Consideration should be given as to whether there are other, more machievellian forces at work in this storm in a tea cup, particularly as to how ripe it is to being used to support and advance the neo-con agenda.
The recent cartoon protests should be viewed with sceptism, suspicion and doubt.
The wider political motivation behind these cartoons should be considered carefully.
As should consideration and reflection be given regarding how and why the massive worldwide media machine rolled into action was engaged so effectively, in an act of "full-spectrum dominance" in ensuring every God-fearing Muslim in the world was made aware of the cartoons in the first place.
The independent spontaneity of the protests, that fast turned into full-blown riots is also in question. As we all know, the use of undercover agents provacateur is rife in such mass gatherings of people.
When it comes to the battle for public opinion, when an embassy is attacked (and that attack becomes something of a worldwide phenomenon), it is liable to make that particular embassies citizens that little bit more malleable when it comes to garnering support to combat that aggression through assorted crackdowns, economic sanctions, trade blockades etc. Precipitate or encourage (or at least do little to prevent) attacks on the embassys of the respective countries and you multiply the anger, and thus the strength, of any fledgling coalition that is subsequently formed to quell the apparent uprisings.
Given that embassys and consulates are usually regarded as sovereign territory and any attacks against them are thus open to being regarded as tantamount to a personal attack on the countries concerned, the clear danger is that it wouldn't take that much more of a stretch of credulity and a leap of logic (plus a hefty seasoning of propaganda, hell they've done it countless times before!) for these attacks to start to be talked about as "acts of war", rather than 'mere' heated protests and rioting.
When the government of self-interest moves the debate on a notch, and starts linking that kind of talk with rhetoric tailor-made to try and connect the international protests with alleged financial and strategic support of one form or another from the next country (or countries) on Bush's list, then the west will have clearly won a yet larger chunk of public opinion 'on-side' and moved a hair-trigger closer to final justification to war.
The wider political motivation behind these cartoons should be considered carefully.
As should consideration and reflection be given regarding how and why the massive worldwide media machine rolled into action was engaged so effectively, in an act of "full-spectrum dominance" in ensuring every God-fearing Muslim in the world was made aware of the cartoons in the first place.
The independent spontaneity of the protests, that fast turned into full-blown riots is also in question. As we all know, the use of undercover agents provacateur is rife in such mass gatherings of people.
When it comes to the battle for public opinion, when an embassy is attacked (and that attack becomes something of a worldwide phenomenon), it is liable to make that particular embassies citizens that little bit more malleable when it comes to garnering support to combat that aggression through assorted crackdowns, economic sanctions, trade blockades etc. Precipitate or encourage (or at least do little to prevent) attacks on the embassys of the respective countries and you multiply the anger, and thus the strength, of any fledgling coalition that is subsequently formed to quell the apparent uprisings.
Given that embassys and consulates are usually regarded as sovereign territory and any attacks against them are thus open to being regarded as tantamount to a personal attack on the countries concerned, the clear danger is that it wouldn't take that much more of a stretch of credulity and a leap of logic (plus a hefty seasoning of propaganda, hell they've done it countless times before!) for these attacks to start to be talked about as "acts of war", rather than 'mere' heated protests and rioting.
When the government of self-interest moves the debate on a notch, and starts linking that kind of talk with rhetoric tailor-made to try and connect the international protests with alleged financial and strategic support of one form or another from the next country (or countries) on Bush's list, then the west will have clearly won a yet larger chunk of public opinion 'on-side' and moved a hair-trigger closer to final justification to war.
Comments
Display the following 18 comments