Welcome to Israel Rules!

Powered by WebAds

Monday, January 08, 2007

The Sunday Time & MSM Allow Themselves To Be Duped Again

It's not a big stretch for them to do it, either. The MSM seems to love any story, true or false or purposely fabricated, that paints Israel in a bad and/or compromising light. Maybe, they don't so much love it as they actually believe that these stories are true because that's how they view Israel. Anyways, apparently, the big Sunday Times story about how Israel is about to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate their nuclear facilities has been given by the same shotty source that has already predicted that Israel was in the midst of preempting an attack against Syria and Iran multiple times over. I wanted to believe the story only because I want to believe that my country is finally getting back its balls to protect and save itself. Apparently, we have to take this story with a huge heaping grain of salt. Totally not suprised, though, that the MSM ate this story up like it was a story about Bush evading Army service.
Israeli nuclear attack on Iran - the making of a canard

Uzi Mahnaimi has reported once again in The Sunday Times that Israel is about to attack Iran, this time with tactical nuclear weapons. Were we to believe the reports of Mr Mahnaimi, both Syria and Iran would have been wiped out by Israel several times. In 2005 he reported that Israel was preparing to attack Iran in March of 2006, with a similar scenario to the one that he and Sarah Baxter report now. The fact that Israel didn't attack Iran does not prevent Mahnaimi from repeating the same fable again, nor does it prevent media all over the world from quoting him as though he is a trustworthy source and reliable authority. In September of 2006, Mahnaimi had also reported that Israel is preparing to attack Syria and Iran. In 2000, Mahnaimi reported that Israel was going to attack Syria if the peace talks with the Palestinians collapsed. The talks collapsed, but there was no attack. Strangely, Mahnaimi did not lose either his credibility or his job.

Mahnaimi's greatest coup was a story he initiated apparently in 1998, though it may have had its origin in a science fiction story published in the Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot. According to this fantasy, Israel was developing a genetically programmed "ethnic bomb" - a bacteriological warfare agent that would target only Arabs. Not only did this story have no basis in fact, it was also a scientific impossibility that should not have been believed by anyone who had taken an introductory course in human genetic. Nonetheless, this absurd lie was parroted in respectable newspapers and is still cited by Web sites like "Global Research" and "anti-Zionist" cites like Radio Islam. READ THE REST...

Guysen news has published a review of the journalistic career of the imaginative Mr. Mahnaimi, a discussion of his political affiliations and possible motives for inventing these tall tales. It is worth a read. ( English:http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/01/israel-attack-on-iran-sensation-who-is.html French: http://www.guysen.com/articles.php?sid=5425)

The question that must be asked is not why Mahnaimi continues to write this rubbish, or even why the Sunday Telegraph continues to publish it. The world and especially the Middle East, have never lacked for liars and sensation mongers. The question is, why do so many journals pounce on this material so eagerly? Within hours, this absurd fib, invented by a man with a well-earned reputation for confabulation, had made its way around the world. Despite Israeli government denials, it elicited a bellicose threat from Iran. Similarly, when Robert Fisk reported in the Independent, on trumped up evidence, that Israel had used nuclear weapons in Lebanon, it created a sensation. The story was repeated everywhere in huge headlines. The denials were ignored, and the announcement by the UN that there was no basis for the allegations got hardly any attention at all. The damage was done.

As Guysen News pointed out:

It is not information which causes the scoop, but the forged scoop which causes information.

In contrast, revelations in the New York Sun that supposedly implicated Iran in causing sectarian mayhem in Iraq, were ignored almost totally by other journals. Why was this story less interesting, less relevant or less plausible than fables of Israeli tactical nuclear weapons, uranium bombs in Lebanon, ethno-bombs and perhaps, soon to come, death rays, faster than light missiles and time machines? It seems Mahnaimi and the Sunday Times are not the only ones with an agenda.

Ami Isseroff


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments:

At 3:48 PM, Blogger Bagel Blogger said...

Hi Olah,
Finally some sanity
Once a fool... never again
Good article thank you for posting it.
Bagelblogger
Visit: Bagelblogger

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

No prob Bob! Glad I could be of assistance. I love your blog. Really creative graphics!
-OC

 
At 8:45 PM, Blogger Gert said...

I actually agree with you: this is quite irresponsible 'reporting', in particular the attention grabbing headline (but such headlines sell papers, of whatever stripe or denomination worldwide).

But isn't it paradoxical that you also state: "I wanted to believe the story only because I want to believe that my country is finally getting back its balls to protect and save itself."?

You want it to be true but blame The Times for presenting it as a possibility.

Here's the entire Times article in question. It concludes:

"Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”"

 
At 11:56 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

gert, I put the entire article on the blog, but I digress. You must not have seen the capped READ THE REST link. In any case, you're probably right. I can admit that I allowed myself to be duped as well, but that makes this kind of shotty reporting that much more dangerous. They're supposed to make sure that I, the READER, am getting correct and factual information. They're supposed to be a lot more careful with verifying and trusting sources. But, the papers should be following more stringent standards: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." How many times have the papers done this?
-OC

 

Post a Comment

<< Home