The Peace Prize President in the White House continues to increase his empty, but angry rhetoric in an attempt to garner enough support for a strike on Iran. The propaganda juggernaut is in full action, and thousands of articles, TV shows, and politicians are beating the drums for a war against Iran. If this sounds eerily familiar, it's because it is.
In 2001, the London Observer ran a series of reports linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks and going as far as to claim there were secret bases in Iraq that produced anthrax as a weapon of mass destruction.

In late 2009, The Times of London published a now admittedly forged document it asserted revealed "a four-year plan [by Iran] to test a neutron initiator." On the same day, Catherine Phillips, another writer for The Times, quoted Mark Fitzpatrick barefacedly saying, "Is this the smoking gun? That's the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium." To the naïve, this would be a shocking use of the media to garner support for a war that is pre-emptive and unjustified. To everyone else, it's a repeat of 2001 and the pre-Iraq war legacy of the two biggest war criminals of our generation: George Bush and Tony Blair.

Not surprisingly, very few members of the corporate owned media have bothered to ask: does Iran have nuclear weapons? Does Iran even want nuclear weapons? It doesn't matter. When the media is as prostituted as it is now, the sole aim is to convince the masses that Iran threatens our very existence and must be dealt with in a manner that disregards every single international law and charter. The Times of London is part of the seasoned propagandist Rupert Murdoch publishing empire that owns Fox News, the Sunday Times, and the New York Post. As expected, each and every Murdoch-owned media outlet views Iran from a decidedly pro-Israeli lens and disregards the need for evidence in making claims against a country that has fulfilled every clause of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT). You know, the same one Israel refuses to sign.

Below are the top myths the media tells us daily about Iran.


Iran Has/Wants Nuclear Weapons

To date, no concrete evidence has been presented about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Each and every inspect report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the National Intelligence Estimate has confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Additionally, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, who has the final word in Iran on such issues, has denounced nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and stated unequivocally that Islam forbids the "production and stock piling of nuclear weapons." The Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons is a registered document with the United Nations. Iran has been the only country to lobby for a nuclear-free Middle East. In contrast, Israel has yet to agree to a single IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant in Dimona is an open secret used to intimidate the Palestinians and neighboring countries.


Iran Threatened to Wipe Israel off the Map

The world hears incessantly how Iranian president Ahmedinjad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." Ironically, not a single translation of this speech has been made to clearly prove he made this statement. In 2005, the newly-elected Ahmedinjad was giving a speech at a conference in Tehran about Zionism. He quoted the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini, and said, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." A direct translation of this is: "The Imam [Khomeini] said [the] regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." The words "wiped off the map" are not to be found in that sentence, and any amateur translator will tell you nagsheh, the Persian term for map, is not found in that sentence. In the speech, Ahmedinjad further stated that just as the Soviet regime had fallen, the Zionist one would too. He did not say Israel was going to be wiped off any map. Obviously when the Soviet regime collapsed, was Russia wiped off the map? In the same infamous speech, Ahmedinjad called for a Middle East where Muslims, Jews, and Christians would live in a real democracy and in liberty.

For the record, Iran has not launched an attack on any nation in the past 300 years, but it has defended itself against assaults by other countries. Compare this track record to that of the biggest war monger in the Middle East, the same one that uses cluster bombs to take out innocent children.


The Iranians are Eagerly Awaiting the Arrival of "US Democracy"

American-style democracy has taken over the Middle East; just ask the Iraqis and Afghans how happy they are post-American liberation of their countries. Operation Iraqi Freedom has only cost 1.3 million Iraqi lives to date. In the last Iranian elections, an overwhelming 85 percent of voters turned out to pick the next president, and practically every pre-election poll showed President Ahmedinjad with a significant lead over his opponents. However, the West continues to claim Iran is not a democratic country despite it being the only Middle Eastern country with transparent elections and a fully functional parliament. Western hypocrisy of this magnitude must be respected, and the West has yet to call its allies (Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) for throwing political opponents in jail and never holding elections.

By all instances, Iran is a democratic society, but to the United States and its allies, the very existence of a democracy in Iran is a threat. They removed this threat in 1953 when they overthrew the democratically-elected government and put in the totalitarian Shah. Speaking of democracy and sovereignty, the US would know a thing or two about those terms, considering for the past 30 years we have tried to overthrow the Iranian government and laid siege upon siege on the Iranian people. More recently, Congress voted to allocate 120 million dollars for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran. It doesn't end there. The US also generously donated 60-75 million dollars to fund and support violent underground extremist groups like Mujahiden-Khalq (MKO), one of the largest terrorist organizations in Iran. Democracy in the Middle East is synonymous with murderous and catastrophic regime change.


Iran Is Five Years Away from a Nuclear Bomb

Every few months, the United States and Britain try to scare us out of sleeping at night by saying Iran is five years away from a nuclear bomb. Here's the problem: Iran has been "five years away from a nuclear bomb" for the past four decades, since the Shah began the peaceful nuclear program with US help. Those Iranians don't seem to be getting any closer to a nuclear weapon, which they don't seem to want by the way, but that won't detract the propagandist and war criminals. When the Qom facility was "exposed" by the United States last year, the neo-cons were quick to hawk it as proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program. However, they neglected to mention that Iran had openly revealed by it in a voluntary letter to the IAEA days before the US announced it. In addition, the Qom facility is incomplete and non-operational, and if the United States knew about the facility and did not reveal this information, then it too is in direct violation of the NPT. Unless, of course, the facility was not illegal, and thus there was no need to report it.

On April 13, President Obama was asked by a Washington Post reporter if he would "call on Israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty." The usually eloquent Obama stuttered his way through a response once he finally regained his composure and stated, "And, as far as Israel goes, I'm not going to comment on their program."

Maybe he should leave Iran's peaceful program alone and worry about the nuclear warheads Israel and India have.

Editorial note:

Chief-editors of six news websites in Iran composed [an open] letter to [some] American and European news agencies (newspapers and websites) and criticised their way of covering Iran’s news in the aftermath of the [2009 June] election and objected to the unprofessional behaviour of these media outlets in escalating the tension and chaos in Iran and distorting the news about Iran.

______________


Letter from chief-editors of 6 leading Iranian news agencies to their American and European counterparts

Dear colleague,

8 months after 12 June presidential election in Iran, the way devised to cover the series of events by international media provoked us to propound some questions within the framework of the standards of our common profession at the same time reminding you of several main points concerning the way of covering Iran news in the West:

1- Western journalists travel to Iran and mostly stay at hotels located in the northern part of Tehran, the capital, where the wealthy lives. Then you convey their observations based on what is called "wants of Iranian people". For instance, in 2005 presidential campaign, the international reporters saw electoral carnivals and claimed that Mr. Moein was ahead in the poll accordingly. However he gained 13% of the whole polls and became the fifth.

Do you think it is professional and rational to conclude from the interests and the behavior of these residents which consists of 5% of total population of Tehran? Do you know that Iran consists of 1200 cities? While your reporters stay merely in this area, Shemiran, in northern Tehran, which is never a good example to be generalized to the other cities in term of political interests and behavior. Is the way you are following honest and professional?

2- On June 28, 2009 it an unknown blog announced that a young Iranian woman, Taraneh Mousavi, had died after being sexually abused while in custody after being arrested for protesting the 2009 election results by Iran security forces. Her burned corps had reportedly been found in the deserts according to this blog. Shortly after that the blog post published, the news broke in all western media without the source being verified. The Iranian reporters' effort to find the identity, address, job, school, family, friends or even another photo of the girl was unsuccessful. Yet the news coverage was in a way that the protesters participating in the rally carried Taraneh Mosavi photo. Amazingly on July 21, 2009, in the US, a Republican Senator publicized the incident in a speech on the Senate floor carrying a large photo of her. Do you think it is professional to spread such far-reaching news through an unknown blog?

3- Again on 20 June, 2009, a real girl with known identity and family was questionably shot to death around- not among- the protestors. About 2 hours later different videos captured of her death were broadcast on internet. The young doctor in the film, identified as Arash Hejazi, had entered Iran 5 days before the incident and appeared in BBC 48 hours later explaining the weird details of the story and how the nearby members of the crowd caught the shooter. Consequently the international media reflected the story accordingly.

On the days of protesting in which Iran government was trying to quell the climate and the protesters were seeking to stir up unrest, who do you think was the main beneficiary of Neda's death? How is it possible to justify the contradictions in what Arash Hejzazi said in the video and in his interview with BBC? Why did he travel to Iran 5 days before Neda's death from UK and a day after the event he leave Iran to UK? How do you think it is possible a person be shot in an uncrowned street and the bystanders watched, made film or indifferently passed instead of escaping?

Didn't you think of these matters while you were reflecting this subject? Did you have a professional behavior?

4- During unrest in Iran, BBC Persian and The Voice of America, the Britain and USA’s governments affiliated Televisions, encouraged the protesters to continue their protests on the basis of their unilateral stands. The voice of America taught their audiences the way of setting litter bins on fire and how to throw the country into chaos.

How is it possible to justify this measure which is officially and directly supported by western states? Could it be defined in the framework of the professional behavior of an "informative" and "impartial" media?

5- At the end of the protesters actions on 15 June 2009 in streets of Tehran, some people attacked to a Basij post, a place that kept weapons. They threw incendiary bombs and climbed up its wall in order to seize it. In your country what is the police reaction to such behavior?

On 30 December, 2009, some people set fire to the public and private properties, police cars and banks. The leader of “Mujahedin-e-Khalq” (they call themselves as “Iran’s resistance Council”!) which is now in Paris was interviewed by the Associated Press reporter and announced that they had had a crucial role in these activities. “Tondar” group in USA took the responsibility of the clashes and asked its zealots to kill the security forces and the police. The group exploded a bomb on 13 April, 2009, in a religious place at the peak time, leading to the death of 14 people. Why do you think these terrorist groups are able to live in western countries freely and conduct such acts?

Why do you think Abdolmalek Rigi, the ringleader of the Jundollah terrorist group, is interviewed and introduced as a hero by the Voice of America? While he is proud of actions including mass murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, sabotage, bombings and targeting civilians and government officials as well as all ranks of Iran's military. How is it possible to justify this behavior and dual standard of the USA’s official media?

Dear colleague!

You know that there has been a deep misunderstanding between the nations and the governments of both Iran and USA. Now as a professional media should we clear up this misunderstanding or deteriorate it?

Do you want to inform the lawmakers and the officials on Iran realities or present untrue news which is on the benefit of the enemies of Iran and West relations?

Dear colleague!

We, the editors of 6 leading Iranian news websites which act independently in accordance with the Iran’s law and constitution, wrote this letter to defend the current realities in Iran, not Ahmadinejad; you must note that most of us are among the critics of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s governments.

This is to ask you think about the over stated matters and your performance during all these 8 months. Ask your work conscience to judge if your performance has been fair and impartial or not?

Best Regards


The editors of:

- Alef,  http://Alef.ir,

- Farda,  http://www.Fardanews.com,

- HamshahriOnline,  http://Hamshahrionline.ir,

- Jahan,  http://Jahannews.ir,

- KhabarOnline,  http://Khabaronline.ir,

- Tabnak,  http://Tabnak.ir

Despite a nearly endless barrage of reporting on Iran's nuclear energy program, the US government's push for a new round of sanctions, and on-going efforts to foment regime change in the Islamic Republic, all had been relatively quiet on the Ahmadinejad front in the Western press for some time.

Until now.

The mainstream media's favorite scapegoat, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, resurfaced on Saturday amidst reports that he called the attacks of September 11, 2001 "a big lie." According to the immediate and rabid response of virtually every Western news network around, this was simply the latest insane claim of the same raving madman who has previously threatened to wipe a foreign state off the map and denied the Holocaust.

Yet, as with those other mistranslated or misunderstood statements, this new claim hardly stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny, as it has been reported with little accompanying context and comparison. According to a translation by Reuters, Ahmadinejad, addressing the staff of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, stated that, "The September 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." PressTV translated the President as saying that the circumstances of 9/11 were a "big lie intended to serve as a pretext for fighting terrorism and setting the grounds for sending troops to Afghanistan."

Most of the press, including CBS, Huffington Post, and Fox, ran with an Associated Press report by Ali Akbar Dareini entitled, "Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'" while CNN and Ha'aretz reprinted the AP with some slight variations like using the headline "Ahmadinejad Calls 9/11 'A Big Fabrication'."

Robert Mackey, writing for The New York Times editorialized that Ahmadinejad told Iranian intelligence officials that the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City was "staged."

By reporting that he called 9/11 a "lie" or "fabrication," the press has completely subverted the meaning of Ahmadinejad's actual statement. Headlines and ledes like the ones printed by the mainstream media give the intentionally misleading interpretation that Ahmadinejad claimed that 9/11 didn't actually happen. But the full quote obviously reveals something quite different. The events of 9/11 - that hijacked airplanes were flown into buildings, killing tens of hundreds of people - is not questioned or denied by Ahmadinejad in these statements. The attacks, in and of themselves, are not debated or disputed. What Ahmadinejad says is that the event itself was the result of, as PressTV reports, a premeditated "scenario and a sophisticated intelligence measure," that was subsequently used as an excuse to justify the so-called "War on Terror" and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to the official story, the 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, none of whom were from Afghanistan. 15 were Saudi Arabian, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian, and one Lebanese. None of them lived in Afghanistan. They lived in Hamburg, Germany. They didn't train in Afghanistan, but rather in Sarasota, Florida. They didn't go to flight school in Afghanistan, but in Minnesota. The attacks were reportedly planned in many places, including Falls Church, Virginia and Paris, France, but not including Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the United States began its illegal bombing campaign in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

Despite repeated offers by the Taliban leadership to apprehend and hand over bin Laden for trial (with or without actual evidence linking him to 9/11), the US refused to even respond to such offers and continued its devastating air strikes. By early December 2001, over 6,500 tons of munitions had been dropped on Afghanistan by US forces, including approximately 12,000 bombs and missiles. By the end of March 2002, over 21,000 bombs and missiles had been dropped.

After a relentless misinformation campaign reliant on associating Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks, the United States illegally invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003. During the very first month of the assault, US forces dropped almost 30,000 munitions and fired 300,000 bullets. In that same time, according to conservative estimates, US air strikes and ground troops murdered over 7,000 Iraqi civilians.

By September 2003, 70% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein "was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Considering these facts, it hardly seems a stretch to state that 9/11 was used as a pretext by the US government to carry out predetermined foreign policy goals.

In short, President Ahmadinejad does not claim that 9/11 itself is a lie. He never has. In May 2006, in a letter written directly to George W. Bush, Ahmadinejad states, clearly and unequivocally,

"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."

Ahmadinejad's words echo those of his predecessor, President Mohammad Khatami, who in the wake of the attacks declared, "On behalf of the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic, I denounce the terrorist measures, which led to the killing of defenseless people, and I express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the American people." Furthermore, Iran was one of the first countries to hold candle-light vigils in solidarity and sympathy with the victims of the attacks.

What Ahmadinejad does claim, however, is that the official story of the events - publicly memorialized in the publication of the US government-sponsored The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) - is dubious, incomplete, and may very well have been the result of well-calculated misinformation and deliberate action (or, perhaps, inaction on previously obtained intelligence) by the US government. This is neither a new revelation for Ahmadinejad nor for the world community in general. In his letter to Bush, Ahmadinejad wrote,

"Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

In questioning the job done by American intelligence agencies, and questioning the US government's official version of events and responsibility, in the lead-up to September 11th, the Iranian President isn't alone.


Esfahan is Half the World, and Half the World Questions the 9/11 Story

To read the hysterical reports about his recent 9/11 comments questioning the accepted story of the event, one would think that Ahmadinejad is voicing roundly rejected, widely unpopular, and insanely outrageous conspiracy theories, devoid of any reasonable evidence or public support. This is hardly the case.

In fact, Ahmadinejad is in the company of more than half of planet Earth, half of New Yorkers, and almost half of all Americans. His views are not particularly uncommon, let alone unique. They surely don't demonstrate a lunatic fringe viewpoint, but rather an opinion well within the public discourse, though not often discussed by Western media.

Whereas the 9/11 Commission was officially "created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002...to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks," a plurality of the public believe this goal was not successfully accomplished and have doubts about the Commission's findings.

An August 2004 Zogby poll, conducted right after the Commission's report was made public and just days before the Republican National Convention was held in Manhattan, found that over 49% of New York City residents and 41% of New York State citizens say that at least some US government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

Another Zogby poll from May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks" and said "there has been a cover-up." Another ten percent of respondents were unsure. The same poll found that 44% of Americans believe that "the Bush Administration exploited the September 11th attacks" in order to advance its own foreign policy agenda in the Middle East, namely, "to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Furthermore, 45% of those polled agree that "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success," while eight percent remain "unsure."

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll from July 2006 discovered that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."

The next year, in May 2006, a Rasmussen poll revealed that "overall, 22% of all voters believe the President [sic] knew about the attacks in advance," while "a slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance."

Between May 2002 and October 2006, polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found that upwards of 79% of the American public believed that "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States," members of the Bush Administration were either "mostly telling the truth but hiding something," "mostly lying," or "not sure." In those four and a half years, the number of respondents convinced that the government was "mostly lying" grew by 20%.

A September 2008 World Public Opinion survey, asked "16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington." The results showed that "majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks." In response, WPO director Steven Kull stated,

"Broadly, I think what this tells us is that there is a lack of confidence in the United States around the world. It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority. So this is a real indication that the United States is not in a strong position to, in a sense, tell its story. The American narrative is not as powerful in the world today."

Evidence aside, the mainstream media presents Ahmadinejad's recent statements as if they represent an outlandish theory based upon nothing more than paramount insanity.


Wiping Context Off the Map

Disingenuously reporting that Ahmadinejad called 9/11 a "big lie" without exploring the context his statement, notably his claim that 9/11 was used as a "pretext" to carry out the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, is much akin to headlines announcing that Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe out" Israel without presenting the statement in full. For instance, a Jerusalem Post article from December 12, 2006 and entitled "Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out'" states in the first paragraph that the Iranian President "vowed once again that Israel would be 'wiped out.'" Only later in the piece does writer Herb Keinon reproduce the entire quote, which reveals a contextually vital qualification:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom...[elections should be held among] Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Similarly, press reports from the previous fall, which sparked the entire "wiped off the map" fiasco, failed to tell their readers the whole story. In that speech, analyst Arash Norouzi explains, "Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the 'Zionist regime' was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets." Apparently, in his reading of history, Ahmadinejad was simply reiterating the suggestions of Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl. In chapter 2 of his 1896 manifesto, Der Judenstaat, Herzl wrote,

"We [Jews] should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."

Ahmadinejad reminded his audience that, while the eventual weakening or complete dissolution of America's hegemony over the Middle East via its colonial-settler garrison state may be unthinkable or unimaginable to some, "as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books." He listed the Shah's tyrannical monarchy in Iran, the repressive and expansionist Soviet Union, and the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, as examples of "regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished" in only the past three decades. In conclusion, Ahmadinejad repeated Khomeini's prescient view that the political demise of the Zionist government of Israel would soon follow: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Of course, all we've ever heard from Western press reports is that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," an idiom that doesn't even exist in the Persian language, and that was the end of the discussion.


Confusing "Pretext" with "Pretense"

When Ahmadinejad speaks about historical events acting as pretexts to subsequent injustices, he is not claiming that the first event never happened, but simply stating that the event served to justify what followed. This pretext, then, is the exploitation of terrible tragedies as an excuse, motive, and ostensible reason ascribed to explain what historically occurred next. Using horrific events to nefarious advantage is what Naomi Klein has essentially defined as "The Shock Doctrine." This is what Ahmadinejad has spoken about when he uses the term "pretext," which is why, in his speech on Saturday, he stated that "Depredation, bullying and killing the reality of humanity are the outcomes of the capitalist way of thinking."

Unfortunately, the media has decided to equate the term "pretext" with "pretense" and insist that they are both identical synonyms for a claim, invention, myth, fabrication, or lie. With this in mind, it is easy to see how the demonization campaign of Ahmadinejad has been so successful.

This deliberate misinterpretation is not at all new. Even though it is commonplace in the press to insist that Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite who believes the Nazi holocaust never happened, this is an absurd suggestion unsupported by the facts.

When, at last April's Durban II conference, Ahmadinejad addressed the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 by stating, "As was the case after World War II, armies occupied other territories and people were transferred from territories...In reality, under the pretext of compensating for the evil done in the name of xenophobia, they in fact set up the most violent xenophobes, in Palestine."

He continued, "The Security Council made it possible for that illegitimate government to be set up. For 60 years, this government was supported by the world. Many Western countries say they are fighting racism; but in fact support it with occupation, bombings and crimes such as those committed in Gaza. These countries support the criminals."

The media reported that Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a myth, which promoted a pre-staged walkout by attending European delegations. But the usage of the word "pretext" is obvious to anyone willing to actually read.

While attending the opening of the United Nation's 64th General Assembly Session in September 2009, Ahmadinejad was interviewed by Steve Inskeep, host of National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, who asked him about his thoughts on the holocaust. While Ahmadinejad responded that the holocaust itself "is a historical event," he wondered why "this specific event has become so prominent" in the policy decisions of Western politicians and asked whether "this event effect[s] what is happening on the ground this day, now?"

He continued, "What we say is that genocide is the result of racial discrimination...and I can see that genocide is happening now under the pretext of an event that happened 60 years ago...Why should the Palestinian people make up for it?"

Again, the use of the word pretext here clearly refers to using Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity as a justification for the subsequent ethnic cleansing, dispossession, displacement, disenfranchisement, occupation, and continued "slow genocide" of the Palestinian people.

Ahmadinejad's 2009 comments repeat remarks he previously wrote back in early September 2006, in a letter sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In it, Ahmadinejad stated, "World War II came to an end with all its material and moral losses and its 60 million casualties. The death of human beings is tragic and sad. In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places."

By accepting the 60 million death toll of World War II, how could Ahmadinejad be denying the mechanized ethnic cleansing of millions of European Jews? He continued,

"Honorable Chancellor

I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress. The collective conscience of the world is indignant over the daily atrocities by the Zionist occupiers, destruction of homes and farms, killing of children, assassinations and bombardments.

Excellency, you have seen that the Zionist government does not even tolerate a government elected by the Palestinian people, and over and over again has demonstrated that it recognizes no limit in attacking the neighboring countries."

If Ahmadinejad's point still isn't clear, he elaborates:

"Using the excuse for the settlement of the survivors of the Holocaust, they encouraged the Jews worldwide to migrate and today a large part of the inhabitants of the occupied territories are non-European Jews. If tyranny and killing is condemned in one part of the world, can we acquiesce and go along with tyranny, killing, occupation and assassinations in another part of the world simply in order to redress the past wrongs?"

The question is not whether the holocaust happened or not, rather, it is how that horrendous tragedy has been exploited in order to justify the establishment of a "Jewish State" in Palestine and rob indigenous Palestinians of their own rights to self-determination. The issue is not to call history into question, but rather to explore the consequences of historical acts.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has always made a stark distinction between Jewish people and Zionists. He has said on numerous occasions that his opposition to a Jewish State is a political and ideological one, and not to be confused with a violent ultimatum or military threat to the Israeli people. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran has "no problem with people and nations" and that Iran does "not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice." Even more specifically, in a 2008 CNN interview with Larry King, he stated quite clearly that "we don't have a problem with the Jewish people."

Just to be extra clear, Ahmadinejad declared, "We are opposed to the idea that the people who live there should be thrown into the sea or be burnt," reiterating his belief in self-determination of all people based upon elections: "We believe that all the people who live there [in Israel and Palestine], the Jews, Muslims and Christians, should take part in a free referendum and choose their government."

The Iranian president's desire to see democratic elections determine the future government for all those living together in historic Palestine was once again repeated in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2009, as he called for the "restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony."

Even during his widely lambasted Durban II speech, Ahmadinejad clearly demarcated the distinction between the 19th century colonial ideology of Jewish nationalism and the Jewish religion, stating, "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces."

Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad called for an "end to Zionism," countless news agencies erroneously reported that he sought the "destruction of Israel," and numerous commentators, including British ambassador Peter Gooderham, called these remarks "anti-Semitic."

In his piece about Ahmadinejad's 9/11 statement on Saturday, The New York Times' Robert Mackey, reminded his readers about comments made by the Iranian President during an International al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally on September 18, 2009, a national celebration in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in opposition to Zionism. Mackey, who refers to Quds Day as "Iran’s annual anti-Israel day," writes that Ahmadinejad told the crowd that "The pretext for the creation of the Zionist regime is false...It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim." Again, the pretext of the holocaust is not at all the same thing as a lie.

The holocaust, as an historical occurrence admitted to by its own perpetrators in Europe and widely described as the systematic and mechanized murder of millions of Jews (as well as millions of homosexuals, Romani gypsies, Communists, political prisoners, and trade unionists), is not being called a lie in this statement. Considering that the indigenous people of Palestine bear no responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the consequences of the holocaust, however, as it was used to justify the creation of Israel in Palestine, is what Ahmadinejad states is based on a "mythical claim." This becomes quite clear by listening to the very next line of Ahmadniejad's speech, unreported by Mackey or anyone else in the Western press: "The occupation of Palestine has no connection with the issue of the holocaust."

Later in the Quds Day speech, Ahmadinejad once again made sure to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism:

"The Zionists have no faith. It is a big lie that the Zionists should be considered tantamount to the Jews or the Christians. Zionists are not Jews nor Christians, and, rather, the Zionists seek to destroy all the values brought about by the divine prophets...the basis of Zionism is to destroy human culture and human values and the values of all nations."

Iran itself has an ancient community of over 25,000 Jews, the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel itself. Along with Ahmadinejad, Siamak Morsadegh, the Jewish Iranian legislator and community leader, has criticized Israel's policies towards Palestinians, especially in Gaza, saying it showed "anti-human behavior...they kill innocent people," and continuing that the Jewish community in Iran does "not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime."


"A New Pearl Harbor"

That Ahmadinejad - along with millions and millions of others around the world - would find the official story of 9/11 suspicious is not without good cause.

A year before the September 11, 2001 attacks, neocon think tank Project for a New American Century, published a 90-page manifesto for a imperially dominant American Empire, urging "that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." Among its aims, the report, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, calls for the United States to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" and achieve "a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity."

PNAC's members, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle, believed that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Maybe those many PNAC members who, later that year, were subsequently appointed to top level positions in Bush's new administration didn't want to wait that long for such a galvanizing moment in order to pursue their own agenda of unilateral preemptive invasions of Middle Eastern countries.

When Ahmadinejad speaks of 9/11 as involving a "complicated intelligence scenario and act," shouldn't the media perhaps contextualize his statement by discussing the exaggerated and manipulated 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident which was largely responsible for launching the American military campaign in Vietnam, the 1954 Israeli false flag operations known as the Lavon Affair conducted against Egypt, or the planned, but never implemented, Operation Northwoods scheme in 1962 concocted by the U.S. Department of Defense to instigate a war with Cuba (one of the plans consisted of hijacking an airplane and blaming the new Castro regime)?

Iran Affairs' Cyrus Safdari reminds us of "Emad Salem, an undercover FBI informant who had infiltrated the group that carried out the first WTC bombing back in 1993. He was smart enough to record his conversations with the FBI. Turns out, he specifically warned the FBI of the bombing, and offered to replace the bomb material with a harmless substance, but the FBI said no." What about the completely bogus, but thoroughly hyped, "Newburgh bomb plot" to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and fire a missile at a US military jet, which was entirely set up by FBI informant Shahed Hussain?

What about the 2007 statement by National Medal of Science laureate Lynn Margulis in which she referred to 9/11 as a "new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties"? Or former CIA Middle East operative Robert Baer, who has written, "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation - not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture - we will never know what happened on 9/11." Or former senior CIA official Bill Christison, who wrote that there is a "strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies." What about the other CIA officials who question the official story?

What about the Guardian report from November 1, 2001 which revealed that, according to French intelligence officials, "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent"?

What about the mysterious collapse of Tower 7, Able Danger, the failure to scramble jets, the myriad National Security experts denied, ignored, or censored from the 9/11 Commission report, the hundreds of professional architects and engineers calling upon Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center, deception and non-cooperation by the Department of Defense, whistle-blowers like Coleen Rowley, supposed short-selling and text message warnings, or the five dancing Israelis seen watching and videotaping the attacks from New Jersey's Liberty State Park across the Hudson River?

What about the British intelligence report, entitled "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States," which purports to provide evidence that "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001, yet begins with the following disclaimer: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law"?

What about the BBC report, entitled "The investigation and the evidence," which concludes, "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks...At best the evidence is circumstantial."

What about the evidence that, in no verified audio or video tapes, has bin Laden actually claimed responsibility for the attacks, yet has even been quoted as stating, "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act...we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

What about the fact that Osama bin Laden is, to this very day, not specifically wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, according to the FBI's own Most Wanted List?

As a result, is there not plenty of dubious information and spurious evidence surrounding the official story of the September 11 attacks to warrant some sort of suspicion, regardless of what you may personally think actually happened? In this way, with his recent comments, President Ahmadinejad has given voice to the majority of the world. But clearly, for fear they might stumble upon some uncomfortable truths, it appears easier for the mainstream media to decontextualize his statements and label him a crackpot conspiracy theorist who is a danger to the American way of life, thus leading the United States down the path to attacking a third Middle Eastern country, than to do its own job.

By misrepresenting the country of Iran, its people, its system of government, its culture, its religion, its elected and unelected leaders, the Western press has already set the stage for an attack on the Islamic Republic. Because of the media's sensational and propagandistic reporting, 71% of Americans already believing that Iran currently possesses nuclear weapons. 90% think that the power of Iran's military poses either a critical or important "threat to U.S. vital interests" (despite the fact that Iran's military budget is literally one hundred times smaller than that of the US). 59% of American citizens even support unilateral, preemptive US military action against Iran regardless of whether economic or diplomatic efforts achieve the government's desired effect.

Perhaps, as was seen with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the press is doing exactly what the US government wants it to do.

Reporters Without Borders’ lies about Venezuela

by Salim Lamrani, 26 June 2009

(translated by David Brookbank)


Editorial note: With the advent of a new U.S. Administration and the appointment of a new director, one would have expected Reporters Without Borders to desist from their propaganda campaign against Venezuela and Cuba. But nothing of the sort. Salim Lamrani relates the latest episode of this never ending war.

______________


On May 29, 2009, Reporters Without Borders (RWB) published an open letter to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in which the organization denounced the government’s actions against Globovisión, a “privately-owned news channel”, alleging it was being “hounded by the government and the administration.” According to the Paris-based organization, Globovisión was being "targeted by official proceedings that could lead to it being taken off air for 72 hours” for “quoting statistics provided by the US Geological Survey” [1] while reporting on the May 4, 2009 earthquake.

Venezuelan authorities are accusing the channel of “violating Article 29 of the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television (Ley RESORTE), which sanctions media outlets that ‘promote, justify or incite war; promote, justify or incite disruption of public order.’” RWB asks: “In what way does reporting on an earthquake, however poorly, fit within this definition of an offense?” [2].

Presented in this way, the matter might shock international public opinion. However, contrary to what RWB asserts, the reality is different and has been carefully avoided by the French organization for “the defense of press freedoms.”
Globovisión vs democracy

Since 1998, Globovisión has relentlessly opposed the democratic government of Hugo Chavez. In April of 2002, the broadcast network actively participated in the coup d’état by Pedro Carmona Estanga. In any other country in the world, Globovisión would have been closed and its leaders sentenced to long prison sentences. But the Supreme Court, controlled at that time by the opposition, refused to recognize the coup and explained the overthrow as merely a “power vacuum.”

Since then, the channel has multiplied its calls to insurrection. [3] In May of 2007, Globovisión encouraged the murder of President Chavez by manipulating images and sending subliminal messages. On the program "Aló, Ciudadano", Marcel Granier, the director of another channel that strongly criticizes Chavez, RCTV, was interviewed while simultaneously displaying images of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in May 1981. Globovisión could not explain why it broadcast images of the attempted assassination during a program dealing with the non-renewal of RCTV’s license. [4] Several semiotic experts were categorical about the incident: “It urged the murder of the President.” [5] In France, such actions would have resulted in the incarceration of the reporters as well as the company’s owners.

Globovisión’s journalists and newscasters also amplified their defamatory rhetoric towards the government using words like “dictatorship” and “tyranny” to justify calls for civic disobedience and acts of violence, something that would be unimaginable in the West. [6]
The case of the earthquake

At 4:40 am on the morning of May 4, 2009 an earthquake struck the Venezuelan state of Miranda, followed by three aftershocks (at 4: 50 am, 6:23 am and 6:24 am), without causing injuries. At 5:25 am, Interior and Justice Minister Tarek El Aissami announced that the earthquake had been felt in several locations. “We are receiving reports of the effects. We are, through Funvisis, determining the epicenter and magnitude. We want to make clear that, so far, we have no reports of any material or structural damage. We want to call for calm. There is an order for an immediate deployment of patrols to protect people who have fled their houses,” he said. At 5:44 am, El Aissami gave a second report declaring that he had met with the President and with Vice-President Ramon Carrizález, and emphasized that Chavez had ordered the deployment of the Bolivarian National Guard to guarantee public security. [7]

Meanwhile, at 5:40 am, Funvisis President Francisco Garcés announced that two earthquakes had struck the capital, Caracas, as well as the entire metropolitan area, and requested that the media make announcements asking the public to remain calm . At 6:05 am, Public Works and Housing Minister Diosdado Cabello indicated that the metro, the railroad and the airport were all functioning perfectly. Education Minister Héctor Navarro also emphasized that schools and universities had not been affected by the earthquake and were open. Health Minister Jesus Mantilla announced that the country’s hospitals were working normally. At 6:47 am, Telecommunications and Information Minister Socorro Hernandez informed the public that the telecommunications system was unaffected. Likewise, Hidrocapital President Alexander Hitcher explained that the water system was working normally. At 7 am, Communication and Information Minister Blanca Ekhout indicated that all government institutions had been in a state of alert since the beginning of the earthquake. Jacqueline Faría, the head of government for the federal district, as well as Rafael Ramirez, Minister of Energy and Petroleum, kept the public informed about their respective responsibilities. [8]

Nevertheless, at 5:20 am in the morning, in other words barely 40 minutes after the first telluric shock, the director of Globovisión, Alberto Federico Ravel, hurriedly and personally intervened live on his TV station – after providing wrong information on the epicenter of the earthquake based on information coming from…the United States – to directly attack the government, accusing it of carelessnessly transmitting a message of fear and terror. “It really distresses us but we can not find anyone in authority from whom to request precise information, exact information […]. All we can do is be patient, be very patient waiting for our authorities to inform us, to give us precise information, give us true information of what is happening at this moment because we do not have anyone to go to. We called Funvisis but we lost the connection. We have not been able to communicate with the firefighters. Mayor [Gerald] Blay is not reporting if there are damages in his region.” [9]

At that point in the conversation, the Globovisión newscaster interrupted his director to remind him of a fact. “Director, we just had a phone call, again, with the director of Funvisis and he informed us that he is driving right now and because of that it has been impossible for him to contact us. Nevertheless, he reiterated to us that as soon as he stops driving he will contact us and we will be able to go on air live with him to provide better information.” [10]

Instead of accepting the suggestion as reasonable, Ravel took advantage of the opportunity to again stigmatize the government authorities: “At this moment those official sources who provide so much propaganda ought to be informing the public about what is happening, rather than us having to go to the U.S. meteorological service to inform the people that there has been an earthquake.” [11]

Tarek El Assaimi denounced “the small-minded attitude and irresponsible use of the mass media.” Ravel, instead of transmitting a message of calm, used a natural catastrophe for political ends and “to plant fear among the people,” according to Diosdado Cabello. [12] What would happen in France if the director of the private channel TF1 had attacked the government of Nicholas Sarkozy with the same virulence forty minutes after the beginning of the 2008 floods, accusing it of having abandoned the victims to their luck?
RWB disinformation

Of course, RWB carefully criticized the situation, trying to turn a serious violation of journalistic ethics and a grave lack of media responsibility into a violation of press freedoms. In reference to the 2002 coup d’état, the Paris-based organization recognizes that “Legal proceedings, along with debate about the approach of some privately owned media during these events, were not without cause at the time.” But RWB ignores the continuous and illegal actions of Globovisión when it asks: “But now, what is the accusation based on when more than seven years have passed since those events? [13]

Lastly, RWB writes to Chávez, “Globovisión is the sole broadcast media with a voice strongly critical of your government. Never in other Latin American countries, where your counterparts have faced a hostile, or considered to be hostile, media has the state response taken such an extreme form. Never has the leader’s lone voice so dominated almost the entire television sector.” Here the lie is triple: the organization Robert Ménard presides over tries to make believe that the actions of Globovisión are something common in Latin America, that the government of Chavez attacks the channel because it broadcasts criticisms against him, and that the country’s other TV broadcasters take orders form the Venezuelan leader. [14]

Once again, it is easy to contradict the assertions of RWB. On the one hand, no Latin American media outlet has called for the overthrow of an elected president in the way that Globovisión has done. On the other hand, it is enough to watch the private stations, which represent more than 80% of Venezuelan media, to realize that criticism against the government is acerbic and constant. Finally, any serious analyst knows for certain that no country on the American continent can boast of having freedom of expression and press similar to that of Venezuela. Thus, from the RWB perspective, media outlets must incite insurrection and the overthrow of the established order, as Globovisión does, in order to not be considered lackeys of the powers-that-be.

Ever since Hugo Chavez was elected president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Reporters Without Borders has taken the side of the anti-democratic, coup-plotting opposition and has continued to defend their interests internationally. In fact, during the coup d’état of April 11, 2002, RWB did not denounce the leading role played by the private media, which was opposed to the democratically elected president. Worse still, on April 12, 2002, RWB published an article that rampantly spread the coup-plotter’s version of the events in an attempt to convince international public opinion that Chavez had resigned:

“Shut in the presidential palace, Hugo Chavez signed his resignation during the night under pressure from the army. Later he was taken to Fort Tiuna, the main military base in Caracas, where he is detained. Immediately afterwards, Pedro Carmona, the president of Fedecámaras, announced that he would lead a new government of transition. He affirmed that his appointment was the result of a `consensus’ among Venezuelan civil society and the Armed Forces command.” [15]

RWB is not an organization that defends press freedoms, but rather it is an obscure entity with a very precise political agenda tasked with discrediting, by whatever means necessary, those progressive governments worldwide who are on the United States’ black list. This is not surprising when one learns that RWB is substantially financed by Washington through the National Endowment for Democracy [16], a front organization for the CIA, according to the New York Times. [17]
Salim Lamrani

Salim Lamrani is a university lecturer at the University Paris-Sorbonne-Paris IV and the University Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée and a French journalist, specialist on the relationship between Cuba and the United States. Lamrani has just published Cuba. Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais (Paris: éditions Estrella, 2009).

This author's articles
To send a message



Translated by David Brookbank

[1] Reporters Without Borders, « Open letter to President Hugo Chavez to protest about official hounding of Globovisión », May 29, 2009. (website consulted on June 2, 2009).

[2] Ibid

[3] Agencia Bolivaria de Noticias, « Periodistas coinciden en que Globovisión es promotor de protestas de oposición », May 29, 2007.

[4] Agencia Bolivaria de Noticias, « Ministro Lara denunció que medios de oposición incitan a magnicidio », May 27, 2007.

[5] Agencia Bolivaria de Noticias, « CNN miente sobre Venezuela y Globovisión incita al magnicidio », May 28, 2007.

[6] Agencia Bolivaria de Noticias, « Globovisión continúa con la instigación a la desestabilización », May 29, 2007.

[7] Luigino Bracci Roa, « Fuerte temblor sacudió región central del país esta madrugada sin causar daños », Yvke Mundial, May 4, 2009. (website consulted on June 15, 2009).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Globovisión, « ¿Quién sintio el temblor primero? ¿Los chavistas o los opositores? », May 4, 2009. (website consulted on June 15, 2009).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Reporters Without Borders,« Open letter to President Hugo Chavez to protest about official hounding of Globovisión », op. cit.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Reporters Without Borders,« Un journaliste a été tué, trois autres ont été blessés et cinq chaînes de télévision brièvement suspendues », 12 avril 2002. (website consulted on November 13, 2006).

[16] « The networks of "democratic" interference », by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, January 22th, 2004.

[17] Salim Lamrani, Cuba. Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais (Paris : Editions Estrella, 2009).