Treasonous Terrorism of America by Media Conglomerates
January 2, 2005
Those who think Michael Moore holds the Guiness record for destroying the work and credibility of the U.S. Military, our work to clear out the terrorist diaspora, and to create a free Iraq, have not read this week’s edition of the Economist magazine (www.economist.com).
The Economist is part of the New York Times syndicate. The Times has done everything possible to undermine the war effort stateside. But it has not stopped there. It is apparently promoting the most acidic liberal values and hate of the United States via the Economist magazine.
The Economist’s coverage of U.S. initiatives to stop feminists from taking over the institution of marriage via “same sex marriage” has been horrid. Those protecting traditional marriage have been treated with neanderthality and dirty name calling that would never be publishable in the U.S. media.
This week, the Economist crossed the line with respect to the war in Iraq. An article titled“When deadly force bumps into hearts and minds” (in the print edition), and titled “American army tactics in Iraq” (in the online edition), makes Michael Moore a grade-school novice in comparison.
This article appears to go well beyond the lies and misrepresentations that John Kerry made about activities of the U.S. military in Vietnam.
The Economist does not let you see their online edition without a subscription. So I am providing the questionable parts of the article which, if incorrect, should result in the immediate termination of anyone having anything to do with the article.
The article features horrific statements about the U.S. military. Congress and responsible journalists should immediately take the Economist and the New York Times to task for these comments, and demand a full and complete accounting for them:
“There is only one traffic law in Ramadi these days: when American approach, Iraqis scatter. Horns blaring, brakes screaming, the midday traffic skids to the side of the road as a line of Humvee jeeps ferrying American marines rolls the wrong way up the main street. Every vehicle, that is, except one beat-up old taxi. Its elderly driver, flapping his outstretched hand, seems, amazingly, to be trying to turn the convoy back. Gun turrets swivel and lock on to him, as a hefty marine sergeant leaps into the road, levels an assault rifle at his turbanned head, and screams: ‘Back this bitch up, motherfucker!’”…
… “The marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: ‘If anyone gets too close to us we fucking waste them,’ says a bullish lieutenant. ‘Its kind of a shame, because it means we’ve killed a lot of innocent people.’ ”……
…”marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. /Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed. Sometimes, the marines say they hide near the body of a dead insurgent and kill whoever comes to cllect it. According to the marine lieutenant: ‘It gets to a point where you can’t wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody … It gets to a point where you don’t mind the bad stuff you do.’ “…
… “When fired upon, they retaliate by blitzing whichever buildings they think the fire is coming from: charred shells now line Ramadi’s main streets. ‘Sometimes it works in the insurgents’ favor,’ admits Rick Sims, a chief warrant officer. “Because by the time we’ve shot up the neighbourhood, then the guys have torn up a few houses, they’re four blocks away, and we just end up pissing off the locals.’ “ …
… “In Falluja, 40 miles (64 km) east of Ramadi, the marines who survived the fierce assault on the town in November have a sardonic acronym for the skills it taught them: FISH, or Fishing In Someone’s House. FISH involves throwing a hand grenade into each room before checking it for unfriendlies, or ‘MU’, a short for mujahideen, as the marines call them.’ “
… “American marines and GIs frequently display contempt for Iraqis, civilian or official. Thus the 18-year-old Texan soldier in Mosul who, confronted by jeering schoolchildren, shot canisters of buckshot at them from his grenade-launcher. “It’s not good, dude, it could be fatal, but you gotta do it,’ he explained. Or the marines in Ramadi who, on a search for insurgents, kicked in the doors of houses at random, in order to scream, in English, at trembling middle-aged women within: ‘Where’s your black mask?’ and “Bitch, where’s the guns?’ “
If any one of the above claims were true, Abu Ghraib would be small potatoes in comparison. Where so many momentous and far-flung allegations have been originated in one article, it is likely these claims are invented. I have never seen any of these claims before, and I can’t find anything similar to them on the internet.
If the Economist’s claims are unfounded, it could be considered international terrorism and perhaps an act of treasonous disinformation, where it attempts to manipulate the war effort and places the lives of our servicemen at risk in a manner similar to that demonstrated in the documentary “Stolen Honor”.
If this Economist article is indeed false, it is far worse than anything done by John Kerry in the 1970’s or during the elections. By instilling contemporary hate of America in its European syndicates (which comes full-circle back to America appearing to be the “European perspective”), the New York Times would be manipulating both European and American politics and beliefs in a very dangerous manner.
What better way could there be to manipulate America than to make Europe hate us so we hate ourselves? Creating fear and mistrust, playing both ends off the middle, disinformation, and “dividing and conquering” are all well-known methods of destroying organizations, governments, and even countries. A world divided would only feed the goals of the lawyers and feminists in the United Nations, who would love to run the world via courts and tribunals from the liberal bastions of Europe. At some point, we could say this could, in itself, cause a World War.
This possibility raises serious questions about the legality of international media conglomerates. Should we allow them, and under what circumstances? Is the above not an issue of national security? Should we hold media conglomerates to a higher standard of integrity and culpability? Would a mass disinformation campaign fall under RICO provisions?
This Economist article appears to demonstrate that a conglomerate can become a monopoly that prevents inquisitive and accurate reporting, replacing it with a dangerous an unaccountable form of coordinated worldwide bedlam.
It also raises serious questions about freedom of the press. As a writer, I strongly believe in freedom of the press. But, I never publish anything that I cannot back up with evidence or fact, and I would never hide behind this right in order to manipulate the world according to my wishes. “Freedom of the press” should not be a license to lie or artificially manipulate world politics.
At some point, there must be a penalty applied against those lie – those who have not one whit of fact to back their statements up. We have already seen American society destroyed by feminists who consistently lie about family and violence statistics – to the serious detriment of women, children, men, and society. The more recent abuses of journalistic privilege we have seen with regard to the war in Iraq is even more dangerous, for it is fundamentally intended to destroy America itself.
