The Politics of Spin: Bombing Churches and Mosques

Political analysis pertaining to international events are often either dismissed as conspiracy theory or disseminated to suit the interests of the state. When this ‘interest’ is essentially defined by a philosophy of self-centered materialism, a basic feature of the leading Capitalist states, then there is very little room for lofty principles. The former British foreign minister, Lord Palmerston, succinctly expressed this in the phrase: “nations have no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests”. So, these nations formulate and enact policies to satisfy their egotistical nature.

The facts pertaining to the events in order to conceal their debased intent are constantly distort. This distortion is at maximum in times of conflict. As they say: “truth is the first casualty of war”. Thus, we find the embedded journalists who are curtailed from reporting freely in the name of national security. Any alternative independent voice is heavily discredited and ev! en physically attacked – Al-Jazeera is a key example. Consequently, each state by any means necessary, attempts to influence world opinion and the subsequent actions of other nations in their favor.

It is deceit that is the essence of international politics. Nations often wrap this deceit using the language of lofty principles: peace, human rights, justice and freedom, then applying the fig-leaf of the UN resolutions, issued and enforced by the Security Council mafia. They hide their real intention partly out of shame but mainly out fear of provoking their rivals. This has been the cause of so many European and global wars resulting in the unprecedented levels of human misery and genocide. A track record that all the combined ‘terrorists’ as defined by the egotistical Capitalist states could never match!

It is only several decades after the events that documents are declassified and academics are engaged to portray a more ‘relatively’ objective view of the past! events, whilst not undermining its present and future national interests. Suddenly, much of the ideas that were dismissed as conspiracy theory at the time seem to have come true. During the Suez crisis in 1956, those who voiced their opinion that the invasion of Egypt was planned in advance by Britain, France and Israel were dismissed as conspiracy lunatics. However, the recent documents released proved them to be correct but the matter is simply academic now.

Shouting conspiracy theory is a convenient way of dismissing the points raised without ever addressing it. Similar accusation of ‘conspiracy’ have been leveled against those who have argued that the US-led wars in the Middle East are primarily driven by oil interests and strengthening Israel. As many of the more balanced journalist have pointed out that US would never have bothered with Kuwait or Iraq if they grew carrots. Hence, there was no flurry of activities during the brutal civil war in Rwanda. In any case, the! conduct of the US and its multinationals in Iraq clearly speaks for itself on this issue.

Apart from the government, it is the mass media
that plays the most significant role in transforming legitimate arguments and analysis into conspiracy theories. The mass media attributes certain types of actions exclusively to their opponents. So, bombing of civilian installation in Iraq using F16s are part of the legitimate US military operations. But if it happens to be caused by the “insurgents” using trucks packed with Semtex, only then it is terrorism! Today’s “terrorism” is defined not by the magnitude of the terror and the level of destruction delivered but who deploys the weapons.

Since the US does not resort to the use of primitive truck-bombs as they have high-tech sophisticated weapons at their disposal these events are automatically attributed to the Iraqi resistance movement. Take the recent bombings of the Churches in Iraq. The Christian community in Iraq in gener! al has shown no overt signs of collaborating with the US forces. They have lived amongst the tolerant Muslims for centuries and never faced inquisitions or ritual ethnic cleansing. Even the atrocities committed in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila by the Flange Christians in Lebanon did not result in the Muslim majority population to attack Christians or bomb churches.

Similarly the Ashura bombings carried out earlier near the Mosque resulted in the killing Ayatollah Hakim and many innocent worshippers. The Muslims could not have done this as it violates Islamic laws. Even the secular Arab nationalists would not have carried out this action. These actions could only have been the work of those who have contempt for the Muslims.

The US explanation for the bombs is that the Iraqi resistance is planning to ignite ethnic conflict. This proposal seems bizarre. A divided Iraqi population is less able to focus their collective opposition against the US in! vaders weakening their position. Furthermore, an ethnic conflict would mean that the maximum beneficiaries are the Americans as they face less resistance due to the infighting.

Also it is worthy to note that in the incident there was allegedly a letter discovered describing the intentions of the Iraqi resistance to ignite an ethnic conflict. This sounds like a coincidence that is too convenient, just like the Arab passports found near the WTC towers the day after. Metals, bones were incinerated but not paper! In any case resistance operations are communicated through the word of mouth –” not paper!

The mass media can distort the events by selectively highlighting some points whilst ignoring other. The media has an official and powerful position in that anything it reports is considered fact. Events that are reported on counter insurgency activities that are not officially sanctioned is simply dismissed and ignored. I remember seeing the reports of torture and abuse ! of prisoners on the Internet prior to the revelations of the pictures from Abu-Ghraib but since Reuters, CNN or the BBC did not rubber stamp it at the time, it remained alleged propaganda from the anti-US camp.

Engaging objectively in this subject of political analysis can gain an insight into the real forces behind the shaping of political events. It is perhaps for this reason why we see so much opposition from the masses within the Western countries as most human beings have a sense of moral conscience and sincerity. This opposition has gained momentum in the age of high-tech communication and the information revolution.