- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 4899 Hour
- Reading permission
It is indeed rare to see the establishment getting the wool ready for the population in order to blinker them. In fact, most of the time this process is transparent and cannot be seen at all. Furthermore, it is usually almost impossible to detect the links between the actors and players that aid this process in the first place, and in this case that would be the supposed independent mainstream media.|
Corporate America this time around can be seen to be coordinating with the corporate media machine to do just that, fool the public by means of pre-arranged propaganda manipulation on a most outrageous and cynical level.
The case in hand is the use of the charge of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or WMD in the recent case of the failed Times Square bomber, a Mr. Faisal Shahzad.
Mr Shahzad placed a car loaded with fertilizer and gas tanks inside a vehicle and left it in Times Square where it was supposed to denote. The result would have been damage to buildings, and possible death and injury to people close to the explosion. After his detention and arrest we can only wonder at the celerity in which Mr. Shahzad was charged on 5 counts of terrorism and especially and including the egregious and erroneous charge of ‘weapons of mass destruction, which it seems is now a euphemism for a ‘car bomb’.
All or most mainstream media have reported this, and as far as I have seen there has been no comment with regard to the WMD charge. We are now asked to believe that the so called free media have not seen this (having printed it) WMD charge and its future implications. Why is that?
Even you, the reader must be asking how a car bomb is suddenly a WMD, and why have none of the normally fecund intrepid reporters working for the top media in the world not asked any questions about this anomaly.
But first, what is a weapon of mass destruction a WMD.
According to the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 Public Law: 104-201 (09/23/96)
TITLE XIV--DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Sec. 1415. Testing of preparedness for emergencies involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons.
SEC. 1403. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) The term `weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of--
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.
ASIL The American Society of International Law
In security and foreign policy analyses, "weapons of mass destruction" is a term that generally encompasses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with radiological weapons occasionally included.
And according to the current FBI site:
It’s a serious concern: chemical, biological, and radiological/nuclear materials—what we call weapons of mass destruction or WMD—being used to attack the U.S.
Well that is indeed a big leap of faith to think that a car bomb can be classed as a WMD when related to the US Government quoted definitions. The media quote the bomb as consisting of some gas tanks and fertilizer, and this type of device is used almost every day in the Middle East and composed of basically the same items to create explosions, and yet these are never referred to as WMD.
Where are the media in this fallacious new definition?
What are the media doing printing this scurrilous nonsense without asking: How do these terms conflate, and at what point?
How can it be a WMD when it is a standard car bomb?
Anyone of a risible nature should certainly by now be in a state of gelastic seizure upon reading the former.
But apparently not the media as it seems that they have chosen to bowdlerize this thought.
The only conclusion possible is that the media do not want to ask, or even more ominously told not to, in order to hornswoggle the plebians with this lacunae.
Can we posit that as the trial of Mr. Shahzid proceeds over the next year that the Western proletariat will come to associate car bombs internal to the US and the EU as WMD, and car bombs in Baghdad as normal car bombs, or will these also become WMD?
But why would the establishment now use this strange new canard as charge, would it be in order to make the general public believe ordinary car bombs are WMD?
We know that the illegal war in Iraq was about WMD, of which they found none. We know that Bush and Blair allowed anfractuous, tenuous fake evidence to be used in order to pursue this path. And we know that Kofi Anan and the UN declared the war and regime change as illegal. We also know that Bush and Blair are guilty of creating an illegal war and will be remembered for using non-existent WMDs as a cassus belli.
Well of course all that is true unless you can change the semantics. Imagine if the WMD that could not be found were suddenly re-categorized as anything which went BANG. In that case there would be plethora of proof that Iraq is indeed swarming with WMDs, as these explode there every day. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair might well no longer be subject to the opprobrium caused by the lack of real WMD as the quotidian and ubiquitous Iraqi car bombs are there for all to see.
Imagine the poor Yo-Yos talking a year from now:
Guy #1: Well of course they never found WMD in Iraq and Bush was guilty.
Guy #2: Yes they did, so he is not.
Guy #1: No, they never found nukes and chemicals.
Guy #2: No, but WMD are not just nukes and chemicals, they include car bombs.
You know anything which can cause a lot of damage.
Guy #1: No they are not, they are the big stuff which kills thousands.
Guy #2: Well car bombs can kill thousands. Moron.
Guy #1: You are talking rubbish idiot.
Guy #2: No I am not. That bomb in Times Square was a WMD, the guy was sent for jail for it.
It was in the news check it out dummy. All the papers had it. Don’t you ever read anything!
Within this new charge of a car bomb as a WMD, could it be that we are seeing the pragmatics changed in order to get Bush and Blair off the hook. A year or so from now, a WMD will mean anything which can damage multiple things, and the general public will be none the wiser as the Orwellian Winston Smith snips and changes particles of articles to manipulate the news both past and present.
Who will be the first in the media to expose in the future this most devious of ploys to vitiate what has happened in Iraq with regard to the lack of WMDs by changing their definition from nuclear and biological, to mere car bombs.
Or is this just an axiomatic government scenario, and the free and independent press just part of the wool?
I have mentioned this topic briefly in other threads, but I wanted to place it in a new thread in order that I can maybe check against this in a years time to see if the position had changed.