Assassinating Iranian Uranium?

So I was crawling around through a bunch of newsfeeds when I noticed a story published by that terrible network Fox News. Sure, they're a bunch of pigs who give the most biased news ever. Sure, the story itself is written to sound as if Mossad did the right thing. Bastards.

Once I found the story, I decided to pop on over to my friend, George MacDonald. While chilling over a good game of Halo 2 in his room, we talked about the recent "news".

"So, what's your opinion on the assassination of an Iranian uranium researcher?" I asked as I made a headshot.

George shrugged. "Inevitable." George jumped down from the cliff and into a Warthog. "When a man is so predictable that you can see the gears turning in his head during his pre-written speeches, it ain't hard to figure out the way his thoughts will go. 'No war? But Iran bad. How we stop with no war? Secret war? No, that no make sense. Secret...secret...brilliant idea me have! Secret agents! New Bond movie was good, use my Bond. Kill nuke guys! I save world!"

I shook my head as I chased George in a Scorpion. "You know, according to FoxNews.com it was done by the Mossad, not Bush."

George sneered. "So Israel has started sneezing without the States telling them what colour to do it in? I hadn't realised."

I laugh after I destroyed his Warthog. "You seem somewhat jaded about this."

"Just a trifle." Came the reply. "I'm just mildly sick of the issue. Even assuming that Iran developed nuclear weapons that had sufficient operational range to directly threaten the United States, they aren't dumb enough to use it. The only system in which the stupid remain in power is a democracy. In every other system the safeguard of assassination due to extreme incompetence is allowed. So despite the image we get over here of mindless fanatics, the fact is, if these fanatics were mindless they would never remain in power for long."

"True enough." I settled back into my seat and continued the battle of Red vs. Blue.

Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.

Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.

So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.

At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.

Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!

I settled back down into my chair and smiled over dinner. This is one of those pieces of "news" that is actually "olds" -- something that could have been completely non-propaganda (a uranium researcher dying of gas poisoning) has been turned into a propaganda piece by the right-wing American news services that used a sympathetic viewpoint on the concept of "assassination". What has the United States come to now that it supports covert assassinations of civilians important to improving quality of life in 3rd world and 2nd world countries?

- T