UN Official Blames Boston Bombings on American "Domination"

[Dusty]

We're still dominant?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04...s-on-american/

A United Nations official known for blaming the U.S. for unrest in the Middle East has angered critics again by blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on “American global domination.”

"The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world," Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council's Palestine monitor, wrote in an article for Foreign Policy Journal titled, “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders."

"It is soon to tell, and the somewhat hysterical Boston dragnet for the remaining at large and alive suspect does suggest that the wounds of 9/11 are far from healed," he wrote. "We should be asking ourselves at this moment, 'How many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?'”

Falk also blamed Israel for the unrest he believes prompted two brothers of Chechen descent to set bombs that killed three innocent people and injure nearly 200, then kill a police officer.

"The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world."

"The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy," he wrote.

The comments drew a sharp rebuke from Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Ambassador Susan Rice, the Geneva-based monitoring organization's chief expressed outrage.

“First, its thesis is that America is to blame for last week’s atrocity,” the letter reads. “Falk approvingly cites comments justifying the Boston Marathon bombings as ‘retribution’ for actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.”

Neuer’s letter, which also referenced Falk's past promotion of conspiracy theories following the Sept. 11 terror attacks on his personal blog, called on Ban to condemn Falk.

“Mr. Falk’s odious and preposterous remarks insult last week’s victims and discredit the cause of human rights and the founding principles of the United Nations,” Neuer’s letter concludes. “We urge you to speak out.”

Calls seeking comment from UN officials were not immediately returned. UN spokesman Farhan Haq told UN Watch that Falk is an independent expert.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04...#ixzz2RKXSFJhv

[Sigaba]

Mr. Falk's argument is reminiscent of Susan Sontag's rant in The New Yorker following 9/11.

She wrote for the 24 September 2001 issue:

The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.

Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And this was not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic president who assures us that America stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy.

Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy--which entails disagreement, which promotes candor--has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us to understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. "Our country is strong", we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be.

MOO, the "problem" isn't American hegemony if one has an issue with America and then chooses the scythe of terror over the pen or the ballot box to express that discontent. The problem is the persons deciding to blow up people--regardless of their motivation.

[Gypsy]

The UN....pffft.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Mr. Falk's argument is reminiscent of Susan Sontag's rant in The New Yorker following 9/11.

She wrote for the 24 September 2001 issue:MOO, the "problem" isn't American hegemony if one has an issue with America and then chooses the scythe of terror over the pen or the ballot box to express that discontent. The problem is the persons deciding to blow up people--regardless of their motivation.

What's humorously ironic to me is how the MSM is harping on heightened alert and possibilities/events other than Boston while simultaneously ramming the spun fact down the public's collective throat that the two acted autonomously and alone, inspired by Inspire.

[Richard]

And this is news.

Richard

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

What's humorously ironic to me is how the MSM is harping on heightened alert and possibilities/events other than Boston while simultaneously ramming the spun fact down the public's collective throat that the two acted autonomously and alone, inspired by Inspire.

MOO, getting mad at the MSM for trying to sell newspapers or keep viewers watching is like getting mad at strippers for shaking their butts for money or love or meth or power.

[Surgicalcric]

First off I couldnt care less what anyone at the UN thinks of the US.

Second, fuck the UN. They have long outlived their usefulness.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, getting mad at the MSM for trying to sell newspapers or keep viewers watching is like getting mad at strippers for shaking their butts for money or love or meth or power.

That's not what's happening, IMO. The MSM works hand in hand with the WH. The WH doesn't want people to think it's Al Qaeda. Conversely, you see shit like this...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...at-land-based/

...blaring over FOX news. If they need to tighten security "everywhere" because of threats, how can they say the Bomber Brothers were working autonomously? Coincidence? Holiday season?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

That's not what's happening, IMO. The MSM works hand in hand with the WH. The WH doesn't want people to think it's Al Qaeda. Conversely, you see shit like this...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...at-land-based/

...blaring over FOX news. If they need to tighten security "everywhere" because of threats, how can they say the Bomber Brothers were working autonomously? Coincidence? Holiday season?

Shotgun response - the ol' "just in case" scenario which always allows an "out" - "Hey, we tried to cover every conceivable situation."

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Shotgun response - the ol' "just in case" scenario which always allows an "out" - "Hey, we tried to cover every conceivable situation."

Richard

That's concievable.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The MSM works hand in hand with the WH.

My take on that is that the MSM are as frustrated with the POTUS as many other cohorts--they've realized that the symbiotic relationship they sought is more commensal in practice.

IMO, the cross talk among Bill Plante, Charlie Rose, and Gayle King that follows this story on presidential news conferences is instructive <<LINK>>. YMMV.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

My take on that is that the MSM are as frustrated with the POTUS as many other cohorts--they've realized that the symbiotic relationship they sought is more commensal in practice.

IMO, the cross talk among Bill Plante, Charlie Rose, and Gayle King that follows this story on presidential news conferences is instructive <<LINK>>. YMMV.

OK, but if I've got to watch Charlie Rose, I'll need my worry beads.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

First off I couldnt care less what anyone at the UN thinks of the US.

Second, fuck the UN. They have long outlived their usefulness.

There's that, too.

[Paslode]

It's a shame the US provides funding and home for the UN.