In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.
(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”
In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Great Post Craig..Thanks
It didn’t take Long for 2020 to Go Mental… Although the US did give Israel the green light to take out Soleimani last year
Ahh …I Mean in 2018
To coin a well worn phrase:
” You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
The current Three Kings of Orient are: Trump- Johnson – Morrison.
Guided by an idiot ( Bannon ) who like Pompeo really believes? that come Armageddon the Israelis will be converted to Christianity and then they’ll all go to Heaven in a blazing chariot.
There is an Armageddon – it’s in Syria.
The place where the USA lost.
Now they want to play a new game – to see if they can win one for a change.
The trouble is unlike Iraq and Libya Iran has not bee n disarmed.
My opinion is that the Iranians will step up many gears in Yemen in order to disrupt/destroy the Saudi Oilfields the US relies upon for its oil.
The fracking fas/oil they produce in the US is sold for a better price abroad I’m told.
No patriotism there Mike.
Buzzword for the year in the UK – ‘ Patriotism’ – Progressive(hmmm) and interpretive.
Otherwise known as – My country right or wrong.
Starts Monday when the Supreme Leader gets back from holiday.
“There is an Armageddon – it’s in Syria.”
Dabiq is in Syria, close to the Turkish border.
Megiddo is in Occupied Palestine.
That’s the eschatology of some Muslims and Christians accounted for. The eschaton in Judaism is left as a research topic for the reader – it’s very different from those in the other two religions.
Hi Ken Kenn,
One of “the three kings” Pastor Scott Morrison may be somewhat delayed in coming to the Armageddon party.
Australians would simply not tolerate sending troops abroad for another war of choice following the bushfires and the huge reconstruction to follow. The pastors disgraceful recent abysmal performance will not be forgotten soon.I predict the Labor Zionists [ALP] will do well at the next federal elections despite the contempt for all politicians in Australia.
Thanks. You are the only one – at least as far as I know – who takes apart the transparent attempts to portray Soleimani as a monster. It should also be mentioned that he played a major role in defeating ISIS.
No expert in laws. I simply believe that common sense first, and only after it is fixed in the form of a law.
The concept of self-defense is very simple. You have the right to arm yourself. You have the right to defend yourself. If you are attacked, you detain the attacker and pass him to the authorized special people for trial and punishment. If repelling the attack in this manner is impossible, then you may hit back and may even kill the attacker.
I see no reason why someone might be an exception to this rule.
I agree with you. The Daily Heil wouldn’t. Look up Tony Martin. It thinks the Geneva Conventions can be broken too. Might is Right, if it’s Western. Not many English people really believe in the rule of law.
Excuse me, Bramble. “Not many English people really believe in the rule of law.”
That is not true.
regarding the above: “You have the right to arm yourself.”
– Certainly not in the UK. We have very strict gun control laws in place here.
Appointing the victim, tracking him/her down, preparations for murder, self-justification. All of actions in this line belong to intentional murder, not to self-defence.
This is an old moral problem described in the classic Crime and Punishment. Самосуд и Чистильщик Мира от Монстров. Most of the discussions about this book come down to banal “who has the right to lynching” and “who deserves to be killed” thus leading away from the main point. It’s murder.
@ Tatyana January 4, 2020 at 20:18
Israel has made many attempts to assassinate the Iranian general, without success.
I suspect they were behind the American attack, at least in suggesting it.
The real reason he was assassinated was that he was a very formidable general, and in any hostilities would have been a major headache to the enemy, as he proved in the Iran-Iraq War, and against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Самосуд и Чистильщик Мира от Монстров = “lynching and (also) ridding the world of monsters”?
I always find it hard to translate Russian into English. It’s never quite the same. I wish someone would explain “с новым годом!” to me. I have never quite understood how it can mean “Happy New Year” in Russian 🙂
With regard to self defence. We don’t have that automatic right here. Anyone killing, even in self defence can be tried for murder or manslaughter. Manslaughter is less serious than murder.
These are interesting questions. My mother bought me “Crime and Punishment” when I was a teenager, but I didn’t read it at the time, considering it rather dark. Perhaps I will give it another go.
Translation rarely if ever gives you the “same”. It gives you some kind of near equivalent, that’s all.
“С Новым годом” omits “Поздравляю вас”, the whole phrase being “Поздравляю вас (or тебя) с Новым годом”.
Поздравлять (to congratulate [s.o] [on] [something]; express good wishes to s.o. [in respect of] [success, happy event, calendrical occasion])
takes the accusative (for who you’re congratulating on something or expressing good wishes about something to)
+ с (meaning “on” or “in respect of”)
+ instrumental (for what you’re congratulating them on or expressing good wishes to them about).
Now would be the time for both Russia and China to be invited into Iran, together with their own S400 regiments to say to the US, sorry mate, you can’t destroy Persia.
Nice idea, wikikettle! Will they want to get involved though?
That would be great, while west have military unions (Nato), Russia, China, Iran lack this strategic assembly. I believe Iran want it but China Russia seems to be focused on themselves only.
John Pretty and Jack. I was disappointed with China and India both caving into US sanctions if they kept buying Iranian oil. I guess China feels it’s too dependant on exports to US, and India thinks it needs US to counter China support for Pakistan. Both mistaken ideas in my opinion. Russia simply can’t extend anymore with its small economy, which is understandable. Nevertheless both China and Russia will regret not helping Iran from being devastated as will most same folk.
Have you guys seen this video? Really show how moronic Trump is.
“A 2011 video of Donald Trump accusing then-President Barack Obama of attempting to ‘start a war with Iran’ has resurfaced after he ordered an airstrike that killed the country’s second most powerful man.”
https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/03/donald-trump-twitter-video-slamming-obama-iran-hasnt-aged-well-11994278/?ito=cbshare
lol, that’s a brilliant find Jack. I even managed to watch it all this time!
John ..I replied to your Question
Reply ↓
Brianfujisan
January 4, 2020 at 21:36
John..I Seen your Comment @
January 4, 2020 at 19:43
Jack,
I agree great video, but from his initial reaction, Trump merely posted an image of an American Flag, and said nothing, until about 8 hours later, and in a one liner, mentioned the word negotiation…
I suspect he knew nothing about this recent event, until after it had happened. Even then (he is going to get blamed anyway) he decided to take ownership of it, and what did he say? He didn’t shoot his mouth off re the crazies he knew were responsible (these are really evil people), as he knew it would be counterproductive. He simply said, I authorised this to prevent a war with Iran, which everyone knew was a complete load of bollocks, whilst nearly everyone failed to think about the possibilty, that he, like The British and all The rest of Europe and NATO knew nothing about it, before if it was done, if in fact it was done.
I think there is a reasonable possibilty, that the bloke supposedly dead, may still be alive, because a detailed evaluation of all the data (including photographic) does not make a lot of sense.. Others, elsewhere have noticed this too. I reckon it was just another Fake Op, Psy-Op. In some psychological operations, faking the entire thing, achieves what the originators thought would be the desired result, well at least for 95% of The US population, which is their main target audience.
The Americans did say, they make their own reality now, such that the rest of us, can study it. Personally, I think they are all mad, though I do like a few Americans, mostly over here, who have better things to do, than get involved in such nonsense.
Tony
You could well be right, @Tony, that Trump didn’t know anything about it until afterwards. This is especially so given that drones were used – the same delivery system that was used on several occasions last year to carry out surprise attacks on tankers and oil installations in the region.
Why are you still excusing Trump ? Obama didn’t know every single drone strike yet gets lacerated on here time and again. Why does Trump get a pass ? And his bellicose tweets in which he bragged that should Iran retaliate, cultural sites would be targeted in a US counter strike is his Twitter fingers being led by whom exactly ? The deep state ? Five me a break !
@ Tony,
Soulemani is dead. The whole conspiracy theory that he survived is hogwash. Because why would the Iranians play along ? Or the Russians, Turks or whomever has acknowledged his passing. All those mourners were hoodwinked ? And look at Trump’s record since taking office re Iran. He’s been itching for war with the Persians.
Tunde, Trump, as I understand it, ordered this strike without recourse to anyone or to the Senate. He is guilty as sin as he has been planning this since walking away from the Nuclear Treaty with Iran. It is misguided to exonerate him. He is the architect of this and is now trying to back track because of the huge international ramifications. If he, as he states, ordered this to prevent a War well, it’s a strange thing to do isn’t it since the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand started WW1. He is a Megalomaniac, dangerous, a narcisstic psychopath and has no regard for anyone except himself. Bojo is a mirror image; he has absolutely no interest in politics just power and adoration.
@ tunde January 5, 2020 at 00:17
‘Obama didn’t know every single drone strike yet gets lacerated on here time and again…’
Obomba himself bragged that he was ‘good at killing people’.
@ Jo Dominich January 5, 2020 at 15:16
‘…since the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand started WW1…’
That is the generally ‘accepted narrative’. Although that did start the ball rolling, war was not inevitable, but the incident was very skillfully manipulated by principally British, but also French and Russian, ‘Deep Staters’ who had been planning war on Germany since 1905
(see ‘Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War’ by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor).
It is becoming clearer that the powers that be think of the law in the purest lexical sense i.e. arguments about morality, effectiveness, clarity etc. mean nothing at all. The powers want to achieve X and are simply looking for a bunch of words to back them up. The actual words could be as random as “It is legal to kill anyone by the name of Soleimani on a Friday in January”.
Fact is he knew of the threat to his life, and still went to Baghdad, there is a brave soul for you.
This is the kind of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand scenario and if the yanks thin they can use their nuclear fire crackers, and get away with again as in HIROSHIMA, they are in for a shock.
Everyone is trying to play down the probable fall out of such an idiotic, moronic act, Russia can nuke Pentagon on the same basis, China can join in by shooting down the US satellites based on the same principle.
It’s also in both China’s and Russia’s interests to prevent the Jihadists in Idlib province returning home to do US bidding. Killing Solemani was a terrible blow in that fight, aiding US and Israeli chaos planning. I still can’t believe Putin with all his skills ended selling Turkey S400. Turkey will never leave NATO. It’s support for Jihadists in Syria is useful for US and Isreal, and Erdogan plays both sides. He inturn was played by the EU, falsely promising membership. The one thing stopping US Ariel attack on Iran is the threat to the Gulf Potentates. Iran has been under siege for decades with one provocation after another, resisted the traps.
What trap?
You are assuming that a technological superiority is enough to win a war. (the author makes the same assumption.)
There are many facets to war, but end of the day it is about who can kill and who can take casualties and sustain under the attack, and endure the duration fo the war. Syria is a prime example that after 9 years of war still is in one piece and has seen off the US and its sponsored murdering rapist and molesters. (these are bing deployed in Iraq as we debate)
Wars need money and as it stands US deficit that is way above its GDP is not exactly the best standing for starting a war. US is in no shape to go to war, and if it does it will be the last war it has fought.
Solimani is already replaced and there are more Sulimanis in the making, fact is post-modernist mumbo jumbo seems to have dulled the reasoning of most people whom cannot see the realities. The constant mantra repeated somehow does not mean it is an actuality.
Trap?
Wikkikettle, interesting observations. However, Erdogan has said that he will leave NATO if Turkey can become a full member of the SCO. This will happen now, sooner rather than later I think.
Lies are everywhere. They lied about Assange, Corbyn, WMDs, the Douma “chemical attack”, performance enhancing drugs used by Russian athletes, the Skripals, practically everything in the media is a lie to promote an agenda. Pence supported the War on Iraq (built on a series of lies) and has continued with statements opposing the withdrawal of troops that the surge in 2007 was working, He is a staunch advocate of Israel’s aggression against Palestinians, does not believe humans have contributed to climate change and does not even believe that global warming exists. I finish with a pun: Pence is not dead, but he’s lying still.
Ideal tool to take over from Trump then John.
Most amazing of all, is how the idea that the Palestinians simply have no right whatsoever to resist occupation has been accepted in the west. You’ve got to hand it to Israel, they’ve got a brilliant political(friends of) and public relations strategy, few countries can come close to matching. Those now older people associated with apartheid era South Africa must look on enviously.
It’s surprising how large a part has been played simply by the fact that Israelis look and sound like British or American people. (Or French, German, Spanish, as the occasion requires). Whereas almost all the Palestinian spokespeople I have ever heard speak English haltingly, inaccurately and with strong accents.
Hence most Western listeners tend to identify with the Israelis. I often feel this pressure myself, although I fight it – and my knowledge of the facts outweighs any superficial feeling of empathy with the one who sounds “like one of us”.
The first time I ever heard of Benjamin Netanyahu was when he spoke to BBC Radio 4 as an Israeli government spokesman. His English was perfect, idiomatic, grammatical and pleasant to hear. Little did I think he would become what he is today.
@Tom Welsh
It’s been very effective.
20 years ago, Tony Blair used to talk about the treatment of the Palestinians being one of the most important burning injustices in this world today. In the two decades since, the plight of the Palestinians hasn’t improved one iota , but the political rhetoric around their struggle has. Israel launching attacks in the occupied territories, are now presented as simply necessary anti-terror activities. Universally , among western politicians , the occupied citizens in Gaza and the West Bank are seen as the aggressors when trouble flares.
Robert Heinlein explained a huge amount of human behaviour with the devastatingly simple formulation:
“Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal”.
First we feel, and then we think of logical-sounding arguments to justify our feelings.
Is it that Heinline who wrote Orphans of the sky?
Yes.
Yes, the PR for the Zionists’ ethnic supremacist regime completely outclasses the PR that was wielded by their pals at the South African one. No journalist at any major media organisation in the West dare for example
* put Israel on the list without qualifications when referencing the “club” of known nuclear powers,
* call a kibbutz a “settlement”,
* call the recruitment of cheap foreign labour by kibbutzim a “scam”,
* refer to the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves,
* use the term “occupied” for any territory that was occupied by Zionists before 1967,
* call the enlistment in a foreign fascist army by British citizens what it actually is,
* reference what the commonest use of the veto at the UN Security Council has been for the past 30 years,
* refer under any circumstances to “Jewish racism”,
* (if they work at the BBC) call the apartheid wall a “wall”.
@N
Incredibly well shielded from criticism.
We are constantly told that criticism of the treatment of Palestinians isn’t anti-Semitic and therefore allowed, only to find, in reality, it isn’t allowed. As anyone who has tried to post a comment on this subject btl at the Guardian will know. It’s as though the guardian is being moderated by someone from JVL.
The way Zionism has been normalised in the media too. Many in the UK don’t believe in the god-given right to live in the ME because you belong to a certain religion. But politicians can’t say that on TV
The worst offender by far is the BBC, often by omission too.
I think the underlying principle is that you are allowed to mention the ill-treatment of Palestinians – but you are not allowed to mention who it is that treats them ill, or how.
As we might say:-
In terms of intellect and rigorous analysis – Pence is not worth tuppence!
John I guess Orwell’s quote puts it nicely: War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength; Truth are Lies – or something like that anyway.
Thank you for this article. Once it was the job of the media to bring this kind of information to the attention of the public and to hold the government of the day to account.
Whereas today it is the job of the media NOT to bring this kind of information to the attention of the public and NOT to hold the government of the day to account.
Whatever Boris Johnson is, he is NOT the British equivalent of Donald Trump. I wonder how many lines of the Iliad he has memorised? Could it be all 16000? He has also clearly studied rhetoric, and done it properly. Those two video clips are quite eye opening. They’re not in the same ballpark as his entertaining the press lobby by buffoonishly singing a few lines of Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”.
Was the post-referendum “fallout” between Johnson and Gove faked or genuine?
N_,
Which actor do you think is better?
Boris is obviously p1ssed and entertaining. Thanks for the links.
Have you got a few Trump videos to compare…like this one? He speaks in English with German subtitles, and claims not to drink alcohol.
They both seem pretty bright to me, even if you detest their political views.
“Explosiv: Donald Trump Interview am 11. September 2001 – Investigate 9/11”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJqcD-fozYw&feature=youtu.be&t=32
Tony
Thanks for that link, @Tony. Trump is definitely on top of his subject in that video, well-informed, intelligent, staying relevant, skilled at expressing himself – although he wasn’t challenged.
Trump may be the better actor of the two. I find it impossible to appraise what that guy being US president might mean for, say, US relations with Iran.
bbc mention that Boris Johnson has stubbornly remained on holiday during this crisis and that the three cab.office.briefing.room meetings have been chaired by a civil servant, with our spooks “annoyed by lack of support/direction”
Thank you for this piece. A very helpful expose of the pretentious rationale for Trump to commit murder with impunity. A quick reading of the Bethlehem article from the link would suggest, for example, that the Syrian government would be exonerated from any action it has taken to defend itself from the actions of non-state actors “imminent” threats. The Turkey government would also be justified in its recent invasion of Syria because of the threats coming from the Kurds. Iran would be justified in any action it took to defend itself against the threat from the USA. And so on. In other words what is good for the goose must also be good for the gander, making the whole Bethlehem doctrine absurd and useless as an argument and British taxpayers have paid for the production of such nonsense.
Assassination of those suspected of being leaders or potential leaders of resistance to the Empire is a policy that has been developed enormously since the US assumed the mantle of global policeman. Leaving aside South East Asia, from the Philippines to Korea to Indo China to Indonesia and the millions sought out and killed on the suspicion of being opposed or likely to oppose at some point in the future imperialist rule, it is quite evident from the massive number of such killings in Latin America-at the hands not only of US chartered Death Squads but of the US allied military- that the killing of Soleimani is wholly consistent with long established and accepted US practise.
Soleimani, for example, would already have been killed if he had been listed as a nuclear scientist-how many of them, mostly science teachers and technicians, have been killed, for example?
The significance of this killing is really that represents a milestone in the precipitous decline of the slippery slope rapidly approaching dystopia, that well known suburb to Buenos Aires or Bogota.
Of course the Bethlehem doctrine has many corollaries justifying less dramatic but equally decisive terminations of political careers such as those which knocked off Lula, Tommy Sheridan, Alex Salmond and Julian Assange.
And was not Carl Schmitt really the author of this modernisation of the discovery that might is right?
David Bethlehem is a ruined man, as is pretty much the entire ruling class, everywhere. His changing of the meaning of the word ‘imminent’ doesn’t surprise me. The twisted establishment can use that alteration, the same way that it can use the alteration of the meaning of the term ‘antisemitic’.
‘Imminent’ means based on past experience. (Of what? Defending yourself against attacks by Americans or Israelis?) The good faith principle means that we can possess good faith in something based on past experience of that ‘something’, or conversely, that we can reject faith in something based on past experience of that ‘something’. Based on imperial powers’ lawlessness and violence and in accordance with the good faith principle, I think we can reject imperial powers ‘and’ those ‘experts’ they throw at us to silence our objections.
Thanks for this excellent Blog Post. The linkage through this show how what most of us know in our bones has to be wrong is being spun to justify acts of terrorism by states. This shines a light on ingredients in the Kool Aid.
“9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.” And even this statement needs qualification, for those Arab killers were aided and abetted by powerful special interests in the US. 9/11 was a crime whose main perpetrators were in fact Americans, as research shows. We didn’t know any of that for some time. But there’s been enough research since then to show that 9/11 wasn’t the simple terrorist act by Arab extremists that the establishment says it was. James Corbett is one good source of info on all of that research.
When Mike Pompeo uses the phrase ” imminent attacks” he is trying to cloak behind international law for justification by direct or indirect appeal to the doctrine of self-defence. However, any international lawyer worth his/her salt can explain why the doctrine is inapplicable to the Soleimani killing. I would wager:-
– Neither Pompeo nor Trump can with any credible reference to actual honest intelligence available specify the imminent attacks being referenced.
– What are the details of the planned attacks and when were they supposed to occur – can that ever be shared with the American people and/or the wider international community?
– As Trump explains in his video below, the criticisms he levels against Obama obviously must be applicable to what he has just done in Iraq.
-” Imminent” means that something is soon or just about to happen. But, based on Trump’s own reasoning in the video – unless Soleimani was a lone wolf and not an actual General in a state’s armed forces, then the killing of the General does not kill the alleged plan for the next General in line is free to execute the alleged plan as and when he decides so to do.
If legal justification is to be given to this kind of killing then a pandora’s box of problems under international law begin to emerge:-
– Soleimani was officially in Iraq; so, if a US General is on a visit in another country, does any country have the lawful right to assasinate said US General?
– Since in Iraq, the US is on someone else’s soverign territory, then not having sought any lawful right to execute the action – what does that auger for other countries – by parity of reasoning, do other countries have a lawful right to enter in third coutries and kill US officials who are their targets?
– Is it only the US which has a “right” to ignore the established global norms and established laws under international law?
Pompeo’s use of the word “imminent” is a ruse – and – as we well know Trump can always be trusted for the veracity of his utterances.
Anyway, here is Trump in a self-critical moment – where in fact he is actually in 2011 being critical of his conduct in 2020.
Consider:-
https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/03/donald-trump-twitter-video-slamming-obama-iran-hasnt-aged-well-11994278/?ito=cbshare
Chalk it down Craig. Murder is murder and no abuse of language can change that. A troublesome Iranian general, an awkward third world statesman, an over-curious journalist, a Northern Irish solicitor……an angry citizen demanding their rights. Who knows where it will end when life is devalued to such an extent that taking somebody’s for political ends is normalised?
Breaking News: President Donald Trump has announced that the US has identified 52 Iranian targets that will be struck if Tehran launches an attack in retaliation for the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
In other words, even if they don’t retaliate , something has to happen – a false flag? to justify the planned next steps. Does the US need an excuse? Not really, only for cover back home.
Iran would be wise to make clear they aren’t going to retaliate in the next six months. And furthermore, anything that happens won’t been authorised or ordered by their leadership.
It looks like the US is just trying to establish some thin justification for folks back home, before launching long planned strikes, with this talk of 52 targets.
This isn’t the old “pack of cards” thing again is it?
52 Targets ! Identified just like the air raid shelter they “identified”and bombed along with all the other infrastructure. What a barbaric pronouncement by the leader of the free world who fills all of us with dread at prospect of B52 vultures flying again over Iran.
Who will stand with Iran ?
@ Wikikettle January 5, 2020 at 00:16
There are demos against a war with Iran planned for about 70 cities in the States.
@ Wikikettle January 5, 2020 at 00:13
And like they ‘identified’ the main medicine plant in Sudan as a @CW’ factory, and destroyed it (no compensation when they ‘realised’ their mistake), and the same in Syria.
Where are the War Reparations for the West’s illegal War Criminal attack on Iraq? Which they have just compounded with the latest War Criminal assassination?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?s=20
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently….
hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
..targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
ridding the world of their terrorist leader
I commented already on Чистильщик, here is the proof. USA is Raskolnikov
Appalling, isn’t he.
Loves parading his machoism, as if this is like WWF wrestling or something, not really about killing people and causing destruction and chaos.
Not in any way appropriate behaviour given the grave nature of armed conflict.
Apalled to see how many comments “thanks Trump for defending us”
Only one person there told it’s a war crime to target cultural objects.
@Tatyana
The ‘to Iranian culture’ threat is particularly outrageous.
Would make the US little better than the Taliban commanders blowing up Buddha statues in Bamiyan.
But it does insulate the USA from reprisals.
Since it doesn’t have any culture.
Sadly, the lesson from all this will be develop nukes asap, if you want to be left alone.
Hard to believe the US would be threatening anything at all were Iran armed with nuclear weapons. There wouldn’t even be this type of rhetoric.
Regime change via invasion / occupation isn’t happening, so bombing them is just likely to turbocharge the dormant nuclear programme. And Iran is huge; four times larger than Germany, who incidentally hid their own advanced nuclear programmes in WW2.
Video from Iraq (Jan 4, 2020).
Sarah Abdallah:
> Wow. Happening today in #Iraq:
> Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis attend #Soleimani’s funeral, the man who crushed ISIS across our region, and protest against the US military presence on their soil.
> It’s time for US troops to leave both Iraq and #Syria.
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1213521547790405633
And this is in Iraq, before the ceremonies in Iran the next days.
why do not you have paypal account?
beccause payed pal Peter Thiel is also Palantir, I would assume?
“9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.”
Sorry, this is the bullshit.
At the very most (and probably not even that) the only Sunnis and Saudis in the plot were patsies.
Please, Craig, surely you understand this by now.
Why compromise your analysis by incorporating this Saudis-did-it BS?
Also, your general credibilty.
Signed, an American
Do we need to have 911 conspiracy theories revived? They’re not relevant here.
The main 9/11 conspiracy theory is the official account, which any child could see is unbelievable on dozens of counts. Like the Emperor’s New Clothes.
@ Laguerre January 5, 2020 at 01:53
Are you unaware that all the wars and draconian laws enacted since have all been done under that umbrella? Even Saddam and his non-existent WMD would almost certainly not have been able to be foisted on the world if that ‘attack’ hadn’t occurred.
The CIA/Mossad/MI5/Saudi Intelligence have always been the hands behind al-Qaeda and ISIS. They are the terrorists. The War on Terror is actually a war on you. It is about control over We The People. It is about global control by the Ruling Elite and their minions. Hence the reason censorship is now increasing, propaganda is off the rails and Americans rights are disappearing. Their divide and conquer agenda has been used to pull the wool over your eyes and they are growing more desperate as the truth continues to come out. Hence the reason they deflect to Iran now. They know that escalation and deflection are their only way out. Their attempt to cast blame to Russia and label truth revealing western citizens as Russian trolls, Assad apologist’s, Nazis, bots, haters, etc in order to censor them through their social media partners is failing also. The American people are seeing through and many are realizing that divisive Trump is a major part of this massive psyop. Yet, many are still divided and support the two sides which work for the same masters. Its “All For Israel”. Qui bono? Not you, not your family, not your children. America is being divided and conquered, put at each others throats, mass propagandized, censored, inundated with chaos to cover up what they have done.
Exposing the White Helmets : Collated Video Evidence of Terrorist Collusion – Over 50 Video Clips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCmN6X_7kn0&t=05s
Where Your Mind Goes, Your Energy Flows – 50 Posts Exposing The Censorship, Control, Propaganda And Psychological Operations Agenda Of the Ruling Elite/Deep State
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@clarityofsignal/where-your-mind-goes-your-energy-flows-50-posts-exposing-the-censorship-control-propaganda-and-psychological-operations-agenda
Massive Truth Drop: Large Compilation of Mainstream Media Articles and Interviews Provide Overwhelming Evidence That Israel Supports Islamic Terrorist Groups in Syria
https://steemit.com/news/@clarityofsignal/massive-truth-drop-large-compilation-of-mainstream-media-articles-and-interviews-provide-overwhelming-evidence-that-israel
The time to wake up to this fact is NOW.
Clarity of Signal, Great post. Thank You.
“Red Flag Of Jihad Raised As 1000s Mourn Death Of Suleimani In Baghdad
“2020-01-04
“In what many middle east experts are calling an “ominous” signal to the west following the assassination of the commander of IRGC’s Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani, a red flag has been hoisted over the holy mosque of Jamkaran in Qom, Iran’s holiest city.
“The flag is almost always blue, but according to old Iranian traditions in ancient wars red flags were raised when the enemy commits murder and will remain red until revenge is complete.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/red-flag-jihad-raised-1000s-mourn-death-suleimani-baghdad
Is this really the place for 911 conspiracy thories? There’s still a thread open for that.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
If you include Pakistan / Afghanistan there that percentage rises to 95% or more. The problem is that these American deaths are from the dispensable non wealthy 99%. The 1% ruling the roost in Langley and Washington are tied to Sunni Arab oil for their dollar investment underpinning. Iran won’t do that with their oil.
You bring forward every logical thought/observation and factual reference possible………………….but we are entering a period where truth is what the USA says it is (at whatever moment it says it) even if it says day in now night.
The media machine is the propaganda machine to get most people to believe what the USA says……or at least know what they should think or say if anyone should question their loyalty to country.
Soon they will dispense with legalese and just unilaterally do whatever they want without bothering to attempted justification.
You are extremely ill informed. It is reckless and absurd to write such drivel without any facts to support your thesis.
If you would do some actual research you’d realize the concerns of an imminent attack were warranted and outlined by the US intelligence. There were targets including at least one in DC that we’re known to be planned and executed very soon. Also you are ignoring the fact that he and his Qud force already killed a US contractor among others along with many other attacks that were executed under his leadership.
The US will not not sit back any longer like our last spineless ineffective President who coddled our enemies and exposed to them our weak leadership all the while destroying our domestic tranquility by sowing racial division.
We are The USA and we will not and should not put up with the constant attacks and aggression from these terrorist regimes.
President Trump, showing great leadership and patriotism has rightfully defended us and the Democratic way of life.
It is about time that the world knows we will not be taken advantage of no longer and realize we are still the best hope for the world as we are greatest country that has ever existed upon this earth.
The claims centred on there being an “imminent attack” has been challenged.
“The New York Times correspondent Rukmini Callimachi tweeted that two sources privy to the information, held by US intelligence officials, described the case as “razor thin”. Her tweets also detail a scramble to discover Suleimani’s whereabouts once the decision to kill him was made.”
Obama wasn’t a dove or a coward, he was just as hawkish as GW Bush in fact.
It’s called doing what’s practical though, trying not to make things worse. The US can destroy and break a lot of stuff in the ME and beyond, no doubt, but it hasn’t shown it can build lasting peace. Look at the ease of victory in Afghanistan, you’re still there nearly 20 years on, still attacked regularly, still disliked having spent trillions to achieve nothing but a resurgent Taliban. Wouldn’t the money be better spent in the US on infrastructure like bridges, schools and affordable healthcare?
Goose
You misunderstand the function of the capitalist state. It’s main function is to siphon money from the state to private pockets as efficiently as possible whilst maintaining a semblance of working for all of us. The MIC is the most lucrative game of all. If we have epidemics especially if it starts affecting the rich, then money will be found for healthcare.
Jay, I can only hope that your comment is meant to be satirical.
For me this has settled another dilemma, how to explain Labour’s unexpected large loss at the GE.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/09/mike-pompeo-leaked-recording-corbyn-labour-jewish-leaders
Mike Pompeo will stop at nothing to fulfil his aim. He must have been one of those who pushed Soliemani’s assassination.
In this light, and in the light of Pompeo’s open admission that the CIA use lies and deceit to achieve their aims. Their aims here, allied with that of the apartheid entity, was to install the puppet Johnson with a clear mandate to push this country to the same lawless direction as these other two lawless regimes.
All efforts should now be pursued to find out how this was achieved. Please also see the thread on Election aftermath in the discussion forum in this blog where Kim has led a valiant effort to try and get a handle on this.
My point is that the election was a chance to kill all hope of a drift towards socialism in U.K. which would signal a change in direction and encourage other western leftists movements and a drift away from Atlanticism, NATO and endless wars of choice. The critical fact is the Pompeo confession:
https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2019/04/23/pompeo-finally-tells-the-truth-we-lie-we-cheat-we-steal/
And here is the link to the election aftermath thread.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/elections-aftermath/
The lost election was a bloodless decapitation and everything was thrown at Corbyn.
To me this sounds like the western allies’ version of the U.S. “Stand Your Ground” law, the one that infamously got George Zimmerman off the hook for murdering Trayvon Martin. Both “Stand Your Ground” and the Bethlehem Doctrine excuse murder based on extremely vague perceptions of threat, which in practice is all too often motivated by racism and for some reason never needs to be justified.