Greenwald writes: "The US and Israel blame Iran for the suicide attack in Bulgaria, but offer no evidence for the accusation."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his office, 07/22/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Journalism v. Propaganda
22 July 12
The US and Israel blame Iran for the suicide attack in Bulgaria, but offer no evidence for the accusation.
lmost immediately after a suicide bomber killed five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria on Wednesday, Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, blamed Iran, an accusation uncritically repeated by most Western media outlets even as Bulgarian investigators warned it would be a "mistake" to assign blame before the attack could be investigated. Now, Israel, along with the U.S., is blaming Hezbollah and, therefore, Iran for the attack. Today's New York Times article by Nicholas Kulish and Eric Schmitt - headlined "Hezbollah Is Blamed for Attack on Israeli Tourists in Bulgaria" - uncritically treats those accusations as confirmed fact despite no evidence being offered for it:
American officials on Thursday identified the suicide bomber responsible for a deadly attack on Israeli vacationers here as a member of a Hezbollah cell that was operating in Bulgaria and looking for such targets, corroborating Israel's assertions and making the bombing a new source of tension with Iran.
One senior American official said the current American intelligence assessment was that the bomber, who struck Wednesday, killing five Israelis, had been "acting under broad guidance" to hit Israeli targets when opportunities presented themselves, and that the guidance had been given to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, by Iran, its primary sponsor. Two other American officials confirmed that Hezbollah was behind the bombing, but declined to provide additional details.
The attacks, the official said, were in retaliation for the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, for which Iran has blamed Israeli agents - an accusation that Israel has neither confirmed nor denied. "This was tit for tat," said the American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way. . . .
A senior Israeli official said on Thursday that the Burgas attack was part of an intensive wave of terrorist attacks around the world carried out by two different organizations, the Iranian Quds Force, an elite international operations unit within Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, as well as by Hezbollah.
By "identified," "confirmed" and "corroborated" Iranian and Hezbollah responsibility, what The New York Times means is this: American officials asserted that this was so, even as they "declined to provide additional details" and even though "the investigation was still under way." Indeed, this accusation is, as the NYT sees it, "confirmed" and "corroborated" even though "no details yet about the bomber like his name or nationality" are known; even though their anonymous American source "declined to describe what specific intelligence - intercepted communications, analysis of the bomber's body parts or other details - led analysts to conclude that the bomber belonged to Hezbollah"; even though "the Bulgarians are still trying to figure out how the bomber entered the country, how he traveled around and where he stayed"; and even though the Bulgarian Foreign Minister said: "We're not pointing the finger in any direction until we know what happened and complete our investigation." All The Paper of Record knows is that U.S. and Israeli officials have blamed Iran and Hezbollah, and - as usual - that's good enough for them. Identified, Confirmed and Corroborated.
By stark contrast, The Washington Post's Karin Brulliard, reporting from Jerusalem, commits an act of actual journalism with her story on this event. She, too, notes the official accusations of Hezbollah and Iranian responsibility, but, as Think Progress' Ali Gharib points out, she heavily qualifies that in the third paragraph of her story: "Israel offered no concrete evidence tying the bombing to Iran, and Bulgarian officials cautioned that it was too early to attribute responsibility." That's called basic journalism: instead of just repeating official claims, treating them as "confirmed," and shaping the entire article around those assertions, she prominently notes that there is no real evidence to lead anyone to believe these accusations. She then adds more skepticism: "U.S. intelligence officials said it was 'plausible' that Hezbollah carried out the attack but that analysts at the CIA and other agencies were still evaluating the intelligence surrounding the bombing and had not reached a conclusion."
I have no idea who is behind the attacks. If it turns out to be Hezbollah and/or Iran, that will not shock me: after all, if it is perceived that you have sent hit squads onto a country's soil to murder their nuclear scientists, it's likely that the targeted nation will want to respond with violence of their own. But there is no evidence to confirm the American and Israeli accusations. A reader of the New York Times article would not know that, while a reader of Brulliard's article in the Post would. That's the difference between journalism and propaganadistic stenography. It's really not that difficult or complex, when repeating government claims, to note clearly and prominently that no evidence has been furnished to support those claims.
Following up on the argument I made about the Syria bombing - that Western political and media circles would treat the attack on Syrian officials as something to praise: the U.S. State Department, even when assuming it was a suicide bomb, refused to denounce the attack and came close to praising it, while The New York Times referred to the rebels' "brazen assassination of top security officials." While denying responsibility for the Bulgarian attack, Iranian officials noted this posture:
The speaker of Iran's Parliament, Ali Larijani, criticized the United States for not condemning the bombing in Damascus on Wednesday that struck at President Bashar al-Assad's inner circle, killing three senior defense officials. "By not condemning the assassination in Syria, the Americans show that they believe in good assassinations and bad assassinations," he said, according to the Fars news agency.
Indeed, in one of the grandest understatements of the year, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, when asked about U.S. policy toward Israeli human rights abuses, recently acknowledged: "We are not always consistent." That's true even when it comes to the question of what counts as Terrorism and whether it is good or bad.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Personally I have seen so much overt propaganda aimed at Iran I summarily discount any mention of it by the national media or our government. Something happens I may investigate it using outside of the circle sources.
REminds me of the propaganda of the power shortages years ago in california...ho w long did it take for the national media to walk away from the fact Enron and corruption were causing the shortages and not the strict environmental laws causing no power plants to be built......It seemed quite a while after everyone knew what was happening...the y persisted.
So how long will these parties persist...forev er?? Locally not all that long ago local media stated Iran was responsible for Taliban atrocities..... combining shia with suni....no matter who or what....we want you to believe it we will.....
.
Seems a joke to me...am I alone in this view?
Do they think everyone is as misinformed of the politic in such areas as they were pre iraq??
Seems so.
Question now -- What are we going to do to STOP this assault on humanity by these bilateral(insan e!)Right Wings? And is it because they BOTH cravc Iran's oil, to keep their tanks and planes running, and their hunger to kill going full-throttle?
Somehow this HAS to be stopped -- but where is that hope, in the lineup of future leadership?
AIPAC is considered by those in the know to be one of the most persistant/effe ctive 'buy out the pols' there is, thereby insuring the U.S.'s over one billion per year contributions, in the form of U.S. produced MIC 'kill 'em' weapons, etc. continues and grows.
Another lied into war in the mideast is acomin'? You betcha. Too profitable for the evil villainaires not to.
It may be time to study the impact of death computer games on players. Does playing killing games several hours each day erase empathy? Enhance bravado? Convince some that fatal attacks are valid, accepted solutions?
My prediction is the game industry will wrap itself in the First Amendment, much like the gun industry wraps itself in the Second Amendment. Historians may find this Constitutional double choke hold fascinating—and devastating.
After you have thought that over, go rent the 1979 (?) movie "Network" (Peter Finch and Faye Dunaway). And remind yourself, while watching, that when it was made, it was a comedy.
CBS News president Sig Mickelson (1954-61) was liaison to the CIA. He even had a direct private phone line installed to the CIA.
Read chapter 10, 'Things Fall Apart: Journalists,' in Hugh Wilford's book, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How The CIA Played America, for background on these crucial events. See also the online Rolling Stone article, 'The CIA and the Media,' by former Washington Post investigative journalist Carl Bernstein.
CIA director Allen Dulles, CBS chairman William Paley, and CBS board director Senator Prescott Bush were intimate associates of the northeastern seaboard establishment found in Washington and New York during the early Cold War. Whether in their private clubs, at the Harold Pratt House of the Council on Foreign Relations, or in Wall Street corporate and bank board rooms, these old birds of a feather flocked, schemed, and conspired together.
Even Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, upon close examination, were not the mythic white knights fighting the dark forces of reaction and illiberalism. They were simply finely-honed tools serving their elite benefactors and masters. As litmus tests I point to the JFK assassination and the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the decades of lies and disinformation this dynamic duo regurgitated.
In news reporting, the events are reported as facts. This happened. This person said this. There are no opinions added, and there is no further research into the issue.
In opinion pieces I expect authors to add their comments about the events. Interpret facts or make judgement about the meaning of the events. Even use conjecture to question how this could have happened or where it could lead to.
A journalistic piece I expect to be a very indepth review the topic from many different facets. What are possible factors leading up to the issue, where have this occurred before, what outcomes were seen, and so on.
But this, this I would classify as an opinion piece complaining about how the Isrealy government choose to report the bombing, then contrasting that against another new agency's version.
The real answer I want to see is how are governments in general reporting events to stimulate public outcry towards a specific target?
I think that's what is being pointed out in this piece. A *compliant* news-for-profit industry parrots the government sources as they speculate about events. That's exactly the mechanism of propaganda, and a really cheap shot at journalism; Pick up the phone and get an anonymous quote to print. $5 worth of investigation and you have a front page article.
The man also has too much influence within the U.S. government.
I believe nothing the Israeli government claims.
NO. Canada's prime minister,Steven Harper,kisses his feet also.
Let's wait till we have ALL the FACTS before we assign blame or until someone takes responsibility for it. I find it remarkably hypocritical to assassinate nuclear scientists and their families and then play victim when someone fights back; not saying Iran did. There are so many groups that have been alienated by Israel there is no telling.
Stop playing the blame game and see what the full investigation reveals. Then go after the guilty.
Evidence? We don't need no fecking evidence. We say what happened. You believe it. As Karl Rove said, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judicio usly, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Good for you..!!!
Contrary to what the aging Watergate wonderboy Carl Bernstein personally told me earlier this year in March, the days of "the Mighty Wurlitzer" and "Operation Mockingbird" are still in effect.
Check out this recent revealing New York Times article on our complacent and compliant press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
Most Americans still identify with this mythology and our politicians, in particular Barack Obama, believe they are under obligation to kow-tow to Zionist aggression and conduct U.S. policy as if it also was supported and or mandated by the same kind of theistic imperative. It's time for the United States to liberate itself from the Zionist state of Israel and start independently pursuing policies in its own real national interest and in the interests of the whole world community.
the pigs are now flying again over the pentagon.
Bulgarian officials released security camera footage of the bomber on Thursday. The pictures show a lanky, long-haired man wearing a baseball cap and plaid shorts, who was carrying a fake Michigan driver’s licence. He carried a large backpack with wheels.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stuck by his claim that the attack was carried out by Iranian-backed Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim guerrilla group, and threatened retaliation. Israel made no comment on the latest reports...
Most likely scenario - it is Al-Qaeda agenda (same as Israel and USA) to start war on Iran. Now where he got the bomb material? (could be the same source as bombs in Syria). 99% chance that Iran or Hezbollah are NOT involved.
We can't forget that what became Al Qaeda - was originally a secret US army, created (in theory) for the secret US war in Afghanistan in the 80's.
Z.Bryzynski himself, has admitted in recent years that the Russians were intentionally drawn into the Afghan conflict, by his Covert Operations/Inte rnational Affairs designs...
There is a lot that most American don't know about what was going on in Afghanistan in the late 70's and early 80's - including what the current US President was upto, while there as an "intern" - with corporation which the NY Times has said, has been used to provide (Non official)cover for US intelligence agents in the field.
As for intelligence gambits - compromising your opponent's operations and organizations, and then using them against your opponent's wishes/best interests is a classic from the 'false-flag' handbook.
Remember the Bombing of the King David Hotel (when it was still in British Mandate Palestine), the Lavon affair and perhaps even the Lockerbie Bombing. The subsequently intercepted radio chatter - which some people attribute to Israel and not the Libyans makes more sense in light of this understanding. Not only is lashing out against the US and UK not really in Libyia's interest - but talking about it on an insecure line thereafter, is positively amateurish.
RSS feed for comments to this post