.. fool me once ...
.. shame on you ...
.. but fool the voters, over and over?
GWBush: "They hate us for our freedoms!"
Me: Err, what freedoms does he mean, exactly?
One absolutely vital freedom is to have some influence on your future, where 'some' is defined under an "of, by, for the people" democratic system as 'implementing the will of the majority whilst protecting any minorities.'
Q: How are we doing?
[update, 17:51, update, 27May'11, update, 13:11.]
Abbott warns manufacturers of carbon tax 'death'
Posted May 26, 2011 06:51:00
«Mr Abbott says he is confident there will be a manufacturing industry in the future because he does not believe there will be a carbon tax.»
Comment: "Read my lips; no new taxes!"
German Voters and the Virus of the Right
By Jakob Augstein
«The FDP is now preparing for life without Guido Westerwelle, the current foreign minister who recently resigned as vice-chancellor in Merkel's cabinet and leader of the Free Democrats. The party needs a new identity; but it must beware of right-wing sentiment left over from its recent transformation from a classic European liberal party to a neo-liberal self-service shop.»
Comment 1: A good question is what's behind this (sinister) drift to the so-called 'right?' One *big* thing is migration; people with some drive, living 'on the margins' somewhere, typically '3rd world,' will tend to go to where they think life might be better. Naturally, that 'impacts' the 'up-level' locals, since people starting from 'a low base' will work for less, taking job opportunities from those locals. An electorate in turmoil is an easier electorate to fool? What's never mentioned is that IF we're *forced* to have so-called 'free' markets, whereby jobs and production are 'off-shored,' THEN we must also have free migration, and this migration should *not* be a) seen as a threat by the locals, nor b) exploited by cynical, mostly r-wing politicians. In short, it should be a non-topic; "Suck it up!" - OR, if it is to be a topic, as in Aus, we should a) ban *all* immigration (equality before the 'law,') and b) could advocate machine-gunning the 'illegal immigrant' boats.
(We will decide ...)
- 353 died.
Comment 2: It could be, that the German voters who took the FDP 'tax-cuts' bait have woken up to neo-liberalism and are now widely rejecting the FDP. If so, it's a *great* sign; pity Aus voters are apparently not so clever.
Carbon tax needs to leave out fuel: Oakeshott
By Jeremy Thompson
Updated May 18, 2011 11:41:00
«Independent MP Rob Oakeshott says including petrol in the carbon tax would be unfair for rural Australia.»
Comment 1: No further comment on Oakeshott's idiocy.
Comment 2: IF a carbon tax AND valid price-signals are desired (Q: What else?) THEN it must be uniformly applied across the economy, people (and world); one of the gravest failures of 'modern-day economics' is to ignore so-called 'externalities,' especially (or even only) when such externalities can be dumped somewhere, usually 'the commons' - at no immediate cost to the polluters. A carbon tax will only work to reduce CO2 pollution when the price of polluting gets high enough to a) be painful, causing b) a *significant* reduction, hopefully c) saving our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere.
General comment 1: That the so-called 'debate' is so poor, indicates one of two things, 1) they are not serious about CO2 reductions = save the planet, or 2) they are incompetent. In any case, a poor/incompetent debate dumbs the voters down; even if we the sheople had an effective choice (we don't; effectively Lib = Lab and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic) - IF dumbed down (and lied to!) THEN no informed vote possible. Then, when elected, our so-called representatives may do what they want without further consultation. Sooo, where're our votes? Where's our freedom to decide our future?
General comment 2: That the same debate is occurring world-wide, with the same non-result, indicates a) a wide-spread malaise and b) collusion; our so-called 'rulers' are flying in close formation - better thought of as lemmings leading the pack over the (excess CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe) cliff.
Fazit: That the politicians almost everywhere are a) running the same foul, non-representative 'game' means that b) they are we the sheople's *enemy*.
 "There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me-- you can't get fooled again."
President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Comment: "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity"--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Update, 17:51; PS I got an offline question: "What would I do?" - and a 'tip' about a new Whitney.
Looking to my headline, the (neo-liberal) tax-cuts benefit mostly the already (obscenely) rich, and the service-cuts affect the country in general (rotting infrastructure not maintained/restored, say), and any dependent on welfare = the poorer in particular. There is a lag, it's easy to cut taxes but hard to reduce spending, so deficits quickly result. Along with welfare, deficits are a neoliberal sin, and so we come to the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain.) All are in deficit, all now have huge state-debts. Back to Whitney.
ICH has our 'tip' Whitney here, globalresearch has a later one here, similar themes; Greece & what the EU and IMF are planning.
Some things may be said:
1. Whitney reported/forecast an Iran switch to EUROs for oil, and an Iran oil exchange. Whether the failure to get either going was his or Iran's fault doesn't matter (much), but over the years Whitney has made a great deal of fuss and little if anything he forecast ever happened. Having said that, it *does not mean* that we don't read him, just 'with a pinch of salt.' It's still thnx for the tip.
2. However we can 'slight' Whitney for *2* other reasons:
2a) He tries to argue *within* the pushed-propaganda paradigm = PPP = lie-cloud, and
2b) His suggestions are of a sensible and/or Keynesian nature, not wanted by the world's tyrant, neo-liberal, rip-off rulers.
Others fall for (2a), like Chomsky & 9/11, say. It works like this: IF anyone tries to contradict even a minor part of the PPP THEN s/he is immediately 1) reprimanded with a mallet, and then 2) expelled from 'polite society.' Proof = best recent example; Obama: "... anyone who would question that ... needs to have their head examined."
The problem for the PPP is that it's partly (self-serving) lies, partly pure fantasy - but approaching 100% divorced from reality *and*, therefore, all logic. Another quote: "You're either with us or against us!" Another thing about the PPP is that it is arranged around 'narratives;' these serve two purposes, 1) it keeps the lies all 'flying' in a coordinated fashion, thus reducing the chance of contradictions, and 2) it sets out their agendas, like 'neo-liberalism is good for you!' and 'bringing democracy to ignorant savages!' In this way they are 'creating their own reality.' (Sadly, to the world's people's cost.)
Looking at (2b), we assume Merkel&Co plus Lagarde are not idiots, but *are* quisling US-bots. They will have certain latitudes within their own countries, but will be fenced with US 'red lines' in all cases.
Neo-liberalism started out under a different name = 'economic rationalism' (ER) and has been embraced (more or less) by both 'sides' = Lib & Lab, but bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic *because* it offers the voter *no* choice. ER itself was pushed, say, by Thatcher crying "TINA!" = 'There Is No Alternative!' But the results, perhaps not immediately obvious, always obscured by the lying-PPP smoke-screen, are now more and more out in the open, still lied&denied but *are* awful (as we and others predicted; you and I discussed many such dirty-deeds as they were revealed/underway). Yet the ER = neo-liberal, rip-off *shit* 'conditionalities' are being pushed onto the PIIGS in broad daylight. You work it out; all documented in Perkins' "Hit Man."
Back to Merkel&Co not being idiots, they are unlikely to actually 'crash the system' - since that would get the German voters terminally pissed off. I think that they'll take it so far (see next) then back off a bit. Nevertheless, the end result will still be ruined PIIGS, but on some sort of draconian 'life support.' Like a 'service economy' = slaves = serfs, lots of hair-dressers, hamburger-flippers, house-cleaners, gardeners (for the rich estates) - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward. Bastard.
What I keep hearing is "privatisation," hot on the heels of "austerity," both are neo-liberal keys. The 'drivers' of all this have their plans, quite possibly in 'exquisite' detail; the visible effects, everywhere you look, are a) rich getting obscenely richer, b) the rest abandoned to ever reducing 'terms and conditions.' Clearly, when most people are bankrupted down to the level of the simplest subsistence - even starving to death ('proof of concept' trial under way in Gaza) - they will have no more to be ripped off. At that point, the rich will own almost everything - to what imaginable purpose? They cannot drive more than one Porsche or Ferrari at any one time, and attempting to eat a metric tonne of oysters followed by the same of hot buttered lobster-tails a day ain't too flash on the digestion, not to mention the ½tonne of sweet-and-sour pickled/candied humming-bird tongues for desert. But nevertheless, grabbing *THE LOT* seems to be the plot.
It gets worse, because the same tyrants are actively mass-murdering for spoil; Zs soil & US oil.
Back once more to Whitney, arguing *within* the pushed-propaganda paradigm. He seems not to 'get it' - that our tyrant-rulers are doing what they are *deliberately,* with 'perfect' planning and dedicated, utterly *evil* intent. That the doing includes mass-murder (after Afgh, Iraq & Pak, Libya now under way, next?) means wide-spread *psychopathy*. As it was said of Bush, he may have sounded absolutely idiot-crazy but he (or his puppet-string pullers) actually achieved a lot - like the complete destruction of Iraq (100s of 1000s if not 1.4mio+ dead (ICH = "1,455,590")), followed by *full privatisation* - see? Obama is moving to the next 'level,' assuming that the sheople swallowed all the lies to date; the 'excuses' are getting weaker. The killing-to-steal is accelerating on the one hand, while the 'serfing' of the sheople proceeds on the other, and all the while, the obscenely rich fat-cats get ever more obscene.
Q: What would I suggest?
A: Create a proper, progressive tax structure; get those to pay who can *best* pay. Simpler - or better is not to be found.
Update, 27May'11; PPS Looking for help in all the wrong places ...
.. I theorise but cannot prove (not a mind-reader), that everyone tries to "Do their best!"
I certainly expect you (hypothetical reader) to be one such 'everyone;' I don't have to offer you any 'benefit of the doubt.'
Similarly certainly with "we ... hold and spend currency and we also have savings (pension-plan)" in the real world; what else?
That is 'the real world' = so-called pragmatism; IF all was ok THEN we could have a relax.
IF I'm allowed a 'but' (or three), THEN these:
Preamble; but #1: We agree that things aren't all OK, so we can't have the relax; we *theorise* what might be. To be practical - again pragmatic - what we might offer, a) obviously has to work AND b) have some chance of 'getting up.' My opinion is that things have gone so inflexibly bad that even considering 'glass half full' (= Obama not sooo bad, say) just doesn't, *can't* help.
2. Whitney proposed fixes in the globalresearch article, which I commented on as I read the article, see below.
3. Obama is a "lesser of two evils" choice, a) any selection from a pool of evils is *still evil* and b) that evil is *putrid*, notwithstanding any cited items of 'progress.'
3a. The Egyptian 'revolution' is struggling against 'the accumulated evil' of decades of US-sponsored tyrant-dictatorship and may - repeat may - and *despite* Obama, get some success, but Obama&Co will throw *anyone* under a bus to prevent *any* country making itself independent of the vile US empire. Just remember that it is the (US-supported) miliary currently running the Egyptian show; if throwing a few crumbs (Mubarak = 80+ and just about finished anyway) to the sheople keeps Egypt on the US-line, the 'price is worth it.' Recall that Obama (Libya) = Bush (Iraq) = mass-murder for spoil. All their ducks in a single row.
3b. As for the Israel pre-'67-war border thing, we already have Netanyahu's response which was "Get lost!" - to multiple standing ovations from the US congress = cowardly quisling traitors. So the Obama gambit is 99% BS = all show and no go (for which he has 'form'), what one would actually expect from this so-called 'peace-process' = anything but. This Oh, so cynically so-termed 'peace-process,' also by AusBC = 63+ bloody years long and nothing to show for it but Israeli 'borders' expanding ever outwards, more cynically so-called 'facts on the ground.' As well as the single-digit salute, Netanyahu also totally gave the game away: Pre-'67-war borders would be "indefensible." Q: IF you made peace = end to war, THEN why would you need to 'defend' anything from your now peaceful neighbours?
A different perspective; Q: IF you had been 'ethnically cleansed by genocidal attacks' = Nakba = Deir Yassin-type attacks = booted out of your house & land at the point of a gun (assuming you'd survived the Zionist mass-murdering terrorist attacks), banished to living crammed into non-coveted land = effectively naked, sterile sand, THEN could you ever 'forgive & forget?'
Everyone 'does their best' (even criminals, but their aims are - well, criminal, so best = worst = 1984), and tries to 'enjoy every minute;' even me. But I can't ignore the realities - which are truly awful. Yes, Obama/Gillard may be preferable to some Repug/Lib - but given the way things are, it's not a matter of IF but only WHEN the badness is overwhelmingly thrust upon us. We see that trying to work *within* the system (Bob Brown, say) brings nothing at all significant. It's *the system* itself that has to go, not farting around within it. Because, quite frankly, the baddies look to have the current system sewn up. A final quote:
"First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs."
Comment: "IMF" says it all = the full neo-liberal rape. A final nail: On the radio this morning, a grim word for post-Mladic Serbia: "Privatise!" No let-up, no escape, nowhere, nohow.
Any not seeing where the wind is blowing "... needs to have their head examined."
Q: Where are those who could save our planet?
 Whitney proposed fixes, my comments:
1--The EU needs to show that it's taking steps to become a viable political union with supra-national fiscal policymaking authority.
[me: not what neo-liberals want]
2--The ECB needs to be willing to spend whatever is needed to avert another meltdown.
[me: not what neo-liberals will allow]
3--Policies should be put in place for the orderly withdrawal of countries that don't fit within the EU's economic schema.
[me: = removing the EU's raison d'être?]
4--Regulations on shadow banking, derivatives, and repo transactions should be drawn up to avoid another market crash.
[me: no; neo-liberals 'believe' in status quo]
5--The EU should develop a strategy for providing long-term fiscal stimulus throughout the eurozone until unemployment falls, aggregate demand picks up, and household balance sheets show signs of improvement.
[me: Keynes = 'opposite' to neo-liberalism; despised & forbidden = never, no more (unless, of course, to rescue some big-$ mates ...)]
Update, 13:11; PPPS (and last.)
To call a spade a bloody shovel, one should never underestimate the shittiness of the situation, nor the evil = utmost wickedness of the criminal perpetrators in power (lies, cheating, theft & *mass-murder*; ho hum, just another day at the office.) As throwing Mubarak to the wolves clearly demonstrates, *no-one* is safe, not even faithful, long-serving, old men. It's not just the fear-factor, it's the vilest of terror, and it 'sends a message' to all the other quisling/collaborators: "IF stuff-up THEN watch out!" Gives a whole new perspective to "hire & fire;" perhaps 'play with predators, be prepared to pray?' Haw. To end:
Oderint dum metuant
To which the only possible rejoinder is:
Carthago delenda est (figuratively only, understand?)
.. fool me once ...
.. ice ...
.. melting ...
.. arctic multiplier
As everyone with a beer-Esky knows, as long as there's still a bit of ice in it, the beer stays deliciously cool.
Once the ice goes, the beer starts to warm - it's the law! (2nd, thermodynamics; entropy tends to the max. = heat flows from hotter to cooler.) It helps to keep the Esky in the shade; that may slow the warming - but can't stop it.
The *rate* of warming of the ice-free beer is dependent on the temperature difference between outside of the Esky and its inside (and how good the insulation is), but generally, the higher the temperature difference, the faster the warming - which happens a) in high-summer and b) just after the last of the ice melts.
Our once jewel-like planet is warmed by the Sun; the surface is heated during the day, and cools a bit at night - because some heat radiates away into space (*very* cold out there), and the *rate* of heat-flow is dependent on the temperature difference, exactly as in the Esky example. (Same thermodynamics laws, just a slight difference in scale.)
CO2 is a so-called 'green-house' gas; it acts like the Esky insulation, slowing the cooling of the surface out to space.
The warming of the surface by the Sun is different when the Sun is high above, compared to when it's lower - this gives us the summer/winter variation in daily maximum temperatures.
This difference also explains the temperature difference between the tropics (higher sun-angles) and the poles (lower sun-angles), and that difference in turn drives our major weather systems. There is a net flow of heat from the tropics where the highest rate of warming takes place (insolation), towards the poles, where the highest rate of cooling takes place. Previously, it cooled enough to form the more or less permanent Arctic sea ice-cover.
Increasing the CO2 content of the air increases the green-house effect, *more* heat is retained locally = temperatures increase, and that in turn increases the pole-wards flow - basically, giving us more, and more energetic weather (like storms, say). More heat moving = impact on previous, steady-state balance.
The extra pole-ward heat flow starts melting the ice, but the poles stay approximately the same degree of cool - until the last ice melts.
The low sun-angle at the poles, coupled with the Arctic sea ice-cover (reflects sunlight very well) was a steady = equilibrium state.
Now that increasingly more of the Arctic sea-ice is melting in the northern summer, the sunlight that used to reflect away is being absorbed into the now open arctic water - forming a positive feed-back = warming loop...
The scientists *know* about all the above - it's *exactly* their business to so know. Yet the so-called 'climate-change sceptics' - like Abbott - keep yammering = blocking any effective, corrective action - why? ("Abbott one day questions the science and the next declares that man made climate change is a reality.") What's in it for Abbott? Exactly how will he - let alone we, the sheople - benefit from an excess-CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe?
Time running out for climate action: report
By environment reporter Sarah Clarke, wires
Updated May 23, 2011 09:31:00
«The report warns global warming could cause global sea levels to rise up to one metre by the end of the century. (Reuters/University of Colorado: Konrad Steffen)»
Fazit: With the ice gone, the beer starts to warm up... fastest.
drafting - under review
Obama: «... the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.»
1. "taking bin Laden out[*]" was murder (intentional unlawful killing of a human being by another [POD]); alternates = extrajudicial killing, assassination, summary execution = lynching of an uncharged (and unarmed) *suspect*.
*[mini update, 18:19]
2. "Justice was done" is wrong; justice = warrant obtained, arrested, charged, tried before an impartial jury who may convict and only then sentenced. The US attacked in the middle of the pitch-black moonless night, dropping out of the sky in stealth helicopters, guns blazing, blowing holes in walls, kicking down doors to shoot five people dead, only one of whom may have been armed, and he plus also alleged 'crossfire' killed female companion in an entirely separate building. Two bodies were then flown 1000+km and dumped into the Arabian Sea.
3. "the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil" is wrong; the FBI admitted there was no 'presentable' evidence - if any at all, IMHO *none* - involving ObL. Whereas *some sort* of aircraft crashed, ObL&Co could *not* have pre-loaded *3* WTC towers with high-explosives + coordinated detonating systems (unless they had permission, say).
4. "needs to have their head examined" is the standard threat and warning: Any who dissent from the US-regime's 'narrative' are branded conspiracists & are ignored and isolated; all pro-wars put coffee-beans into their ears, not listening!
Means, motive, and opportunity [are] the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding; look at where the US/Zs attack. It is 1939, and new 'Polands' are being created; Palestine (from '47/8 continuously to today; Lebensraum = soil), Libya (1986 bombing, oil), Iraq (1991, oil), Afghanistan (2001, pipeline routes), Iraq (2003, oil), Libya (2011 bombing, oil) and ever more likely, Iran (oil) next?
All pro-wars put coffee-beans into their ears, not listening!
The coming catastrophe is that caused by excess-CO2 pollution; growing all the while, unhindered as the criminal US/Z (plus cowardly quisling accomplices UK, F & Aus et al.) regimes play their killing/thieving war 'games' = alien invading murderers for spoil = AIMs4S.
The propaganda campaign is pure 1984, conduited and *actively assisted* by the corrupt & venal MSM, including taxpayer-financed broadcasters like the AusBC.
AusBC censorship of fair comment *proves* that they're in it up to their quivering bottom-lips. [see AusBC unleashed censored inputs]
The 9/11 false-flag black- & psy-op *swindle* = 1939 + 1984 = doomsday, coming to our once jewel-like, life-supporting ecosphere, soonest.
All those who do not resist are almost as equally guilty as the perpetrators, all having no one to blame but themselves.
Mini update, 18:19; PS We do *not* know, who or even *if* anyone was "taken out" in the Abbottabad 'heroic action.' Given that the whole ObL saga was/is based on 9/11, itself of extremely dubious provenance - means that I think the plane-hijacks/crashes was a LIHOP at max, and that the WTC demolitions themselves was a deliberate false-flag, black- & psy-op, so too could the Abbottabad spectacular have been. When we factor in form (plus the faked or true Whitehouse confusion, probably deliberate lies to mislead), it *must* be that Abbottabad was another false-flag, black- & psy-op = stunt. Then recall the Raymond Davis incident.
What *was* killed off = ended, was ObL as an active stage-prop - but that wont spoil their 'fun.'
The 'heroic action' will be trumpeted ad nauseam, as will the putative extra-legal assassination - to show the world *exactly* what villainy they can 'get away with.' It's called rubbing our noses in it, aka gloating.
The US/Z rogue-regimes will continue their murdering to steal.
and when they were bad, they were horrid
[US&Z *rogue* regimes -
propaganda, black- & psy-ops = lies]
.. the 'winning' ...
.. doesn't really end ...
.. until the gloating is done
Subtitle, 1: Out of the mouths of babes - err, crooks.
Subtitle, 2; Q: Who's to blame?
Thesis: Those who murder for spoil have zero qualms about lying; proof = no-one (in their right-mind) admits to crime, so lie the guilty ones must. Lying is per definition done to deceive, and when deceived by politicians, voters may not make properly informed voting decisions at least in the lying context, and not at all if the credibility of the candidate is deemed vital (what else? Vote for a liar?) Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward, we in Aus had the super-cynical mantra "All politicians lie!" imposed upon us - the 'all' may tend to hyperbole, but the particular was repeatedly demonstrated (i.e. the baseless 'Saddam uses people-shredders!' allegation = 'misleading the house' - and with it, the country) - why is it so? No worthwhile project ever requires propaganda-camouflage, yet we are continually being assaulted with lies. The lies are organised around 'narratives,' to keep them on-song and (often imperfectly) non-contradictory, like the lame fog-of-war 'extenuations' recently deployed; the 'lie-cloud' forms the pushed-propaganda paradigm = the perpetrators' own created perversion of reality.
The 'standard' crimes are cheating, theft and murder; lies are both the gateway and a give-away to criminal depredations.
- TOP NEWS -
Israeli Troops Fire as Marchers Breach Borders
«Israel's borders erupted into deadly clashes as thousands of Palestinians marched from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.»
Note the nytimes' language; "Breach," say. It is a 'biased' term with ideological/aggressive 'baggage,' also with its alternates, a more neutral and simpler 'crossed' would work better = be more accurate. But propaganda uses such 'coloured' terms for the desired (usually as here -ve) effects, although the opposite = +ve also occurs; i.e. "Land of the free, home of the brave." Oh, yeah: Free as in free to be denied medical treatment without a credit card, and/or to have their jobs shipped o/s, brave as in shooting unarmed civilians - not 'just' ObL (or ersatz?), but the 100s of 1000s if not millions who have been killed/slaughtered as hapless 'collaterals' resulting from US wars for spoil. Here, the hyped +ves are actually -ves; more lies.
Comment 1: The headline is enough at the moment. 'Normal' people, even if traumatised by 63+ bloody years of murderingly violent dispossession and oppression, are nevertheless assumed to be non-idiotic; any demonstrator carrying anything that even remotely looked like a weapon would be seeking their martyr-hood in a hurry. Ergo, we can assume that the 'invading' Palestinians were unarmed, and were carrying out a peaceful demonstration; perhaps calling out "Return *our* land to us ELO/Os, the erstwhile legal owner/occupiers! - Observe UNGA181 & UNGA194, like you *promised* to, in UNGA273!" Also possibly "All AIMs4S (and descendants) to return to whence they came!"
Comment 2: Some say that Israel sits on stolen land; can we confirm/deny? Generally, land&property are alienable (adj. Law able to be transferred to new ownership [POD]), the 'normal' way is by *voluntary* exchange; $s for soil, say. UNSCR242 includes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Under the principle of "A fair exchange is no robbery," Q: Why are the Palestinians still trying to get their improperly alienated land/property back = revested (reinstate, restore, return)? More: "Revesting and restitution of property on conviction." (Aye, there's the rub: Actually achieving justice.) IMHO, 'confirmed.'
Comment 3: No burglar or violent home-invader may declare him/herself independent of justice; no alien invaders may ethnically cleanse via genocidal attacks - and remain 'legal' - let alone moral. Latest with the vile Deir Yassin massacre and such-like terrorist attacks (similar continuing down to today - or if not exactly today, then some immediate yesterday and tomorrow), the UN should have halted the crime that is the Zionist project (the UN did attempt a recovery with UNGA194, sadly failed = lack of application); *unless* the UN gets serious and stops wars & injustices, THEN it is what it appears to be, namely a total sham and worse, actually in the service of - *rogue* regimes, see the current neo-colonialist, UNSC-sanctioned attacks on Libya. As I wrote on 20Mar'11 in Shockin' Whore Mk2, it's Iraq (murder for oil) all over again, this time in slow-motion (AusBC: "Britain wants NATO to ramp up attacks against Moamar Gaddafi's regime in Libya by attacking electricity grids, roads and even oil supplies.") Me: Gives new meaning to 'revolting.' These *aggressive attackers* are out of all control. Why? Who lets 'em? Not me, matey.
Propaganda is old; a mini-review:
This story may begin with a deployed lie: "Making the world safe for democracy!" This was a 'mantra' used by Wilson during WW1 to 'convince' the US public that joining the war against "the Boche" was a good idea. Water well under the bridge, but the real questions are two: Why did Wilson have to 'sell' the war anyway, with the 2nd, more sinister Q: Why did Wilson himself want war? A: Same-old same-old, see the modern, wicked M/I/C/4-plex; this tiny minority gets *richer*, while lots of the cannon-fodder gets *killed*, not to mention the squillion *innocent* collaterals. The significant thing is that Wilson's "Making the world safe ..." was a trick then, as it still is a trick today; proof = it's still being deployed. But it's not 'merely' a trick; it's also a lie, easily proven: A tricked = deceived electorate cannot vote 'straight' (hence the derived jibe: JWHoward ‘couldn't lie straight in bed.’)
Bernays was fascinated by the Wilson mantra, and even more so because of its effects. He was sooo fascinated that he turned it into a career, morphing 'propaganda' into PR = public relations, because of the extremely negative connotations of propaganda; usually rotten lies. Bernays was successful; perhaps his most infamous stunt was convincing women that they could smoke tobacco & get away with it. Note that a lot of "convince ... get away with" is still going on.
To illustrate some negativity here, consider this:
«In his 1928 book, "Propaganda," he wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."»
Comment: As for an electorate deceived, so for one 'manipulated.' Bernays based his thinking on some of Freud's work, he of the 'un- and sub-conscious.' The theory went that the 'free' masses, with their unconscious drives would (somehow??!) run amok, so the masses could not be allowed to be free, and that meant crippling 'democracies' by the aforesaid manipulations via deceptions = propaganda = lies. A neater, more self-serving policy could hardly be imagined, proof = this one is still 'running,' and how.
«First is simply that this kind of deeper selling to the subconscious can be used in all kinds of ways, not all of them good.
Joseph Goebbels, for instance, would later use another Bernays book, "Crystallizing Public Opinion," to sway desperate Germans toward Hitler's murderous agenda.»
[frugalmarketing/John Forde, ibid.]
Which leads directly to "The Big Lie."
[Pause, for reflection...]
Q: OK, how big?
A "Big Lie" doesn't even have to be prima facie 'believable' - just as long as it has enough 'shock value' to 'flip' the listeners into an *emotional*, outraged state. It's the essence of Freud's 'un- and sub-conscious' but in reverse; recalling that 'belief' is done in the absence of *evidence*, here 'belief' is invoked (via lies) in the absence of *intelligence*, any available intelligence having been *switched-off* (another 'novel' = newly deployed propaganda-construct) - by the emotional shock. Example: Dumping babies out of incubators to steal such incubators away, abandoning the babies to death on a cold, stone floor. The story was 'presented' (= conduited, assisted) by the MSM as 'news' = truth - but was later proven false, demonstrating the 4th Estate's corrupt & venal modus operandi. Example: Saddam's totally non-existent WMDs. Example: Libyan snipers, firing on innocents from roof-tops. Example: Women (wives!) as 'human shields.' Example: IMF chief rapes hotel-maid. Q: Are they mad? A: Yes; those who murder for spoil have zero qualms about lying. And they can do all of these viciously criminal things because they are psychopaths, possibly resulting from faulty socialisation, *OR*: Are they deliberately, malevolently 'produced' by deliberate 'manipulation' of their 'un- and sub-conscious' *immature* minds? Whatever; vile monsters is what they are.
And apart from their murders for spoil (Zs = soil, US = oil), they are killing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, by revving-up CO2 production, instead of going sustainable.
I realised the other day that I keep asking questions like "Why," precisely because we're all being kept mostly in the dark - by being told outright lies, as well as having critical info withheld. Q: Why? A: Beats me (rich getting richer in the face of utter catastrophe tends to 'flip' me into an *emotional*, outraged state) - and that ain't too flash, I'll tell ya - 'for free.'
PS; Q: Who's to blame?
A: All the liars.
The M/I/C/4-plex = Military, Industrial, Congress (US for 'parliament'), the 4th Estate = corrupt & venal MSM + AusBC et al..
The I/J/Z-plex should be self-explanatory; criminal key is Zionism.
The AIMs4S = alien/aggressor invading-murderers for spoil.
The schools producing the psychologists = PR-types.
The schools producing the economists = banksters.
The sheople for their damnable 'incuriosity.'
But not me; I see the evil, and blog it.
It's the best I can do - and you?
 breach -n. 1 (often foll. by of) breaking or non-observation of a law, contract, etc. 2 breaking of relations; quarrel. 3 opening, gap. -v. 1 break through; make a gap in. 2 break (a law, contract, etc.). step into the breach help in a crisis, esp. as a replacement. [Germanic: related to *break] [POD]
 breach verb
1 the river breached its bank
BREAK (THROUGH), burst (through), rupture, force itself through, split; informal bust.
2 the proposed changes breached trade union rules
BREAK, contravene, violate, fail to comply with, infringe, transgress against; defy, disobey, flout, fly in the face of; law infract. [New Oxford Thesaurus]
Israeli Troops Kill Unarmed Palestinian Protestors On Borders
By Patrick O’Connor
Israeli soldiers yesterday killed at least fifteen Palestinians and wounded many more as they suppressed protests held at border posts facing Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza to mark the 63rd anniversary of the founding of the Zionist state
Nakba Sunday At Maroun al Ras
By Franklin Lamb
10 Palestinians were killed by Israeli snipers and more than 120 wounded, some critically. None of the demonstrators had weapons. Those murdered were all civilians from the camps and were shot in cold blood as they nonviolently placed Palestinian flags at the fence and gave the peace and victory sign
Protesters Shot Dead For Shouting:
Nakba Remembrance Day 2011
By Brenda Heard
The Lebanese Army has confirmed that 10 protesters were shot dead and 112 wounded in Lebanon on Nakba Remembrance Day
Israeli Violence Marks Nakba Day
By Stephen Lendman
Israeli viciousness marked Nakba day commemorations, assaulting peaceful demonstrators in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and along the Lebanese/Syrian borders. Mounting deaths, injuries and arrests were reported
The Nakba: What Does It Mean In Human Terms?
By Sonja Karkar
The Nakba is the Palestinian catastrophe. It means upheaval, violence and cataclysmic loss; it describes the terror, which drove almost one million people out of their homeland, as well as the perpetual terror in exile –displaced, dispossessed, stateless, lost and forbidden to return; it remains the multiplying injustice of another people's sin burgeoning in our collective silence
Israel's Attack On Humanitarian Ship To Gaza
By Michel Chossudovsky
The Spirit of Rachel Corrie (officially known as FINCH) carrying a humanitarian cargo to Gaza was attacked by an Israeli naval patrol within the so-called Palestinian Security Zone on May 15, at 10.54pm EDT
Comment: Explain 63+ bloody years of this vs. US/NATO attacking Libya.
NB: "Unarmed Palestinian Protestors ... Israeli snipers."
it *is* simple -
IF lie THEN stupid -
AND it's all downhill from there
[9/11 & US+Z murdering for spoil]
.. one 'proper' lie ...
.. deliberately deployed ...
.. demonstrates the liar's evil intent
[update; 1st & last]
Preamble: I often use single quotes (= '') either to draw attention OR to indicate that my meaning may differ from the definition, as 'proper' above. Here, my intention is to separate lies into at least two types, 1) any so-called 'white-lies' and 2) all definite untruths. Note that *no* lie is harmless, since the intention of all lies is to deceive some 'target' - who (among honest people, aka in their sane minds) needs to be deceived? I have a friend who told me "It is not simple," and he was (and still is) correct; this is one reason why some may demand 'nuanced' arguments. But complexity can be analysed, right down to the yes/no = single-bit level, which is what I try to do. The other 'non-normal' thing here is my deployment of 'stupid;' along with the 'nuance' demand comes so-called 'politeness in debate,' but times have looong been twisted to definitely not just non- but anti-normal, so we can (I will) proceed on the 'spade = shovel' basis.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 9, 2011, at 2:36 PM ET
«The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.»
[slate/via AusBC unleashed]
Comment: No more need be read nor written about the cited article, excepting the inference I draw = both accuser and target are wrong, and more to come on that wrongness.
Lemma: I do not 'believe,' since belief is done by some, all in the absence of evidence. I also don't 'do' coincidences; although some definitely do occur, but when some coincidence happens to augment a crime, I do more than just go 'hmmm,' I say "Red light!" = Warning! We can see what we can see (beware lying camouflage); the rest must be deduced (see infer), we may call upon Sherlock Holmes' 'eliminate the impossible' & Occam's razor (keep it simple!) Apropos debate and see definition of proper; a 'left vs. right' paradigm is often invoked, most often by those assigning themselves to the 'right faction,' who accuse 'the left' of being wrong. IMHO, it is no coincidence that this 'left/right' terminology invokes a biased frame. Shows the deviousness of those r-whingers, yes? That those same r-whingers support the US/Z crimes almost finishes my case = QED; but we need more, specifically to point to a few more ugly, lying = criminal acts. End lemma.
Aside: None of this is 'rocket-science,' but all is needed for this 'ramble.'
Morality; The Age of Reason vs. the Age of Aquarius:
By 'Age of Reason' I don't mean 'Age of Enlightenment;' I'll come to that shortly. All young humans go through a phase of complete trust (in their 'primary carers'), for at least two reasons; a) they lack significant data (need time to learn) and more importantly, b) their brains = minds are still immature. This is 'evolution in action;' a good example is "Don't touch that Redback spider!" or "Do not run across the road!" Penalties for distrusting such 'advice' may be severe; hence the *unconscious* = unconditional trust, and (mostly) obedience. Then the child grows up a bit; they begin to exercise more 'mature' thought-processes, gain some scepticism and start to decide things for themselves. If lied to before this 'Age of Reason,' the ramifications for a child can be severe = shock, loss of trust, possibly deepening into permanent disillusionment. Not 'a good look,' psychopathy may be an extreme result - or a new 'believer' created, if a) the lie is of some supernatural 'narrative' (= proselytizing) and b) the lie is not (immediately) detected. I term this latter 'event' child abuse, here state-sponsored.
The Age of Aquarius (my conviction):
... make a speech to their
teenagers and say kids, be free,
be whatever you are, do whatever you
want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody.
The 'process' of child-rearing is to enable a viable life for the child; that means (earlier) hunting &/ gathering (more modern) 'earning' a living (= jobs, jobs, jobs!) - and interacting successfully with 'fellow' humans. This latter may be termed 'socialisation,' sub-topics morality & legality. Children *should* be taught such things as:
"Don't take!" (i.e. Things not yours!)
Recalling that things are not simple, we know there's more to this topic ...
And remember kids,
I am your friend."
The measure of success will be visible as the child's success itself (or not), and whether parents (= primary carers) achieve and hold 'friend' status. The most important 'non-event' will be not lying to children, ever. And not 'just' not to children.
Morality summary (good): It's easy a) Golden rule = "Do unto others, ..." and corollary b) Do no harm.
Legality follows as a formalisation of good morality, *except* where vested interests pervert the law; only just law may earn respect.
The converse to good morality is bad = immorality, the converse to legality is bad = illegal and/or illegitimate = criminal.
The 'Age of Enlightenment' is where I thought we were heading (but other influences have prevailed):
«The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and even religion, which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason could free humankind from superstition and religious authoritarianism that had brought suffering and death to millions in religious wars. Also, the wide availability of knowledge was made possible through the production of encyclopedias, serving the Enlightenment cause of educating the human race.»
[newworldencyclopedia/Age of Enlightenment]
Comment 1: We've come full-circle, right back to: "Superstition and un- & anti-democratic authoritarianism that have brought suffering and death to millions in resource wars." Now, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the US and Zs, we have the prospect of permanent wars for spoil; the Zs for soil, the US for oil (plus any other resource they think they can rip the economic rent off.)
Q: What went sooo wrong?
Comment 2: For those who would murder to steal, lying is their 'entry,' it's how they all start off, and none ever leave off.
[Sorry (but not too sorry) for the delay; priorities, then 'a little help' from Blogger. Resuming @ 16:51 Fri 13th, with brevity for speed:]
Along with Sherlock (eliminate the impossible) & Occam (no unnecessary complexity), we can add 'proof by result;' we needn't analyse each step but may go by observed end-effects.
Initial position statement:
1, Pro: Truth, justice, fairness; 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité.'
2, Anti: Lies, cheating, theft & murder; war. (Note: Eliminate aggressive attack = no war *possible*.)
3, Essentially, I'm a 'conservative' when it comes to our once jewel-like planet; I'd like to see it stay as undamaged as possible, i.e. *strictly* sustainably 'managed.' The obvious ideal is for as much as possible to remain pristine, as opposed to being ravaged & plundered. I'm a 'liberal' when it comes to people (leave your neighbours in peace!) - and for 'free speech' (say what you please, excepting 'hate-speech' (a Z-speciality)), and 'anti-neo-liberal' when it comes to business/economy; no cheating, no rent-extraction & a 'fair go' = any profit to be well-distributed between capital and labour, and any required 'tax burden' to be similarly well-distributed = progressive. Privatisation of 'the commons' = theft in the main, and rip-off profit seeking in the particular. All normal and common-sense, IMHO, and nothing at all controversial.
1, Excess CO-2 caused climate-change catastrophe.
2, Murder for spoil wars.
3, The iniquitous economic system.
4, The lack of effective countermeasures for (1-3).
5, Corollary, that we are mis- and mal-informed, mis- and mal-ruled (as opposed to 'led') and generally mis- and mal-treated.
Recall that one deliberate lie exposes evil intent; only crooked = 'simple' rip-offs, through to murderingly criminal projects 'require' lies as camouflage. Since I don't 'do' coincidences, I'm assuming 1-5 form a 'cause and effect' relationship.
In reverse order from (5), it's trivial to prove that we are mis- and mal-informed; a definitive proof is given by the AusBC. The perennial 'left-bias' accusation is a r-whinger ploy; the AusBC 'supported' the US(+UK, Aus) Nuremberg-class AIMs4S destruction of Iraq by transmitting *and augmenting* the US 'black' propaganda, as they did vis-à-vis Afghanistan, and do now v-à-v Libya (Iran next?) But if possible worse, the AusBC 'supports' the Zionist AIMs4S massive crimes against the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os, and has done so for longer than I've been paying attention = most of my life. Note here, that there are at least two ways of lying; direct, outright lies and lies-of-omission; the AusBC 'practises' both. Being mis- and mal-informed impairs deliberation = implications for voting.
Similarly, it's trivial to prove that we are mis- and mal-ruled; the bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic, *unforced* application of neo-liberal policies by governments across the so-called 'West' is *demonstrably* not in we, the sheople's interest. Yet they persist, even now in the face of proof-by-result = evil consequences. Together, mis-informed plus mal-ruled = fatally crippled democracies.
The mis- and mal-treatment is obvious to casual inspection; look no further than the growing poverty and pitifully miserable health-outcomes for the less well-off in the US, so-called 'world-leader' - which it is, when it's realised that what they are actually leading in, is evil in multifarious forms. Together, mal-ruled plus mal-treatment = cooperating tyrannies.
As to 4, the lack of effective countermeasures; it should be clear that such are *not* in our criminally evil tyrannies' interest, any/all attempts are aggressively opposed (but they are few, we the sheople are many).
Then 3, the iniquitous economic system *is* in our tyrannies' interest; the fat-cats are getting obscenely fatter.
So 2, Murder for spoil wars = par for the criminal course = making utter mockery of 'free' markets.
It follows that 1, the excess CO-2 caused climate-change catastrophe = the tyrannies' plot.
Not that they cause it; that they do nothing effective to stop it is proof-by-result = evil.
All of the above negativity could be combated by competent leadership, but not only is it not combated, the intention is clearly lacking - the alternative = attempting but failing would be an admission of massive incompetence. That nothing is said (corrupt&venal MSM, AusBC as example); that the so-called 'world-leaders' are not visibly reacting to what is painfully obvious to those of us who wish to see, means that they are proceeding in secrecy = conspiracy (n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [POD].
It only remains to 'guess' at our tyrannies' intentions here; the expected consequence of the CO-2 caused climate-change = massive damage to, if not outright destruction of - our one and only life-support system.
To the guess we all may make, prompted by Q: Which would leave us, we the sheople, exactly where?
[No more to come... see update. Here's something to read anyway.]
PS On 'that wrongness:'
AFAIK, Chomsky has never seriously contested that hijacked, crashing aircraft 'caused' 9/11. IF so THEN that's a *huge* failure = wrong, Chomsky.
Clearly, Hitchens puts *all* the 'blame' on ObL. IF so THEN that's a *huge* failure = wrong, Hitchens.
Yes, IF the videos (squillions!) were not faked (impossible!) THEN aircraft impacted *two* towers, and *something* happened at the Pentagon (insufficient wreckage (like, *no* wings) = *not* a civil airliner), similarly *something* made a large hole in a paddock (little to *no* visible wreckage, so what could it have been?) But the towers did not fall down due to jet-fuel fire; 1) impossible by physics (jet fuel fire temperatures (relatively low) vs. steel-melting temperatures (relatively = impossibly high). 2) The symmetrical, into the footprint collapse = carefully placed explosives and 3) WTC7 (not struck) = all *3* controlled demolitions. One thing ObL&Co *never* would be able to do (without being discovered, or having permission) - would be to have pre-loaded all *3* towers with high explosives plus the associated remote-controlled, mini-delay detonator network.
Backing-up to the hijacks, the FBI admits it had *no* evidence linking ObL to 9/11. That's about as official as it gets. But even if the alleged hijacking bastards were all ObL's bastards, the aircraft did *not* cause the towers to fall. The crashing aircraft were merely Hollywood-style 'special effects' = stunts. This will never change, cannot change. Even if it had been ObL's cameramen dancing in the park (instead of Israelis), the towers didn't collapse Oh, so neatly due to fire. Not the way nature operates, if one were to think about it.
Both Chomsky and Hitchens attempt to work 'inside the system,' neither can seriously contradict the 'official narrative.' Chomsky's fault for not doing so, Hitchens fault for supporting it - since that official narrative *cannot* be true.
 proper adj. 1 a accurate, correct (gave him the proper amount). b fit, suitable, right (at the proper time). [POD]
 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.]
 infer v. (-rr-) 1 deduce or conclude. 2 imply. inferable adj. [Latin fero bring] [ibid.]
 believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). [ibid.]
 AIMs4S vs. ELO/Os; worst example Zionists vs. Palestinians:
AIMs4S = aggressive/alien invader-murderers for spoil.
ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers.
Comment: How the world tolerates such injustice is beyond me.
Update; 1st & last, 15May'11: This is taking too long, got too fiddly. Any taking notice should know most, if not all of it anyway; still I hope that some may have benefited, and my time wasn't wasted since I enjoyed the writing (as far as writing of the blackest negativity can be enjoyed). Here is a fair summary of what I've been trying to aim at:
Yes, They Lied; Yes, a Million Died; and Yes, They Want It To Go On
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 12 May 2011 21:19
«They did it for the oil. They did it for the dominance. And they are doing their damnedest to keep doing it. Anyone who supports and champions the elites who seek to perpetuate this abominable gorging on innocent blood -- including cool, progressive Peace Laureates -- is knowingly making themselves morally complicit in this ongoing atrocity.
Here there is no shuffling. The invasion [here Iraq, but others, starting with Palestine by alien/invader Zionists]-- and the occupation (or the "military presence") -- were and are based on arrant lies. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been murdered, slaughtered, ripped from life, sent down to darkness because of these lies. If you support those who will not call these crimes by their right name, and seek to extend them -- in whatever form -- then you too are a supporter of murder. If that's what you want to be, fine; but be sure you recognize yourself for what you are.»
Comment: It's what we (the antiwars) said at the time; "No murder for oil!" We could see it coming and it was so, but they didn't listen. Similar wars have been happening = instigated since at least the dual war crimes that are the A-bombings, and Perkins' "Hit Man" showed what happens before the wars = coercion, corruption & criminal resource rip-offs. One reason for the crimes 'slipping under the radar' is the propaganda-camouflage conduited, and often *actively assisted* by the corrupt & venal MSM, including taxpayer-funded broadcasters like the AusBC. Any regular readers may yawn perhaps; ho-hum, seen(read) it all before, but what Chris Floyd says is true; all those who do not do their best to resist the murdering to thieve criminals (mainly US&Z regimes = M/I/C/4-plex, but also quisling collaborator regimes like UK & Aus, now France) are part of the war-problems, then there's the excess-CO2 = climate-change catastrophe problem. These problems which, if not quickly 'resolved' (see Chomsky "something to read" above) - will kill most humans off, as our life-supporting ecosphere 'crashes' = is deliberately crashed.
'Good' morality is easy; "Live & let live," "Don't touch things not yours" and "Fair go, ya mug!" What I still don't understand is how it got so bad - where are the *good* people, those who should be our leaders? Who let the crims in, now completely taken over? The nightmare could hardly be worse - yet it will get ever worse, until the crims are stopped & removed.
- (Nuremberg! Hang!)
.. there are *no* ...
.. harmless (i.e. 'white') lies ...
.. lies are only ever deployed to deceive
Thesis/Subtitle: Don't f**k with my mind, matey!
Preamble: The ability of the human mind to believe in utter rubbish is proven by the take-up of religion(s) based on some supernatural g*d; as 'supernatural' is *defined* as being literally 'out of this world,' *no* evidence of any g*d is possible (according to the laws of conservation), OR some sort of 'evidence' is 'witnessed' in *direct* contravention of said conservation laws. It follows that either believers in some g*d are believing in the absence of evidence OR they 'believe' despite the conservation laws, i.e. they would assert that such laws can be *and are* violated. This article is not about religion, but rather about lies and their debilitating effects; this mini-religion-parable is a warning: Be careful what you let into / let happen inside - your head. End of preamble.
The US 'narrative' goes on and on; they like to start with 'land of the free, home of the brave' and continue through 'American exceptionalism,' claims of democracy and then end with their current mantra: 9/11 (bin Laden), 9/11 (bin Laden), 9/11 (bin Laden), 9/11 (bin Laden), ...
(Note: As I have recently written, *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* ObL&Co, because b) the CIA (or 'Homeland Security'), whose *job* it is to know such things, *must* have been aware of it (*and* IF the explosive-packers were 'enemy' THEN they would have been stopped??!) Imagine, if you will: *truck-loads* of explosives being delivered, at a location already once attacked - by truck-borne explosives?)
The meaning of 'narrative' has acquired a modern 'patina' = it has been 'nuanced;' it differs from history (past application) and from honest & open planning (future application) - by the deployment of lies. Two current/continuing events illustrate the point:
1. Obama: 'We brought him to justice!' = covert, sovereignty-violating, extrajudicial assassination of an unarmed 'target,' with no more than one 'actual combatant,' plus target and three hapless 'collaterals' dead. We have seen that they deployed multiple lies (i.e. firefight, woman/wife as human shield, target offered resistance); *no* worthwhile (i.e. non-criminal) 'project' needs nor ever should have a 'lie-screen' to 'hide' behind = propaganda-camouflage; one single lie is enough to 'switch off' = destroy all credibility - but the US-lie-list is looong and continually increasing. I shouldn't need to offer any proof, but here is some more anyway(see below).
Comment: There is nothing 'brave' about slaughtering unarmed people, nor is there anything 'élite' about criminality (and nothing 'free' about coercion). ObL (if it really was him - *still* not convincingly demonstrated), should have been, by all accounts *could* have been, captured and brought to trial. Perhaps the 'notional ObL' knew too much - for the perpetrators' = US regime's comfort?
2. Obama: 'We will attack Gaddafi to protect civilians!' = not so covert (as the infiltration, creation/corruption of so-called 'rebels' was/is) but still sovereignty-violating, aggressive attack, so far 'only' by manned warplanes & robot-missiles, in support of one side in a 'trumped-up' civil-war. We don’t 'do' coincidences and in any case here we can quite clearly see ulterior = $-motives; Afghanistan (pipeline routes), Iraq & Libya (oil, Iran next?), and all with regimes not concurrent with US (erring) ideology.
Comment: The US/EU/NATO attacks are nothing other than a naked colonialist pursuit of resources, their 'protect civilians' narrative is again convenient, untrue ( = lying) camouflage - had the US/EU/NATO intervention not taken place, Libya would have long ago returned to calm. And not so BTW, living standards in Libya are comparatively *very* high - what's to revolt about? Any supposed 'freedom' gained by these rebels (how much do we actually enjoy? Is it in our power, we the sheople, to stop any of 'our' wars, say?) - will be much more than offset by the punitively exploitative neoliberal regime which will result after a US/EU/NATO-sponsored 'regime-change.' You could bet your farm on it - better be quick, though, before you lose that to neoliberalism too.
[Pause - for reflection.]
Comment: We are obviously 'sinking' - being 'sunk' - by a barrage of lies, cui bono? Liars set out to deceive; anyone deceived is about to lose something, usually valuable - if they haven't already lost it. To eliminate that chance of loss, to eliminate deception, try eliminating lies.
Fazit: The US narrative on freedom and bravery is outright BS; it's called hypocrisy (also, not 'called' but *is* a lie). Coupled with resource-rip-offs via murdering force = AIMs4S, it's outright criminal. They 'camouflage' their criminality with lies, fed to us through and actively assisted by the corrupt & venal MSM, incl. big bits of taxpayer-funded national broadcasters like the AusBC.
There is no greater freedom than to think in the privacy of your own head. Lies, here deliberately deployed, as always only to deceive, can and do poison (by polluting one's internal 'database,' aka 'brainwashing') = damage, if not destroy that freedom.
«But always--do not forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever.'»
 ability n. (pl. -ies) 1 (often foll. by to + infin.) capacity or power. 2 cleverness, talent. [French: related to *able] [POD]
 god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. [ibid.]
 supernatural -adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. -n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc. supernaturally adv. [ibid.]
 narrative -n. ordered account of connected events. —adj. of or by narration. [ibid.]
 mantra n. 1 Hindu or Buddhist devotional incantation. 2 Vedic hymn. [Sanskrit, = instrument of thought] [ibid.]
1. One 'story:'
US admits bin Laden unarmed when shot
«"We expected a great deal of resistance and were met with a great deal of resistance."
When a journalist insisted "He wasn't armed", Mr Carney replied: "But there were many other people who were armed in the compound. There was a firefight."
"But not in that room," the journalist pressed.
"It was a highly volatile firefight. I'll point you to the department of defence for more details about it," Mr Carney said.
The SEALs split into two: one team entering the bin Laden house ... while the other team cleared the second building.»
2. Contradicted by:
Bin Laden's Protectors Got Off Relatively Few Shots, 'Times' Reports
«According to the Times, those officials say that:
"Bin Laden's trusted courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, opened fire from behind the door of the guesthouse adjacent to the house where Bin Laden was hiding. After the SEAL members shot and killed Mr. Kuwaiti and a woman in the guesthouse, the Americans were never fired upon again."
Bin Laden and two other men — one of them the al-Qaida leader's adult son — were also killed.»
Comment: Two attacking groups, one (reportedly) shot at, the other not. A "highly volatile firefight" (their words only) - but *NO* firefight in the ObL building *AT ALL* = absolute proof that they lie.
3. Confirmed (as if needed) by:
Al Qaeda confirms bin Laden's death
«Pakistani security officials say neither bin Laden nor his comrades offered any resistance during the raid.
"From the clues, evidence what we have got is they stormed in with firing shots and knocked them down," a security official said.
Another security official on Thursday said their killing was "cold-blooded".»
Comment: Al Qaeda is a diffuse organization, even if an organization at all, and it seems hardly in such a posited organization's interest to make such an admission. As from the beginning, almost every report engenders more suspicion - why that?
Conclusion: Only one 'report' of a single event can be true; a contradiction *proves* at least one 'report' is a lie. Q: Who has motive, means and opportunity? A: Most if not all contradictory reports came directly and only from the US-regime.
4. Mini update 20:49, just found this:
White House Provides Official Account of Death of Osama bin Laden
«White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Tuesday read an official narrative ... They were engaged in a firefight throughout the operation, and Osama bin Laden was killed by the assaulting force.»
[The White House, 4May'11]
Note a) "Official Account" and b) that they dare deploy 'narrative,' and c) "a firefight throughout," although later 'reports' named just the one possible source of 'armed resistance,' quickly 'switched off' = killed (plus an unarmed woman) - and that from an 'outlying' building. Lies just don't get less naked - or more brazen.
Lecture: Hellenistic Philosophy
«Thucydides gives a certain representation of what leading men among the ancient Greeks thought politics was about - competition, success and glory, in debate and in war. Like James Mill and Jeremy Bentham and many others, Thucydides assumes, or his characters do, that human beings are self-interested, that moral ideas have only a slight influence.
Plato provides a contrast with this view of Politics. Socrates is openly critical of Themistocles, Pericles, and Thucydides' other heroes. They did not make Athens powerful. Power is not ability to do whatever you fancy at the moment - the tyrant's power is useless because he does not know what to do with it. True power is the ability to achieve your most important goals. The goal is happiness, a worthwhile life; politics is cooperative action toward that goal. The statesman who really knows what politics is about does not seek his own fame and glory, but the true welfare of the citizens of the state. This requires knowledge of what a worthwhile life is like. Very few will achieve that knowledge, and only after long training and experience. The best state will be one ruled by a few genuine experts on the art of living well. Democratic politics [me: as we currently experience it] is the struggle for glory and the useless power to tyrannize.»
POL167: Introduction to Political Theory]
Fazit: Proper "of, by, for the people" democracy requires at least 1) an educated & engaged electorate - lies disable/degrade such, 2) a wide choice of *honest* candidates, who upon election 3) faithfully represent the will of the majority, whilst protecting any minorities. Current US & Aus democracies fail on all three counts.
The US & Aus 'narratives' screech 'democracy' but deliver lying, cheating and murdering-to-steal tyranny.
Where are the decent people? Are there simply none, or just not enough, to be an effective countervailing force (note that force will be required; the crims will *never* self-correct) - to stop this hideous tyranny?
.. 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."»
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.»
Comment : The order was only to kill.
3. «Bin Laden was Given Chance to Surrender»
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."»
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.»
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.»
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."»
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.»
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.»
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.»
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?
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.
 humanity n. (pl. -ies) 1 a the human race. b human beings collectively. c being human. 2 humaneness, benevolence. [POD]
 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.]
 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!
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.
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.
.. Obama is d' ...
.. Ooops! *Osama* is dead ...
.. they (CIA/Mossad?) got 'im at long last(?)
[update 1, update 2, update 3 & update 4.]
The slip of the tongue is understandable; after all we are discussing the worst *alleged* terrorist(s), and on a murder body-count basis B, B & H + S, C & O are peerlessly unmatched.
«... or the much more numerous "al-Qaeda-linked" individuals who have undergone training ...» [wiki/Al-Qaeda].
Today's (NYT) headline: Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says
It's interesting to see & hear (mostly on the teeve) how language is being changed; what reasonable & honest people may call lying propaganda is now a 'narrative.' Makes (crooked) sense in a way, because a coordinated approach is needed to keep the sooo many lies from contradicting each other.
The news that Osama is dead is packaged in such a coordinated narrative, from 9/11 through Afghanistan, hugely threatening al-Qaeda organization, ending after a 'targeted operation firefight,' they killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan - all sooo convenient, no? And the 'cream' is the caliphate.
My 'watch carefully' headline is because this little tale can only be told the once; one has to ask Q: "Why now, why this particular moment?"
Suggested A: Since we don't 'do' coincidences, they obviously need an humongous distraction; perhaps the perfidious US hegemony/oil-control 'project' has hit some enormous 'speed bump' (in British English a speed hump, road hump or sleeping policeman; in New Zealand English a judder bar?)
With the Arab nation in uproar (attempting to throw off the yoke of US-supported dictators), US/NATO involved in ever-more aggressive invasions (see record murder-counts 'hinted' at above - and each immoral/illegal military action heading for, when not already reached quagmire-status), and the Palestinians looking to unite (against Israel's bloody, 63+ year long murdering for land-theft), we can be pretty sure of where/what the problem is.
My suggested solution: All aggressive invaders to return to whence they came, all stolen property to revest, and a very big "SORRY!"
PS Would the real conspiracy please stand up? In other words, Q: Is there any proof? A: Yes; IF any narrative contains a serious flaw = an outright lie = whopper, say, THEN we can be sure that the narrative itself is lying propaganda. In this case, one whopper is 'the caliphate' - it's part of the 'clash of civilisations' fear-narrative deployed to scare the sheople shitless, in turn to distract those sheople from US/NATO murdering for spoil (mostly oil). The next big IF: Only massively dumbed-down sheople can possible believe 'the caliphate' lie, especially when one recalls that belief is done by people in the utter absence of evidence. For more normal = rational people, 'the caliphate' doesn't even pass the giggle-test. My understanding - hard evidence wherever possible, otherwise 'balance of probabilities' - is that Osama's purported prime objective was achieved when the US removed all its forces from Saudi Arabia, and finally, Osama was thought by many to be long dead (kidney failure); it 'beggars belief' (Haw!) that he actually survived unscathed until last week.
PPS Another giggle-test failure is blaming al-Qaeda for 9/11. The tower-steel was chopped into (convenient) lengths and the concrete was completely pulverised (think pyroclastic flow) - but some alleged terrorist passports were quickly found, clearly floated free of the incredible, steel-melting aircraft-fuel fire in pristine condition. That of course is a comparative peccadillo; one thing al-Qaeda assuredly did *not* do was to have pre-packed the *three* towers with literally truck-loads of ultra-high energy explosives along with the required, coordinated mini-delay detonator-system. Just as with the coordinated lies, the mini-delay detonators were needed to achieve that wonderfully choreographed, neat and tidy collapse into own foot-print demolition. Current best 'Hollywood-style movie' = cinema stunt ever.
 peerless adj. unequalled, superb. [POD] - S, C & O = Sarkozy, Cameron & Obama.
 caliph n. esp. hist. chief Muslim civil and religious ruler. caliphate n. [Arabic, = successor (of Muhammad)] [ibid.]
 incredible adj. 1 that cannot be believed. 2 colloq. amazing, extremely good. incredibility n. incredibly adv. [ibid.]
Update, 11:29 (= 7 mins from detection to begin reaction)
This 'just in:'
Bin Laden's body buried at sea
Posted May 2, 2011 18:23:00
[Posted 59 minutes ago]
«Osama Bin Laden was reportedly buried in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition.»
Comment: This 'takes the cake' = makes the argument. It's the same as disposing of the WTC rubble/steel in frantic haste; its other names are 'destruction of evidence' and 'obstruction of justice,' amongst other more disparaging terms.
Body? What body? (Haw again, tapping side of forehead with a finger.)
Update, begun 12:29, ready 13:11
List of stories, with my timestamps:
06:01 US forces kill Al Qaeda figurehead in firefight (via radio)
11:26 Bin Laden's body buried at sea
11:57 Former US leaders celebrate 'victory for America'
12:05 Bin Laden's death a lesson for Taliban: Karzai
12:12 US tracked bin Laden to luxurious compound
12:19 Bin Laden death sparks outburst of online activity
12:24 War against terrorism not over: Gillard
Some observations: Truly amazing! There was an actual, live 'in country' ear-witness, who heard helicopters and explosions - and social-networked his impressions. There was a 'military leak;' a 'source' close to (discredited, disgraced, dismissed) Rumsfeld. A shit-load of ex leaders, *all* with blood on their hands (including our very-own Howard and Downer), are given 'exultant speech-opportunities.' The US is once again proclaimed as being "exceptional." Karzai kicks at the Taliban, who have to be the world's most famous 'collaterals,' since they had abso-effing-lutely nothing to do with 9/11; speaking of which, assassinating Osama (IF it really did just happen) - validates the 'standard 9/11 narrative' - at least, according to all these stories. Then, there's the fantastic (think Shangri-La) over-dimensional, $1mio luxurious terrorist-lair, where they were 'pretty sure' some baddy was holed-up in. This 'pretty sure' having been based on 'confessions of witnesses in Gitmo' - or so the *impression* is given. Sooo, they attacked this terrorist-lair in a night-raid by helicopter, basically just on spec. And this time the 'cream' was a human-shield event and it all 'went badly' = fatal for almost all the by definition 'extremist' targets). Talk about 'touching all bases;' again I have to say "Fantastic!"
You couldn't make this stuff up. (Think Hollywood movie-script.) Buster Keaton springs to mind, to play Raymond Davis.
Update, begun 15:57, ready 16:31
Arab world divided on bin Laden's death
By South Asia correspondent Sally Sara and wires
Posted May 2, 2011 22:38:00
«In Iraq, ravaged by nearly a decade of violence in the battle between bin Laden and the West, some were cautious about the circumstances in which Washington announced his death.»
Comment 1: Any battle in Iraq, latest since the appallingly vicious 'fish in a barrel,' 'turkey-shoot' = "Highway of Death" massacre, was and is nothing other than the US' pursuit 1st & foremost of oil (control + resource-rent both), 2ndarily US hegemony, and 3rd but not least, 'protection' of its illegitimate side-kick (Z-land, if you didn't 'get it').
Comment 2: From squillions, any 'vox-pop' can be chosen - to 'prove' any conjecture, here (as always) Arab/Muslim bad, US/Western unrelievedly, 'no teenage-pimples or spots' good.
Comment 3: Arising from #1, carefully note this: Deployment of a *single* lie can and does completely destroy any/all associated arguments. Think: These topics are sooo serious, scrupulous honesty is *required*. The world literally depends on taking the correct path; *any/all* lies = deception, and *no* rational decision is ever possible under even the merest whiff of deceit. Nobody can say "Ooops! Sorry; mistake!" The AusBC is infested with Uni-graduates, and it is their paid, professional business to report to us, we the sheople, in as full and fair way as is possible, because as the voters, we are sovereign; we are *required* by the 'democratic covenant' to vote rationally - outright impossible if = here when misinformed.
The upshot is, when any lie is deployed, whether deliberate (criminally malevolent) or not (criminally culpable), any associated discussion is made *null and void*.
Those who can clearly observe and think know this already; we also know that lies are deployed to dumb-down the sheople = destroy the voter portion of any remaining properly functioning 'democratic process.' We live in a dystopia 'ruled' by lying, murdering criminals, aided by a corrupt & venal MSM, including taxpayer-funded national broadcasters - and as *proven* by the cited Sally Sara (Reuters) article; here hoist on their own petard.
Off with their heads! Or at least sacked, then into gaol with the lying lot.
Update, begun 19:37; last for today
It's a full propaganda assault; no surprise at all, really. The 9/11 neat-and-tidy collapsing towers (all 3; WTC7 hardly ever shown), lots of the old OBL *allegation* material repeated, the only real interest being the expressions on the speakers. Some grim-faced (well acted), others hardly able to suppress their glee. I have to struggle to sort the wheat out from the chaff; it's only natural because I have no direct, inside-line to the underlying reality. On the other hand, the speakers on the teeve, from professional announcers, through politicians to so-called 'experts,' all *know* that they are lying. All IMHO, as usual and of course; but my theses agree well to putative reality (what we can actually see = murder for spoil, and what we can deduce = psychopaths), down to quite enough decimal places. Leaving any further analysis until later perhaps (assuming sufficient impulse), new tonight was a) months long preparation, b) four helis with Navy Seals, c) *no* advance warning to the Paks, let alone seeking permission and d) *no* intention of arrest whatsoever; it was a declared 'kill' mission = extrajudicial execution = assassination. The last not so odd, since OBL never 'made it' onto the FBI most wanted list - on account of lack of evidence, we both 'hear' and suppose; no evidence = no trial, just kill = murder. This lack of evidence was the reason why the Taliban refused to surrender OBL all those years ago - but the US has to do what it wants to anyway, which is to aggressively invade, Iran coup in '53 against democratic oil-nationalisation, Iraq in '91 and again in '03 for oil (also nationalised = the state gets the economic rent), Afghanistan in '01 for pipeline routes (carpet of gold - or bombs), Libya in '11, about 50% nationalised oil and Iran (nationalised oil) again next, how soon? Note the trend. Ah yes; indistinctly heard: "This could aid Obama's re-election campaign." Who'd have thought?
Firstly, note that the 'operation' was kept secret even from Pakistan, and was 'run' by the 'enforcement arm' of the US regime. Whether CIA (usual suspects) or Navy (from reports), the two are effectively the same; proof: The heads are currently 'swapping hats' in an Obama reshuffle. This means that the only stories available (apart from any sourced from the wo/men in the street = usually ignorant, confused or both) - the only *authoritative* reports are from the US regime.
According to a news broadcast (= no doc), four helis were involved.
According to spiegel, three US Apache helis were involved (wrong).
According to another news broadcast (= no doc), two were involved.
According to AusBC:
"Their helicopter stalled ... managing to set it down ..."
This implies only one ("Their helicopter ... set it down") = singular.
"The assault team went ahead with the raid, not knowing if they had a way out."
This reinforces just the one ("The assault team ... not knowing ... way out.")
"The Seals blew up their crippled chopper and used a back-up aircraft to evacuate."
This ("a back-up ...") contradicts one, which means at least two, and/but insufficient briefing, to boot. Hmmm.
There's a conflict between 'eye/ear-witness' and 'official' reports: starting at 01:00AM vs. 01:30AM, a heli crash (presumably noisy) vs. a stall ("unable to restart" = no noise), battle raging until 04:00AM = min 2.5hrs vs "less than 40 minutes", but see "ignorant, confused" above.
Not so BTW, there was *no* moonlight available before 03:52AM and then only 4.1%; compare this with a full moon over Baghdad on 18 Mar 2003 and a full moon over Tripoli on 19 Mar 2011. Un-rehearsed heli landings in the (no moon = pitch-black) dark are considered very high-risk.
Two articles mention doubts as to who was 'home;' "assessed that there was a strong probability that the terrorist who was hiding there was Osama bin Laden" and "found an individual that they believed was bin Laden, ..." One might expect that there should have been *absolutely no* doubt whatsoever, having arrived with guns blazing?
So far, possibly 'merely' inconsistent inaccuracies. It *is* possible, that inaccuracies are deliberately deployed to confuse, *far* more serious is this:
«But the White House later clarified that bin Laden's wife was injured, not killed in the raid and that she was not used as a human shield.»
This demonstrate a contradiction by an admission that some earlier report was *wrong*. Why? Sloppy? IMHO, no; it's another deliberate tactic.
Think this is not serious? Think again; an earlier search for "Bin Laden used wife as human shield" returned 'About 15,600 results (0.09 seconds)' - now up to 17,800 - the propagandists are fast and loose.
What they do is deploy some lie - for effect; then 'withdraw' = revise = modify their story, to return to something approaching non-provably false. But by then the 'damage' has been done; the 'sheople' dumbed down. Again? No, still.
Recall that a single lie puts the *whole* story into doubt. Just a oncer? Nooo; we have the 'new' use of snipers, or better expressed, the new (corrupt & venal) MSM *allegations* about snipers. These details indicate that the propagandists have moved up a notch: We are now in a similar predicament to Winston in room 101; the rat-mask.