Israel Attacks Gaza Again

Even before Israel began the huge bombing attacks on Gaza starting 12/27/08, Israel had already been committing crimes against the people of Gaza. Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories
occupied since 1967, issued a statement on 12/9/08 about the ongoing cruelty and unlawfulness of the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel. Falk, who is Jewish, explained that, "such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gazans for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Chris Hedges points out what Israel has been doing to Gaza, things which are often either not reported or under reported by mainstream media, "the point of this Israeli siege, ostensibly, is to break Hamas, the radical Islamic group that was elected to power in 2007. But Hamas has repeatedly proposed long-term truces with Israel and offered to negotiate a permanent truce. During the last cease-fire, established through Egyptian intermediaries in July, Hamas upheld the truce although Israel refused to ease the blockade. It was Israel* that, on Nov. 4, initiated an armed attack that violated the truce and killed six Palestinians. It was only then that Hamas resumed firing rockets at Israel. Palestinians have launched more than 200 rockets on Israel since the latest round of violence began. There have been no Israeli casualties." - Israel’s 'Crime Against Humanity,' by Chris Hedges, Posted on Dec 15, 2008

"“This is a crime of survival,” Falk said of the rocket attacks by Palestinians. “Israel has put the Gazans in a set of circumstances where they either have to accept whatever is imposed on them or resist in any way available to them. That is a horrible dilemma to impose upon a people. This does not alleviate the Palestinians, and Gazans in particular, for accountability for doing these acts involving rocket fire, but it also imposes some responsibility on Israel for creating these circumstances.”

Israel seeks to break the will of the Palestinians to resist. The Israeli government has demonstrated little interest in diplomacy or a peaceful solution. The rapid expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank is an effort to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution by gobbling up vast tracts of Palestinian real estate." - Party to Murder, By Chris Hedges Posted on Dec 29, 2008

* "Israel carried out an airstrike on Gaza on Tuesday night after its troops clashed with Hamas gunmen along the border in the first such confrontation since a cease-fire took effect in June. Five militants were killed, Palestinian officials told The Associated Press. An Israeli security force had entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel and fought with Hamas gunmen, killing one and wounding at least three, according to Palestinian hospital officials." - Israeli Strike Is First in Gaza Since Start of Cease-Fire By ISABEL KERSHNER Published: November 4, 2008 nytimes.com

"The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire began to disintegrate last week when Israeli forces entered Gaza to try to destroy what the military said was a tunnel dug by militants to carry out a planned cross-border raid." - Hamas militants step up rocket attacks on Israel, November 15, 2008 TimesOnline.co.uk

"IN JUNE, Israel agreed a six-month ceasefire with Hamas. Until December 27th, no Israeli, civilian or military, was killed as a result of rocket or mortar fire from Gaza. None. Not one. And there was very little rocket or mortar fire out of Gaza until Israel broke the ceasefire in early November. Those key facts have been missing from most of the reporting of Israel's slaughter of nearly 300 Palestinians in Gaza, which began on December 27th. Israel's claim that it had to act in order to protect Israeli civilians from being killed by rocket or mortar fire from Gaza is bogus." - Israel broke ceasefire by killing six, DAVID MORRISON

"With today's news of IDF air strikes abruptly ending the lives of some 140+ Gazans, I can't help but feel an abject sense of horror at the fact that most Americans will probably find some way to blame the Palestinians for bringing this on themselves. Nevermind the fact that it was Israel who initially broke the ceasefire. Forget the fact that Israel kidnapped two civilians from Gaza before Corporal Gilad Shilat became a household name. Nevermind that Israel's strangulation of the Gaza Strip began immediately after the so-called disengagement and before the electoral victory of Hamas. I remain confounded by the American progressive movement's widespread refusal to stand behind the Palestinian people as they are subjected to an endless barrage of colonialist, racist aggression." - Israel's ongoing war on Palestinian self-determination by Daisy Cutter

"The ceasefire had come under growing strain since Israeli ground forces launched an attack into Gaza against what the Israeli army claimed was a group of Palestinians preparing to attack Israel. Ayman Taha, a Hamas spokesman, said the ceasefire would not be renewed 'because the enemy did not abide by its obligations' to ease a crippling blockade of the Gaza Strip and halt attacks." - Hamas ends ceasefire with Israel, Hamas has ended its ceasefire with Israel after fresh fighting flared across the Gaza border. Tim Butcher in Jerusalem, telegraph.co.uk 12/18/2008

"This catastrophic impact was known and inevitable, and far outweighs any claim of self-defense or protection of Israeli civilians. (It should be noted that this escalation has not made Israelis safer; to the contrary, the one Israeli killed by a Palestinian rocket attack on Saturday after the Israeli assault began, was the first such casualty in more than a year.)" - The Gaza Crisis: December 2008
Dec 29, 2008 By Phyllis Bennis

The Politics of State Terror

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni instructed senior ministry officials to open an aggressive and diplomatic international public relations campaign, in order to gain greater international support for Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip." - Israel to mount emergency international PR effort in wake of Gaza campaign

Top Israeli Newspaper Raises Doubts About Gaza Attack

"Strike on car carrying alleged militants comes amid reports that Israel and Hamas have agreed truce" - Israeli air strike kills five in Gaza guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 June 2008

See New Video:
Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law
See New Blog Post: Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law

SEE: Israel is the aggressor. Overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, kills first. LINK HERE  ISRAEL IS THE AGGRESSOR. OVERWHELMINGLY ISRAEL, NOT PALESTINE, KILLS FIRST.

9/11 Commissioners intentionally downplayed and obscured the motives for the attacks.

9/11 Commissioners intentionally downplayed and obscured the motives for the attacks. So much so that Seth can read an excerpt from the report quoted in this post: "Why Do They Hate Us?" by Jonathan Schwarz on his blog A Tiny Revolution and be able to downplay the Israel motive. The fact is that part of the 9/11 report is close to Zelikow's testimony to the commission but omits a key sentence which Zelikow said in his testimony about bin Laden which makes a clear point: "The al-Qeada leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel."

What a devious game the authors of the 9/11 Commission Report played, it is beyond the pale for them to obscure the main motive. In addition to omitting that key sentence, the 9/11 Report omitted key testimony from FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald in response to Lee Hamilton's question, "what motivated them to do it?" Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." This testimony was kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report and no recommendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. When they did make mention of what they tried so hard to downplay, the authors had the audacity to use these weasel words, "American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary." See video

UPDATE: I got this unpleasant response from Seth:

"Tom: Yeah, I'm part of the chain of "deviousness." Me, Ariel Sharon and Tom Friedman and the rest of the Zionist conspiracy.

Let's run away because some Saudi maniac hates us!

Personally I am a non-interventionist and believe that the US should restrict its involvement to its proper borders: the Western Hemisphere.

If we were to draw down our commitments elsewhere and concentrate on what we have going on over here (Canada, Brazil) we would ensure our people's wealth and prosperity for at least the next century. Let China and Russia fight over the Afghan wasteland and the diminishing Saudi oil reserves. We're set over here. It's bound to happen in the next thirty years anyway...better sooner than later, right?"

Seth, I never said you conspired with anyone else and I didn't even call your specific actions devious. I said you can talk inaccurately about bin Laden's motives even after reading an excerpt from the 9/11 Report because THAT report was deviously put together in order to downplay and obscure the main motive. I don't know what is motivating you but your reply to me doesn't indicate that you are upset that you were innocently mislead by the 9/11 Commission Report , Thomas Friedman and others. Why aren't you directing your anger at those who mislead you?

Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example which disproves Friedman's canard: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998 Also see: bin Laden has been angry about US support of Israel for years.

Thomas Friedman has been LYING about the motives of terrorists for years. Friedman claimed they "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." He is a liar, it is not "generalized hatred," it is specific things! It is beyond the pale to feed the public lies about life and death issues. Friedman wrote that in 1998, after years of crystal clear messages, for example the 1993 letter to the NYT. Terrorists stated specific motives in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

And most media elites follow Friedman's canard about bin Laden and Palestine. What is wrong with elites like Anderson Cooper with their extreme pro-Israel bias? Anderson Cooper continued to push Friedman's canard even after reading (or claiming to read) a book that specifically exposed the canard. Cooper was actually interviewing Peter Bergen and says to him: "It -- it's interesting, also, to hear them reference Palestinians. As -- as I read in your book, "The Osama Bin Laden I Know: The Oral History of Osama bin Laden," I mean, bin Laden wasn't talking about Palestinians from the get-go." Bergen looked uncomfortable in having to explain to Cooper, "Well, he -- he has always been interested in the Palestinian issue." See link: Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades

My reply to knightmascara on YouTube

knightmascara, I've never said that so how could I "keep screaming it"?

Why did you suddenly start with this "Jew hater" crap? You felt so threatened by finding out how much deception there is in the media that you feel compelled to attack me, someone who is simply laying out the facts? Where did you get this "Jew hater" BS? Do you realize how ignorant you sound? think you can discipline your mind and try to quote something I've said which backs up your accusation? You can't.

The above is my reply to a nasty commenter calling themselves "knightmascara" on YouTube who is trying to slander me. (I tried several times to post this reply and it kept not working so that is why I am posting it here.) Knightmascara's first comment was "yawn" so it is not unexpected for them to move on to BS like, "it's all the fault of the Jews! Keep screaming it."

As I point out in a previous comment, knightmascara doesn't understand basics and when exposed to the facts he or she lashes out with all the standard pathetic slanders they can think of. Knightmascara doesn't even know the basics about freedom. They poison public discourse with vulgar attempts to create a false moral high ground for themselves. I ask, "damn, are you really so threatened by the free exchange of ideas that you must resort to these underhanded tactics?"
This is the video that is getting knightmascara so upset: "I myself was twice warned by PBS producers"

"I myself was twice warned by PBS producers"

See video: "I myself was twice warned by PBS producers"
Many Americans just don't know how mainstream media is actually behaving. It doesn't occur to them what's being withheld from them. Scott Horton is a Contributing Editor of Harper's Magazine, in a footnote to a December 2008 Harper's Magazine article, he reveals:
"I myself was twice warned by PBS producers, in advance of appearances on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, that I could use the word “torture” in the abstract but that I was to refrain from applying it to the administration’s policies. And after an interview with CNN in which I spoke of the administration’s torture policy, I was told by the producer, “That’s okay for CNN International, but we can’t use it on the domestic feed." - TV Allows Torture Talk Only 'in the Abstract'

In order to get a clear profile picture, I've made this video consisting of one still frame. I've slightly altered the ends of the ribbon so it'll look when it is used as the profile picture. The problem is there's an apparent glitch which acts like I've selected "Always use my latest uploaded video still" for my profile picture when I haven't. And when I try to upload an image for the profile picture, the picture ends up looking blurry. So I need a thumbnail from a video and youtube now only lets you select a thumbnail from the last 9 videos you have uploaded. So in order to deal with this situation, I'm using one still frame for this whole video. And the reason is thumbnails are now selected algorithmically so I couldn't be sure I would get this image as the thumbnail unless I put it in ever frame of this video.

He had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine

"At the moment Zucker blew in and interrupted, I had been in Corvo's office to propose a series of stories about al-Qaeda, which was just emerging as a suspect in the attacks. While well known in security circles and among journalists who tried to cover international Islamist movements, al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization and a story line was still obscure in the early days after September 11. It had occurred to me and a number of other journalists that a core mission of NBC News would now be to explain, even belatedly, the origins and significance of these organizations. But Zucker insisted that Dateline stay focused on the firefighters. The story of firefighters trapped in the crumbling towers, Zucker said, was the emotional center of this whole event. Corvo enthusiastically agreed. "Maybe," said Zucker, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters." He told Corvo he could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine." - John Hockenberry, "You Don't Understand Our Audience, What I learned about network television at Dateline NBC."

Israel Must End the Gaza blockade!

"When it comes to Israel's blockade of Gaza, the silence is deafening, at least outside of Palestine. One wonders how many international conventions the Israelis need to break before there is an actual global outcry and action against their repeated human rights abuses against Palestine. The blockade of Gaza is only the latest in a long list of such abuses, but the scale of the abuse is beyond dramatic." - Bill Fletcher Jr.

Crime Against Humanity: the cruelty and unlawfulness of the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel

UNITED NATIONS

Press Release

Gaza: Silence is not an option

9 December 2008
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, issued the following statement:

GENEVA -- In recent days the desperate plight of the civilian population of Gaza has been acknowledged by such respected international figures as the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of the General Assembly, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Last week, Karen AbyZayd, who heads the UN relief effort in Gaza, offered first-hand confirmation of the desperate urgency and unacceptable conditions facing the civilian population of Gaza. Although many leaders have commented on the cruelty and unlawfulness of the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel, such a flurry of denunciations by normally cautious UN officials has not occurred on a global level since the heyday of South African apartheid.

And still Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease. Such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gazans for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is long past the time when talk suffices. As AbuZayd has written, "the chasm between word and deed" with respect to upholding human rights in occupied Palestine creates a situation where "radicalism and extremism easily take root." The UN is obligated to respond under these conditions. Some governments of the world are complicit by continuing their support politically and economically for Israel's punitive approach.

Protective action must be taken immediately to offset the persisting and wide-ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life, and in view of the emergency situation that is producing a humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding day by day. However difficult politically, it is time to act. At the very least, an urgent effort should be made at the United Nations to implement the agreed norm of a 'responsibility to protect' a civilian population being collectively punished by policies that amount to a Crime Against Humanity.

In a similar vein, it would seem mandatory for the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law. As AbuZayd has declared, "This is a humanitarian crisis deliberately imposed by political actors."

It should be noted that the situation worsened in recent days due to the breakdown of a truce between Hamas and Israel that had been observed for several months by both sides. The truce was maintained by Hamas despite the failure of Israel to fulfill its obligation under the agreement to improve the living conditions of the people of Gaza.

The recent upsurge of violence occurred after an Israeli incursion that killed several alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza. It is a criminal violation of international law for elements of Hamas or anyone else to fire rockets at Israeli towns regardless of provocation, but such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel's imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the UN or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people.

ENDS

For further information on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and work and mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, visit the following website: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/MENARegion/Pages/PSIndex.aspx

Critical Facts Reporters Won't Report, Serious Issues which put our Lives at Risk

See video: Critical Facts Reporters Won't Report, Serious Issues which put our Lives at Risk

Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer said in a CNN interview that "the politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

What I see is suppression, denial and misdirection about the actual motives. And the "9/11 Truth" movement has filled this role so perfectly that powerful people like it. Chomsky is right when he points out that the 9/11 truth movement is "treated so tolerantly" and he suspects that "people in positions of power like it." He points out that "It's diverting enormous amounts if energy away from real crimes of the administration ... so much potential activist energy is directed into 9/11 discussions. From the point of view of power centers, that's great. We'll give these people exposure on C-SPAN and have their books right up front at the local bookstores. A pretty tolerant reaction. We sort of say we think it's a bad joke, but you don't get the kind of reaction you do when you really go after hard issues." p36, Chomsky, What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World see my blog post

Gibson: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

Bush: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.

President Bush continues to lie about the very reason he started the Iraq war. And the mainstream media reporters continue to play along with the big lie! Charlie Gibson, how do you sleep at night?

"Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November, 2002. In matters relating to process - notably, prompt access to sites - we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998." - Hans Blix, 3/7/03

Blix said, "there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January." He said Iraq's "numerous initiatives" "can be seen as 'active' or even 'proactive'" and that "even with a proactive Iraqi attitude ... it will still take some time." - Hans Blix, 3/7/03

Friday, November 09, 2007
Greta Van Susteren: The two big issues Americans think of when they think of Pakistan, one is you have nuclear weapons and that's always, you know, terrifying, you know when a country has unrest - you have nuclear weapons and the other is Osama bin Laden, we know - we suspect that he is hiding out in the northern part of Pakistan or that he is being hidden out there. Is Musharraf doing everything he can to protect your nuclear weapons? And number two, is he doing everything he can to help the United States in its war on terrorism?

Benazir Bhutto: Well, I think Osama bin Laden must be rubbing his hands with glee as he looks at what's happening in Pakistan and how there is civil unrest in the country, how large parts of the tribal areas have fallen under the sway of his supporters as have parts of the frontier province and now they are moving into yet another state known as the northern area. And what's frightening, Greta, is that they seem to have tons of money and they're hiring poverty stricken people from Pakistan and they're hiring poverty stricken people from nearby Uzbekistan.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/09/audio-greta-van-susteren-interviews-benazir-bhutto/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310140,00.html

progress?

"your right she said it too nonchalantly as if it was common knowledge ... i happen to agree with you that she meant to say pearl" -checkitb4uwreckit

"ok rep press i see the link. this is a good point. this is something that makes a reasonable argument for the possibility of her mis speaking. ... israel we should admit that this is not a ridiculous theory rep press is pushing" - joopq

"She may have really meant to say Daniel Pearl ... I've made it crystal clear what I meant is that she may have MEANT to say Daniel Pearl ... My take on it is that she DID "misspeak", as in not intentionally saying 'Osama Bin Laden'" - israelfnp

(this Youtuber calling himself "israelfnp" had at first refused to believe that she may have meant to say "Daniel Pearl." This is what he posted three months ago on my channel page: Oh, I get it, Bhutto MEANT to say Daniel Pearl, but accidentally said "Osama Bin Laden", yeah I make slips like that all the time, I mean to say apples and I say Oranges instead, silly mistake, right. Can't wait to see you debunk that on your vid. It's so easy to confuse "Daniel Pearl" with "Osama Bin Laden")
Bhutto didn't mean to say "Osama bin Laden"
See video

Journalist Receives Death Threat for Talking About Israel

SEE VIDEO: Journalist Receives Death Threat for Talking About Israel
"After debating on How Can Peace Be Achieved Between Israelis and Palestinians? Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, Alison Weir and If Americans Knew received a voicemail message saying: On Monday, at 2 PM, you better not be in your office. Because me and my buddies, who were trained in the Israeli Army, will come and kill every single one of you..."

Understanding Power, the Indispensable Chomsky. A Book Recommendation

Understanding Power, the Indispensable Chomsky. A Book Recommendation (see video)

Re: Democrats and war VIDEO

Bush lied about Saddam and al-Qaida being "allies" see video, Re: Democrats and war

Fair issue was clarified and the situation resolved with YouTube

I am happy to say that months ago the fair issue was clarified and the situation resolved after I sent the following e-mail to YouTube (I figured I would share with others the e-mail I sent in order to explain the issue of fair use) also see: Fair Use and YouTube:

Dear YouTube Team:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the videos I submitted for monetization and giving me the opportunity to clarify the fair use of them. From what you wrote in your e-mail I understand that you are asking me if I still maintain that the use of the clips in my videos is still fair use even if I make commercial use of my videos.

The answer is yes and I would like to state my case by first referring to the website you sent me a link to in your e-mail. The info at that link makes it clear that I am abiding by fair use principles, both according to the explanation and the examples provided at the website you referred me to. I will go into detail below but I would like to point out that I have the same fair use rights as Viacom and Viacom regularly makes commercial use of the content it uses according to fair use doctrine.

The specific videos you ask me about in your e-mail, I list here as 1, 2, 3 and 4:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWe5eNBRE8
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9E3V1FUliQ
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS4zyThVnok
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gfrMWjfypk

Concerning videos numbered 1, 2 and 3, the many clips I use I have a right to use because it is government-produced video of the legislative proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and it is in the public domain so I can use it without restrictions. As C-SPAN explains, "Although C-SPAN is the only news media organization that regularly televises the legislative proceedings of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, it does not hold a copyright in that video coverage. That government-produced video is in the public domain which means that it belongs to the American people and may be used without restrictions of any kind." ( http://www.c-span.org/about/copyright.asp )

Concerning video number 4, my use of a 28 second clip from the 60 Minutes Pelly-Ahmadinejad interview and a 6 second clip from the 60 Minutes Pelly-Bush interview was for the purpose of political commentary and criticism and conforms with fair use doctrine. Section 107 of the copyright law lists four factors to be considered in determining fair use. My use is fair use according to all four factors. The first factor is the one that considers "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." This does not say that use of a commercial nature violates fair use doctrine, it simply says it is part of the consideration in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. Commercial use in and of itself is "not at all determinative" of whether a particular use is considered fair but rather "that preference will be granted to works that were created for non-profit educational purposes." I am quoting from one of the "Fair Use Links on the Web" which YouTube provides on its Copyright Tips page. ( http://www.copyrightwebsite.com/Info/FairUse/FairUse.aspx )

That commercial use of material can be considered fair use is well established in case law. Even at the site you highlighted, there is an example of a company making commercial use of content under the fair use doctrine. It was legally determined to be fair use for the Washington Post to use three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts and post them on the Internet. That site says the "issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work." ( http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#1 )

The fair use network points out, "commerciality is not the most important aspect in the first fair use factor. More important than commerciality is whether a use is "transformative" or merely substitutes for the original work." ( http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/c-fairuse1.php )

Viacom regularly makes commercial use of video clips it does not own the rights to and it relies on fair use doctrine to do so. "We are very familiar with the doctrines of parody, political commentary and criticism and the way they relate to the use of copyrighted material. In fact, Viacom relies upon the law in these areas regularly. Watch nearly any episode of South Park, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report and you will see how our artists draw from copyrighted works in legitimate ways for legitimate purposes." - Michael D. Fricklas, Executive Vice President General Counsel and Secretary for VIACOM, 2/6/07 ( http://www.liberalviewer.com/ViacomDocs/Letter2.pdf )

Commercial use is permitted under fair use doctrine. Viacom accepts this by their own words and actions. In addition to the examples cited above from Comedy Central, VH1's commercial entertainment show "Web Junk 2.0" features clips it uses under the fair use doctrine. The show is a commercial show, commercials are sold around the show and advertisements are sold around the content on the website, and the clips they use are not used with permission, instead Viacom uses them under the fair use doctrine.

I think you will agree that I should have the same fair use rights as Viacom and other Youtube Partners for that matter. I see YouTube allows other Youtube Partners to make commercial use of content they do not own, relying on fair use doctrine to do so, in their monetized videos. My use falls well within fair use doctrine, in fact, I think it is a textbook example of legitimate fair use.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

Also see this blog post: Fair Use and YouTube

Concocted Scenarios Doing Violence to Logic and Reason

Mike,

You linked to a page directly that pushed the "no plane at the Pentagon" conspiracy theory. You didn't have a problem with that. You wrote, "Good summary here. Except for the claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon, of course." This is a theory that you have said was wrong. You even said it was a false theory created by secret agents to make the 9/11 truth movement look bad. [Note: The background to this is that Mike says he doesn't want to link to playlists of videos sent to him because he says he doesn't want to give his readers the idea he agrees with videos which play after the one he links to.]

Mike, I have proven that things you wrote are inaccurate. (4 days ago, for example, I showed you that your site claims that "Bhutto said that Osama Bin Laden was murdered & the person responsible may be behind the attempts to kill her." That simply is not true, she said that the former military officer may be behind the attempts to kill her, NOT that Omar Sheikh was. That is literally what the words she spoke said yet you got it wrong.) When I prove these things, you don't ever seem to stop and question if you are getting things right, you don't seem to pause to rethink your position.

If we are ever going to get out of this crisis, we need people to make a sincere effort to look at and think about the facts. Did you ever consider that you are getting things wrong and withholding info from people and that info could allow them to form an accurate opinion?

Part of your reply to me was, "therefore unless she is lying, she truly believes Osama was murdered." For the life of me I can't understand how you can make that claim after watching my Bhutto video. And you give no explanation at all about why you say you disagree with the Bhutto video. The video PROVES she DIDN'T think Osama was murdered or dead because in interviews before AND AFTER the Frost interview she talked about bin Laden in the context of him being alive. Why not think about that?

And it is so illogical how you think a claim made by the Taliban that bin Laden "died a natural and quiet death natural death" supports a claim of murder.

People are sick of all the errors and inconsistencies and viewers are telling me they want me to point out specifically how your website and Alex Jones are getting all of these things wrong. I want to give you an opportunity to at least try to defend these things you are doing. I am sure you don't want to be known as a man who irrationally and stubbornly refused to apply logic to one of the most serious issues we face as Americans.

What do you think it looks like to refuse to give your readers the info which clarifies all these issues? Again, why aren't all the testimonies from all these firemen sufficient to debunk CD? For example, WTC7 was visibly undergoing structural failures WELL BEFORE it collapsed. I gave you a link to a fireman explaining that the building's structural integrity was not there and it was going to collapse. He explains why WTC7 was going to collapse: "See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building." What are people supposed to think when you refuse to give your readers a link to this info? And those observations were passed on to the press which is why WTC7 was expected to collapse. The BBC made the mistake of reporting it "had collapsed" because someone obviously confused the prediction and assumed it already had.

What is extremely frustrating is the irrational lengths you go to to explain away the proof that it was not CD. For you to argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell the BBC to report that WTC7 had already collapsed is grotesque. You are in such denial about the fact that people expected WTC7 to collapse that you refuse to acknowledge what the firemen said and instead concoct a scenario which does violence to logic and reason. And the PHOTOS of the bowing columns of the twin towers, for that matter, which prove the structural integrity was being compromised WELL BEFORE the collapse. That ISN'T a "controlled demolition." Could you please respond to these points? What do you want me to tell people?

The rest of us must live in the real world where the threats are real and only compounded by the misdirection of potential activists.

-Tom

Please Help Spread the Word: Tell others about Representative Press

This is an easy way you can tell others that even subscribing to Representative Press helps. Just click on this link and you can add this as a personal message to your contacts:"Yes, Even Subscribing Helps: Click on the Subscribe button at this page." (Just type this message in before you send)

Please help Spread the Word: Tell others about Representative Press
Click Here for the Representative Press Store

Benazir Bhutto talked about bin Laden on CNN Nov 3, 2007

Benazir Bhutto talked about bin Laden in the context of him being alive on CNN Nov 3, 2007 (this is the day after the David Frost Interview):

WHITFIELD: Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?

BHUTTO: I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s.

Please pass this link on to others: Tinyurl.com/BhuttoBinLaden

Bhutto didn't mean to say "Osama bin Laden"

Bhutto didn't mean to say "Osama bin Laden"
See video

MSNBC's favorite foul mouthed pundits charm cable TV audiences.

Joe "F-Bomb" Scarborough Strikes Again,

(second clip is Chris Matthews )

SEE VIDEO:


Scarborough has a really ugly world view too. See the videos Shame On Joe Scarborough, MSM & Obama Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
The American people don't deserve to be manipulated and lied to. And people like Joe know damn well what the motive for 9/11 was. Pointing out a motive for a crime does not mean you endorse the crime. I should not have to point that out but in an environment where people are unwilling to discuss Israel and Palestine, it needs to be pointed out. Israel supporters often resort to social blackmail of accusing those who tell the truth of "justifying" terrorism.

Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer said in a CNN interview that "the politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

What I see is suppression, denial and misdirection about the actual motives. And the "9/11 Truth" movement has filled this role so perfectly that powerful people like it. Chomsky is right when he points out that the 9/11 truth movement is "treated so tolerantly" and he suspects that "people in positions of power like it." He points out that "It's diverting enormous amounts if energy away from real crimes of the administration ... so much potential activist energy is directed into 9/11 discussions. From the point of view of power centers, that's great. We'll give these people exposure on C-SPAN and have their books right up front at the local bookstores. A pretty tolerant reaction. We sort of say we think it's a bad joke, but you don't get the kind of reaction you do when you really go after hard issues." p36, Chomsky, What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World see my blog post

Cynthia McKinney Answers Questions

I received answers to my questions from Cynthia McKinney:

1. Will you will absolutely rule out the use force unless it is legal according to our Constitution and abide by the international treaties the US has signed which prohibit wars of aggression? And will you declare that all threats of force are off the table and that you will instead abide by the UN Charter which the US has signed and the supreme Law of the Land as spelled out in our Constitution?

Yes, absolutely. My voting record in Congress and my bill to impeach President Bush for his violations of these principles show where I stand. My first act in office would be to immediately withdraw US troops, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan but from over 700 bases in over 100 countries around the globe and to put an end to wars and military interventions abroad.

2. Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer said in a CNN interview that "the politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Will you go on record stating that President Bush lied to the American people about why we were attacked on 9/11? ( Our intelligence agencies say it is specific foreign policies yet Bush says it is "our freedoms" they hate)

If the motive of the attacks was merely being free, pluralistic or wealthy, why isn't Canada being attacked? Of course it has been our policies around the world, mostly covert operations, that have garnered us enemies since the end of World War II. That does not justify the mass murder of 9/11, but it puts it into proper context. It was a crime against humanity not an act of war, and should have been dealt with in an international tribunal, not by a pre-emptive invasion of two other countries with scant evidence of their involvement, if any. I was the first member of Congress to question the veracity of the Bush administration's account of the attacks on 9/11, the reasons for them, what was known in advance of them and the flawed response to them. I introduced legislation to impeach President Bush and other key figures in his administration based in part on their response to 9/11. I supported a full investigation from the start and the victim families efforts to have one, but it was seriously flawed in its assumptions, investigation, conclusions and recommendations, which I examined in a full-day briefing on Capitol Hill in my last term in Congress. I still call for a thorough and open investigation into the remaining questions surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.

3. Would you make a statement telling all of mainstream media that it is deceitful to keep referring to "both" candidates because it deceives people into thinking there are only two in the race. Please ask them to stop deceiving the public about who is running in the presidential race.

The mainstream media and those who manage the campaigns for the major parties want to limit Americans' choices to their two candidates and ignore the other parties and independent candidates who have a chance of winning enough electoral votes from the states where they fought hard to obtain the ballot. My campaign has been even less visible than most of the other parties and independent candidates, despite the fact that it is a historical first to have two women of color running for the executive office. Rosa Clemente, my vice-presidential running mate calls this a "white out" and I agree. The flawed polls taken from the beginning of public campaigns do a disservice by telling people ahead of time to vote for who allegedly can win, or for the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for their values. If American were not voting against someone but could vote for what they believe in, uninfluenced by what pollsters are telling them about candidates' chances, and if independents got the same federal funding, fair news coverage and inclusion into televised debates with the corporate-backed candidates then I am sure Green Party values would win the election. Many people who have told me they would like to vote for me but are voting for Obama instead solely to be sure McCain will not win. The media are part of the same corporate system that tries to manipulate the candidates and issues of these elections and the outcome of the vote. "Both candidates" of the Green party stand for peace, social justice, ecological wisdom and grassroots democracy, the real values of the real majority of the American people.

Tell VT to Elect Charlotte Dennett to Prosecute Bush, she'll appoint Vincent Bugliosi

Tell VT to Elect Charlotte Dennett to Prosecute Bush, she'll appoint Vincent Bugliosi SEE VIDEO, PASS IT ON: Tinyurl.com/ElectDennett

Clear Cut Media Bias: MSM Continually Deceive Voters

Clear Cut Media Bias: MSM Continually Deceive Voters see video
Tinyurl.com/ClearCutMediaBias

Bogus Flyer tells Dems to vote day after the election

SEE VIDEO: Bogus Flyer tells Dems to vote day after the election
See Media Bias: http://tinyurl.com/5r8xxl

Question for Pelosi

Question for Pelosi
see video
pass it on: Tinyurl.com/PelosiQuestion

Bush's Nose is Growing; Nobody Cares

by Antonia Zerbisias

Zerbisias writes: "Even one of the journalists who originally reported Bush's explanation, The Post's Dana Milbank, soft-peddled it in his story co-written a week ago with Dana Priest.

(Again, the emphasis is mine:) "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."

Appeared? Like, maybe we're not sure? Like the president isn't, oh let's not put too fine a point on it, lying"

Presidential Debate TONIGHT on C-SPAN2 9PM

Presidential Debate TONIGHT on C-SPAN2 9PM (see video)
Presidential Debate Oct23 PASS IT ON:
Tinyurl.com/PresidentialDebateOct23

Will Nader be in the Debate on Sunday?

Will Nader be in the Debate on Sunday?
See details about this video here (larger view too)

Presidential Debate Oct. 19th @ Columbia University + Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, McCain and Obama All Invited

SEE VIDEO, PASS IT ON:
Send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/PresidentialDebateOct19

Presidential Debate Oct. 19th @ Columbia University + Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, McCain and Obama All Invited

My Pulitzer Submission

OJ Simpson GUILTY of all charges

OJ Simpson GUILTY of All Charges see video


Read book: If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer by The Goldman Family

"Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to satisfy the civil judgment in part. The Goldman family views the book as his confession, and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is O.J. Simpson's original manuscript, approved by him, with up to 14,000 words of additional key commentary."

2 Diggs To Do

Digg The First Presidential Internet debate :: ThirdPartyTicket

Digg Why not include them?

5 Friends Uncensored

5 Friends? Hell, tell 10 and tell them there are 6 presidential candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to win enough electoral votes to win the election: Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Obama and McCain <-- SEE VIDEO

Send link to others:
Tinyurl.com/4yjsmf

Pledge at Third Party Ticket

Message to some one who gave my video one star:

Message to some one who gave my video one star:

you should check out the track "Selling Free Enterprise" on the CD "Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind"
I don't see any reason someone would give one start to a video that exposes the facts. I know it is not what you were probably taught ion school but these are the facts. In fact what you were probably taught in school is the result of a massive propaganda campaign by business in over to sell a certain way of looking at economics.

And I did not say Paul endorsed Nader. it is a fact that, as I wrote, "on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul said he wants to see people vote for Nader." I never wrote that he is "supporting him" or "endorsed him." He did say what I quoted and you can find the video of him saying it. What he has now done, very recently, 12 days after saying what he said on Blitzer's show, he changed his mind about what he called his "neutral stance" in a letter saying he is supporting candidate Chuck Baldwin now.

And are you saying Ron Paul didn't deny the suffering of the Great Depression? (I guess he feels he must because he thinks his economic vision MUST work so he has to deny that it doesn't) "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." - Ron Paul

"I can only presume that the Great Depression never occurred in whatever universe Paul inhabits."
GOOGLE: "Those who forget the past are doomed to sound like Ron Paul"

Ron Paul has said he doesn't support impeaching Bush, why the hell is this man not pushing for the impeachment of a war criminal in the White House? So much for caring about the Constitution.

Also, he is so fanatical with his economic theories that he says falsehoods about basic fundamental facts. Slick politicians can simply avoid mentioning something but he denies the fact that the government CAN and DOES make money. Corporate dominated public discourse is such that you will probably never hear it but the Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal corporation and the nations largest public power company and it makes money. Google TVA and look under "About TVA" then "TVA FAQ" For over 70 years the TVA has proved him wrong. AS I pointed out, the economic system doesn't work without Gov. help anyway. why should we allow profits to only flow into private hands?

-Tom

The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout

See Video: The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout: How "Free Market Capitalism" Really Works. Nader and Chomsky Explain the Game, a Nanny State to Take Care of the Rich

Presidential candidate Ralph Nader (subscribe to the Nader channel) has a good video about the wall street bailout, I'll play you a short clip and also a clip of Chomsky talking about capitalism in the real world .

Nader is right, the bailout is yet another example of socialism for the rich which has been the game that's always been played. ALSO SEE: We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism

I recommend this CD of Noam Chomsky talking at Harvard in 96: Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism in the Real World

Chomsky explains that the free market theory sold to the public is just a fantasy. He shows how in the real world, different rules apply to the rich. the rich make sure they have the nanny state to take care of themselves. We are being played for fools. Let's get the word out.
Send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/BailoutTruth

ALSO SEE: We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism

★ ★ ★ Please Subscribe →↘↓↓↓

http://www.Tinyurl.com/YouTubeSub

Also please Join e-mail list →↘↓↓↓

★ ★ ★ http://www.Tinyurl.com/JoinEmail

Swedish Twin charged with murder, One of the Highway Crossing Swedes Charged

Swedish Twin charged with murder
Sabina Eriksson, one of the twins who ran across a British highway, was charged with stabbing to death 54 year old Glenn Hollinshead. Eriksson, a 40 year old Swede living in Ireland, had been previously charged will running onto the highway and had admitted assaulting a police officer.
Why would Fox News write an article about this story with the twins and make joke out of it? Why wrote this: Swedish Twins Get Hit Playing 'Frogger' on Freeway?

That is the headline Fox News used in their report of a story of the Swedish twin sisters who ran into the road and caused accidents. How old is the reporter who wrote this?: "in what could best be described as a real-life game of ‘Frogger,’ the object of which is to cross a busy freeway without becoming road kill."

The story was interesting so I looked into it, I contacted a Swedish journalist who had written a recent article about charges against one of the twins in order to verify it is the same woman. It is.

Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader

SEE VIDEO: Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader

Spread the word, send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/wechoose

Renetto makes some excellent points in the video description of his latest video:

"Following the example of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation established by the Republican and Democratic parties, YouTube is presenting the two corporate nominees as the only candidates running for president on their You Choose '08 page. How can we allow private interests to limit what voters are exposed to on a supposedly user-driven site where the word "you" is right in the name?

The exclusion of candidates like Ralph Nader is tantamount to a political endorsement of the two corporate parties by YouTube. Please contact Steve Grove, director of the You Choose '08 platform, telling him politely that you'd like to see the You Choose page changed to have Ralph Nader and all other serious candidates running for president equally represented. YouTube users must make it clear that they are against the deceitful practices of placing certain candidates which do not adequately represent their interests at an advantage above those which do.

You can also pledge your support for the democratic values of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign by visiting ConstitutionPledge.com. Contribute to the restoration of your civil liberties and constitutional protections. The money drive ends on the 27th, so please act now."

9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us.

Please discuss the fact that the 9/11 Commission did not do its job. This video shows exactly what I am talking about: 9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us.
Pass this URL on to others:
http://tinyurl.com/911WrongPolicy
SEE VIDEO

In their book, "Without Precedent" top 9/11 Commission admit to the game the played. Commissioners REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And you can see this this video the testimony they excluded from the 9/11 Report.

Thank you James

Thank you James for all the work you do to get the truth out about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.

You can see James at one of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project's hearings challenging Lee Hamilton, vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission about how they were avoiding talking about US support for Israel which was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. SEE VIDEO HERE: http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6

Bryan,

You have repeated the usual misrepresentations, distortions and omissions which are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative. http://tinyurl.com/6syrgj

First of all, only a small percentage, aprox. 5% to 7%, was purchased. And the point is that Zionists plotted ethnic cleansing from the beginning. Israel Zangwel argued that Zionists “must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.” http://tinyurl.com/5svow9

Even before the 20th century, some Jews saw warning signs that the Jews moving into Palestine were not going to respect the non-Jewish inhabitants. Ahad Aham, a Jewish critic of Zionist supremacy, complained in 1891 that "they treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."

This Yeshiva University Commentator admits the truth:
"One of the greatest Israeli myths is that most Arabs left their homes on orders from the Arab High Command. To support this myth, the oft-quoted scandalous canard "their leaders told them to leave" was concocted. Assiduous research has shown this to be fall. ... The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves."

And even thousands of Palestinians who didn't leave still had their property and land stolen: There were thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave yet still had their homes and land stolen! In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never returned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." - See endnote 67 of The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg
http://tinyurl.com/5svow9

And

"The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State."
Plus, see how unjust the whole plan was:
http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

Bryan, spreading your lies continues to put my life and the lives of my fellow Americans at risk. See this video:
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6

US Media FAILS to Inform the Public about Looming ILLEGAL Attack which Risks Starting WORLD WAR THREE.

US Media FAILS to Inform the Public about Looming ILLEGAL Attack which Risks Starting WORLD WAR THREE.
See Video:

Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons

Dutch withdraw spy from Iran because of 'impending US attack'

"The Dutch intelligence service has pulled an agent out of an "ultra-secret operation" spying on Iran's military industry because spymasters in Netherlands believe a United States air attack was imminent," Dutch withdraw spy from Iran because of impending US attack, Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Aug 31, 2008

"The largest newspaper in the Netherlands, De Telegraaf, reported this past weekend that its nation's intelligence agency has been working closely with the CIA to help prepare the U.S. in a planned air attack on Iran.

The front-page story in De Telegraaf, published Friday and headlined "Attack on Iran Imminent," claimed that U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear and weapons facilities would happen in weeks.

The paper indicated Holland's military intelligence service (Algemene Inlichtingen-en Veiligheidsdienst, or AIVD), has pulled back from its operations inside Iran helping the U.S. to identify targets." - Dutch Paper: U.S. Will Attack Iran in Weeks, NewsMax.com, FL - Sep 1, 2008

"The newspaper quoted a source as saying that the agent was recalled "because the U.S. was thought to be making a decision within weeks to attack Iran with unmanned aircraft."" - Dutch recall spy from Iran fearing U.S. attack, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - Sep 1, 2008

"One of Iran's top military commanders warns any attack against Iran would start a new world war. Iranian state media reported the comments by Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri Saturday. General Jazayeri says unrestrained greed of the United States and Zionism are pushing the world to "the edge of a precipice." He warned, in the case of an attack, "fake and artificial regimes" would be the first to be eliminated. Iran and the United States have been at odds over Iran's nuclear program. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes but the U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of working to develop a nuclear weapon. " - Iran Top Military Commander Warns Attack Would Spark World War, Voice of America - Aug 30, 2008

US media is not making this clear:

"Tel Aviv has threatened to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities under the pretext that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has plans to develop nuclear weapons.

This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Iran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent." - US to Attack Iran 'within weeks' According to Dutch Newspaper, by Jeremy R. Hammond, Tuesday, September 2, 2008

US media repeatedly ignores the distinction between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear weapon when discussing Iran and often leaves a misimpression in the minds of American viewers.

Look how US mainstream media is basically ignoring the news that the 15 British sailors detained by Iran last year were not in Iraqi waters

Media Blackout: The Armada in the Gulf by Gary North

Commentary from the comment sections of RepresentativePress's videos

accersitusmaximus writes, "Regarding the truth movement. It's actually mostly about questions. Questions like, why Osama Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI. Questions like why the Bush administration opposed the investigation on 9/11 (441 days). Then you have historical records such as Tonkin lie and the declassified plans of Operation Northwoods. Not to mention "Project for the New American Century" and the oil factor. It's not OK to ask questions? How do you proceed to get some answers?"

My reply: "accersitusmaximus, there are such things as loaded questions. Misleading people is not OK. And bin Laden IS wanted by the FBI, so your "honest" question contained a falsehood."
posted to the video "9/11 Truth Movement" Suppresses Bush Contradiction with Intelligence Agencies: Bush Lies

Digg Pelosi Question Now: Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Aren't you violating your oath when you refuse to impeach a war cr

SEE VIDEO: Digg Pelosi Question Now: Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Aren't you violating your oath when you refuse to impeach a war criminal?

Digg the question here Digg is interviewing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be in the spotlight with your questions presented by Digg CEO Jay Adelson on Wednesday 8/27 at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Digg John Perry's question please.

After you do that, you could Digg this to help promote this video:
http://digg.com/politics/hey_nancy_let_s_talk_impeachment?OTC-em-st1


"A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime' against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

See John Perry's video here & see my video here

Digg Pelosi Question, Promote Impeachment