The “International Community” is shrinking

As per Prof. Noam Chomsky, now that the U.K. is no longer supporting military action against Syria, "The International Community" is down to three countries: U.S., France, and Turkey.

Prof. Chomsky pointed out that the U.S. defines "International Community" (or "Global Community") as only including countries that agree with the U.S. power structure. Since those ~187 other countries of the world don’t agree to materially support a military strike on Syria, they are no longer included in the “International Community.”

19 thoughts on “The “International Community” is shrinking”

    1. Israel no longer supports strikes, at least not publicly and if "it" has to participate — ditto Saudi & Qatar. If I'm wrong, goldhoarder, please post source – – –

      1. AW posted this: [no popular or congressional support] Yet the consensus in the press is that President Obama faces tremendous pressure to intervene[!] [!!!] Where is this pressure coming from? Strangely, that question doesn’t even occur to a lot of news organizations. [E.g.], “The Obama administration faced new pressure Thursday to take action on Syria.” New pressure from whom? The story proceeds as if it doesn’t matter. […] Why is their pro-war pressure legitimized as the prevailing story line[?] I called that Ghost-Astroturfing; if it were well known who the 'pressure' was, the impact would be very different from what they want, but Friedersdorf himself doesn't name pressurers; it was sort of an exercise in press critique (though worthwhile). But if he's right about that behavior, then, indeed, there's yer source. Who else get's that done?

        The news section here did cover, in the middle of a lot Bibi-bluster about Iran, statements that Syria and Hez were the immediate problem for them–as would've been clear from a map. Netanyahu would've understood he'd be the butt of our jokes. Bowing out publicly probably wouldn't persuade anyone e.g. in the region. …maybe this case is too 'circumstantial?'

        1. Thanks, persnipoles. I suspect that's a much better read on what's really going on than the "official" main-stream version. Things haven't been easy since the fore-runner of the CIA began using the U.S. media – – – and ended up this way:

          One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. &quot;I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?" Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire</a </BLOCKQUOTE>

          1. I remember that story, couldn't have given it's origin. Consistent with the groupthink motif Friedersdorf seemed to favor, and maybe answers who-else-get's-that-done –if there were a meaningful difference 'tween two whos. I understand Ruskies had been extremely literate 'till recently, while a Dulles supposedly said in the '60s, 'the American people don't read.' Likely the difference 'tween the two countries.

            I don't think Grant F. Smith has ever said 'False Flag' quite so explicitly, if ever at all: We might see if his friends stick around; don't recall if it was linked here. Surely the next Obama's-'new'-scandal woulda been his indifference to his 'suspects' trial by media if he weren't playing along. Mark Glenn likened his condition to a male lion harassed by hyenas; the hyenas do win, and it's very clear how.

  1. Used to love hearing 'Iran threatens the whole world.' Translating that might not be quite the same as 'international community' fragment, but it'd be weird if anyone here missed the meaning… They're basically the same bluff, from basically the same interests. Chomsky once got asked from a Zionist audience member "First of all, what does linguistics have to do with international politics?" Answering before she'd quite finished, he told a whopper: "Nothing."

  2. @persnipoles: "I don't think Grant F. Smith has ever said 'False Flag' quite so explicitly"

    Me: Thanks for the IRmep citation "Syria "chemical attack" fits profile of an Israeli false flag"

    IRmep: "Since western audiences are demonstrably not very shrewd, it is likely that if this is an Israeli false flag, no "corroboration" stage of compelling (yet false) evidence is even necessary, though Israeli intelligence stands ready to provide it. Given Israeli interests, that such evidence is considered credible by the West is staggering." "As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners."

    Me: We can make a reasonable guess where that "additional intelligence that remains classified" might have come from.

    Die Zeit/Putin: "Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin hat von den USA Belege für einen Chemiewaffen-Einsatz durch das Regime in Syrien gefordert. Die US-Regierung habe angeblich Beweise für einen solchen Einsatz. "Also gut, sollen sie die Beweise den UN-Inspektoren und dem UN-Sicherheitsrat vorlegen. Und wenn sie keine vorzeigen, dann heißt das, dass sie keine haben", sagte Putin."

    Google translation: Russian President Vladimir Putin has called on the U.S. evidence of a chemical weapon used by the regime in Syria. The U.S. government has allegedly evidence of such use. "Well, they should submit to UN inspectors and the UN Security Council the evidence. And if they do not show, it means that they do not have," Putin said.

    Me: Oh, goodie; "Put up or shut up!"

    Musing: Notice a few things:

    1stly, that the UK parliament has voted "No" to UK 'helping' the US to attack Syria.

    Q: What do the UK parliamentarians know that we don't?

    2ndly, both Kerry and Obama keep on harping over the tragedy – which it certainly is, but the harping is to psychologically destabilise listeners, they present no "smoking gun" evidence of the Assad regime's involvement – now listen to Putin.

    3rdly, as many say, Assad would have to be suicidal to so provoke; so far all evidence points to Assad seeking survival for both himself and his (loyal) people.

    4thly, Obama will now consult the US-people's representatives. Recall that in an "of, by, for the people" democracy, the electors are sovereign; I expect that the representatives will faithfully echo the fully and fairly informed electorate, currently ~60% against attacking Syria.

    5th and last for now: It is *not* US business to 'strike' Syria, to do so without a UNSC mandate exactly fulfils the definition of the supreme international crime = Nuremberg-class offence – which 'back then' led to the hanging of convicted perpetrators.

    1. Thanks again, aletheia — this sort of analysis should be front-page of every U.S. Media website. But, of course, the U.S. Media works for the militaryindustrial etc. complex. Or, as you have put it, I believe, the M/I/C/$4a†-plex – – –

  3. @L. Reichard White: "the U.S. Media works for the militaryindustrial etc. complex, … aka the M/I/C/$4a†-plex."

    Me: Yes.

    M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.

    We know what the military wants: a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles (384 are already positioned in the eastern Mediterranean), all to smash Syria with,

    We know what industry wants: To make and sell ever-more matériel, (with which the Pentagon can kill people and destroy infrastructure, since that's *all* bullets, bombs, drones and rockets do),

    We know what the Congress wants: As far as I recall, they never saw a war they didn't like. *Could* be different this time; see UK-parliament: From a majority of 77, the vote was 285-272. The AusBC described this as "narrowly voted against," but it was anything but, including "more than 30 rebelled, another 30 stayed away" – which was a rout, gravely wounding both Cameron and the UK special relationship (which the US immediately rubbed salt into the wounds: Former 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' are now America's 'oldest ally').

    We know what the banksters want: To rip ever-more interest out of the economy,

    We know what the 4th estate wants: To continue the pushed-propaganda paradigm dumbing-down of the populace (they conduit and often *actively assist* the lie-stream),

    We know what academia wants: To continue in their cushy 'ivory-towers,' divorced from reality, whereby the lawyers ignore the laws being broken, the psychologists help prepare the intelligence-insulting propaganda, the economists maintaining their erring-ideology voodoo economics = neoliberalism, etc.,

    We know what the churches want: "At the Vatican on Sunday, Pope Francis condemned the use of chemical weapons and announced that he would lead a worldwide day of fasting and prayer for peace next Saturday, 7 September",

    Comment on the Pope: The churches are 'custodians' of the number-one law of society, namely "Thou shalt not kill." A few foolish 'believers' fasting will fix SFA = nothing.

    1. The fasting is better than bombing, at least.

      Unfortunately using chemicals like sarin (the same compound supplied to Saddam Hussein by the CIA — and its use against Iranian troops shepherded by the U.S.) — isn't exactly new. Nor is the use of chemical gasses, universally banned in 1925, even in war, as Kerry repeatedly noted, but used on one's own citizens. For example, highly flammable CS gas, banned in war, was used by the U.S. to incinerate the men, women and children in the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. It was also apparently used recently by the California LAPD to burn so-called &quot;rogue cop&quot; Christopher Dorner to death in his cabin.

  4. After choosing the topic for your paper writing, it is necessary that as you begin writing, you begin with the introduction. Indicate that you will be essay services exploring both the advantages and the disadvantages as you try to persuade the reader with your opinion. However you do not need to do a theses paper on this.

  5. Word of love and appreciation and greeting fulfillment and private
    Greeting fill all the meanings of brotherhood and friendship
    Greetings from the Heart to Heart
    Thank you with all my heart
    ????? ????
    and welcom to d great blog for cooking games oko

Comments are closed.