  on BDS (although there are several paragraphs quoting Israelis on how wrong it is to boycott):

The boycott campaign is led by Palestinians, Israeli leftists and other supporters who oppose Israel's policies toward the Palestinians and are attuned to the power of celebrity in this age.
It has had some success, deterring a string of famous entertainers from performing. Elvis Costello and the Pixies cancelled concerts, as well as the British dance band Klaxon and the Gorillaz Sound System. Israel has also faced occasional boycotts of its academics, unions and in some cases commercial products.

What a joke! Who writes this stuff? How is it relevant to include the phrase, "are attuned to the power of celebrity in this age." There are a thousand more relevant and enlightening phrases that CBC should have used to describe the BDS campaign to its readers, but it chose this one.

The reality CBC leaves out is the scale of the BDS campaign and the strength of its support as a non-violent alternative by Palestinian civil society, and that it has some significant successes in the boycott of Israeli products as well.

 CBC also fails to give BDS its name, BDS. This cannot be an accidental omission - it is based on the notion that if you name something it then becomes more real to people. Like Israel, CBC would prefer that Canadians only know about violent reactions from Palestinians, and not focus on the popularity,  justice and the reasonableness of the main non-violent approach, the BDS CAMPAIGN.


.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

CBC GRANTS ISRAEL IMPUNITY

CBC  reported on the Israeli violation of international law by twice repeating the old, meaningless canard - Israel has the right to defend itself. No country, including Israel, has  the right under international law to make pre-emptive attacks on its neighbours and then use the excuse, even if it were true which it probably is not, that it is defending itself.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/05/israel-syria.html

New Israeli airstrikes in Syria raise tensions

Israeli warplanes strike Syrian capital for 2nd time in 3 days

Last Updated: May 5, 2013 3:43 PM ET

In order to present the self-defense claim, CBC seems to be implying more than was said by Obama in the following from the article:

The White House declined for a second day to confirm or comment directly on the airstrikes in Syria, but said Obama believes Israel has the right to defend itself against threats from groups like Hezbollah.
"The Israelis are justifiably concerned about the threat posed by Hezbollah obtaining advanced weapons systems, including some long-range missiles" White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One as Obama travelled to Ohio.


Obama did not say this particular attack, which was an international war crime, was an act of self-defense. Why does CBC stretch Obama's weasel wording into a specific endorsement of this particular war crime?

Then CBC saw fit to report Israel's absurd claim that it wanted to stay out of the Syrian civil war. If Israel wanted to stay out of the Syrian civil war, it would not have attacked Damascus. Why are the aggressor's lies being reported, without any words of reason to show how false they are?

Israel has said it wants to stay out of the Syrian war on its doorstep, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated the Jewish state would be prepared to take military action to prevent sophisticated weapons from flowing from Syria to Hezbollah or other extremist groups.

And of course, CBC had to include an inane quote from our disgraceful government:

With Syria now engulfed in an internal conflict, Israel is especially concerned that Hezbollah will take advantage of the chaos and try to smuggle advanced weapons into Lebanon, particularly those that could hamper Israel's ability to operate in Lebanese skies.
Officials in Israel say they have identified several "game changing" weapons that would trigger military intervention in Syria: chemical weapons, long-range Scud B missiles, the Fateh-110s, land-to-sea Yakhont missiles and SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles.


Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel's military intelligence, said the strikes on Syria are a signal to Damascus's ally, Tehran, that Israel is serious about the red lines it has set.
"Syria is a very important part in the front that Iran has built. Iran is testing Israel and the U.S. determination in the facing of red lines and what it sees is in clarifies to it that at least some of the players, when they define red lines and they are crossed, take it seriously," he told Army Radio.

What these quotes reveal is that Israel, which constantly abuses Lebanese airspace, is claiming to attack Syria in order to deny anti-aircraft weapons to Hezbollah who would use them to defend themselves from Israeli serial illegal incursions over Lebanon. Also it reveals that the attack on Syrias was part of a larger war which Israel is fomenting with Iran. Neither of these facts are legitimate justifications for Israel's attacks on Damascus.

As for context, it would have been appropriate if CBC had noted that Israel has occupied a large piece of Syrian territory for 40 years, and Syria has refrained all this time from attacking Israel to reclaim its stolen land. And now Israel goes and makes an unprovoked attack on Syria. Which country is more guilty of aggression?

Another thing that might have been appropriate, but lacking because of CBC's  Zionist bias, which includes a large dose of anti-Arab racism, is any expression of concern about the possibility of innocent civilian casualtiers amongst the population of Damascus. If there had been major bombing close to an Israeli city you can be sure CBC would have expressed some concern.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

ISRAEL SAYS, SO IT MUST BE TRUE??

In this article, CBC repeatedly uses the words "Israel says...."

Given the fact that Israel is the aggressor here, and war-makers (of any nationality) are seldom honest about their motives, at least CBC should have used the words "Israel claims..." CBC usually uses "claims" when it reports the official statements of Israel's enemies, Iran and Palestine, etc.

Israel strikes Syria as thousands flee pro-Assad gunmen

Israeli officials say target was shipment of advanced missiles bound for Hezbollah

 May 4, 2013 5:47 PM ET

Israel targets 'game-changing' missiles

Israeli officials confirmed on Saturday that the country's air force carried out a strike against Syria. They said the target was a shipment of advanced missiles bound for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
The officials said the attack took place early Friday and targeted sophisticated "game-changing" weapons. One official said the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles.

Israel, too, is worried about becoming caught up in Syria's war. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyau said this week that a missile attack from the Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah was one of his chief concerns.

This is what Israeli officials said, but there is no reason to believe it reflects any reality. Israel's motives might be much more sinister, and somewhere the report SHOULD HAVE noted that Israel's unilateral attack was probably against international law.

Perhaps because Israel's breaks international law so routinely, virtually daily with its overflights of Lebanon, it is not news when it happens. Is this perhaps why CBC didn't mention it - because it was not really "new news".

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

CBC - MAKING BAD JOURNALISM,WORSE

The same article discussed above was given a new headline later in the day.

The new headline is even worse and more inflammatory than the first headline.

Ignoring al-Qaeda, Iran links 'extraordinarily foolish'

We have keep in mind that the context of this article is the planned terrorist attack in Canada, so the implication of all this phony connection to Iran, is that the Government of Iran is planning to attack Canada.

The original headline was classical war journalism. One could hardly find a better example of weaponizing words than this headline. Every syllable in this headline is designed to pave the way to war. These words are as clearly designed to draw blood as the bombs, rockets, warplanes, etc that are being prepared for an Israeli/American illegal attack on Iran.

We have to ask CBC how much of this blood will be Canadian blood? Why is CBC weaponizing its words like this?

CLASSICAL CBC WAR JOURNALISM


This article appeared on April 30, 2013. CBC has outdone itself with this one. It is war-mongering, misleading, and dishonest to an extreme.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/29/f-al-qaeda-iran-shia.html

Al-Qaeda and Iran 'agree on the doctrine of jihad'


The lead line of this article was the following:

Given the ideological differences between the Sunni militant group al-Qaeda and the theocratic Shia government in Iran, recent allegations that the two groups had conspired in a foiled attack in Canada struck many observers as odd.


CBC implied with all its misleading reporting on the Canadian arrests that there was a connection to the Iranian Government, but no one with an ounce of credibility ever alleged any connection. How did CBC's duplicitous implications morph into "allegations"?

An attack on a passenger train in Canada would be a criminal, stupid, futile act, unworthy of any but the most depraved individuals. It is not even vaguely related to the behaviour of an established government like that of Iran. There is absolutely no reason in the world to think that the Government of Iran would see any merit or benefit in a stupid attack like that. It is stupid of CBC to imply it; it is stupid to allege it. Or perhaps, more likely it was knowingly false, and is just a part of CBC's Zionist-inspired war-mongering against Iran.

CBC draws some religious links between  al Qaeda and Iran, such as their support for the notion of an Islamic state, and desire to see their ideas propagated widely. However to imply or allege that because they both would like to see their religions prosper and expand, that it is then possible that they would conspire in an act as asinine and useless as putting a bomb on a Canadian train is patently absurd.

Many Christians are against abortion, but to imply or allege that the government of a majority-Christian country like Canada is possibly involved in supporting or encouraging the actions of a fanatic that murders an abortion doctor would be seen as anyone as absurd. No not just absurd, libelous, prejudiced, and we would immediately want to determine why anyone would make such a ridiculous connection. Why is CBC publishing this article that makes the same kind of ridiculous connection?

Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean we should consider all vegetarians possible mass murders?

The whole CBC article from beginning to end was riddled with misrepresentations and together with its disgusting headline strongly tries to implicate the Iranian Government in a crime in Canada to which it could not possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be connected.

Here CBC quotes a notorious Islamophobe, one who can be expected to make ridiculous claims to defame Muslims:

"I think it would be extraordinarily foolish to ignore the obvious manifestations and likelihood of further co-operation between the Iranian regime and Sunni Islamic extremists, including al-Qaeda," says David Harris, an Ottawa-based lawyer and director of Insignis Strategic Research.

Another outspoken critic of Islam, himself a Muslim, Tarek Fatah is quoted:

"Osama might never have collaborated with Iran, but the Iranians were co-operating with al-Qaeda," Fatah says.

In an effort to root out the planners of the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan in 2001. As a result, a number of senior al-Qaeda members who had been the guests of the Taliban in Afghanistan took refuge in neighbouring Iran, according to Seth Jones, author of the book Hunting in the Shadows: The Pursuit of al-Qaeda since 9/11.

As further proof of Iranian co-operation with al-Qaeda, Fatah cites an example involving Ahmed Said Khadr, the late father of Canadian-born extremist Omar Khadr and a known al-Qaeda operative. According to Michelle Shepherd's 2008 book, Guantanamo's Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr, Ahmed drove his daughter, Zaynab, to Tehran so she could marry another al-Qaeda member.


This is brilliant analysis. The fact that Iran allowed refugees from Afghanistan to enter Iran is one proof of cooperation. And then "further proof" is the fact that some al Qaeda members were allowed to marry in Tehran. Yes, indeed, this is reason and proof enough to believe that it is possible that the Iranian Government would participate along with al Qaeda to bomb trains in Canada. In what Orwellian, Upside-down, Alice in Wonderland world would these "proofs" have an relevance or relationship to the Canadian bomb plot?

And the final quote in the article is from the moronic Islamophobe, David Harris, again:

He says if the Shia Islamists that head up the theocratic regime in Tehran "feel they're in a cosmic battle" against the West, then "it's not surprising that they might link up with the dreaded Sunni in order to fight the first round — and then maybe do in the Sunnis at an appropriate moment."

Yes, bombing a passenger train in Canada, in cooperation with al Qaeda wingnuts,  would make sense to the Government of Iran as "fighting the first round" in a battle against the West.

This entire article is an attempt to demonize Iran and somehow imply, or even allege, that Iran is attacking Canada. This is an absurd implication and allegation, and it could not have just been made out of ignorance. Also we must not forget that this article exists in the context of many other anti-Iranian articles and a strong propaganda push from Israel and some powerful people in the USA to start a pre-emptive war against Iran. This article is war-mongering, classical war journalism. It is also anti-Canadian, because it is seeking to deceive Canadians in the interest of foreign states, particularly Israel.



Monday, April 29, 2013

SEE NO EVIL

Robert Fisk, a journalist with the Independent of the UK, and a true Middle East expert, is currently traveling in Canada and was approached for his views on whether the Syrian Government was using chemical weapons. He wrote about this as follows in this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-and-sarin-gas-us-claims-have-a-very-familiar-ring-8591214.html

"In two Canadian TV studios, I am approached by producers brandishing the same headline. I tell them that on air I shall trash the "evidence" – and suddenly the story is deleted from both programmes. Not because they don't want to use it – they will later – but because they don't want anyone suggesting it might be a load of old cobblers."


The headlines were reporting on claims from Israel and the USA that there is evidence that the Syrian Government is using chemical weapons against the rebels. This is highly unlikely but CBC and Canadian media are not saying that. Rather in good war journalism style, they are reporting these questionable, war-justifying claims, as reliable. Fisk who knows much better, and has no war agenda, would be a reliable informant - at least to provide balance to what is coming out of Israel and the US. Why do Canadian journalist avoid reporting his views on this important issue.

I often wonder if the unbalanced, and often inane, reporting by CBC on the Middle East is just the result of ignorance, or intentionally misleading and dishonest. The above suggests that there is a strong element of intentionality in their asinine reporting.

Friday, April 26, 2013

ONE IS NEWS; 1,000 ISN'T

 CBC regularly ignores the thousands of Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft, which have happened almost daily for years, but considers it big news when one drone flies into Israel.

In the article CBC did report that Israel made two jet sorties over Lebanon, but did not mention the more salient fact that Israel regularly has made thousands of sorties over Lebanon. How can that possibly not be considered important contextual, background information by any ethical journalist?

This omission is even more glaring when CBC thought it newsworthy to use a hypocritical quote from Israel PM Netanyahu in which he declares he will respond to threats to his citizens, but does not mention the fact that Israel is regularly provoking his neighbours with aerial violations showing no respect at all to Lebanon's sovereignty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/25/israel-drone-hezbollah.html

Israeli military shoots down 'enemy' drone

Some officials blaming Hezbollah for flight into Israeli airspace

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

CBC'S ROCKY RELATIONSHIP WITH WARMONGERING

CBC's choice of words in this article is misleading. "Iran's history with al-Qaeda"; and in the sub-headline a "rocky relationship" are both phrases that suggest that there is or was a functioning relationship. Moreover a rocky relationship, like a complicated love affair, implies periods of love and cooperation alternating with periods of animosity and antagonism. One might say, in the same vein, that CBC has had a rocky relationship with TRUTH, or as above, with WARMONGERING.

The reality is that Iran has not ever wanted to have anything to do with al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda has never had anything but scorn for Iran. They are natural enemies. The article fails to make this point clearly enough, but does admit that the two have been thrown together by uncomfortable circumstances, particularly the fact that al-Qaeda took uninvited refuge in Iran when they were driven out of Afghanistan.

Another thing that CBC fails entirely to mention is that the one group in Iran that is often described as al-Qaeda are the Baluchi separatists (from southwestern Iran), who are Sunni and up in arms against the Iran Government. They have conducted terrorist attacks against Iranian targets, and there is strong reason to believe, that they receive weapons and financial support from the US Government. So the one group in Iran that probably warrants the name "al Qaeda in Iran" is actually a Western-supported, anti-Iranian group. This is very relevant information. Is CBC so incompetent that they were not aware of this, or did they leave it out intentionally because it would not serve their Iran-demonizing agendas?

In the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq, the media constantly juxtaposed the words "Iraq" and "al Qaeda", even though Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al Qaeda and 911. Even if the articles themselves revealed this non-relationship, the propaganda effect of this constant juxtaposition resulted in the majority of Americans thinking that Saddam had a hand in 911. CBC is doing the same thing today, by juxtaposing "Iran" and "al Qaeda" in headlines and sub-headlines and using misleading phrases like "history together" and "rocky relationship". This must be intentionally misleading, because the relevance of the Iran connection in the case of this Canadian threat is negligible and does not warrant this kind of high profile.

5 questions on Iran's complicated history with al-Qaeda

Relations have always been rocky between Tehran and extremist group

CBC could claim that they included in their articles that the Iranian Government was not likely to be aware of the Canadian plot, and that Iran has denied involvement. However, given the high profile CBC has given to the Iran connection in this case, these CBC sentences probably have the same effect as when Richard Nixon declared "I am not a crook"; which convinced everyone he was a crook.

For example:   Iran has denied that the two men accused of plotting to derail a Via passenger train received support from al-Qaeda elements inside the country.

Iran likely unaware of al-Qaeda's Canadian plot, security experts say.
















Monday, April 22, 2013

BEWARE ATHEISTS IN VATICAN

On April 22, CBC online had the following headline and sub-headline:

Alleged terror plot targeting Via train thwarted

Police say 2 accused were getting 'direction and guidance' from al-Qaeda elements in Iran



Perhaps the police person quoted did make this claim, but it actually does not make sense. Al-Qaeda is extremely anti-Shia, and Iran is Shia. Al-Qaeda is essentially antagonistic to Iran. There is no evidence that al-Qaeda ever operates out of Iran. Some al-Qaeda people consider Shia Muslims as worse than atheists, and worthy of death. There is virtually no grounds for cooperation between them.

If someone had made the unlikely claim that some criminals were getting direction and guidance from atheists in the Vatican, it is unlikely CBC would take it as credible enough to put it unchallenged in a headline. But CBC, never wanting to miss an opportunity to demonize Iran, put this unlikely claim about al-Qaeda in Iran in a headline.

Several hours later this article appeared:

Iran likely unaware of al-Qaeda's Canadian plotting, security expert says

RCMP allege al-Qaeda in Iran supported plot to attack train

Again they are putting the RCMP's questionable allegation in a headline. It would be nice if the RCMP and CBC could cite even one piece of evidence for this allegation.

The article which is supposedly meant to provide context to this claim of al Qaeda activities in Iran fails once to mention the fundamental antagonism between Sunni extremists and Shia Iran, and the depth of animosity held by extremists Sunnis against Shia Muslims. This is the most salient fact, but it is absent and instead there are a lot of irrelevant details of superficial contacts between al Qaeda and Iran largely resulting from the former fleeing as refugees from Afghanistan.








Thursday, April 18, 2013

POWER OF SUGGESTION

The following article was one of the most viewed on CBC online over the several days after the Boston Marathon bombing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/16/f-pressure-cooker-bomb.html

A history of pressure cooker bombs

Pressure cooker found at site of Boston Marathon explosions

Last Updated: Apr 16, 2013 10:25 PM ET

In keeping with CBC's penchant to promote Islamophobia and do Israel's dirty work, the article strongly suggests that it is LIKELY the bombing was the work of a Muslim terrorist.  It does not come out and say this, because there is no evidence, but it makes a valiant effort to SUGGEST it to be the case.

The article is full of references like the following:

Instructions on how to make such a bomb were featured in the first issue of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine under the headline, "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."
Inside a pressure cooker bomb. (Duk Han Lee/CBC)In these instructions for making improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as they are known in the security world, al-Qaeda's "chef" claims "the pressurized cooker is the most effective method."
The bombs are made by placing an explosive material inside the pressure cooker. The al-Qaeda article recommends military-grade explosives like TNT, C4 or RDX.


Then there a list of pressure cooker bombs used by Muslims:

In 2010, Faizal Shahzad, a 31-year-old Pakistani-American, attempted to bomb Times Square in New York. He had three explosive devices inside his SUV, including a pressure cooker bomb, but they failed to detonate.
U.S. army private Naser Abdo, 21, was arrested in 2011 and charged with possession of an unregistered destructive device.
Among items police seized from his hotel room were two pressure cookers, six bottles of smokeless gunpowder and a copy of "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."
One of the bloodiest incidents involving these devices was on July 11, 2006 in Mumbai, India. Seven bombs went off on commuter trains, killing 209 people and injuring 714 during the evening rush hour.
More recently, in February, a pressure cooker bomb exploded inside a restaurant in northern Afghanistan, killing five people.
French police have twice managed to prevent the use of pressure cooker bombs. Ten Islamic militants were convicted for planning to blow up a market in Strasbourg on New Year's Eve 2000.
And during an investigation into a grenade attack on a kosher market in a Paris suburb on Sept. 19, 2012, police found bomb-making materials, including a pressure cooker, in an underground garage.
They blamed a network of Muslim extremists. Police took seven suspects, all born in France, into custody.


The CBC article was billed as a history of pressure cooker bombs, but it was a very skewed history. While it makes much of the al Qaeda article, it completely fails to mention the FACT that pressure cooker bombs figure prominently in websites and publications of right-wing extremists in the United States.

Moreover it fails to point out that, although the perpetrators are unknown, it is quite possible that the marathon bombing was done by American right-wing extremists, because it was done on US Tax Day, which is also US Patriots Day, and Muslim extremists are more likely to attack a target of political significance than a sporting event.


Monday, April 15, 2013

LETTING ISRAEL TEACH US ENGLISH

In keeping with his policy of seeking to harm Palestinians for the sake of Israel, Canada's half-witted Foreign Minister broke protocol and held a meeting on April 9th with an Israeli Minister in the Israeli-occupied territory of East Jerusalem.

East Jerusalem is classified as "occupied territory" by the United Nations, and almost every government in the world, including officially by Canada. Israel is the only government that has begun to call all the areas it occupies as "disputed territories". Israel's naming is fully in keeping with its unstated, but obvious, policy of ethnic cleansing as many Palestinians as possible out of these territories, and eventually incorporating it into Israel proper. This is a disgraceful, immoral policy and no other government on earth has officially endorsed it.

Nevertheless all the following Canadian media sources, in writing about Baird's action, used the phrase "disputed territories" to describe East Jerusalem:

Vancouver Sun
Ottawa Citizen
McLeans Magazine
Global Media
Toronto Star
National Post
Canadian Press

Even CBC initially used "disputed territories" in an online headline, but then having  been criticized for it, revised their headline to delete this phrase.

How is it that Israel can teach Canadian journalists how to speak English? How is it that Canadian journalists take guidance from Israel, and Israel alone, in what words to use to describe Middle East events? There is something seriously wrong with this.

Monday, April 8, 2013

CBC's IDEA OF RELEVANCE?

On April 7, 2013 this article was published:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/07/gaza-hamas-long-hair-crackdown.html

Gaza police crackdown targets long-haired youth, group says


How is this important enough to warrant this special coverage? Of course, it is unpleasant, but much, much worse things are happening in the area that CBC chooses to ignore.

For example, recently inside Israel there has been a spate of unprovoked, racist attacks on Palestinian citizens of Israel by Israelis. Arabs have been attacked at bus stops, or just while walking down the street. Israeli newspapers are publishing articles lamenting the growth of the ugliest kind of raciast behavioutr in Israeli society. Another example that CBC chooses to ignore are the ugly attacks on Jewish women and young girls by Orthodox  Jews in Jerusalem. Little girls are being spat on and called "whores" for wearing school uniform skirts. CBC has nothing to say about these vastly worse incidents that happen almost daily in Israel. Instead a few isolated cases of extremist behaviour by Hamas police gets big coverage.

Why is this? Is it because CBC is keen to publish anything that makes Israel's enemies (victims) look bad, but avoids publishing anything that makes Israel look bad? Then why is this? Why does CBC protect Israel, and defame Palestinians? Is there something in the CBC mandate that mandates this?

If one looks at the comments following the above article, it is clear what kind of emotions CBC was trying to elicit with this article. Here are just a few samples of the most popular comments:


CBC does not want to publish an article about Israeli racism or abuse of little girls. It might inspire people to think and comment along the same lines. People might write "How can Canada support Israelis when they behave like this?" or "Why don't the Israelis progress with the rest of the modern world?", Or even a one word description of Israelis as "barbarians".

Well CBC will not publish articles that put Israelis in a bad light, and if they did, and comments like the above appeared, they would all probably be deleted as "anti-Semitic".

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

CBC - AT IT AGAIN

Why does CBC always insist that Palestinians provoke and Israel retaliates?

The reality is that Israel is daily harming, including humiliating, restricting, imprisoning, dispossessing, and even killing Palestinians, but according to CBC none of this warrants or justifies any kind of retaliation from Palestinians. If the Palestinians take any aggressive action, CBC treats it as if it started in a vacuum. Over the past several months of the supposed ceasefire, Israel has killed a number of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza, but this is defined  as "quiet", while a few ineffective Palestinian rockets is treated as an unprovoked aggression. This is the article on April 3, 2013:

                         http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/03/israel-rockets.html

Israel hits Gaza in retaliatory attacks

Airstrikes 1st since strikes in November when Palestinian rockets hit southern Israel


Israeli sources are quoted in this short article 11 times. YES, count them. Eleven times! The Palestinian group that claims responsibility for these rockets (it was not Hamas), said that they were in response to the death of Palestinians in Israeli custody.

Why does CBC quote Israeli sources 11 times, but could not at least have included this one Palestinian statement that gives a Palestinian justification and balances out the silly, meaningless issue of "who started it" (according to CBC, it is always the Palestinians who started it anyway).

In this article there is another example of the grossly imbalanced quoting of Israeli sources:

During eight days of violence in November, the Israeli military said 1,500 rockets were fired at Israel, including the first from Gaza to strike the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem areas. The rocket attacks killed six Israelis and wounded dozens. Israeli airstrikes killed 169 Palestinians and caused considerable damage.

This quoting of an Israeli military source appears to be intended to provide some context to the recent rocket firing. It suggests that Palestinians are just addicted to firing rockets and they just cannot get it out of their system.

But if CBC were interested in providing meaningful context, it would not rely on Israeli military sources, and at least would include the tally of rocket strikes made by Israel on Gaza in November 2012, as well as some reference to the murder of unarmed Palestinians by Israel since the November ceasefire.

CBC's reporting on this issue is so imbalanced that it constitutes a crime against Canadians, and an act of war against Palestinians. What have Palestinians ever done to Canada to justify this hostility to them by CBC?

Saturday, March 30, 2013

CBC Digging Dirt on Muslims

On March 30, 2013 CBC online published an article on Egypt, reporting on some undemocratic actions by the new Egyptian Government. CBC is very diligent at reporting on all the failings of Arab governments, but is generally silent on the even greater human rights abuses being carried out by the Israeli Government.

The frequent CBC articles on Arab and Iranian shortcomings are excessive, to the point of appearing to be a campaign of villification. This demonisation of Arabs and Iranians would fit very well with Israeli propaganda and that is likely the reason for it.

If one looks at the comments to the March 30th article, you will see the strategy is working somewhat, as many of them write about the inferiority of Muslim and Arab culture as the explanation for all the dirt CBC is digging up.

One comment made under the alias "Lemmy Caution" was particularly disgusting and inappropriate:

who can blame Burma-Myanmar ....they know exactly who they are dealing with
...the M's ... full steam backwards since 632 AD


This comment was not even relevant to the topic. The M's are obviously the Muslims, and the writer is referring to recent pogroms against Muslims in Burma, suggesting that killing, attacking, dispossessing Muslims is justified.

I reported this as "Hate Speech - Islamophobia", but CBC rejected my report and did not remove this comment.

If a comment had said "Who can blame Hitler for the Holocaust...he knew who he was dealing with ... the J's ....full steam backwards for thousands of years." there is no doubt that CBC would have immediately removed the comment as anti-Semitic.

Is there no decent staffer at CBC that can identify hate speech unless it is directed at Jews?


Sunday, March 24, 2013

OBAMA VISIT SOUND & FURY, SIGNIFYING NOTHING

For the three days of Obama's visit to Israel (including a brief visit to Palestine), CBC.ca's main headlines were reporting on the visit as if it was a positive event. The amazing thing is how little substance there was to any of the reporting. There was no analysis and everything said by Obama was taken at face value. Given his past record, there is no evidence that his words have any credibility or truth in them, so why  couldn't CBC apply a little analysis to them? Is it because Obama was spouting mostly Israeli propaganda, and CBC liked what they heard?
 
The main outcome of Obama's visit was to signal to Israel that they can do virtually anything they want to the Palestinians and America will support them. America will remain totally blind to the human rights of the Palestinians. This is a warmongering message, because there can never be peace until Palestinian rights are taken into full recognition. CBC is committed to war journalism, not peace journalism, so Obama's lying speech seems to have suited CBC just fine.
 
It might also be repeated that there was virtually no quotations from Palestinians, or serious reporting on the Palestinian position regarding Obama, except to say there was opposition to his visit from Palestinians.
 
The following words written by a Palestinian-American in the blog, War is a Crime, sums up the true situation perfectly (highlighting mine):
 
"It is hard to describe the level of frustration that I had watching the theater of media frenzy (devoid of any real substance) about Obama's visit.  Obama gave a new lifeline to war and conflict by avoiding human rights and international law.  It is the missing ingredient that for the past 65 years precluded peaceful resolution. It is the twisted logic that says the insecurity of the thief must be the only thing to be dealt with by ensuring the victims first recognize the legitimacy of the theft and the legitimacy of the need for the thief to first have full security and immunity from accountability for the theft before the victim is put in the room with the armed thief so that they can work out something (vague and without reference to International law). That formula has been shown to be a disaster and has kept Apartheid and colonization going."
 
Will the day ever come when CBC could at least publish a perfectly legitimate view such as this, alongside all its Israeli propaganda?   

Thursday, March 21, 2013

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP OR ISRAELI BROADCASTING CORP?

This grotesquely unbalanced article was published in CBC online on March 21:

Palestinians 'deserve a state of their own,' Obama says

U.S. president visits with Mahmoud Abbas in West Bank city of Ramallah

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/21/barack-obama-israel-visit.html
 
After several long articles by CBC discussing Obama's visit to Israel, this one was meant to be the article covering his short visit to Palestine. However over half the article was not discussing Obama's visit at all, but spoke of two rockets that had been fired into Israel from Gaza. The message that CBC clearly wants to convey here is that Palestinians are incorrigible, and they are always at fault. CBC's message is Orwellian. It turns reality upside down. Recently CBC mentioned as an aside that a 16-year old Palestinian was shot in the head by Israeli soldiers. There was no follow up. But these two innocuous rockets warranted supplanting real news about the Palestinian position as it must have been expressed to Obama.
 
Also it is worth noting these inane quotations in this article from Israelis, and the glaring fact that there is not a single quotation from a Palestinian:
 
1) "We will be closely watching Palestinian President Abbas today to see if he condemns these attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilians," a senior Israeli government official in Jerusalem said after the attack. Whether Abbas condemns this incident or not is irrelevant. He has publicly condemned Gaza rocket attacks many times in the past. Given the suffering of Palestinians and the brevity of his meeting with Obama, he must have had bigger priorities.
 
2)  Yossi Haziza, a Sderot resident in whose courtyard the first rocket exploded, was looking at the walls of his home sprayed with shrapnel and shattered windows.
"I wish this was merely damage to property but my eight year old daughter and my wife are terrified," Haziza said. "We just want to live in peace. We don't want to keep having to run to bomb shelters."  There is no doubt that some Israelis suffer because of the currrent lack of peace, but the suffering of Palestinians is a thousand-fold worse than the suffering of Israelis. Citizens on both sides want peace, but there is no reason to believe that Israelis, who prosper under the status quo, want it more than Palestinians who suffer terribly under the status quo.
 
Also it is worth noting the inane quotes given by Obama in the article, and the fact that CBC reports them without analysis and showing how hollow they are:
 
1) U.S. President Barack Obama ....said Thursday that Palestinians deserve a sovereign state, and "an end to occupation and the daily indignities that come with it."
 
"Daily indignities" - One would think that getting shot in the head is more than an "indignity". The amount of suffering that is imposed on the Palestinians by the occupation (which should more accurately be described as "ethnic cleansing") is horrific, involving imprisonment, bombings, shootings, house demolitions, destruction of livelihoods and olive trees, theft of crucial water resources, loss of land, and the list goes on. There is no way these can simply be described as "indignities". Obama's language may be diplomatic, but it is also disgraceful, and CBC should say so.
 
2) "We don't consider [the settlements] to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace," he (Obama) said.
 
The settlements serve only one purpose which is land expropriation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Obama's convoluted remarks that they are "not constructive" carry as much meaning as someone saying, "Killing people's children does not contribute to friendship with them." CBC should have pointed out how devastating the settlement building project is to the welfare of Palestinians and the possibilities of peace, and not just echoed Obama's inane statement.
 
 
Finally, how is it that CBC has space for all these inane, useless, meaningless quotations that would fit nicely into an Israeli propaganda piece, but does not quote a single Palestinian, either an official or a man on the street? Certainly there is something fundamentally corrupt about CBC's reporting on the Middle East.
 

Monday, March 18, 2013

HAVE CAKE, EAT IT TOO.

This silly headline appeared on March 18, 2013:
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/18/israel-netanyahu.html
 

     Israel's Netanyahu says new government wants peace

        As new cabinet sworn in, PM says Israel ready for a 'historic concession' to end conflict with Palestinians

 
This is an entirely meaningless claim by Netanyahu. It does not deserve a headline, because it signifies nothing related to any reality.
 
It is misleading to give what is essentially meaningless rhetoric a headline. As a minimum, CBC should have not used the words "SAYS", but should have used the word "CLAIMS", so that readers would get a more accurate sense of how meaningless these words really are.
 
It would be more realistic if the headline were:  "Netanyahu says Israel wants its cake in the West bank, and wants to eat it too."
 
Netanyahu said nothing about giving justice to the Palestinians, nor did he indicate what "concessions" he would make to them. In his mind, it is probably a "historic concession" just to let them stay alive in their homes.
 
The peace process is just a mask to hide what is an ongoing policy of expropriation of Palestinian land and a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Netanyahu is just adjusting the mask with these words (in advance of a visit from Obama), but there is absolutely NO reason to believe he means to abandon Israel's continuous policies of taking maximum land in Palestine with the minimum number of non-Jews on the land they take.
 
There is also strong evidence that Netanyahu and his government DO NOT WANT PEACE. The status quo has worked well for Israel. They have continuously expanded their territory throughout the phony peace process, and they probably do not want this to end until they have taken over all of the West Bank and driven out as many Palestinians as possible. Peace now would have to mean an end to this expansion before Israel's goals of a total takeover are met. There is no reason to believe that Israel will abandon this goal.
 
Why does CBC pretend that this mask represents a reality by giving this claim a headline?
 
Journalists are supposed to look behind the mask, not pretend it is reality and present it in headlines as if it were real news.