Don’t link to pay sites.
Huh, CM? I clicked Lilburne’s link and – voilà – there was the article. And I can assure you that I’ve never sent so much as a dime in subscription money to them. Whatever goodies the NYT may restrict behind password protection, this article doesn’t seem to be one of them.
Get a load of the war-mongering reader comments for the article.
If you block cookies, they redirect you to the signin page.
those comments are so disturbing. i can’t stand how people salivate over war. the inflationary war machine looks to be reaving up again. they need a healthcare care bill to get the free-riders tagging along.
also Iran has been going along with what has been deemed legal by international standards so this is plain-old U.S. Empire warmongering:
"NEW YORK—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday his country has complied with U.N. rules that require it to inform the world body’s nuclear agency six months before a uranium enrichment facility becomes operational.
The Iranian leader told a news conference that the new facility won’t be operational for 18 months so Iran has not violated any requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“What we did was completely legal, according to the law. We have informed the agency, the agency will come and take a look and produce a report and it’s nothing new,” he said."
But as that article further points out the UN and other countries are saying the ‘burden of proof is on Iran that it is for peace’. Meanwhile how many countries is the U.S. currently invading now?[^o)]
Just like an LRC blogger predicted, Obama moved the missile defense program from Poland and the Czech Republic southward, not as a rapprochement with Russia, but as a preparation for an engineered face-off with Iran.
a person didn’t even have to predict it. Obama said that was his reason to move the missiles. they are not hiding their geo-politics. France is highly involved as they are with the U.S. in Somalia. the U.S. is also trying to get a missile defense shield into Turkey, and is locating navy ships with missiles on them close to the region. there was lot more discussed in that linked thread on this subject too
Iran is quite ingenious. We have to give them some credit a couple years ago, for setting up presstv.ir and establishing their own international news bureau online. If an attack comes, the west won’t be able to filter the news the way they have in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They know they cannot compete militarily, but they can compete in a manner that is even more damaging to these western militarist regimes. The uncontrolled dissemination of information and disinformation.
that’s true. and the presstv of Iran is somewhat popular in the west. I know free-marketers go on that channel. this actually goes for Russia tv too. it’s slipped my mind on what the name of that channel is.
If an attack comes, the battle for peace will have been lost already, and having one more alternative, and unfiltered, source of battle reports will be very small consolation, indeed.
I’m not at all savvy about such things, liberty student. Can you say how much traffic these sites are getting? And how much of it is from the States and the Imperial satrapies? (That is, where a dose of news to counterbalance regime propaganda and stenographer journalism might actually do some good.)
Look, back in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, information to debunk or at least rationally question the US administration’s case for war was available, if a chap went out of his way to dig it up. But pro-war tub-thumping was near enough ubiquitous in mainstream news outlets to fairly well drown out the skeptical case. Am I wrong to believe that I’m witnessing a replay now? Are a couple of Iranian websites actually making, or going to make, a practical difference in the run-up to the Iran War?
You might be thinking about Russia Today.
Same question as for liberty student: do we know how much traffic is hitting the site? As I say, I’m not very savvy about such matters.
Well, if you could still find a phone booth in the age of cell phones, we “free-marketers” would fit into it. And not make any more difference than we did in the run-up to the Iraq fiasco, I should think.
yeah. that’s it. thanks.
i don’t know. i see it quite often though here and there posted on differing websites showing the latest interview from differing free marketers.
i should have looked down in the thread further before responding. What happened in Jan. at presstv I wonder.
Thanks, that’s very pretty. So presstv.com, presstv.ir, and mises.org are ball-park getting roughly the same traffic. As an experiment, I added nytimes.com, the premier Establishment paper’s website, and prime retailer of stenographic, pro-regime journalism, to the search. NYT’s traffic absolutely dwarfs the traffic of the other sites. I mean, it looks like their three trend lines collapse into the x axis when I do this. Many thanks, nirgrahamUK, question answered.
One thing. I was horrible at maths in my school days, but isn’t a graph with the y axis labeled “Daily Unique Visitors” pretty well useless unless some numbers are attached to the axis? How the devil do you actually access the number of unique visitors represented by any point on those Google Trends graphs?
Edit: Answering my own stupid question. Ah, there’s a “Help” link on the Google Trends page. A bloke has to sign in to his Google Account to actually get numbers on the graph. This looks useful enough that I might actually get a Google Account just so I can get Google Trends numbers. nirgrahamUK, I owe you a pint for putting me on to this.
Look at it this way. How much traffic did the #1 Michael Jackson fan site get the month before he died? How much traffic did it get the day after he died?
There are a lot of differences now. One, it’s not claimed that America is being threatened, but Israel. Two, Iran has had time to extend diplomatic relations to other countries, and is very important to the political sphere in Iraq. And three, the western warmaking regimes have never been at such a low in support and credibility. No one trusts anyone else, most certainly the domestic media has never been so widely mistrusted.
if you remember the first gulf war, the ability of CNN to shape the conflict, as the first cable news network, was tremendous. And then there was that bogus story about the babies left to die outside their incubators (or something like that) which was all a PR fiction, but inspired an emotional response that rallied support to the war.
Now imagine if someone in Iran, should it be attacked, was able to broadcast pictures of the wounded and dead 24/7. That’s huge. People accept war, as long as they don’t have to look at the bodies. As soon as it effects them personally, that’s when their resolve weakens.
Presstv.ir might be the only reason Iran hasn’t been attacked yet.
Does anyone remember the undersea data cables being cut last year?