Wednesday, October 12, 2011

More Smoke and Mirrors?


In the article, 2 Charged in Alleged Plot to Kill Saudi Ambassador to US, it is reported that the “Obama administration on Tuesday accused agents of the Iranian government of being involved in a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.” Near the end of the article it also reports that “President Barack Obama was first briefed on the plot in June.”

That was four months ago. Why the wait?

According to both this article and the one by the New York Times: U.S. Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy, this accusation by the administration was made on Tuesday. That is today. At the bottom of the NY Times article is this footnote:

A version of this article appeared in print on October 12, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Iranians Accused Of Plot to Kill An Ambassador.

Just in case this is changed later so as to deny it, here is a picture of it:

Does this seem strange to anyone else? On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, a footnote is included on a web page article saying that a version of this article appeared in print tomorrow, Wednesday, October 12, 2011.

Is this not peculiar reporting style? What does this indicate regarding the facts of this story?

Obama was briefed on this plot in June. His administration waits at least four months to act. The news report speaks of Tuesday (today) as though it were past tense. Then one report speaks of a past appearance of a version of this article on a day in the future.

Again, what does this indicate regarding the facts of this story?

The NY Times article bounces all over the spectrum regarding what the “experts” conclude regarding the likelihood of this plot having approval from high-levels of the Iranian government. Yet the hateful attempts to murder a man for converting to Christianity have gone to the very highest level in the Iranian government. Why does the media go to such extreme efforts to excuse or explain away the very facts that they report?

Should this concern us? Should we look to this peculiar reporting and this askew perspective of the Obama administration with uneasiness?

= = = = =


Today some are very boldly calling this an act of war on the part of Iran. See Kessler: Bomb Iran Now for Washington Terror Plot. This article says that former Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler say that this is a clear act of war against the USA.

Clear act of war against the USA?

First, the reports deny the likelihood of this being approved by higher levels of Iranian government. The next day the reaction is to call it a clear act of war.

But what of the evidence and the reporting of that evidence? What attack actually was perpetrated? What and whom were blown up? Where are the explosives?

Does anyone recall the reason for going to war against Iraq? Clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction was reportedly held by Saddam & family. Oddly though, those weapons were never found.

Now are we to go to war with a nation on account of a plot to kill an ambassador from another Islamic nation?

What is the point? How does going to war with Iran prevent war, especially when no actual ACT of war has been perpetrated? A plot is not the same as an act, even if it should be proven that this plot reaches to the high levels of Iranian government. Has a Lusitania been sunk? Would a plot to sink the Lusitania have been an act of war or merely a strategy?

The followers of Islam consider themselves to be at war with the world. Their Quran and other religious sources make this clear.

But Communism teaches the same. Why have we not bombed China or North Korea and the former USSR? They have each committed actual acts of war, and yet we have not bombed their nuclear plants. Each of these have most certainly plotted against the USA.

Who gains from war? The international bankers and the big military industrialists gain. But the people lose and lose big. It has always been this way, except on a smaller scale in the past.

James addresses this issue in James 4.

If the USA were not going to war around the globe forcing centralized banking and big corporate exploitation of resources and people upon nations in the guise of democracy and freedom, would we actually find ourselves at war with these nations? In older times this was called colonization. Today it is called spreading democracy. Soon it will be called world peace through global police enforcement.

When it finally reaches this stage, the people will cry out. But will they not be the ones who endorsed it all along? Will they not be the very ones who cried: “USA! USA! USA!”? Will they not be the ones who waved the flag, or burned it in a feeling of superiority while collecting welfare and food stamps and government jobs and social security or big corporate benefits and pensions?

In the end, will we not be getting exactly what we have endorsed or at least accepted and permitted?

+ + +

No comments: