I was brought up and knew my way around the 20th century when much to my surprise the 21st century came along and everyone started making up new confusing rules I was supposed to have memorized (long after it was too late to memorize anything).

Thursday, September 05, 2013

War, secrecy and vague 'implausible' possibilities in the news

WAR is the only option our media will consider
Listening to a news program today a little after 2:30pm PST, continued developments in the discussions surrounding the Syrian Crisis elevate concerns that the U.S. is not interested in a humanitarian solution in Syria insisting on military action or nothing.
Diane Feinstein laments the lack of support from her constituency and says to this, "They don't know what I know"?  What do you know, Diane, and why doesn't the American Public know what you know?  Surely our ignorance is not because we aren't paying attention.
A spokesperson for the Administration said that regarding Military Intervention, "We will not entertain implausible arguments". 
That is tell-tale.  The speaker would not speak the unspeakable, that our assumption that President Assad would effectively commit suicide by using chemical weapons is plausible but that some private or secret interest, currently supplying the very poor rebels with expensive weaponry to orchestrate a a takeover of Syria and of the oil pipeline through Syria is implausible.
If it is so is so implausible, why is it not mentioned in the news?  The reason it is not mentioned is to prevent people from coming to the conclusion that the rest of the world already has concluded:  the chemical weapons are more likely to have been released by interests that wish to use the U.S. military to serve their economic gain.  That is what is called 'implausible.
Very quickly the news mentioned requests by Russian Diplomats to meet with American Lawmakers to discuss resolutions to the Syrian Crisis being turned away.  Why would we turn away representatives of a powerful nation expressing concern about human rights abuses.  Perhaps because we fear they will thwart our ONLY goal which is military intervention which will cause more humanitarian crises than already exist.
The perception that the U.S. is concerned only with the financial gains to be achieved through a military strike and NOT with the humanitarian crisis in Syria is reinforced over and over by the lopsided, incomplete information provided to the American public by the news presenting a military strike as the ONLY option and by lawmakers refusing to work with nations that seek an alternative to military action to diffuse the humanitarian crisis.
Diane Feinstein said it all when she said the public doesn't know what she knows.  Lopsided reporting in the news, the reluctance of lawmakers to even attempt a peaceful resolution  as well as the sidestepping the issue that the perpetrator responsible for the release of chemical weapons remains UNKNOWN all point to a hidden agenda with one goal:  military action.  What do you know, Diane Feinstein???
The drums of war is all our media presents and all we seem willing to consider  as our media attempts to frame the situation in terms using military force against the Syrian Government or nothing?  What isn't talked about are diplomatic alternatives that would truly show our government cares at all about the Humanitarian Crisis.  What isn't talked about is our refusal to work with the International Community to develop non-military options.  What isn't talked about is the failure of the media to present these points of view.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home