Saturday, November 30, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
U.S. Corporate media overwhelmingly sweeps U.S. crimes under the rug
U.S. policy makers have carried out many crimes against the people in the Middle East. For example, the 1953 coup to oust Mossedeq has been admitted to by the U.S. officially so there is no point in denying it: "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”" - Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright March 17, 2000 Note that while acknowledging it, the U.S. never apologized for it. Do you have any idea how many Iranians suffered under the Shah? Israel's Mossad and the America's CIA worked with the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, which was ruthless, it tortured and killed many Iranians.
Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes. They wanted the Shah handed over to them because they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah in 1953.
We are a country that fought to free itself from a king and we have people in our government that undermine a democratic government and force a king upon them! ) [ http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-were-hostages-taken-us-media.html ]
The US media overwhelmingly sweeps US crimes under the rug, many don't realize how much the US media bends over backwards to sweep these things under the rug. Notice the US propaganda right now about Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Notice how the media avoids saying WHY the hostages were taken? It is off the wall how in the past and still today the majority of MSM refuses to say WHY the hostages were taken.
"The students seized the embassy to protest the US refusal to hand over Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian leader who had been ousted from power that year." Notice that MSM is extremely reluctant to make the basic facts clear the the public?What the hell right did the US have to install the puppet leader in the first place? What an enormous violation of the rights of the Iranian people, they make strides in democracy and the US undermines their democracy and reinstalled a KING to power!
What the hell right did the US have to refuse to hand over the Iranians' own former leader?(the US did not want to send a message that we don't protect our puppets ) And sure enough, the MSM basically hides these facts when reporting on the events of 1979. Notice that the perfectly responsible demand of a sovereign people to hold their own (supposedly) leader accountable was refused by US leaders and suppressed by overwhelming degree by US media. We are a nation that fought to free ourselves from a king yet this is the ugly hypocritical "dirty business" that US policy makers were willing to do to foreign peoples. Truly disgusting, and it is despicable that MSM works so hard to serve this agenda and suppress this "dirty business".
The US violated the rights of the Iranian people by orchestrating a coup to reinstall the Shah. The Shah was a harsh dictator and many Iranians were murdered. When they overthrew him they were worried that the US would screw them over once again using the CIA to reinstall the Shah. When the students took over the embassy, they actually called it the "den of spies" because they knew the '53 the coup had been actually plotted from the U.S. compound, the very same building that they took over. They demanded that the US hand over the Shah, the US refused. "In the United States, if you watch how the media covered it here, it saw the hostage crisis as Iranian emotional rampaging mobs in the streets calling for death of America and the '53 coup was intentionally not brought into that context. So you can go for reams of programs on the main channels in the United States about the hostage crisis, which lasted 444 days, and you rarely get the mention of the '53 coup." - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4540.htm
And you could have watched tons of programs on the main channels and not hear WHY the hostages were taken. Today, you can watch tons of reports mentioning the hostage crisis and not hear about WHY the hostages were taken.
This post taken from older posts I posted on this blog:
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Dammit if that’s the price we have to pay, then I’m willing to pay it.
"I think that bin Laden and 9/11 were to some degree inspired by U.S. support of Israel. I think a great deal of the terrorist attacks and the sort of pool of potential terrorists who want to attack the United States are inspired by the United States support for Israel. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support Israel for that reason. I’m saying, Dammit if that’s the price we have to pay, then I’m willing to pay it." - Eric Alterman
As iamuglow says in a comment posted in response to that at mondoweiss.net: "Bin Laden and 9/11 WERE inspired by U.S. support of Israel. Terrorists who want to attack the United States ARE inspired by the United States support for Israel."
Alterman is "way behind the curve with these weasly understatements" as iamuglow also points out.
Anger at U.S. support of Israel was the main motive for 9/11. See video What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't
As iamuglow says in a comment posted in response to that at mondoweiss.net: "Bin Laden and 9/11 WERE inspired by U.S. support of Israel. Terrorists who want to attack the United States ARE inspired by the United States support for Israel."
Alterman is "way behind the curve with these weasly understatements" as iamuglow also points out.
Anger at U.S. support of Israel was the main motive for 9/11. See video What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Response to wolco003 who posted a comment defending Luke Rudkowski
Read this: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/11/ive-been-debating-this-for-several-years.html
And THINK. Luke is a con man. He should at least attempt to think about the fact that I am pointing out how fires caused another failure in another building.
It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken!
And if you want to make the leap that WTC7 was a target because supposedly "fire can't do that," then how the hell do you explain what happened inside WTC FIVE: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html Are we expected to believe that secret agents targeted 4 floors within World Trade Center FIVE too? Or how about you admit that Eric Hufschmid made an ignorant assumption about what fires can do because he confused melting and weakening. He thought he was being clever looking up the melting point of steel and looking up the max temp of a hydrocarbon fire and making the conclusion he did BUT the fact is that the steel did not have to MELT in order for it to WEAKEN. It is really sad that the very basis of "9/11 Truth," the key foundational assumption was nothing more than ignorance.
Look at what fires did to inside WTC FIVE and stop this viciously ignorant campaign which sucks the life out of productive activism: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html
And THINK. Luke is a con man. He should at least attempt to think about the fact that I am pointing out how fires caused another failure in another building.
It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken!
And if you want to make the leap that WTC7 was a target because supposedly "fire can't do that," then how the hell do you explain what happened inside WTC FIVE: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html Are we expected to believe that secret agents targeted 4 floors within World Trade Center FIVE too? Or how about you admit that Eric Hufschmid made an ignorant assumption about what fires can do because he confused melting and weakening. He thought he was being clever looking up the melting point of steel and looking up the max temp of a hydrocarbon fire and making the conclusion he did BUT the fact is that the steel did not have to MELT in order for it to WEAKEN. It is really sad that the very basis of "9/11 Truth," the key foundational assumption was nothing more than ignorance.
Look at what fires did to inside WTC FIVE and stop this viciously ignorant campaign which sucks the life out of productive activism: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html
I've been debating this for several years.
Representative Press ☞1 second ago (edited)
+Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said, "I've been debating this for several years."
I reply: Then why can't you answer what I asked you?
How do you rationalize thinking the Mossad would think it necessary to get a second rate pictures or video of the attack from across the river? What possible purpose would the pictures serve? You don't grasp how immature those Israelis were and how recklessly jubilant they were that they stood out as strange? As I pointed out, the source for the claims that they were there before the first impact does not say that! http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html
+Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said,"Whether they were filming after the attack or before, I don't care, it's not relevant."
I reply: So when a point is debunked, it then is no longer relevant huh? Richard Gage plays that same game, when they sat him down along with David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery and showed they fires CAN weaken steel, Nat Geo sat those top gurus down and showed them an experiment where a steel beam failed and collapses due to being weakened by a fire, Richard Gage then declares it is "irrelevant" that fires can do that to steel. You really need to understand that what is called "9/11 Truth" is the Zionist misdirection. And I show exactly how the first seeds were planted by a guy who refused to read the word "Israel" on live TV and then became irrational fixated on a building with no relevance which collapsed many hours later after hours of predictions from firemen saying it would.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken! Then selfish and greedy con men entered jumped on board and continued with the BS.
I expose Richard Gage here AND I also show how the 9/11 Commission suppressed mention of Israel to a very large degree, they downplayed the main motive for the attack to an extreme degree. I show how the staff statements had several mentions of Israel, BUT by the time they made it to the 9/11 Report, MANY of the mentions of Israel were omitted. How much clearer do I have to make it? Look at Gage in action, CLICK HERE: See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"? Show less
+Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said,"Whether they were filming after the attack or before, I don't care, it's not relevant."
I reply: So when a point is debunked, it then is no longer relevant huh? Richard Gage plays that same game, when they sat him down along with David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery and showed they fires CAN weaken steel, Nat Geo sat those top gurus down and showed them an experiment where a steel beam failed and collapses due to being weakened by a fire, Richard Gage then declares it is "irrelevant" that fires can do that to steel. You really need to understand that what is called "9/11 Truth" is the Zionist misdirection. And I show exactly how the first seeds were planted by a guy who refused to read the word "Israel" on live TV and then became irrational fixated on a building with no relevance which collapsed many hours later after hours of predictions from firemen saying it would.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken! Then selfish and greedy con men entered jumped on board and continued with the BS.
I expose Richard Gage here AND I also show how the 9/11 Commission suppressed mention of Israel to a very large degree, they downplayed the main motive for the attack to an extreme degree. I show how the staff statements had several mentions of Israel, BUT by the time they made it to the 9/11 Report, MANY of the mentions of Israel were omitted. How much clearer do I have to make it? Look at Gage in action, CLICK HERE: See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"? Show less
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Come over and help us.
This is a good post: "Mark Dubowitz Is an Object Lesson in Where Bigotry Comes From" highlighting the pattern of rationalizing people use. The historical context was great, the mention of the Native Americans reminded me of another thing that highlights this. I remember Chomsky pointing out: "Like the Spanish, the English colonists were guided by Rice's "emerging humanitarian norm." The inspirational phrase "city on a hill" was coined by John Winthrop in 1630, outlining the glorious future of a new nation "ordained by God." A year earlier, his Massachusetts Bay Colony received its charter from the King of England and established its Great Seal. The Seal depicts an Indian holding a spear pointing downward in a sign of peace, and pleading with the colonists to "Come over and help us." The charter states that conversion of the population—rescuing them from their bitter pagan fate—was "the principal end of this plantation." The English colonists too were on a humane mission as they extirpated and exterminated the natives—for their own good, their successors explained." Read more: Genocide Denial with a Vengeance: Old and New Imperial Norms
"Come over and help us."
What a sick joke.
I see this was also pointed out on this blog: Come Over And Help Us!
"Come over and help us."
What a sick joke.
I see this was also pointed out on this blog: Come Over And Help Us!
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Traffic Stop Nightmare: Multiple Anal Probes & X-Rays
"This 4 On Your Side investigation looks into the actions of police officers and doctors in Southern New Mexico." See video:
4 On Your Side investigates traffic stop nightmare
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel
Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel by Max Blumenthal
"In the preface to the book, Blumenthal wrote that it is "Americans’ tax dollars and political support that are crucial in sustaining the present state of affairs" in Israel and that, in the book, he wanted to show what that money is paying for and to present the facts" wiki
“The only worthwhile, honest discussion of Israel can come from someone who possesses two attributes: fearlessness and expertise. Max Blumenthal wields both in abundance, and the result is an eye-opening and stunningly insightful book about the dramatic plight of a country central to America's political fortunes.”
Glenn Greenwald
"Max Blumenthal lays bare in rich and riveting detail the full, shocking scope and virulence of a cancer, both institutional and popular, which, unchecked, will surely do more to destroy Israel from within than its enemies — essentially of its own racist and colonialist making too — from without."
David Hirst
"In the preface to the book, Blumenthal wrote that it is "Americans’ tax dollars and political support that are crucial in sustaining the present state of affairs" in Israel and that, in the book, he wanted to show what that money is paying for and to present the facts" wiki
“The only worthwhile, honest discussion of Israel can come from someone who possesses two attributes: fearlessness and expertise. Max Blumenthal wields both in abundance, and the result is an eye-opening and stunningly insightful book about the dramatic plight of a country central to America's political fortunes.”
Glenn Greenwald
"Max Blumenthal lays bare in rich and riveting detail the full, shocking scope and virulence of a cancer, both institutional and popular, which, unchecked, will surely do more to destroy Israel from within than its enemies — essentially of its own racist and colonialist making too — from without."
David Hirst
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
