lying propaganda ~ broadcast as 'news' = crime against humanity[1]

.. normal sheople ...

  .. object to lies ...

    .. lies = deceit
 
[update 21:57, update 5May'11, update 14:11.]

Preamble: In any group of more than 1, some 'binary-split' may always be made; here, if you 'believe' in the US-regime, may I bid you "G'day?" Recall that 'believing' is what people do in the utter absence of evidence AND/OR in the face of lies.

Thesis/Subtitle: Ern used to say caveat emptor (n. principle that the buyer alone is responsible if dissatisfied), one interpretation of which being: "Don't let them fool you!" (Q: But why should anyone attempt to fool another? A: Good question and answer obvious, see next.)

My corollary: IF you get deceived THEN sorry, you are OR soon will be, a loser.

Worse: Voters deceived on some theme *cannot* make rational decisions on that theme, and perhaps not on other themes also (by association), i.e. who would ever consciously choose to vote for a liar?

2nd corollary: A deliberate deception is by definition dishonest; it means that the 'target' is intended to lose something - and here we're talking about the target's life; no more serious loss is possible.

Worst: IF kill AND deception THEN those killers are murderers.

-=*=-

Monday's NYT headline: Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says

Today's NYT Headline: New U.S. Account Says Bin Laden Was Unarmed During Raid

Me: 'Interesting' language; consider "Says" as alleges, and "Account" as a narrative, aka something not *known* to be true = suspicious; see following.

Worse: "New U.S. Account" means that there are at least *two* 'accounts,' i.e. different = at least one of which is a *lying* account. Basically, we could stop here and say QED, but it's not enough - we need more detail, so let's see ...

-=*=-

Attempting time order:

1. «"Last week [it was] determined we had enough information to attack the compound," he [Obama] said.
"Today at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan.
"A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."» 
[AusBC/2May'11]

Comment 1: The order came from 'the top.'

(Comment 2: More comment later.)

2. «Mr Panetta also said killing bin Laden was the operation's goal.
"The authorities we have on bin Laden are to kill him and that was made clear," he said.» 
[AusBC/4May'11]

Comment : The order was only to kill.

3. «Bin Laden was Given Chance to Surrender» 
[spiegel.de/international,2011/05/02]

Comment: Extremely curious; see next.

4. «"But it was also as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity obviously to capture him, but that opportunity never developed."» 
[AusBC/4May'11, ibid.]

Comment: This is called 'blaming the victim,' but it hardly helps #3 = spiegel. Now, backing up a bit ...

5. «"One woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant. Two other women were injured," the official added.» 
[AusBC/2May'11, ibid.]

Comment: This quickly morphed into "Bin Laden used wife as human shield" as in my update of 3May'11, then see next.

6. «But the story of what those teams did and what they found has changed.
The White House has now revealed that bin Laden was unarmed, but spokesman Jay Carney says the US forces met resistance throughout.
Counter-terrorism chief John Brennan had said bin Laden's wife was used as a human shield.
But Mr Carney offered these details today:
"In the room with bin Laden, a woman, bin Laden's - a woman rather, bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed," he said.» 
[AusBC/4May'11, ibid.]

Comment: Two conflicting stories cannot both be true (shield/not shield); at least one must be a lie. These are all 'officials' talking/reporting; stories do not change (of their own accord) but *are changed* - by some person, here *senior* officials named Brennan & Carney. Q1: Couldn't they at least agree? Q2: Why not? A: Because they're making it up as they go along, perhaps?

7. «In addition to the bin Laden family, two other families resided in the compound: one on the first floor of the bin Laden building and another in a second building.
"Of the 22 or so people in the room, 17 or so of them were non-combatants," Mr Carney said.
"On the first floor of bin Laden's building, two Al Qaeda couriers were killed along with a woman who was killed in crossfire," Mr Carney said.
"Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that bin Laden would oppose the capture operation and indeed he resisted."» 
[AusBC/4May'11]

Comment: I wonder how he "resisted," being unarmed?

8. «Mr Carney says the elite Navy SEALs came in on two helicopters.
"The team methodically cleared the compound moving from room to room in an operation lasting nearly 40 minutes," he said.» 
[AusBC/4May'11, ibid.]

Comment: Now we know a bit more about how many helis (presuming the back-up one (now heli-count up to three) - the 3rd was essentially empty; weight/fuel/range problems), but note: There is nothing 'élite' about cold-blooded killing of unarmed *non-combatants*, actually so-defined by being unarmed. [pause - for reflection?]

Again, backing up a bit ...

9. «Osama bin Laden did not die with the anonymity of an unmanned drone missile strike. What they did was in a night-time airborne assault, they left American bases in war-torn Afghanistan, choppered over the worst of the worst of Pakistan's badlands, where Al Qaeda and the various Taliban exist and then went deep, striking into the heart of Pakistani sovereign territory; putting boots on the ground for the first time, at least publicly acknowledged, since these wars began, stormed in and took him down with kill shots to the head.» 
[a blog comment somewhere; my assessment = war porn]

Comment 1: (Repeating); note that forces crossing a border in-bound to attack and kill is the exact definition of an aggressive invasion.

Comment 2: We could have a pointless discussion here, on "Law and Order," I'll leave that to others. Q: Why 'pointless?' A: Because the crooks have a very large 'most' of the guns.

10. «The Pakistani foreign ministry has released a statement categorically denying that it had any knowledge of the operation against bin Laden and condemning what it calls the unauthorised unilateral action.» 
[AusBC/4May'11]

Comment: The 1st US claims were that Pakistan was informed (implication = beforehand, what else?) then the 2nd version that Pakistan was informed, but only *after* the US helis had left their = Pakistani 'sovereign' territory, and there were some 'bids' by the Pakistanis, claiming 'joint operation' or some-such. Who cares if *they* lie; it's only their country - i.e. not ours, where 'ours' = 'the West.' Additionally, of course and by definition, they are 'people not like us' = obviously inferior. Ooops!

11. "Waterboarding helped find bin Laden:" «Mr Panetta credited the torture technique with helping finding the Al Qaeda mastermind.
CIA director Leon Panetta has spoken for the first time about the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, confirming some of the intelligence leading up to it came from detainees who had been waterboarded.» 
[AusBC/4May'11]

Comment 1: They have to say that, but I already gazumped them on Monday with my "Gitmo" reference.

Comment 2: Most of the Gitmo 'detainees' have been there a looong time (never charged), and (from recall) torture was stopped late in GWBush's time = pre-'09, so whatever they could get using torture would also be a bit old (and stale?) Hmmm.

-=*=-

Fazit: One side of this 'discussion' (another binary-split) are fools - and it's guaranteed not *my* side. The 'fools' side = 'deliberate' liars = criminals OR 'accidental' liars = incompetents (you may decide); but that 'fools' side is also the US *regime*, who actually dominate - by murdering force, as we see - they dominate the entire planet. 4th Reich, anyone?

-=*end*=-

PS All wonderful propaganda I'm sure; the US-regime and all their crooked/crony hangers-on are no doubt swooning in (pre-ejaculatory?) pleasure. But what if it's *all* a hoax? Show us *real proof*, i.e. no more Hollywood illusions, say, and certainly leaving off the lies. No valid operation anywhere ever needs the 'cover' of lies = deceit; IF we detect lies THEN we know there's a scam, here criminal murder. [Mini-update:] For 'criminal murder,' some may prefer 'extrajudicial killing and/or summary execution' of an unarmed and uncharged suspect.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] humanity n. (pl. -ies) 1 a the human race. b human beings collectively. c being human. 2 humaneness, benevolence. [POD]

[2] lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. [ibid.]

[3] deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [ibid.] 

-=*=-
 
Update, begun 20:51, ready 21:57;

1. The 'news' gatekeepers, aka the corrupt & venal MSM, including taxpayer-funded 'national' broadcasters, keep *insisting* = repeating (*exactly* à la "the Big Lie"), that Osama was 'responsible' for 9/11.

(What is undeniable, based on 'best' = here video = TV evidence, is that some sort of aircraft impacted the 'twin towers,' *something* remarkably large-aircraft-parts-free 'struck' the Pentagon, and that *something* dug a large, remarkably debris-free hole in the ground somewhere. The pilots - or 'hijackers,' if different - *may* have had *something* to do with Osama; but for which there is *no* proof = see #4.)

2. That Osama was 'responsible' for 9/11 = WTC tower-collapses is *not* true, because it *cannot* be true; jet-fuel simply does not burn anywhere-near hot enough to melt steel (or even 'soften' it), let alone cause *three* steel-reinforced concrete towers to collapse Oh, so nice&neat = symmetrically into their own 'footprints.' It's a physical impossibility (to happen due to aircraft collisions) - and one tower = WTC7 was not even 'struck' at all - yet it too went down like a 'controlled demolition' - but not just 'like,' it surely = 100% was.

3. That (#2) being so, *someone* pre-loaded the *3* towers with literally truck-loads of high-explosives, plus the required, coordinated & remote-controlled mini-delay detonator system, and that someone a) was not Osama&Co, because b) the CIA, whose job it is to know such things, *must* have known all about it. (Imagine, if you will: *truck-loads* of explosives turning up, at a location already once attacked - by truck-borne explosives?) The only other possible alternative here, is that the CIA budget (~$40bio at that time, now ~$60bio), bought the US *abso-bloody-lutely* nothing. You choose (balance of probabilities).

4. "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11".
[Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit, 2006].

(Note that Hollywood makes a 'killing' (= big $s) out of 'faking' videos. Haw.)

Comment: See my preamble; you may 'believe' the US-regime, or put your trust in facts/physics; again your choice.

5. As a 'stunt,' the snuff-Osama-gambit is a bust - Oh! Only as usual and always, IMHO!

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update, 5May'11;

Oh no! The video feed to Obama's sitroom broke down (= dark/blank screens, no audio) - just at the critical moment! Namely a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes (URL via Lataan), when they "really didn't know just exactly what was going on."

Comment 1: Recall that we just don't 'do' coincidences. Keep in mind that the 'target' was supposedly the world's #1 terrorist (actually, organiser - perhaps (innocent until proven guilty)); the equipment the (marauding? and/or berserk?) attackers had = the best the US could possibly field, etc.. But too bad, seems they all missed the 'best' bits. Silly me, this could explain the contradictory stories, or some of them anyway, but we can all trust Uncle Sam&Co to muddle through somehow? As combined judge, jury and executioners, they quite literally have no peer.

Comment 2: For any who can't quite 'believe' the sometimes utterly contradictory 'narrative,' these two: 1) you clearly entertain "conspiracy theories that claim America faked bin Laden's death," and 2) as such a conspiracist, you will probably say that the contradictions are deliberately being deployed just to rev your sort up. Contradictions like, not knowing to the split-second, how long the screens went blank for? Or whether the 'target' they 'believed' was Osama was armed or not (A: Not), whether the woman/wife was used as a shield or not (A: Not), and how such an unarmed 'target' could possibly resist head-to-foot heavily armour-clad, spotlight equipped, VERY NOISY (2 or 3 helis hovering, multiple explosions in the middle of a pitch-black no-moonlight night, lots of yelling "Go! Go! Go!") intruders, possibly doped up on amphetamines = ultra-aggressive home-invaders? Did anyone mention also border-hopping sovereignty-violating = Nuremberg-class attackers?

Comment 3: Although the 'human shield' story has been totally debunked by the very same 'officials' who initially deployed it, the r-whinger bigots are still and will keep on repeating it ad nauseam and for ever, same as is done by the corrupt & venal MSM incl. the AusBC with the entire Osama al-Qaeda 9/11 Saddam *myth*. Of course, just as we just don't 'do' coincidences, the r-whinger bigots never 'do' conspiracy theories either - instead, they prefer to rely on the simple = easy on their over-stressed neurones = the Big Lie [ibid.] technique.

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update 14:11;

It gets even worse. Now ObL "Shot dead 'with money sewn into his clothes': Bin Laden was captured alive and then executed, 'claims daughter, 12'", URL via antiwar. It's enough; *one* lie (deliberate = criminal, 'accidental' = culpable) - is enough to destroy all credibility; we're being inundated with lies each filthier than the other. We have direct opposites; armed/not armed, shield/not shield. One story says there were *no* shots fired from the 'luxury villa,' another says the place was a non-air-conditioned dump. It is now *admitted* by US officials, that only one person fired at the invaders, that from an adjoining building, and *no* arms were found in ObL's house at all. So much for their vaunted 'firefight' (shitty language anyway), so much for "extraordinary courage and capability." It's more usually considered an act of extreme cowardice, to deliberately kill an unarmed person. Then, if the confusion were deliberate, it couldn't be more complete; I assume deliberate - after all, these are the so-called 'world leaders,' who, one presumes, never say anything that they don't mean to say, even if that's lies, and as we saw with Iraq, they will tell the worst lies - on the simple grounds that those prepared to mass-murder to steal think lying is actually part of the job; for *cast-iron proof* of this one can't go past the Zs, whose lying is *policy*.

Sooo, with multiple contradictions, I posit that we cannot know Arthur from Martha; it's now a matter of belief only (recall that belief is done by people in the utter absence of evidence) = faith. Oh; we could look at 'form' = looong history of lying, cheating and murdering to thieve. Yeah, that's it; AIMs4S[*] = way to go.

*Obama's* motto: May the farce be with you!

*[mini-update:] alien invader-murderers for spoil = AIMs4S.

[«back»]