An analogy of US relations with Iraq and Iran (documentation of facts below):
The gangster, “Uncle” Sam, had a Machiavellian business history of 40 years with an appointed “regional manager,” Saddam; a history of transactions worth billions. Sam helped Saddam attack a rival, Mahmoud, from 1980-1988 after Mahmoud refused Sam’s control over his area of business. Sam had previously overthrown Mahmoud’s control from 1953-1979, making billions. After further complex history between Sam and Saddam, Saddam began selling product for currencies other than Sam’s.
In response, Sam used his purchased media partners to claim Saddam had deadly weapons with intent to use them on innocent people. Saddam had a previous conviction, was forbidden to possess weapons, and was subject to regular police searches. After Sam made public statements that “someone” should assassinate Saddam, and Sam wanted his own agents with the police to “search” Saddam’s living quarters, Saddam stopped cooperating with searches. When Sam threatened to attack Saddam no matter what the police said or did, Saddam agreed to a full police search. While the police were searching Saddam, with no weapons found and the search almost complete, Sam and his partner, Tony, shot and killed Saddam.
Sam and Tony’s story for shooting Saddam is “legal self-defense.” They explain that the law allows the police to shoot dangerous people with weapons. Sam says that because he had “credible intelligence” Saddam had weapons he was certain to use, Sam and Tony were justified in killing Saddam in “pre-emptive self-defense” to “make the world a safer place.”
The facts that Saddam was being searched by the police, that the police have the authority to do the shooting and not Sam/Tony (unless under imminent threat of Saddam shooting them, which Sam admits was not the case), and that the police explicitly reminded everyone that the law was a “cease-fire” only the police have authority to manage, are all somehow immaterial in Sam and Tony’s argument.
In fact, Sam insists people like Saddam simply hate freedom.
And yes, after police silence and refusal to stop Sam and Saddam from attacking Mahmoud for 8 years, and refusing to arrest Sam for killing Saddam, you should conclude police interests are different from actual law enforcement. And yes, because Sam’s media continues lying to protect Sam’s crimes, you should conclude Sam’s media partners’ interests are different from reporting the obviously most important facts.
In 2004, Mahmoud began selling product for multiple currencies rather than only Sam’s. Sam began threatening rhetoric to attack Mahmoud again, with claims Mahmoud has secret deadly weapons with intent to use them on innocent people. Mahmoud voluntarily agrees to police searches, and no evidence of any weapon has ever been found. Sam claims Mahmoud threatens his associate, Bibi, to “wipe him off the map.” The source of the accusation is a speech Mahmoud made protesting Bibi’s attacks on his neighbor, with the transcript proving Sam and Bibi are lying.
Despite the facts, Sam and Benjamin continue saying that Mahmoud is the dangerous one, that his part of the business needs “regime change,” and the time for talk is coming to an end. Bibi has about 400 of these deadly weapons Mahmoud is being searched for. Sam admits to having over 5,000 that he continuously upgrades, despite his legally-binding promise to get rid of all the weapons.
The police and Sam’s media never point-out that Bibi and Sam refuse to be inspected for weapons, Sam is in violation of the law for improving rather than eliminating his weapons, and the bottom-line is that all evidence shows Mahmoud is within the law and cooperating to be searched.
Police and Sam’s media never point-out the history that Sam criminally took-over Mahmoud’s business from 1953-1979, and from 1980-1988 helped Saddam attack Mahmoud while doing nothing to stop the continuous attacks.
Police and Sam’s media are setting-up Mahmoud just as they did with Saddam. Police officially report that while there is no evidence Mahmoud has weapons, one never can tell if he has them hidden somewhere, or is planning to make them, or will make them sometime in the future. Sam’s media attempts to fear-monger about Mahmoud being a threat to peace, while remaining silent about Sam and Benjamin’s obvious lies and crimes.
- I wrote a brief that began circulating among Congress in 2007. This published version was framed for high school seniors: War with Iraq and Afghanistan, rhetoric for war with Iran
- Casualties: US Wars of Aggression: cost in money and lives, Antiwar’s casualties, and Unknown News.
- Iraq WMD evidence: lies, dictatorship, and evil. Part 2
- US overthrew Iran’s democracy 1953-1979, armed Iraq to invade 1980-1988: now…?
- Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence
- US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them
- Iran to “Wipe Israel off the map’? Read the 600 words for yourself to confirm US/Israel CRIMINAL war lies
- Iran’s Nuclear Program: Iran truthful, in treaty compliance; US/Israel lying, in treaty violation
- WMD treaty violations and inspection refusal for biological, nuclear, chemical weapons. Iran? No, US
- If the US was attacked by a criminal empire: analogy to confront US-Iran history
- 9/11 killed 1, injured 2 if US was a city of 100,000. US wars: CRIMINAL response
- US war history in 2 minutes: arrest US War Criminals to stop war on Iran
- UK Chilcot inquiry and British lies to attack Iran: Blair admits “legal” basis for Iraq war an Orwellian lie; psychopathic monster then threatens Iran, and ‘Iraq war unlawful’: all 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers, 2003. ‘Official report delayed again’: UK govt today
- Why Occupy? A government/economics teacher explains.
- Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series)
Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers). Some links in my articles are therefore now blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. Then switch the expired URLs with webarchived ones of that same information. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).