.jpg)
THE ISRAELI ZIONISTS OBSESSION WITH IRAN
11 years ago
2013-07-14
FTAs; CIA, NSA, NWO -
"Do what we want and nobody gets hurt!"
- part of the alphabet-soup of blackmail and treason
1. The US only ever operates when they see some clear advantage.
2. Corollary; any 'partner' is guaranteed to come out second best.
-=*=-
[update, 10:41]
It occurs to me that the following describes a possible NWO process; I'll try to add some more sooner rather than later.
3. One thing these FTAs do is to push US laws onto 'partners;' this amounts to selling-out on sovereignty, and enables possible US demands for extradition or punitive damages for any US entity feeling hardly-done-by (justifiable or not) in some 'partner' jurisdiction - see Dotcom/NZ.
4. "Security cooperation" is a stick the US waves; it's blackmail and code for "do what we want and nobody gets hurt" = black-ops threats. (Up to and including aggressive, illegal invasion = "supreme international crime.")
5. Think treason, then recall "Get a briefing!" Part of such a briefing process is a) secret and b) never to be disclosed, probably on pain of death - or worse (damage to a loved one, say.) Note: Secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy. Asking the local rulers to surrender both defence and economic policy to the US is exactly that, namely an acute form of treason. (Not so BTW; no wonder that the "All politicians lie!" expression came into common currency thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward.) Of course, no local politician could stand his own treason being disclosed, so: System works - for the US, then consult the dictionary:
conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [POD]
When NZ banned US nuclear-warships, "security cooperation" was suspended as punishment, plus, one assumes, other hurtful measures. Stick and carrot approach - between so-called 'friends,' and I'd say the stick always hurts far more than one might expect. Words like 'downright draconian' come to mind.
Oderint dum metuant
"Let them hate, so long as they fear"
We can see results around the world; Whitlam was threatened 'back then' for his discussion vis-à-vis Pine Gap, say, and currently, Merkel has to support US spying on German citizens, and that looong after the terrorism-mask has been ripped off (proof = reports of commercial losses to German industry, say), due to the *non-terrorism* nature of some info collected by US-spying.
Exactly because "covert ops" are part of the CIA's modus opererandi, we can't know what they're up to (absent a Snowden or three); and any country willing to illegally "Shock'n whore" (Wesley Clark “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”) leading to the deaths of as many as 1mio+ innocents just in Iraq alone, is hardly likely to shy from *any* foulness.
2013-06-10
antiwar comment censorship - Ditz, Pardon Him
Preamble: I started a conversation with 'don nash;' all OK until the interloper 'John' jumped in. There is an author at antiwar named John Glaser; wouldn't it be funny if it was him? Well, actually not, more like grim.
Selected parts of comment-stream to Pardon Him:
-5
5 replies ·
10 replies ·
-=*=-
Censored input:
"it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk. ... Sorry should read: conspiracy"
Well, who provocatively jumped in, using slurs = non-arguments? Sure, "It is not simple," but looking for an explanation does not imply accusing govts. of conspiracy - unless that's the way the evidence points.
“"Zionists" (in racist code)” is an allegation deliberately made = yet another slur - or would you claim "Der, [you] didn't think?" - such scurrilous allegations are simply not done in polite society. And so the postings go - now look up the definition of Zionist (I'll help):
POD: Zionism n. movement for the re-establishment and development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Zionist n. & adj.
Zionism is racist by both definition and practice; since you hook onto my admitted non-belief; the Zionists *believe* that some supernatural being, namely their god, promised them pre-UNGA181 Palestine; the same god who ordered "Thou shalt not kill (or lie, steal etc.)." So [Q:] What do the Zionists (claiming to be Jews), do? A: They murder Palestinians in order to steal their land/property, then (hasbara) lie about it. *This* is one central problem in the ME, that plus oil, which the UK has coveted since their navy was changed from coal (pre-WW1), and US continues to covet ("stupendous source of strategic power;" officially documented, do your own research), hence the UK/US support for the ME Airstrip One = Israel. I don't need to go there - nor do I want to, and wouldn't go anywhere near there - in a fit. Then "Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical." Pfui = "lazy, pseudo-intellectualism."
The towers fell - were felled. WTC7 was not even hit. Look at the videos. Pfui. What have libertarians to do with the price of fish? More pfui.
More risible: "Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own" - explain exactly how inertia was overcome in WTCs 1, 2 & 7. So far none offered, one suspects you can't, except to bleat "Al Qaeda did it." Talk about simplistic.
Then: "Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own" - are we merely to be helpless passengers? Inertia is defined as "no change without force" - what are you doing to rescue the world's grave situation = marauding rogue-regimes smashing innocent (but resource-rich) countries, murdering their innocent inhabitants? All accelerated after 9/11 – coincidence? I think not.
-=*=-
Fazit: It is more than just a little bit odd, to censor valid commentary - on a thread deep into such a 'free speech' topic. The reader can guess just as well as I, as to the reason(s) behind antiwar censorship; tip: I dared to address 'the Jewish problem' = murdering to steal land/property never to be theirs, by the illegitimate entity = Zionist-created Israel. It means that antiwar either sympathises with and/or is coerced by that filthy 5th column.
Selected parts of comment-stream to Pardon Him:
-5
don nash · June 10th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
I'd post a comment but it might send Raimondo into another unexpected insulting tirade.
+2
+2
IDHolm · June 11th, 2013 at 3:07 am
Note: My intended recipients are antiwar.com and bona fide antiwar
activists; no other person or agency on this planet is extended any
right to read or record this submission; any violators self-convict
themselves and may proceed directly to gaol - or, preferably, go to
hell.
@don nash, does "unexpected insulting tirade" have anything to do with the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?
Re article theme, surely a petition to the White House implies some sort of functional democracy, an implication now so far from reality as to be risible?
But IF pardon for Snowden THEN kindly add Manning, plus just retribution to be visited upon his tormentors.
Apropos, three things really amaze me; a) the depth of the deceptions foist upon the entire world, b) the dearth of objections let alone c) the total lack of any effective resistance (actually a violation of Newton's 3rd law!)
Q: Where are all the decent people; have they meekly collapsed into mute acquiescence and if so why this abject surrender in the face of such horrendous evil?
@don nash, does "unexpected insulting tirade" have anything to do with the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?
Re article theme, surely a petition to the White House implies some sort of functional democracy, an implication now so far from reality as to be risible?
But IF pardon for Snowden THEN kindly add Manning, plus just retribution to be visited upon his tormentors.
Apropos, three things really amaze me; a) the depth of the deceptions foist upon the entire world, b) the dearth of objections let alone c) the total lack of any effective resistance (actually a violation of Newton's 3rd law!)
Q: Where are all the decent people; have they meekly collapsed into mute acquiescence and if so why this abject surrender in the face of such horrendous evil?
5 replies ·
What? "...terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt
steel skyscrapers?" You goof, I made no mention of jet-fuel fires
melting steel skyscrapers. Jet-fuel fires are incapable of melting steel
skyscrapers. I took a shot at Raimondo and that's it. No further
inference should be drawn. Raimondo had a moment of insulting pissy and
rather than defend his doofus adoration of Rand Paul, Raimondo got
insulting with me. I was offended by that. I'm still offended by that.
Offended by Raimondo. When I toogled on Ditz' 'Pardon Him' column, no
one had left any remark and I took the opportunity to poke at Raimondo.
I'll more than likely do it again. Raimondo all of sudden seems overly
pretentious.
So ID-man if you'd like to pick a fight, stick to the issues.
So ID-man if you'd like to pick a fight, stick to the issues.
+1
XXX · June 11th, 2013 at 9:11 am
Troll -- and a bad one at it. Everyone knows raimundo and Libertarians
cherish RON Paul's movement and campaigns, non Rand Paul. Actually,
Raimundo, et al have been critical and leery toward Sen. Rand Paul.
Holy crap XXX now you're just being dense. Raimondo is rarely
"critical" of Rand Paul. As for "troll" I don't think so. I've hung out
at Antiwar.com for a very long time. Could be my changing to my real and
actual name and ditching the screen name I used to use is causing some
confusion. Formerly 'Skulz Fontaine' but after the NSA crap hit the fan,
I'm going with my given name so as not to confuse the Stasi. Oh yes and
by the by, Rand Paul is NOT even close to being good enough to mention
with Rand's father Dr. Ron Paul. Remember that Rand dissed his father
and endorsed Mitt Romney in the last presidential. Rand Paul is carrying
one staggering credibility deficit.
0
Guest · June 12th, 2013 at 11:28 pm
You're right about Raimondo, Don. He went way over the top with me too
when I had the audacity to voice my opinion that disagreed with his
received wisdom. The man definitely has problems, "Internet Dictator
Syndrome' being one of them. The hell with him and this pathetic
website.
Hi Guest:
There certainly is an air of pretense that has settled over the domain of Antiwar.com and Raimondo is not the only 'ego' suffering a case of 'I'm self-important'. It's offensive and demeaning. Hell, I can get that kind of abuse on Buzzflash. Considering I don't have to put up with it, I don't and won't. Same applies to Antiwar.com.
Eric Garris might want to remind the staff and crew about offending contributors. Contributing during the Antiwar.com beg-a-thons.
There certainly is an air of pretense that has settled over the domain of Antiwar.com and Raimondo is not the only 'ego' suffering a case of 'I'm self-important'. It's offensive and demeaning. Hell, I can get that kind of abuse on Buzzflash. Considering I don't have to put up with it, I don't and won't. Same applies to Antiwar.com.
Eric Garris might want to remind the staff and crew about offending contributors. Contributing during the Antiwar.com beg-a-thons.
+2
IDHolm · June 11th, 2013 at 11:37 am
@don nash June 11th, 2013 at 6:21 am
Since you didn't mention 'jet-fuel fires melting steel skyscrapers' on this thread, and by your "incapable" comment, I expect that you're never likely to have done so (for to do so would surely be to accept the official narrative that "Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities," say). Perhaps you could try interpreting my comment in a different light ...
@Phil June 11th, 2013 at 5:30 am
Agreed, nothing to be pardoned for; better would be to be left in peace; then add Assange to the list of people to live in a world of the free = unmolested, and free from rogue-regime attack, free from WallSt rip-offs etc..
Since you didn't mention 'jet-fuel fires melting steel skyscrapers' on this thread, and by your "incapable" comment, I expect that you're never likely to have done so (for to do so would surely be to accept the official narrative that "Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities," say). Perhaps you could try interpreting my comment in a different light ...
@Phil June 11th, 2013 at 5:30 am
Agreed, nothing to be pardoned for; better would be to be left in peace; then add Assange to the list of people to live in a world of the free = unmolested, and free from rogue-regime attack, free from WallSt rip-offs etc..
10 replies ·
+1
John · June 12th, 2013 at 7:26 am
You know, if the US government was so competent as to pull off 9/11
(yet somehow cannot keep PRISM a secret) why did they go to all the
trouble of having planes fly into buildings when they could have just
used "thermite" to begin with and blown the buildings up ala a truck
bomb? I mean you nu...I mean professors are really smart and already
figured out the whole conspiracy so there was no point in making an
elaborate overly complicated plan.
Really, George W. Bush's administration is the mastermind behind 9/11....really?? Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.
Really, George W. Bush's administration is the mastermind behind 9/11....really?? Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.
-1
IDHolm · June 12th, 2013 at 11:30 pm
Ah, well; I did not mention any govt., nor the alleged war-criminal Bush ('invasion of Iraq illegal' - UN-Sec-Gen Annan).
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.»
John: “Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.”
My full text in context is “the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?” - Which is neither red herring nor argument.
*Alleged* Arab/Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings serve at least three purposes; 1st they provide a purported mechanism for the spectacular, partly free-fall collapse of WTC1&2 (but not WTC7), 2nd they increase the fear&loathing being deliberately engendered in the 'West' against Arab/Muslims, and 3rd they aid the Zs in their continuing supreme international crimes against the same Arab/Muslims in general and the hapless, improperly dispossessed Palestinians in particular. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving; hard to imagine how it could have been better engineered.
I'll leave it to any audience to interpret: «I mean you nu...I mean»
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.»
John: “Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.”
My full text in context is “the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?” - Which is neither red herring nor argument.
*Alleged* Arab/Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings serve at least three purposes; 1st they provide a purported mechanism for the spectacular, partly free-fall collapse of WTC1&2 (but not WTC7), 2nd they increase the fear&loathing being deliberately engendered in the 'West' against Arab/Muslims, and 3rd they aid the Zs in their continuing supreme international crimes against the same Arab/Muslims in general and the hapless, improperly dispossessed Palestinians in particular. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving; hard to imagine how it could have been better engineered.
I'll leave it to any audience to interpret: «I mean you nu...I mean»
0
John · June 13th, 2013 at 8:49 am
My full text in context is “the terminally self-insulting belief that
jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?” - Which is neither red
herring nor argument.
The implication is there that you question the veracity of the official explanation of 9/11, or at least really really bugged that Raimondo does not question 9/11. No one in this thread mentioned skyscrapers or jet fuel until you brought it up. Arguments are statements or questions that can be true or false. You posted an irrelevant (to the topic) question in the hope of throwing any argumentation on the thread into your topic, hence a red herring.
The implication is there that you question the veracity of the official explanation of 9/11, or at least really really bugged that Raimondo does not question 9/11. No one in this thread mentioned skyscrapers or jet fuel until you brought it up. Arguments are statements or questions that can be true or false. You posted an irrelevant (to the topic) question in the hope of throwing any argumentation on the thread into your topic, hence a red herring.
0
John · June 13th, 2013 at 9:00 am
*Alleged* Arab/Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings serve at
least three purposes; 1st they provide a purported mechanism for the
spectacular, partly free-fall collapse of WTC1&2 (but not WTC7), 2nd
they increase the fear&loathing being deliberately engendered in
the 'West' against Arab/Muslims, and 3rd they aid the Zs in their
continuing supreme international crimes against the same Arab/Muslims in
general and the hapless, improperly dispossessed Palestinians in
particular. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving; hard to imagine how
it could have been better engineered
I take it you've never been to the Middle East then. Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up. In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"
I take it you've never been to the Middle East then. Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up. In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 1:06 am
"I take it you've never been to the Middle East then."
Haw. Risibly off-topic, not to mention totally irrelevant.
"either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Haw again.
“In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"”
Just what is your experience with conspiracies?
POD: conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire]
As "the official explanation of 9/11" would have it, planes crashed into WTC 1 & 2 (by now, most have seen the movies - err, TV videos), so that bit is generally accepted. Then there were jet-fuel (plus office-furniture) fires, and WTC 1, 2 *and* 7 fell down, all rather neatly if not dramatically - hence the jet-fuel mention does imply a question as to veracity, and so the "red herring" accusation/hop. (The original dialogue was completed after don nash's "incapable" and then his moving on.)
The standard narrative accuses ObL (@cave, Afghanistan), Atta (@Hamburg then FL etc.) and altogether 20 mostly Saudis (@various flight schools, USA), and since the event was neither notified nor halted beforehand, the conclusion is that the perpetrators of the crime prepared in secrecy. QED; the official explanation *implies* conspiracy.
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, then the speed with which they published a list of alleged hijackers' names *does* imply some sort of foreknowledge, but a pristine alleged hijacker's passport fluttering down out of the towering infernos really does make many go "Hmmm." Note: I personally cannot for the smallest part of a pico-sec second-guess the FBI, CIA and/or Mossad etc., so for the record, I'm *not* commenting on any fore-knowledge - merely relating my personal observations (but see my last para.).
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, namely that jet-fuel fires *can* melt skyscrapers, and that's what the world is asked to accept (believe it or not?) Sooo, anyone care to *lucidly* comment on "the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?"
Now, for only one (shuddering) moment, let's assume that the *3* towers were pre-loaded with explosives. Since we already have the allegation that the 19 hijackers were involved (call this 'conspiracy A/M'), THEN pre-loading would require access - unlikely to be granted to some suspicious, explosive-laden A/Ms, nor anyone *outside* the US(Z) framework, so that would be a supposed 'conspiracy US/Z.' (Yes, Virginia, there is a theory, and two can live as cheaply as one.) It's pretty simple logic along the lines of the IF a THEN b model. IMHO, the key lies in the answer to the jet-fuel fires Q. Hmmm?
Haw. Risibly off-topic, not to mention totally irrelevant.
"either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Haw again.
“In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"”
Just what is your experience with conspiracies?
POD: conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire]
As "the official explanation of 9/11" would have it, planes crashed into WTC 1 & 2 (by now, most have seen the movies - err, TV videos), so that bit is generally accepted. Then there were jet-fuel (plus office-furniture) fires, and WTC 1, 2 *and* 7 fell down, all rather neatly if not dramatically - hence the jet-fuel mention does imply a question as to veracity, and so the "red herring" accusation/hop. (The original dialogue was completed after don nash's "incapable" and then his moving on.)
The standard narrative accuses ObL (@cave, Afghanistan), Atta (@Hamburg then FL etc.) and altogether 20 mostly Saudis (@various flight schools, USA), and since the event was neither notified nor halted beforehand, the conclusion is that the perpetrators of the crime prepared in secrecy. QED; the official explanation *implies* conspiracy.
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, then the speed with which they published a list of alleged hijackers' names *does* imply some sort of foreknowledge, but a pristine alleged hijacker's passport fluttering down out of the towering infernos really does make many go "Hmmm." Note: I personally cannot for the smallest part of a pico-sec second-guess the FBI, CIA and/or Mossad etc., so for the record, I'm *not* commenting on any fore-knowledge - merely relating my personal observations (but see my last para.).
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, namely that jet-fuel fires *can* melt skyscrapers, and that's what the world is asked to accept (believe it or not?) Sooo, anyone care to *lucidly* comment on "the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?"
Now, for only one (shuddering) moment, let's assume that the *3* towers were pre-loaded with explosives. Since we already have the allegation that the 19 hijackers were involved (call this 'conspiracy A/M'), THEN pre-loading would require access - unlikely to be granted to some suspicious, explosive-laden A/Ms, nor anyone *outside* the US(Z) framework, so that would be a supposed 'conspiracy US/Z.' (Yes, Virginia, there is a theory, and two can live as cheaply as one.) It's pretty simple logic along the lines of the IF a THEN b model. IMHO, the key lies in the answer to the jet-fuel fires Q. Hmmm?
0
John · June 14th, 2013 at 4:49 am
"Haw. Risibly off-topic, not to mention totally irrelevant."
Not really, you mentioned Muslims, "Zionists" (in racist code) and the 9/11 terrorist attack. All that has to do with the Middle East where there are many Muslims, "Zionists" and terrorist attacks, converging one might say. It is complex but suffice to say as someone who has spent time in the ME (and I take it by your non-answer that you have not) Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical.
"Just what is your experience with conspiracies?"
My experience is with history, actual history, and explaining Big Historical Events (BHE) by way of overarching government conspiracies is lazy, pseudo-intellectualism. Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own and are propelled more by incompetence than some overarching nefarious plot. 9/11 happened more as a result of human error, an intelligence failure of the worst kind.
As someone who works in that field I can tell you it is filled with rank incompetents. This is the real danger and the main reason why libertarians are (or should be) anti-government. Not because government bureaucracy has some evil designs (that would denote intelligence in our government) but because it is incapable of such design i.e., it is incompetent.
The rest of your diatribe is useless noise.
Not really, you mentioned Muslims, "Zionists" (in racist code) and the 9/11 terrorist attack. All that has to do with the Middle East where there are many Muslims, "Zionists" and terrorist attacks, converging one might say. It is complex but suffice to say as someone who has spent time in the ME (and I take it by your non-answer that you have not) Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical.
"Just what is your experience with conspiracies?"
My experience is with history, actual history, and explaining Big Historical Events (BHE) by way of overarching government conspiracies is lazy, pseudo-intellectualism. Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own and are propelled more by incompetence than some overarching nefarious plot. 9/11 happened more as a result of human error, an intelligence failure of the worst kind.
As someone who works in that field I can tell you it is filled with rank incompetents. This is the real danger and the main reason why libertarians are (or should be) anti-government. Not because government bureaucracy has some evil designs (that would denote intelligence in our government) but because it is incapable of such design i.e., it is incompetent.
The rest of your diatribe is useless noise.
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 5:51 am
"The rest of your diatribe is useless noise."
Entirely your opinion = non-argument = cop-out.
Your failure to address one of the ultimate arguments, namely were the *3* towers pre-rigged or not, speaks volumes = you just can't hack - what you started, by so rudely butting in.
More of my so-called 'diatribe:'
Me (repeat): {Ah, well; I did not mention any govt., nor the alleged war-criminal Bush ('invasion of Iraq illegal' – UN-Sec-Gen Annan).
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of ...}
John: "Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Me: Well done; "Covering up" is *precisely* what conspiracy is about.
Any 'argument' (beginning after John's "You know"), mentions the competency (elsewhere more usually, incompetency) of George W. Bush's administration. Now, consider "inference by omission:"
wiki: Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
POD: omission n. 1 omitting or being omitted. 2 thing omitted.
Q: What was omitted? How may one infer from some omission? Sounds a bit oxymoronic?
(Aside: One may 'normally' encounter omission in the phrase "sins of commission or omission" (About 1,850,000 results), but I'm a *non*-believer, so better choice is "lies of commission or omission" (About 12,500,000 results); lies 'win' vs. sins.)
A: *Perhaps* what was omitted came after "I assume" above?
(Apropos foreknowledge; perhaps one could query Richard Clarke about John O'Neill.)
This is a *big* problem with omission - (paraphrasing) you don't know what you've got, til it's gone...
Entirely your opinion = non-argument = cop-out.
Your failure to address one of the ultimate arguments, namely were the *3* towers pre-rigged or not, speaks volumes = you just can't hack - what you started, by so rudely butting in.
More of my so-called 'diatribe:'
Me (repeat): {Ah, well; I did not mention any govt., nor the alleged war-criminal Bush ('invasion of Iraq illegal' – UN-Sec-Gen Annan).
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of ...}
John: "Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Me: Well done; "Covering up" is *precisely* what conspiracy is about.
Any 'argument' (beginning after John's "You know"), mentions the competency (elsewhere more usually, incompetency) of George W. Bush's administration. Now, consider "inference by omission:"
wiki: Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
POD: omission n. 1 omitting or being omitted. 2 thing omitted.
Q: What was omitted? How may one infer from some omission? Sounds a bit oxymoronic?
(Aside: One may 'normally' encounter omission in the phrase "sins of commission or omission" (About 1,850,000 results), but I'm a *non*-believer, so better choice is "lies of commission or omission" (About 12,500,000 results); lies 'win' vs. sins.)
A: *Perhaps* what was omitted came after "I assume" above?
(Apropos foreknowledge; perhaps one could query Richard Clarke about John O'Neill.)
This is a *big* problem with omission - (paraphrasing) you don't know what you've got, til it's gone...
0
John · June 14th, 2013 at 6:27 am
Not a cop-out, I just don't indulge silliness. Anything I say to you
never get through. Your mind has been made up a long time ago it
appears.
It is no surprise you are a "non believer" (in truth there are no atheists though, read your Tillich) since consipracy theories are usually a "replacement" for religion. Here you are ranting to a total stranger about 9/11 13 years after it happened on antiwar dot com on a thread for Pardoning Snowden, so methinks you are a "true believer."
I can sit here and respond to your comments all day, all month, all week, all year until I have the last word (and I will eventually have the last word) but it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk.
It is no surprise you are a "non believer" (in truth there are no atheists though, read your Tillich) since consipracy theories are usually a "replacement" for religion. Here you are ranting to a total stranger about 9/11 13 years after it happened on antiwar dot com on a thread for Pardoning Snowden, so methinks you are a "true believer."
I can sit here and respond to your comments all day, all month, all week, all year until I have the last word (and I will eventually have the last word) but it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk.
0
John · June 14th, 2013 at 6:28 am
Sorry should read: conspiracy
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 7:27 am
This comment has been deleted by the administrator.
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 7:29 am
Seems like I've been gagged - bye.
Censored input:
"it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk. ... Sorry should read: conspiracy"
Well, who provocatively jumped in, using slurs = non-arguments? Sure, "It is not simple," but looking for an explanation does not imply accusing govts. of conspiracy - unless that's the way the evidence points.
“"Zionists" (in racist code)” is an allegation deliberately made = yet another slur - or would you claim "Der, [you] didn't think?" - such scurrilous allegations are simply not done in polite society. And so the postings go - now look up the definition of Zionist (I'll help):
POD: Zionism n. movement for the re-establishment and development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Zionist n. & adj.
Zionism is racist by both definition and practice; since you hook onto my admitted non-belief; the Zionists *believe* that some supernatural being, namely their god, promised them pre-UNGA181 Palestine; the same god who ordered "Thou shalt not kill (or lie, steal etc.)." So [Q:] What do the Zionists (claiming to be Jews), do? A: They murder Palestinians in order to steal their land/property, then (hasbara) lie about it. *This* is one central problem in the ME, that plus oil, which the UK has coveted since their navy was changed from coal (pre-WW1), and US continues to covet ("stupendous source of strategic power;" officially documented, do your own research), hence the UK/US support for the ME Airstrip One = Israel. I don't need to go there - nor do I want to, and wouldn't go anywhere near there - in a fit. Then "Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical." Pfui = "lazy, pseudo-intellectualism."
The towers fell - were felled. WTC7 was not even hit. Look at the videos. Pfui. What have libertarians to do with the price of fish? More pfui.
More risible: "Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own" - explain exactly how inertia was overcome in WTCs 1, 2 & 7. So far none offered, one suspects you can't, except to bleat "Al Qaeda did it." Talk about simplistic.
Then: "Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own" - are we merely to be helpless passengers? Inertia is defined as "no change without force" - what are you doing to rescue the world's grave situation = marauding rogue-regimes smashing innocent (but resource-rich) countries, murdering their innocent inhabitants? All accelerated after 9/11 – coincidence? I think not.
-=*=-
Fazit: It is more than just a little bit odd, to censor valid commentary - on a thread deep into such a 'free speech' topic. The reader can guess just as well as I, as to the reason(s) behind antiwar censorship; tip: I dared to address 'the Jewish problem' = murdering to steal land/property never to be theirs, by the illegitimate entity = Zionist-created Israel. It means that antiwar either sympathises with and/or is coerced by that filthy 5th column.
Q: IF it's not democracy and/or capitalism THEN what is it?
Ditz: It Gets Worse...
Me: Yes.
(updated, 14:30 and 11Jun'13, 11:19, 13:07 )
Q: IF it's not democracy and/or capitalism THEN what is it?
A: Tyranny + Feudalism.
Proof (pocket oxford dictionary):
capitalism n. economic and political system dependent on private capital and profit-making.
democracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 a government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives. b State so governed. 2 classless and tolerant society. [Greek demokratia rule of the people]
feudal system n. medieval system of land tenure with allegiance and service due to the landowner.
tyranny n. (pl. -ies) 1 cruel and arbitrary use of authority. 2 a rule by a tyrant. b period of this. c State ruled by a tyrant. tyrannous adj. [Greek: related to *tyrant]
Argument: It's easy to prove democracy has been disabled = total sham:
1. Dumbed-down electors (MSM lies; "of, by, for the people" made impossible),
2. False-dichotomy 2-party system + bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic (since voters offered *zero* choice),
3. When elected, so-called 'representatives' sell-out to highest bidder = <1% = corporations + 5th columnists (latter = treason).
The economy has been captured by neoliberalism = erring ideology; proof = incredible unemployment + 47mio on food stamps - and still humongous profits, plus WallSt banksters, FIRE sector ripping the people off by created $s loaned @ % and toll-boothing both required and optional services.
What makes it feudal, is that the <1% + 5th columnists own the system + govt., whereby their puppets = our rulers are 'representative (in name only)' = tyrants.
Worse, worser, worst = murdering for spoil, Zs for soil, US for oil.
To murder requires psychopathy, those who order it = ruler-sickos + those who do it = military-sickos + those who 'support' it = apologist-sickos.
Any other questions?
update, 14:30
The "fall of the wall" (the Berlin one, not the illegal apartheid one – that delicious "Whoopee!" moment is yet to come) – introduced the 'unipolar moment,' which has been dragged out by the psychopaths controlling the US (evil!) empire – into a continuous nightmare. (Note that such nightmares are not exactly new; one began on August 29 to August 31, 1897 and another on August 6 and 9, 1945. Mentioning "9/11" is considered 'bad form' by some, but notice that WTC1,2&7 were all pre-loaded (Q: By ObL super-gofers? A: Get real; who could have had access?)) But the headline-story here is about the evil empire spying on its own people – saying "Oh, the phone- and internet-tapping is only directed at foreigners!" and "Oh, it's only to save some citizens from terr-ism™©," etc. – and other obvious lies.
One report reads: The head of national intelligence in the United States says he has asked for "… a criminal investigation into the "gut wrenching" leaking of national security tactics."
But, whoa! "Gut wrenching" is a *feeling*, and psychopaths both by definition and demonstrated behaviour *do not* have feelings, so assuming that this report is not just more of the usual MSM-PRopaganda/lies, Q: How can we understand the apparent oxymoron: "A gut wrenched psychopath?" A: Psychopaths are not (necessarily) irrational; this one realised that he and his 'associates' (recall that psychopaths cannot make friends) – have been exposed for the criminals they indubitably are, and may well end up in an isolation-cell near/like Bradley Manning's. Actually, of course, they belong in death row in San Quinton, stone-walls clammy from the low-temperature fogs rolling in, and extra rats to trim their toe-nails, while they wait for their own personal 'unipolar moments.'
update, 11Jun'13, 11:19
(As comment to: PRISM Nine: The Implications)
The 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder.
It's a progression in 'severity-level;' although lies may not actually constitute physical harm, the next three certainly do, with murder obviously being the most serious.
Sooo, any criminal (especially murderers) will not shy from lying, in fact unless a criminal lies (commission/omission) then s/he may self-incriminate – but will 'naturally' deny any/all knowledge of their crime(s).
Although perhaps a bit laboured, the point is that any organisation which gets away with some crime has no bounds on repeats/extensions. I can't say exactly when the US-regime (or the Z-regime) went rogue, but it was latest when they deliberately harmed, worst killed some innocent. Rogue-regimes are integrated; typically there's an executive, a military, a bureaucracy including covert parts – but they all work together, and so the guilt is shared by all.
As part of my 'democracy = sham' proof, I have previously asserted that so-called 'representatives' sell out to (add: may be coerced by) the highest bidder, typically the <1% and/or a 5th column (latter = treason.) Along with the non-representatives, the military and associated lackeys are co-perpetrators of mass-murder (one proof = aggressive, illegal invasion of Iraq, then Afghanistan, Libya and currently Syria, all only post 9/11), and murder requires psychopathy.
Then, consider Bernays: "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
Q: Where would "an invisible government" hide? A: Silly question.
Next, wiki/ECHELON: "UKUSA Security Agreement (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) … the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links."
One 'trick' here is that they don't have to spy on their own populations – the partners do it, then the data is 'exchanged.' So the 'letter of the law' may be observed, but the spirit of the law is thwarted.
PRISM&ilk are merely extensions of ECHELON.
'Security' is considered paramount, and would be if there was a genuine external enemy. In fact, the US manufactures enemies; Russia latest August 6 and 9, 1945, Muslims latest September 11, 2001; the Zs manufactured Arab/Muslims as enemies latest after Jabotinsky's Iron Wall, 1923. UK has coveted ME-oil since before WW1, and F plays catch-up. 'Security' is where the problem lies; once secrecy is allowed, all sorts of malfeasance can be – and is – hidden behind a 'covert wall.'
Lemma: Secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy.
Next, with the US/Z rogue-regimes rampant plus F+UK/NATO, now that we can see past the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs' news-gatekeepers, one of the rogue-regimes' targets becomes some of us, we the people. The rogue-regimes need to know who's saying what to whom, in order to eliminate trouble-makers – like antiwar the website say, and antiwar 'agitators' – like you and me (except where 'you' are a pro-war apologist and/or 5th columnist, both traitors.)
Ditz is correct. It Gets Worse...
update, 11Jun'13, 13:07
(As comment to: Pardon Him)
Note: My intended recipients are antiwar.com and bona fide antiwar activists; no other person or agency on this planet is extended any right to read or record this submission (and are specifically forbidden to do so); any violators instantly self-convict themselves, and may proceed directly to gaol - or preferably, go to hell.
@don nash, does "unexpected insulting tirade" have anything to do with the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?
Re article theme, surely a petition to the White House implies some sort of functional democracy, an implication now so far from reality as to be risible?
But IF pardon for Snowden THEN kindly add Manning, plus just retribution to be visited upon his tormentors.
Apropos, three things really amaze me; a) the depth of the deceptions foist upon the entire world, b) the dearth of objections let alone c) the total lack of any effective resistance (actually a violation of Newton's 3rd law!)
Q: Where are all the decent people; have they meekly collapsed into mute acquiescence and if so why this abject surrender in the face of such horrendous evil?
Me: Yes.
(updated, 14:30 and 11Jun'13, 11:19, 13:07 )
Q: IF it's not democracy and/or capitalism THEN what is it?
A: Tyranny + Feudalism.
Proof (pocket oxford dictionary):
capitalism n. economic and political system dependent on private capital and profit-making.
democracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 a government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives. b State so governed. 2 classless and tolerant society. [Greek demokratia rule of the people]
feudal system n. medieval system of land tenure with allegiance and service due to the landowner.
tyranny n. (pl. -ies) 1 cruel and arbitrary use of authority. 2 a rule by a tyrant. b period of this. c State ruled by a tyrant. tyrannous adj. [Greek: related to *tyrant]
Argument: It's easy to prove democracy has been disabled = total sham:
1. Dumbed-down electors (MSM lies; "of, by, for the people" made impossible),
2. False-dichotomy 2-party system + bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic (since voters offered *zero* choice),
3. When elected, so-called 'representatives' sell-out to highest bidder = <1% = corporations + 5th columnists (latter = treason).
The economy has been captured by neoliberalism = erring ideology; proof = incredible unemployment + 47mio on food stamps - and still humongous profits, plus WallSt banksters, FIRE sector ripping the people off by created $s loaned @ % and toll-boothing both required and optional services.
What makes it feudal, is that the <1% + 5th columnists own the system + govt., whereby their puppets = our rulers are 'representative (in name only)' = tyrants.
Worse, worser, worst = murdering for spoil, Zs for soil, US for oil.
To murder requires psychopathy, those who order it = ruler-sickos + those who do it = military-sickos + those who 'support' it = apologist-sickos.
Any other questions?
update, 14:30
The "fall of the wall" (the Berlin one, not the illegal apartheid one – that delicious "Whoopee!" moment is yet to come) – introduced the 'unipolar moment,' which has been dragged out by the psychopaths controlling the US (evil!) empire – into a continuous nightmare. (Note that such nightmares are not exactly new; one began on August 29 to August 31, 1897 and another on August 6 and 9, 1945. Mentioning "9/11" is considered 'bad form' by some, but notice that WTC1,2&7 were all pre-loaded (Q: By ObL super-gofers? A: Get real; who could have had access?)) But the headline-story here is about the evil empire spying on its own people – saying "Oh, the phone- and internet-tapping is only directed at foreigners!" and "Oh, it's only to save some citizens from terr-ism™©," etc. – and other obvious lies.
One report reads: The head of national intelligence in the United States says he has asked for "… a criminal investigation into the "gut wrenching" leaking of national security tactics."
But, whoa! "Gut wrenching" is a *feeling*, and psychopaths both by definition and demonstrated behaviour *do not* have feelings, so assuming that this report is not just more of the usual MSM-PRopaganda/lies, Q: How can we understand the apparent oxymoron: "A gut wrenched psychopath?" A: Psychopaths are not (necessarily) irrational; this one realised that he and his 'associates' (recall that psychopaths cannot make friends) – have been exposed for the criminals they indubitably are, and may well end up in an isolation-cell near/like Bradley Manning's. Actually, of course, they belong in death row in San Quinton, stone-walls clammy from the low-temperature fogs rolling in, and extra rats to trim their toe-nails, while they wait for their own personal 'unipolar moments.'
update, 11Jun'13, 11:19
(As comment to: PRISM Nine: The Implications)
The 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder.
It's a progression in 'severity-level;' although lies may not actually constitute physical harm, the next three certainly do, with murder obviously being the most serious.
Sooo, any criminal (especially murderers) will not shy from lying, in fact unless a criminal lies (commission/omission) then s/he may self-incriminate – but will 'naturally' deny any/all knowledge of their crime(s).
Although perhaps a bit laboured, the point is that any organisation which gets away with some crime has no bounds on repeats/extensions. I can't say exactly when the US-regime (or the Z-regime) went rogue, but it was latest when they deliberately harmed, worst killed some innocent. Rogue-regimes are integrated; typically there's an executive, a military, a bureaucracy including covert parts – but they all work together, and so the guilt is shared by all.
As part of my 'democracy = sham' proof, I have previously asserted that so-called 'representatives' sell out to (add: may be coerced by) the highest bidder, typically the <1% and/or a 5th column (latter = treason.) Along with the non-representatives, the military and associated lackeys are co-perpetrators of mass-murder (one proof = aggressive, illegal invasion of Iraq, then Afghanistan, Libya and currently Syria, all only post 9/11), and murder requires psychopathy.
Then, consider Bernays: "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
Q: Where would "an invisible government" hide? A: Silly question.
Next, wiki/ECHELON: "UKUSA Security Agreement (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) … the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links."
One 'trick' here is that they don't have to spy on their own populations – the partners do it, then the data is 'exchanged.' So the 'letter of the law' may be observed, but the spirit of the law is thwarted.
PRISM&ilk are merely extensions of ECHELON.
'Security' is considered paramount, and would be if there was a genuine external enemy. In fact, the US manufactures enemies; Russia latest August 6 and 9, 1945, Muslims latest September 11, 2001; the Zs manufactured Arab/Muslims as enemies latest after Jabotinsky's Iron Wall, 1923. UK has coveted ME-oil since before WW1, and F plays catch-up. 'Security' is where the problem lies; once secrecy is allowed, all sorts of malfeasance can be – and is – hidden behind a 'covert wall.'
Lemma: Secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy.
Next, with the US/Z rogue-regimes rampant plus F+UK/NATO, now that we can see past the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs' news-gatekeepers, one of the rogue-regimes' targets becomes some of us, we the people. The rogue-regimes need to know who's saying what to whom, in order to eliminate trouble-makers – like antiwar the website say, and antiwar 'agitators' – like you and me (except where 'you' are a pro-war apologist and/or 5th columnist, both traitors.)
Ditz is correct. It Gets Worse...
update, 11Jun'13, 13:07
(As comment to: Pardon Him)
Note: My intended recipients are antiwar.com and bona fide antiwar activists; no other person or agency on this planet is extended any right to read or record this submission (and are specifically forbidden to do so); any violators instantly self-convict themselves, and may proceed directly to gaol - or preferably, go to hell.
@don nash, does "unexpected insulting tirade" have anything to do with the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?
Re article theme, surely a petition to the White House implies some sort of functional democracy, an implication now so far from reality as to be risible?
But IF pardon for Snowden THEN kindly add Manning, plus just retribution to be visited upon his tormentors.
Apropos, three things really amaze me; a) the depth of the deceptions foist upon the entire world, b) the dearth of objections let alone c) the total lack of any effective resistance (actually a violation of Newton's 3rd law!)
Q: Where are all the decent people; have they meekly collapsed into mute acquiescence and if so why this abject surrender in the face of such horrendous evil?
2013-06-09
Aus as 'lucky country'
IF lucky THEN don't need to work.
Ooops! Can't have bludgers spending their days in the pub/Tab, so
Alternatively, Aus as 'clever country.'
Ooops! Again and ditto; IF clever THEN others do the work – lazy bludgers again, so
Next try: Aus as 'mining country' (all out into the sticks and dig, dig, dig...)
But a) 83% of the profits are going o/s, so b) Rudd-MRRT to 'claw' some $s back – instant allergy from the FDI-ists, so c) dump Rudd, d) cripple MRRT (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Mme Gillard), and e) get rid of Labor (as alleged lefty/socialist/communist disease) anyway - as punishment.
So the (lying!) narrative, via and *actively assisted* by the (corrupt&venal), for-profit MSM, plus (shamefully, traitorously) the PFBCs.
I monitor the AusBC; hardly a day goes by lately, without a disaster story (or three): Here today's: "Thousands of engineers depart as jobs dry up (video)" Q: Is this credible? A: Whatever; it's "out there."
THEN Aus will likely get PM-Abbott, who will *viciously* implement "austerity" until and beyond many sheople lie bleeding in the streets - or on the edge of incipient starvation, anyway. Proof will come, in barrow-loads.
Also, not so BTW, proof of voters' general idiocy. On the one hand, one can hardly blame the sheople, as they are deliberately immersed in the ppp-dd-ing lie-cloud by the tyrants' PRopaganda, but on the other hand, they do tend to suck it all up, apparently unaware that what they are sucking up is mostly lies. And "No!" - It's not just a movie! - Nor is most of TV news, actually (factual) news.
Fazit: From the top to the bottom, no matter which way it is judged, 'the current system' is *shit*, from the dumbed-down voters to the corrupt, so-called 'representatives.' We *must* do better, since there is another 'incipient' bearing down upon us, namely the XS-CO2-C*4 = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe (one-way) cliff. Before, and as looong before as possible, the going (being pushed) over the cliff moment arrives, we must get a better system, and carry out an effective recovery - to save our once jewel-like planet's comfortable-life supporting ecosphere. Plus stop the wars for spoil, and generally recover our humanity.
Ooops! Can't have bludgers spending their days in the pub/Tab, so
Alternatively, Aus as 'clever country.'
Ooops! Again and ditto; IF clever THEN others do the work – lazy bludgers again, so
Next try: Aus as 'mining country' (all out into the sticks and dig, dig, dig...)
But a) 83% of the profits are going o/s, so b) Rudd-MRRT to 'claw' some $s back – instant allergy from the FDI-ists, so c) dump Rudd, d) cripple MRRT (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Mme Gillard), and e) get rid of Labor (as alleged lefty/socialist/communist disease) anyway - as punishment.
So the (lying!) narrative, via and *actively assisted* by the (corrupt&venal), for-profit MSM, plus (shamefully, traitorously) the PFBCs.
I monitor the AusBC; hardly a day goes by lately, without a disaster story (or three): Here today's: "Thousands of engineers depart as jobs dry up (video)" Q: Is this credible? A: Whatever; it's "out there."
THEN Aus will likely get PM-Abbott, who will *viciously* implement "austerity" until and beyond many sheople lie bleeding in the streets - or on the edge of incipient starvation, anyway. Proof will come, in barrow-loads.
Also, not so BTW, proof of voters' general idiocy. On the one hand, one can hardly blame the sheople, as they are deliberately immersed in the ppp-dd-ing lie-cloud by the tyrants' PRopaganda, but on the other hand, they do tend to suck it all up, apparently unaware that what they are sucking up is mostly lies. And "No!" - It's not just a movie! - Nor is most of TV news, actually (factual) news.
Fazit: From the top to the bottom, no matter which way it is judged, 'the current system' is *shit*, from the dumbed-down voters to the corrupt, so-called 'representatives.' We *must* do better, since there is another 'incipient' bearing down upon us, namely the XS-CO2-C*4 = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe (one-way) cliff. Before, and as looong before as possible, the going (being pushed) over the cliff moment arrives, we must get a better system, and carry out an effective recovery - to save our once jewel-like planet's comfortable-life supporting ecosphere. Plus stop the wars for spoil, and generally recover our humanity.
2013-05-28
UGLY is -
as UGLY does
- EU as ugly thugs
.. it's not what they say ...
.. but what they do that counts ...
.. the EU is supporting al-Qaeda criminals
Thesis/Subtitle: suppress the truth ...
Concomitant: ignore all dissent ...
Corollary: cripple democracy ...
-=*=-
Preamble:
How ugly is ugly? Let me count the ways:
1. Ask Catherine Ashton's mirror. Normally, what a perpetrator *looks* like is not a topic, nor do we usually 'do' ad-homs. But times have long gone *anti*-normal. On 'her face,' she'd be unelectable; what's she got to get her this job?
2. Ask Guido Westerwelle's boyfriend. Normally, a perpetrator's sex life is not a topic; wiki includes "openly gay person" - but Westerwelle's behaviour is a slur on the ('otherwise normal') gay community. Westerwelle talks with Turks, Jews and Jordan etc., all *against* Syria. IF you're not with ... "Germany has provided funds totalling 125 million euros in assistance for the Syrian people since the Syria crisis began." Q: To which side? A: Silly question.
3. Ask any other EU-official. They *collectively* implement sanctions & no longer ban arms delivery. As if any EU-ban ever stopped Saudi Arabia and Qatar delivering Croatian arms sourced via F+UK/NATO-smashed Libya to so-called (mostly foreign jihadi incl. al-Qaeda) 'rebels?'
4. Ask Ban Ki-moon, and any other UN-official. Fact is, the 'Western proxy' attacks on Syria could be stopped in a heartbeat - except the UN (+ other agencies, like here the EU) both 'allow' and actively support the so-called 'rebels,' and the subsequent vicious slaughter and destruction to continue.
There are many more uglies, but none uglier than the US/Zs.
End preamble.
-=*=-
Mainstream article:
US senator John McCain visits Syria as EU lifts arms embargo
Updated May 28, 2013 09:31:04
«US senator John McCain, one of the strongest advocates of US military aid for the Syrian opposition, has crossed into Syria to meet with rebel leaders.
Mr McCain's visit came as British foreign secretary William Hague announced that the European Union (EU) has agreed to lift an arms embargo in order to be able to supply weapons to the rebels.»
[AusBC/'news']
Comment 1: Think about it. This *publicly* demonstrates that the US has such open access to so-called 'rebel' areas, that one of their 'highest' representatives can freely come and go. With CIA support, of course - *exactly* how the rebels are getting their arms and the foreign jihadi mercenaries are getting freighted in.
Comment 2: Seems that only Austria stood in the way: «"It's unfortunate we have now found a common position," said the Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger in a negotiation break. He was angry that British and French [and] the other 25 EU states would seek to impose their position."» There you have it; F+UK 'leading' the warmongering, Germany amongst the more-war majority.
-=*=-
Alternative article:
US Makes Syria an ‘Offer it Can’t Refuse’ - again
By Finian Cunningham
May 27, 2013
«In Mafia terms, it’s called “making an offer that can’t be refused”. The “offer” is not one of free choice between options that may benefit the object party. In reality, it is about setting up a scenario of duress, under which the object party is coerced to capitulate to detrimental terms of extreme prejudice determined cynically by the other party.
...
Last month, the Iranian FARS news agency reported that Syrian envoy to Iran, Adnan Mahmoud, disclosed that as far back as March 2011 - when the conflict was kicking off in Syria - that the then US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, had starkly told the Damascus government that it faced “a choice”.
The Syrian envoy to Iran was quoted by FARS as saying: “Of course, in the very first weeks of the conflict in Syria, the US Secretary of Defence [Robert Gates] sent a message to the Syrian government, and said we should have cut our ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran if we wanted to stop the war, and stressed that if we did so, they [the US] would provide us with whatever we want”. In other words, Washington was making Syria back then “an offer it couldn’t refuse”.»
[ICH/Cunningham]
Comment 1: Absolute shocker; to get the 'full effect,' read it all.
Comment 2: There're more than a few important points here; that the so-called 'pro-democracy revolution' went almost immediately violent, that the US *boasted* (covertly, now outed) that they could control = stop the violence, that the 'real' objective was to attack Iran. And so it goes; as soon as we hear "diplomacy" or "strategic," we know we're hearing from or about criminals.
-=*=-
Interpretive article:
Why Disinformation Works. In America “Truth has no Relevance. Only Agendas are Important”
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
May 25, 2013
«What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.»
[ICH/Roberts]
Comment 1: Surprise? Hardly.
Comment 2: Here, the 'lying narrative' would have a democratic revolution in Syria, opposed by a brutal tyrant. The truth is that the revolution is hardly democratic (except for a few deluded - US/NED, say – fomented fools), and the real tyrants are the US/Z rogue-regimes, plus their snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on, here the EU (except Austria).
-=*=-
Explanatory article:
European Union Directly Funds Al Qaeda Looting of Syrian oil
By Johannes Stern
May 20, 2013
«According to a report yesterday in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, the European Union (EU) is directly funding US-backed Sunni Islamist terrorist groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. These groups are looting oil in parts of eastern Syria that they control and then re-selling it to EU countries at rock-bottom prices.»
[globalresearch/Stern]
Comment: Quelle surprise! (Not.) - Murder for oil - again? No, still.
-=*=-
Argument: There's no argument as to what's going on here; the 'Western' so-called 'leaders' are a) out of all control, specifically b) beyond our (we the people's = democratic) control, and c) engaged in criminal pursuits, namely murder for spoil. All together, 'Western rulers' = violent criminal tyrants.
-=*=-
Fazit: Gotta be stopped!
(Newton's 1st law: No change without force.)
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] deceive v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit. deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief. deceiver n. [POD]
[2] lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]
Abbreviations:
ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers
I/J/Z-plex; illegitimate IL squats on genocidally ethnically-cleansed = improperly alienated, mainly Palestinian ELO/Os' land/property = IL is an un-remedied crime-scene and *all* I/J/Z-plex (except any actively opposing) are guilty; sole remedy = reparations = revest where possible, adequate = acceptable recompense where not + *sincere* apology
M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.
MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'
neoliberalism = 'economic rationalism,' 'supply-side,' (wicked) privatisations, 'small govt.' = minimised to no égalité etc. + globalisation = wage arbitration etc. = <1% rips off 99%+
PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC
ppp-dd'd = pushed propaganda paradigm dumbed-down
PRopaganda = PR + propaganda, usual qualifier: 'lying'
SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on
the Enlightenment well summarised by liberté, égalité, fraternité
US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave., Hollywood
US&/Zs = the US of A and/or Zionists; sometimes indistinguishable
XS-CO2-C*4 = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe (one-way) cliff
Zionism (latest post-Jabotinsky, '23) = perpetual aggressive war
2013-05-22
structural deficits
big surprise?
hardly
.. no surprise at all really ...
.. only one question remains ...
.. why did it take so bloody long?
-=*=-
Thesis/Subtitle: Reagan; voodoo economics -> smaller govt., cut taxes (mostly off rich), cut services - deficits don't matter! ...
Concomitant: Thatcher; ditto Reaganomics + there is no society, TINA! ...
Corollary: mostly lies, deliberately deployed to deceive
-=*=-
Musing: In real life (or on TV - No! It's *not* just a movie! - Observing 'faked' violence can damage minds) - re: some criminal investigation, one may encounter 'means, motive, and opportunity,' but a more complete list includes 'premeditation, presence, what modus operandi and cui bono?'
The basic crimes are 'things that do harm' = lying, cheating, theft and murder. Lying is attempted deception; apart from assaulting the audience's intellect = harm to the mind (='virtual'), deception may be deployed as a premeditated precursor to some intended actual (='real') harm. Lying is thus both a pre- and post-requisite to harm; else the perpetrator would self-convict.
A perpetrator may lie by commission - or omission -> covert/secrecy. Secrecy is an enemy of, amongst others, democracy.
Due to deception, not all evidence may be visible, in which case 'elimination of the impossible' and 'balance of probabilities' may apply, and generally, little to no weight will be afforded to 'coincidence.'
A perpetrator may do harm alone, or may have help - accessories, apologists, even bystanders who do nothing to stop the crime(s); all such 'helpers' make themselves guilty (only Q is by what degree). Hence the rationale behind 'providing (material) assistance...'
The 'material' distinction is between active and passive; whereby "Der, s/he didn't think" may happen, ignorance is no (legal) excuse. Here, we may consider 'shooting the messenger' if the messenger deliberately conduits or (worse) actively assists the deployment of lies. (See AusBC, say, re IL, US, Lib/Lab, more...).
A basic morality is 'Do unto others...' and 'Do no harm;' any who do harm are not 'merely' criminals but are also immoral - and possibly psychopaths to boot. (Some prefer the term sociopath; that's harm to society; psycho- precedes socio-, and psycho- pins the problem where it arises, namely in the perpetrator's deranged mind.)
End musing.
-=*=-
Trigger article:
Joe Hockey defends Howard government tax cuts after reports say they contributed to structural deficit
By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths
Updated May 22, 2013 14:45:30
«Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has defended the personal income tax cuts delivered by the former Coalition government, which were today cited in two official reports for contributing to an ongoing "structural" deficit in the budget.
The federal Treasury and the newly established independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) have released fresh estimates of the structural budget balance, both painting a dire picture of the underlying position of the nation's coffers.»
[AusBC/'news']
Comment 1: The funny thing is that this article exists at all, on the AusBC even, and more in 'argument' below.
Comment 2: One should read the lot; try to spot the lies, and from which directions.
-=*=-
Reference article:
Washington Consensus; Ten Points (=WC10Ps)
«The consensus as originally stated ... included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
1.Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
2.Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
3.Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
4.Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
5.Competitive exchange rates;
6.Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
7.Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
8.Privatization of state enterprises;
9.Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
10.Legal security for property rights.»
[wiki/WC10Ps]
Comment 1: The 'blurb' contains "believed to be necessary for the recovery" - but as history has shown (see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man," say), pursuit of many of the ten cause chaos and ruin. The list of 'architects' includes "the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C., ... the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department," which tells us most of what we need to know (to start prosecutions, say).
Comment 2: Some of the points appear innocuous, some actually +ve. But: It's no coincidence that the +ves are often neglected, or even contra-implemented.
-=*=-
A different sort of reference article:
Nineteen Eighty-Four
«... on pretext of giving him a copy of the latest edition of the Dictionary of Newspeak, O'Brien gives Winston the Book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein, the infamous and publicly reviled leader of the Brotherhood. The Book explains the concept of perpetual war, the true meanings of the slogans WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and how the régime of the Party can be overthrown by means of the political awareness of the Proles.»
[wiki/1984]
Comment: Who could have imagined, back in the good old 1960s, that we would end up *sooo deep* in the 1984 shit? Thanks, but "No, thanks!" mainly to the Yank/Zs & ilk.
-=*=-
Argument: Our once jewel-like planet is in big trouble (see 4x4 apocalypse-matrix below
[*]). Q: What to do? A: Fix it. First, identify the perpetrators, make them stop the destruction, then repair the damage.
The above trigger article is to do with government policy, specifically Aus' so-called 'democratic' government's economic policy. Q: What are governments for? A: *Not* to enable the already rich <1% to rip us, we the people off, but to *look after* our country and we the people [democratic covenant: The people surrender power to *representatives*, who govern for the common good (About 7,470,000 results)], which does not (necessarily) imply *rule* - but that's what we're getting; rulers in place of governors, and *tyrannical* rulers - to boot.
In 1984-speak, 'liberal' is a 4-letter word. To misquote a misattribution: "When I hear the word liberal, I reach for my Browning!" (But I don't actually 'do' violence...)
|
Now libre in this blog's title = ‘freedom, liberty’ - is correct and it works, whereas liberal - as in the WC10Ps above = neoliberalism (and as in Aus' Liberal party) - is misleading. Proof: We are getting neither freedom nor liberty from any such 'liberalism' - rather, the crash is upon us - proof of that ranges from the GFC, EU-PIIGS + B, F+UK etc. all getting forcefully austeritied, ~47mio in US on food-stamps - and the above trigger article, all just for starters. It's relatively easy to prove that many/most of our 'Western' democracies are sham. Proof = we the people are being lied to = misled electorate(s), false-dichotomy two-party system, often bipartisan = *totally* un- & anti-democratic since there is *zero* effective choice, and when elected, many/most 'representatives' sell-out = work *against* the 99%+ interests. There's another misused word, 'sovereignty,' as in a (proper) democracy, the voters are sovereign - well, we are clearly *not*. Together, liberal + sovereignty = we the people are being deceived and ripped-off = getting screwed.
The next easy-to-see thing is the reason for 'structural deficits.' IF neoliberalism arrived even half-fully-formed in Thatcher&Reagan's wicked hands, THEN it is because it was trialed in Chile, after the murdering-coup against Allende. (Date: An earlier 9/11, namely '73.) What we know now is that neoliberalism was quickly onto the tyrants' menu, since some people accuse M.Fraser of having wasted time. So it was up to Hawke/Keating to kick neoliberalism off in Aus, '83+, followed in '96+ by Howard/Costello (a more apt aphorism: Cheating/Smirk), then Rudd/Gillard, '07+. What all these tyrants did was to accept then follow the WC10Ps, cutting both taxes (mostly off the rich) and services (off we the people). M.Fraser was perhaps not so slow; recall "Fraser/Lynch razor-gang." Cutting taxes is much easier and more popular than cutting services, so deficits easily & quickly arise. Here we could try "Der, they didn't think;" it becomes a Q: Did they know exactly what they were doing (i.e. to damage the economy + we the people) - which would make them *deliberate* traitors, OR did they act largely out of ignorance = make themselves 'accidental' = *negligent* traitors? Repeat for emphasis: Both options = treachery. Which, note: bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic treachery = QED for debilitated democracies.
Note that the villainy is not just across political parties, but across the (Western) world. Q: Was the now-evident shovelling from the 99%+ to the <1% clearly explained to you, and were you thus able to vote for it? Or did you vote for some spiv in a suit who then accepted the "Washington Consensus," thus liberating the entire country from economic-policy self-determination?
Recall "No taxation without representation;" IF misrepresented THEN resulting taxation is theft, as is privatisation in all cases; theft from we the people, followed by being toll-boothed into penury. Proof = privatised electricity, worst = medicine for profit.
None of this is new, nor did it go unremarked at the time. Re: 'economic rationalism (= neoliberalism with a fancy 'sales tag');' "We'll all be rooned!" - some of us cried, but we were ignored, just as we were when we cried "No war for oil!" Such ignorings are signs of tyranny. Then when they kill to steal (pre-UNGA181 Palestine then 66+ more bloody years (on-going, un-remedied, supreme international crime), from Korea through Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, now Syria, Iran next?) - it's vicious, criminal tyranny. Recall: Those who do harm are psychopaths.
Q: Anything else wrong? A: Yes. Briefly, as part of WC10Ps, FDI is sucking resource-owners dry (i.e. in Aus ~83% of mining profits go o/s = get permanently lost). "Broadening the tax base" usually means replacing progressive (income) taxes with (flat = regressive) sales taxes. Deregulation mainly means freeing criminals from rules; the list of neoliberal sins is long. A new nadir has been reached in the banking system, whereby banksters may now gamble with depositors' savings, see Cyprus. Could it happen elsewhere/here in Aus? Yes. Banksters with their private fractional reserve banking are continually sucking interest out of our economies; they and miners, say, are economic-rent rippers-off. Keynes advocated "the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor," (absolute antithesis of US/Z capitalism); that's why we are largely prevented from using Keynes' known good solutions, and so it goes. The US/Zs and quisling accessory-hangers-on, in their greed and hubris, are world-wreckers.
Q: Anything else? A: Yes. Consider the M/I/C/$4a†-plex:
M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.
Each component contributes to we the people's + the planet's grave problems.
military = mass-murdering for spoil
industrial = lean&meaning; off-shoring, out-sourcing, down-sizing etc.; all pricing above cost plus a fair mark-up = unearned income = economic rent (see euthanasia)
parliament = traitorous politicians, as above
banksters = the 'created money loaned at interest' rip-off
4th estate = MSM + PFBCs = conduiting and *actively assisting* lies
academia incl. think-tanks = developers + apologists for erring ideology
the churches = mostly guilty of silence in face of above criminality (note that rather than condemning wars = murdering for spoil, they are apologists for so-called 'just war' - which isn't at all; all wars have at least one aggressor = guilty party (prevent such = no war), then there's the 'opiate of the masses' aspect - based on impossible to prove assertions = wishful thinking to avoid 100% certain death)
One last Q: Why are they so bad? A: Ask them. By definition, psychopaths have no feelings. Perhaps they want to be rich and/or famous - or just like to watch we the people suffer. The scale of the conspiracy is truly vast, but most people, most of the 99%+ are decent people wishing themselves and others peace & happy lives. The <1% and their co-conspirators can never have those.
-=*=-
Fazit: Recall Newton's 1st law: 'An object at rest or in uniform motion remains just so, unless acted upon by a force.' The only peaceful force we have is through the ballot box; in Aus we have an advantage = preferential voting. IF 50% + 1 voters in every electorate put Lab/Lib last (in your own preferred order, as safe se... err, voting), THEN no Lib/Lab would be elected; any random leftovers could not possibly make things worse (since Lab/Lib are already doing that) - rescue would then be possible.
-=*end*=-
PS Remember the good old 1960s?
When things were so uncomplicated?
I wish I could go back there again
And everything could be the same.
[ELO, adapted]
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] deceive v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit. deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief. deceiver n. [POD]
[2] lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]
[3] conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [ibid.]
Abbreviations:
ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers
I/J/Z-plex; illegitimate IL squats on genocidally ethnically-cleansed = improperly alienated, mainly Palestinian ELO/Os' land/property = IL is an un-remedied crime-scene and *all* I/J/Z-plex (except any actively opposing) are guilty; sole remedy = reparations = revest where possible, adequate = acceptable recompense where not + *sincere* apology
M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.
MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'
neoliberalism = 'economic rationalism,' 'supply-side,' (wicked) privatisations, 'small govt.' = minimised to no égalité etc. + globalisation = wage arbitration etc. = <1% rips off 99%+
PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC
ppp-dd'd = pushed-propaganda paradigm dumbed-down
PRopaganda = PR + propaganda, usual qualifier: 'lying'
SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on
the Enlightenment well summarised by liberté, égalité, fraternité
US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave., Hollywood
US&/Zs = the US of A and/or Zionists; sometimes indistinguishable
XS-CO2-C*4 = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe cliff
(in the short term at least, one-way)
Zionism (latest post-Jabotinsky, '23) = perpetual aggressive war
^
[*] The 4x4 apocalypse-matrix (lines 3-5 prioritised):
| colour | white | red | black | pale |
| wiki | Conquest | War | Famine | Death |
| world | xs-CO2-c*4 ecosphere destruction | militarisation; mass-murders for spoil | sham democracy, lies | rip-off economics |
| politics | traitorous rep-'leaders' | corrupt intellectuals | MSM + PFBCs' lies | dumbed-down sheople |
| economics | banksters' rip-off | neoliberalism | privatisation | globalisation |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)