BLOG POSTS

If you wish to familiarize yourself with the social characteristics of a nation then study their media. Since the advent of mass media communications (TV, internet, etc.), media organizations have striven to reflect the characteristics of their audiences. Indeed, some would argue they now do much more than that, they actually control and alter those characteristics.

A fine example of this is the recent US news media’s obsession with the antics of a tiny minority of NFL players, found guilty of domestic violence. Not that such matters should be quietly brushed under the carpet. Domestic violence is not just an NFL problem, nor even an American issue. It’s an obnoxious trait that abounds throughout humanity, often with no means of redress for the victim. But, frankly, when compared to mass executions by crucifixion or beheading, it pales almost into insignificance.

Why then, do the major US news channels consider the sadistic behavior of a few NFL players towards their wives and families, vastly more important than the above-mentioned atrocities taking place daily in the Middle East?

For the last six evenings NBC News has led with (and devoted much of its news time to) this NFL non-story. The plight of the Iraqi people at the hands of the terror group, ISIS, has received barely a mention. Will the man in charge at the NFL stay or go? The nation remains glued to its TV screens waiting to be told. It’s the hottest story off the press right now for a populace of 300,000,000 people.

Or, is it?

Is this really a case of the media reflecting the character of its audience? If so, it says very little for the American people, who are much more interested in the activities of their football teams than the torturing and killing of thousands of their fellow human beings.

Or, is the news media being used to control the minds of the populace? Don’t tell the peasants what really matters, for then they won’t be concerned by it. Instead, feed them constant headlines about the antics of their football stars so they won’t think too hard about those foreign innocents cruelly slaughtered as a direct result of their government invading a foreign nation and devastating it, leaving a political vacuum, and lots of nice weaponry, for ISIS to stroll in and control.

It’s a fine example of news not being in the news, therefore not being news. The US foray into Iraq was a total failure and something of an embarrassment. It’s better forgotten. It’s not our concern anymore – unless they try to mess with us. Let the sand-niggers^[1] fight it out among themselves.

God forbid that those media outlets that supported their country’s invasion of Iraq (and that means all of them) should feel any guilt or responsibility for swaying the opinions of the US public back in 2002/03.

After all, that would be so un-American.

^{[1] “The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I’m about to introduce them to it.” ~ Senior US officer addressing troops prior to the battle for Fallujah, Iraq 2003.}

^{See: “What’s an Iraqi Life Worth?” Andrew Bacevich writing in the Washington Post, July 9th 2006}

It’s been a while. Frankly, with the onset of maturity it becomes more difficult to associate oneself with the madness of the human species. Its lust for power over its fellows can surely only end in its downfall.

With the advent of ISIS in the Middle East, the West is once more in a state of confusion. Our politicians scurry round like church mice searching for the last dropped morsel from the communion table. They spout all sorts of crazy notions for dealing with this latest threat to the West’s centuries-long complacency: that we can treat others with disdain and never face the consequences.

ISIS is no minor Arab skirmish between tribes vying for power. It poses a threat to the world comparable with Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The world shilly-shallied then. It’s behaving in a similar manner today. ISIS must be stopped while it’s still possible to do so. It’s forces grow stronger with each day that passes.

Yesterday, it was ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Today, it’s IS (Islamic State). Tomorrow, it will be ICME (Islamic Caliphate of the Middle East).

Make no mistake, its leaders intend world domination. They’ll not be content with reclaiming the lands of the Ottoman. Their quest is total Islam, just as the Nazi intention was world Aryanism.

Meanwhile, Obama talks. He talks with European leaders; he talks with his opposition leaders. He wants to “…train and arm the moderate Syrian rebels…”. Who are they? Where are they? The truth is they’ve collapsed under the weight of militant Islamic forces in Syria, and are no longer a viable opposition.

The West “trained and armed” the Iraqi army; they “trained and armed” the Afghan army; they “trained and armed the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi”. We’ve seen the results of such “training and arming”.

In Iraq, the army was routed and ISIS helped themselves to the US arms; in Afghanistan, the army regularly assassinates US soldiers and much of the arms end up with the Taliban; in Libya, the country is overrun with armed thugs vying for power and the government has collapsed.

The West is not good at “training and arming” it’s so-called ‘allies’. Yet, Obama wants to utilize the same, failed, tactics that have resulted in nothing but misery and suffering for millions of innocents in the nations the US has “trained and armed”.

There’s a simple solution to the ISIS problem, but it’s not a politically acceptable one in the West. NATO needs to join forces with the Assad regime in Syria and destroy the ISIS strongholds, put an end to the Syrian civil war, then use its diplomatic muscle to work peaceably with Assad towards an, eventually, democratic Syria.

Assad is not the ogre painted by the West. He was working to effect change in his country before the civil war, but Islamic extremists scuppered his plans and whipped up the Sunni base to rebellion, hoping to gain power themselves.

Why is the West determined to dethrone Assad? Because Saudi Arabia wants rid of him. Obama talks of procuring Saudi military assistance (‘boots on the ground’), but with much of the ISIS funding coming from that region, albeit nefariously, it’s unlikely King Abdullah will be too keen to publicize any firm allegiance. Besides, the Saudi royals are desperate to rid themselves of the Assad regime in Syria, a Mediterranean ally of the hated Shia Iran.

It’s vitally important to note that the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2002 is DIRECTLY responsible for the situation in that country today, the rise of ISIS, and the subsequent deaths and atrocities committed by that organization. Had Saddam Hussein remained in power he would never had allowed his nation to sink so far into the political mire it could be overwhelmed so easily. He would have routed ISIS, just as he did with al-Qaeda – despite the lies perpetrated by Western propaganda.

Americans, or those 84% who voted to invade Iraq in 2002, have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands, yet public opinion here is turning in favor of military action based solely on the executions of two men, just because they happened to hold US passports.

It’s time for the West to take concerted action, and let the Gulf states complain about it if they choose. But, it won’t happen. Western politicians will procrastinate, just as they did in the 1930s, and ISIS will grow and grow.

When asked about his support for US military action, one senator, from a certain Southern state, told an NBC reporter yesterday:

I just can’t see the end game in this, and I can’t support military action without a viable endgame.”

He obviously hasn’t given a moment’s thought to what “the endgame” might be, if we do nothing.

^{[1] “Islamic State: Where does jihadist group get its support?” BBC, September 1st 2014}

…we tortured some folks. But I understand how it happened.”