Friday, September 27, 2013

The 9/11 misdirection away from "WHY" and to "HOW"

Truthers got the idea into their heads that fires can't cause steel structures to fail and collapse. So when they learned of WTC7, they doubled down and irrationally insisted that it too was targeted as part of a secret plan. As others have pointed out, it makes no sense to think of WTC7 as a target but understanding that involves understanding why the towers were made a target, The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks explained: "Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples."

I really thought this video in particular would have helped put an end to the BS about WTC7 because of all the firemen's predictions of its collapse:‎

I really think that a way to get them to understand reality is to be honest about the full extent of how ugly the entire situation is. And to come to terms with the idea that the embrace of "9/11 truth" didn't happen in a vacuum. There was a ruthless and dominating agenda to suppress the main motive which I think played a role in the misdirection and obsession about  "how" the attacks happened and and the preoccupation about buildings that were not important. Case in point is Dan Rather who both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Reuters newswire that day: AND he was oddly fascinated with the collapse of WTC7. I suspect that part of the guilt or uncomfortable position of being a person suppressing the motive led him to find other things that day to shift focus to. So the same man that wouldn't read the word "Israel" is the same guy truthers fall over themselves THANKING because he was so fascinated by WTC7's collapse AND Dan Rather is the first person to misidentify the start of the collapse of WTC7, he introduces the video clip then after the collapse has already started he says "NOW we go to video tape of of the collapse of this building" YET they were already were showing it and had shown the penthouse collapsing first. "Amazing, incredible, pick your word, for the 3rd time today …" Well, if he had spent the time talking about the MOTIVE for the event he was covering maybe he wouldn't have felt so self-conscious and felt he needed to be so amazed by the collapse of a building that just happened to be near the targeted towers.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC is another person who both suppressed the main motive AND shifted the focus to "how" (away from "why") So we can see her report from that day where she too omits mention of Israel as she cites the same Rueters newswire AND even shows the news editor who is quoted in that newswire. Yes the very "Arab journalist with access to him" who is quoted in that newswire who says what bin Laden has said, "Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday." Michell reads from that newswire and even shows a video clip of that very same Arab journalist YET omits mention of Israel. She even plays a clip of him saying "I believe the only thing is to revise their policies, to look at what's happening, WHY for example the anti-American sentiment is very high in the Middle East and the Muslim world" BUT RIGHT AFTER that clip, she says "HOW could this happen"! So she suppressed mention of the main motive WHY (anger at US support of Israel) and the very next thing she asks is "HOW" (and not "WHY" which is exactly what the journalist had just said should be asked seconds before!)

I have watched hours of reporting from that day and days after and it is hard to even find a reporter utter the word "motive." Compare that to all these other events including recent high profile shootings even as recently as the Navy Yard shooting.

What I am saying is the abnormal fixation on HOW by many people must, to some degree, have been influenced by mass media pushing that while at the same time suppressing the more normal and relevant question of WHY.

see videos:

9/11 Media Failure to Inform the Public about WHY we were Attacked

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Iran significantly reduced ts stock

"Iran significantly reduced its stock of 20 percent-enriched uranium by converting it to reactor fuel"

Iran Reduces Enriched Uranium Stockpile
TEHRAN, Iran September 13, 2013 (AP) By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press

Conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace

There were people plotting to attack Iraq (that's even before 9/11, See Footnote 1 below), that we do know. And what is described in The Deafness Before the Storm By KURT EICHENWALD Published: September 10, 2012 is disturbing.

The writer says, "By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation."

"But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

Let's not be naive, people do scheme to get us into wars and it looks like these guys rationalized arguing that the intel was a trick. Think about that and think about the reason they gave for insisting it was a trick.

You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to.

Mainstream media really doesn't allow for a fair forum for public discussion of the fact that there are people who work to get us into wars and are doing so for illegitimate reasons. It is common practice in elite circles to act like it is far-fetched to think powerful Americans scheme to get our country into wars. If you look at the content of public discourse broadcast by mass media, the very idea that there would be people working for underhanded reasons to get us into wars is simply not represented or so infrequently represented that it is basically not at all. But take a look at what the father of the Constitution said about this, notice he isn't saying we can chalk the war drive up to simply people trying to do the right thing!:

"War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."

Footnote 1:  "The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House"   "Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" on 1/30/01 [Date the public knew: 1/10/04] see leadup iraq war timeline 

And don't over look the fact that the Bush Administration dismissed warnings of a bin Laden attack and if your read the excuse for dismissing the warnings it is clear that the agenda of starting a war with Iraq was why they dismissed the warnings of a bin Laden attack, see for yourself: (and the agenda was so dirty that they STILL won't release all the PDBs Bush received before 9/11! Look for yourself) (STILL NOT MADE PUBLIC!) "That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed."

Sunday, September 08, 2013

Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama!

Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers! 

Obama, & Kerry's devious & dangerous contempt for our Constitution. See their depraved disregard for basic honesty! Obama & Kerry are brazen liars, lying to justify their wars. See Kerry making a bizarre excuse for Obama violating the War Powers Resolution when he continued the war on Libya without Congressional authorization by saying it was the fault of Congress for not authorizing Obama's war.

PayPal Donate to Advertise Videos

Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria & Weapons Inspectors

The timing of the alleged chemical weapons attack was ODD  because "The area is controlled by the Jabhat al Nusra, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, but the majority of those killed were Alawites, the sect to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs. The incident on August 21 happened soon after a United Nations investigation team arrived in the Syrian capital to probe a chemical weapons attack that occurred in Aleppo in March. The Syrian government granted permission to the U.N. team, confident in the belief that its investigations  ... Logically, it would make very little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a time, particularly given the relative close proximity of the targeted towns [to the U.N. team]," Charles Lister, a security analyst with Jane's Defence Weekly, observed."
NOTE: "The rebels' fear that the U.N. investigating team would expose their complicity in the use of poison gas in Aleppo could have been another motivating factor for the latest accusations against the government forces." - FRONTLINE

"The statement said the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team had examined Syrian soldiers injured in the March attack and said that no reaction to the more recent alleged chemical account should be considered without also considering that the rebels, too, have used chemical weapons.

"It is obvious that any objective investigation of the incident on Aug. 21 in East Ghouta is impossible without considering the circumstances of the March attack," the statement said. Ghouta is the area near Damascus where the Aug. 21 attack took place." -
Russia releases 100-page report

"He questioned the "logic" of claims that his forces carried the August 21 attack." Assad said, "Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic?" Bashar-al-Assad-interview

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report. AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO ASSOCIATED PRESS

"This is the United Nations' decision and my decision. The mandate of this team is to determine the use of chemical weapons -- whether there was or not the use of chemical weapons. It's not to determine who has used against whom." - Syria Chemical Weapons Inspector Mandate NOT WHO! 

"Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway."  - Glenn Greenwald

"To make matters more complicated, Obama's aides made clear that the President's search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection."

Impeach Obama for Syria War Plan NOW!

U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report. AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO ASSOCIATED PRESS

Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers! 

Saturday, September 07, 2013

This is illegal, threats of force are illegal and attacking is illegal.

Alan Grayson needs to start talking about how this is illegal, threats of force are illegal and attacking is illegal. And Obama has made it clear he will attack even without Congressional approval which would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution in addition to being a violating of international law.

"The House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway." - Obama, Congress and Syria, The president is celebrated for seeking a vote on his latest war even as his aides make clear it has no binding effect. His track record shows he doesn't care if Congress doesn't authorize his wars, he'll do it anyway. President Obama has made it crystal clear that even if Congress votes against authorization, he intends on attacking Syria anyway. The only way to protect ourselves it to impeach him now.

 And I don't know if Grayson points out that there is a pattern of dishonesty to make up excuses for using the military. Obama was brazenly dishonest to claim Libya wasn't hostilities. Bush has repeatedly claimed Saddam didn't allow the inspectors in.

 This whole thing is ridiculous, what would the Syria's government motive be for supposedly doing a chemical attack? To give the US a pretext to attack Syria? The Syrian government wouldn't want that. Meanwhile rebels would have everything to gain from it: To give the US a pretext to attack Syria. The rebels would want that. And there are reports that the rebels could have been responsible for the Sarin gas being released, either on purpose or by accident. We are expected to believe Obama but he lied about Libya, so we know he will lie to make up an excuse to attack a country using US weapons. And new weapons have to be purchased to replace the ones used.

 AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk' "A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials."

 U.S. case for strike on Syria has too many holes, critics say 

Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

John Kerry's Very Precise Death Toll: Where Does It Come From?

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria AIPAC to go all-out on Syria

 AIPAC on an island: ‘Politico’ report says Israel lobby alone in pushing for war in Syria

'NYT' Cuts References to AIPAC in Syria Debate

 "The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive. Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrian ruler's military edge over rebel forces without toppling him." - US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses DEBKAfile Special Report September 7, 2013, 8:41 AM

If the Syria government is so strong that even after a massive U.S. attack planned by Obama, it still wouldn't topple Assad, why the hell would he have supposedly resorted to using chemical weapons against the rebels? If Syria has such a military edge over the rebels, and they were supposedly willing to indiscriminately kill civilians, then why instead of a chemical attack didn't they simply use conventional weapons? Why would they use a weapons that Obama had declared was a "red line" when they had no need to and when they have a military edge over the rebels? It doesn't make sense that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons after UN inspectors arrived in Damascus and give Obama an excuse to attack Syria and the same person who wants you to buy that also tried to sell the idea that he had the right to attack Libya because he claimed it wasn't hostilities.

An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive Chemical weapons allegedly left hundreds of Syrians dying and writhing in pain, but the attack's timing seems odd.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

To the Editors at the

Dear Editors: 

Your article says "Samples from soil and victim's clothing provide independent confirmation that illegal weapon was used against civilians and opposition fighters" and "It means independent British confirmation that one of the cruellest of illegal weapons was unleashed against civilians and opposition fighters." But it only has this fact, "Samples collected from the clothes of a victim of the 21 August attack in Damascus that killed hundreds of men, women and children were tested positive"

So wouldn't a more accurate statement be that  civilians and opposition fighters were exposed to sarin nerve agent as opposed to it being "used against" and "unleashed' which conveys the idea that Syria;'s government used it and doesn't make clear to readers that we don't know that. We don't know who exposed them to this, if it was rebels by accident or on purpose. Because we know the UN was not mandated to find out who was behind it:

Your own article says "British confirmation that sarin was used, probably by Assad forces, will reinforce the case for missile strikes."  If it was "probably" by Assad forces then you don't know for sure so you shouldn't give an impression that it is a known fact at the top of the article. Assad forces were winning, what is the logical reason for them to possibly give a pretext for getting attacked?

Also, how would such a thing "reinforce the case for missile strikes" when such a thing is an illegal act? Using this as a pretext for striking them is a violation of international law if the UN Security Council doesn't authorize it. Have you ever clearly reported to your readers that Obama's plan to attack is illegal? Would you ever report that poor reporting reinforces the case for blowing up the building you work in? (That of course is an hypothetical example and is in no way a threat because poor reporting in no way reinforces a case for carrying out a criminal attack against your news organization.)

Obama is already in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter for making threats to use force against Syria. Have you ever clearly reported that to your readers that Obama's threats are illegal? "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

There is a pattern in the media of suppressing the unlawful nature of military actions by Western powers. There was a pattern of the media refusing to report that President Bush's plan to attack Iraq was illegal. And I have yet to see a major media outlet report that Bush's excuse, an excuse he as given several times, is a flat out lie. Bush claimed Saddam didn't allow the inspectors in! I think you should have be able to determine that is a falsehood: See @ :22 for provable lie. Major media have played along with the lies used to sell and justify these illegal wars. 

And we see the same dishonestly from U.S. officials with regard to Syria: Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria & Weapons Inspectors

These are facts the people are not getting a fair chance to hear about.

Tom Murphy
Representative Press

Sunday, September 01, 2013
No Obama War

Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria over Chemical Weapons, IT'S ILLEGAL

  • 2 days ago
  • CC

Message sent to TJ's tumbler and Youtube account about Syria

   It is almost guaranteed that more people will die if the US attacks Syria. I am disappointed that you are trying to sell what is in fact an illegal action. You give credit to Obama ignores his oath of office, declaring his contempt for the Constitution and international treaties such as The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter. And from what I have seen, Syria isn't even in violation of a law, if you have info, I would like to see it.

   There is a very good chance rebels either did it on purpose or accidentally. The US has had this region in its crosshairs for years, it is naive to think this is a concern abut chemical weapons. What about the white phosphorus? where was US outrage over that? There are greater goals and obligations which have the larger objective to avoid large scale suffering. You are basically advocating for an illegal action that will make things worse when we have an obligation to pursue peaceful solutions with diplomacy and negotiations.

   I am surprised you think this is on the level even with Obama's open declaration of disregard for US and international law. Even with his arrogant performance where he wouldn't even answer questions in the Rose Garden. Even after his dishonestly claiming Libya didn't even amount to hostilities so he wasn't in violation of the War Powers Act! Obama has prolonged totally unnecessary wars and got the US into new illegal wars or actions.

    If you really are concerned about chemical weapons, advocating for an illegal act what will almost certainly cause more people to suffer from them INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF AMERICANS, is irrational. Bombing Syria is illegal and EXTREMELY RISKY, a risk of expanding into a world war, that's a good reason we have the obligation not to start wars or join in them and an obligation to pursue peaceful avenues. Please respond to me and see my video.