Bob, Building 7 was just a building near the targets.

Bob,

The target in NY was the Twin Towers. Building 7 was just a building near the targets. The reason you guys have rationalized it as a target is just because it collapsed due to the fires too. You see, the false claim about the towers was "fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse" so when faced with another example showing fires CAN cause steel structures to collapse, you guys irrationally argued that building 7 was a target too.

You need to understand why the towers were targeted:

"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."

"9/11 Truth" is a misdirection away from why we were attacked, it manipulated people into not focusing 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.

See my blog posts:

The 9/11 misdirection away from "WHY" and to "HOW"
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html

Focus on the atrocities that America is committing
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/focus-on-atrocities-that-america-is.html

I have made many videos try to get the facts out. You are listening to people who refuse to even respond to me when I point out the facts.

About 6.9 s BEFORE the initial downward motion of the north face roofline at the eastern section of the building the START of the descent of east penthouse occurred. "initial downward movement of the N face from the NE corner to the east side of the screenwall was observed at 6.9 s AFTER the initial downward motion of the E penthouse."

"The outer frame of wtc7 was attached to the inner structures which began falling first (as demonstrated by the initial motion of the penthouse). By the time the outer walls began falling, they were being accelerated not only by their own weight, but also by momentum transfer (via torque and tension through linkages) from internal structures that were already falling. All the forces involved, essentially weight + transferred dynamic forces - resistance, netted out to approximately mg for a brief period of time."

Building 7 did NOT fall at free fall, a small part of the time, a point on the exterior is measured at that rate YET the interior was already collapsing and pulling on the exterior. If I have 2 weights tied by a rope together on a table & I push one off the side of the table, it is not strange to think that the second weight might fall at a speed faster than free fall for a few seconds as the initial jerking motion of the first weight tied to the rope pulls on the second. Truthers have been omitting the penthouse collapse which occurs 1st but it is part of the collapse! The structure is connected so internal movement can pull the exterior


It is bizarre to think WTC7 would be a target and also bizarre to think it was a "controlled demolition" since firemen were warning that it would collapse for many hours prior to the collapse:

WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern On 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw&list=PL605641003DE05216

See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM&list=PL9792134412F365B3

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Representative Press

Huffington Post runs BS Iraq War excuse

"The only reason we went into Iraq, I tell people now, is we were looking for somebody’s ass to kick. Afghanistan was too easy." And of course that is total bullshit. Bush had already bombed Iraq within his first 30 days of taking office in 2001. These guys had a war agenda before he even became president and 9/11 was and is only a BS excuse.

 Not only that, we learned last year that it was worse that simply ignoring the intel warning of an attack, there were sons of bitches who argued that the intel was a trick! Look at this: "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."

 So there was intel warnings of an attack and we had these war hungry freaks arguing that those warnings should be ignored because they were supposedly a trick to get our attention off of Iraq!? We need to hold people accountable, these power hungry freaks got many Americans killed. Bush is still waging around a free man.

 It's no surprise that Huffington Post runs the story because it serves the BS war agenda and helps obscure the war industry agenda. "Former Bush Official: We Went Into Iraq Because 'We Were Looking For Somebody's Ass To Kick': Report The Huffington Post | By Paige Lavender Posted: 10/20/2013 1:57 pm EDT | Updated: 10/21/2013 11:27 am EDT"

U.S. illegally uses part of Cuba for Guantanamo Bay detention camp (+pla...

It's Time to Shift Gears and Try Harder + See Chomsky Book I'm Reading (...

On Western Terrorism

On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare [Paperback]

"In On Western Terrorism Noam Chomsky, world renowned dissident intellectual, discusses Western power and propaganda with filmmaker and investigative journalist Andre Vltchek. The discussion weaves together a historical narrative with the two men's personal experiences which led them to a life of activism."

What, exactly are you afraid of?

UC Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union "for its part, based its rejection on J Street U's invitations to have Breaking the Silence, a group of former soldiers opposed to the occupation, speak to students,

At this point, I have only one question for the members of the JSU: What, exactly are you afraid of?

That students at Berkeley will be exposed to actual, flesh and blood Israelis talking honestly about their experiences serving their country?

UC Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union (JSU) "leaders told the Daily Californian last week that the picture presented by Breaking the Silence is unfair, and that "Jewish students with connections to Israel would be alienated."" - At Berkeley, love of Israel means no fear - except fear of J Street, What message is Berkeley's Jewish Student Union sending if it hails Israel's democracy while refusing to accept other points of view?

"UC Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union (JSU) voted Wednesday to deny membership to J Street U. Apparently, the main reason is J Street U’s relationship with Breaking the Silence, an organization of which I am a member." - J Street U Rejected for Standing Behind IDF Soldiers

focus on the atrocities that America is committing

But let's say it is the US support of Israel that's the main cause. In that case it makes perfect sense to attack the well known Jewish/Israel symbol in the US, the World Trade Center. Well, that doesn't make sense either.- Posted by tyr_13

I specifically address your claim that the World Trade Center made no sense as a target if they were concerned with US support of Israel below:

The main motive was mentioned in a newswire that morning but almost no one dared read the word "Israel":

Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack

(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET

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.

Dan Rather both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Rueters newswire ( http://representativepress.blogspot....warned-of.html see that link) that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn...utu.be&t=3m25s 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.

And you are wrong to argue that the Twin Towers made no sense as a target if they are angry about US support of Israel:

"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." (source: The Osama Bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of Al Qaeda's Leader By Peter L. Bergen p 418 )

I remember the same game of suppression played after the 1993 attack on the WTC, almost no one wanted to report what the motive was even though it was made clear by Ramzi Yousef: "Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on 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.""

"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." (source: Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273 )

Ramzi Yousef sent that letter to the NYT making specific demands, Specifically, the letter declared:

We are, the fifth battalion in the LIBERATION ARMY, 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.

OUR DEMANDS ARE:

1 - Stop all military, economical, and

political aid to Israel.

2 - All diplomatic relations with Israel

must stop.

3 - Not to interfere with any of the

Middle East countries interior affairs.

(source: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/s980224c.htm )

Yet after that NYT's Thomas Friedman denied that there were specific demands. Terrorists, he wrote in 1998, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." (source: Foreign Affairs; Angry, Wired and Deadly by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: August 22, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/op...nd-deadly.html )

Friedman denied specifically that  Ramzi Yousef and Osama bin Laden had specific demands. "The super-empowered angry men have no specific ideological program or demands ... Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was a super-empowered angry man. Osama bin Laden is another." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/opinion/foreign-affairs-angry-wired-and-deadly.html

In addition to the clear demands Ramzi Yousef sent in a letter the New York Times, Osama was giving interviews including this one which was available before Friedman wrote lies in the NYT:

This is from the 1997 interview:

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html

And Thomas Friedman has continued to lie in order to suppress anger at Israel as the motive: 

Thomas 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 that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998 I also have to wonder how in this invented scenario Friedman "knows" what bin Laden "sensed" about the Arab street.

So contrary to the arguments of some, there are indeed people with an agenda, not only the above example of Thomas Friedman: 

"Uzi Safanov, a writer at the Seawanhaka newspaper of Long Island University in New York, agreed. I'm a Jew before being a journalist, before someone pays me to write," he said. "If I find a negative thing about Israel, I will not print it and I will sink into why did it happen and what can I do to change it." Safanov said that even if he eventually wrote about negative incidents that happen in Israel, he would try to find the way "to shift the blame."" - Jewish journalists grapple with ‘doing the write thing’ http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/...e-write-thing/

There are many many references to the main motive, this example actually made it into the 911 report: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shared the same motivation. "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Chapter 5 

Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, “when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, “How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?”" - page 162 The 9/11 Commission Report

Many references to Israel were omitted from staff statements before they made their way into the 9/11 Report: See how many mentions of Israel got omitted between the staff statements to the final 9/11 Report: http://youtu.be/UHFhACaej4Q?t=2m2s (that jumps about 2 minutes into the video called "Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!")

My own research has turned up even more evidence which the Commission had access to as well:

Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."

Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."

In March of 2002, MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohammed Atta. Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001

"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

"Someone approached me in the mosque as I was praying, and started to talk to me about injustice in the Middle East, the poverty, our impotence in the face of Israel. He made me want to listen to him - to find a solution. At first these people don't talk about violence. They concentrate on how much injustice America has caused in the world and how to get rid of this unfairness. They mention Palestine, they call on you to uphold your national dignity, to defend people, and suggest for that you must sacrifice yourself. Then your people will live after you and will always remember you." The young man, himself an Egyptian, speaking in the privacy of a quite courtyard in Cairo, believed this was the way Mohamed Atta was approached. "Al-Qaeda" by Jane Corbin p125

SEE THESE VIDEOS:  

9/11 was to punish U.S. for Israel policy: Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir.

The 9/11 commission betrayed the interests of the American people when they put the final 9/11 Report together because they downplayed the main motive and omitted several references to key testimony mentioning Israel.

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!)- 

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

 https://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html

Hard News? See a REAL journalist in action, hear the UN spokesman's repl...

Iranian President TIME COMPRESSED Full Speech! UN Address Speeded Up (+p...

Iran's President Rouhani UN Speech Enhanced Part 1 (Full Address Time Co...

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." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK72Snm6Y 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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw‎ 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:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn...utu.be&t=3m25s 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   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT3E32GyymY&list=PL4A94EAED44C32164

Conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace. (+playlist)

Obama has already crossed the line by violating the Constitution! (+play...

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. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html

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." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s15.html

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:  http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html (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." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

Syria Chemical Weapons Inspector Mandate NOT WHO! (playlist)

Syria & Russia take Kerry's Chemical Weapons Proposal (playlist)

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 NoObamaWar.com 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." - mcclatchydc.com
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." http://goo.gl/wEZFpL

Impeach Obama for Syria War Plan NOW! http://goo.gl/lUrPFH

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-president-obama-congress-faces-questions-war-powers-act/story?id=13642002

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/opinion/la-oe-schell-war-powers-20110621

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! 

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.

To the Editors at the Independent.co.uk

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: http://youtu.be/A4xYOuksYvI

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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8hR-x2S9I&feature=share&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQUb-sj-DxuDLdPtiMrKjZ4 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4c4YuAUByw&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dT2wtgz9sahhHa2lF1YsPiq

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

Sincerely,

Tom Murphy

Representative Press

Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria (playlist)

Impeach Obama for Syria War Plan NOW! (playlist)

NoObamaWar.com

NoObamaWar.com
No Obama War

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

• 4,968 views
 
• 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. bit.ly/NoOamaWar

#NoObamaWar NO OBAMA WAR

No Obama War #NoObamaWar

No Obama War #NoObamaWar

SEE VIDEO: No Obama War! You Can Retweet #NoObamaWar bit.ly/NoObamaWar

---

Please retweet: https://twitter.com/RepPress/status/373383517763158016
bit.ly/NoObamaWar

Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria

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

Kerry Lacks Integrity and Credibility

John Kerry Lacks Integrity and Credibility

Syria Chemical Weapons

Syria Chemical Weapons: Experts Cast Doubt on Authenticit

Keep Humanitarian Imperialism Out of Syria

Talk Nation Radio: Jean Bricmont: Keep Humanitarian Imperialism Out of Syria

Syria OKs Chemical Weapons Inspection BUT Obama Rebuffs?!

Syria OKs Chemical Weapons Inspection BUT Obama Rebuffs?!

Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying | Let's Try Democracy

Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying | Let's Try Democracy
""U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria," announces a Los Angeles Times headline, even though Syria has not attacked the United States or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces and has no intention to do so." - Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying By davidswanson - Posted on 25 August 2013

The media ignores rule of law again
Syria OKs Chemical Weapons Inspection BUT Obama Rebuffs?!

Zimmerman Trial & Trayvon Martin Media Manipulation

Zimmerman Trial & Trayvon Martin Media Manipulation Exposed >

PLEASE Listen

PLEASE Listen to These Words of Wisdom

WHAT is Trayvon Martin family's lawyer talking about?

WHAT is Trayvon Martin family's lawyer talking about? Zimmerman wasn't charged with that!

Zimmerman Martin Case: Ben's Answer Might Surprise You

Ben's Answer Might Surprise You, What Do You Think? (Zimmerman Martin Case)

Top Comment on FAKE! Viral Video of Drunk (Drunken) Woman (playlist)

Viral Video of Drunk South Korean Woman was Staged (playlist)

NBC Suppresses Protest Against Drones Killing Children (playlist)

This Cat Says, "It's not just Obama ..." (playlist)

Obama Violates the Fundamental Doctrine of the Constitution (playlist)

Spread Speech on NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden (playlist)

How to Set Your Subscriptions to Email You about New Uploads

Does anyone else have a problem viewing this video? (playlist)

Hypocrite of the Century comments (playlist)

Is Obama going for "Hypocrite of the Century Award?" asks Irish politici...

Here's the Answer to Your Question Michael (playlist)

On 9/11 Chief Callan Ordered Firemen to the Lobby (playlist)

Your Comments on "Because Muslims are dying ... (playlist)

Don't Deny Activism! Don't Undermine Activists! (playlist)

Anti-semite? This is Insane, Friedman's BIG LIE, Google+ INFO

Anti-semite? This is Insane, Friedman's BIG LIE, Google+ INFO

Because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day

Because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

Attacker's quote as it appeared in the Telegraph

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you."

"Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.”

Text in bold is what is often omitted in mainstream media's reporting. See link for source: Woolwich attack: terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack

SEE VIDEO: Because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

Obama confronted about his killer drone program

CODEPINK ACTIVIST MEDEA BENJAMIN SPEAKS OUT DURING PRESIDENT’S FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH AT NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY

Washington, DC--While President Obama was delivering remarks about American foreign policy pertaining to the administration's drone program and practices of indefinite detention at Guantanamo bay, CODEPINK Co-founder, Medea Benjamin, stood up and spoke out several times. She called on the President to use his power as Commander-In-Chief to close Guantanamo prison, release the 86 Guantanamo prisoners who have been cleared for release, and stop the killer drone program that is causing the deaths of innocent civilians, violating international law, and making us less safe here in America. The President responded to her comments by remarking, “the voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.”

 “Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?” is one of the questions Benjamin asked. See the full YouTube video here

 When asked why she spoke out during the President’s speech, Medea Benjamin responded, “We have been so disappointed with Obama; we expected him to to make serious changes like taking drones out of the hands of the CIA, stopping the signature strikes, apologizing to innocents who have been killed, families of the innocent, and announcing that he, as Commander-in-Chief, would close Guantanamo, so when he did not I felt compelled to speak out.”

 CODEPINK has launched an urgent call to save the lives of the prisoners on hunger strike in Guantanamo and has been staging actions across DC for the last several weeks. Over 1,200 people from around the world have joined a rolling hunger strike. Diane Wilson, a CODEPINK activists from Texas, has been on a water-only hunger strike since May 1st. CODEPINK is also organizing a delegation to Yemen in June to meet with drone victims and families of Guantanamo prisoners. CODEPINK also has launched an anti-drone campaign and more information about that can be found at droneswatch.org.

UPDATED "crooks and liars" comments

UPDATE: Moderator (for Crooks and Liars) 11 minutes ago − I deleted one of the comments from the person below because of a double post. None of your comments have been deleted." I replied: 2 minutes ago − OK, I had tried to post a comment that I saw apparently fail (it never did seem to complete since I hit post so that is why I assumed it did eventually post and got deleted) also I was having trouble using my RepPress account right after that (meaning I could't use it here), that is why I started using the RepresentativePress account. The rest of this sentence ("We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you" ) is: "until you leave us alone" There is clearly an agenda when reporters chop the sentence like that and leave off the end part. Also, the article then quotes the next sentence "Your people will never be safe." YET omits the very next one!: "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Someone replied "who cares," I replied: "who cares"? So it is OK for the media to suppress key facts? It is OK for the media to edit off the end of a sentence which explains the motive? It's OK to suppress a sentence that makes it crystal clear what the reason was for the attack? How the hell am I "a piece of work"? I'm not the one withholding info from the public and misleading millions of people about why these attacks happen. You don't like that I exposed what was being suppressed in the linked website? Wouldn't it have been smarter to not even reply and let the powers that be continue with their agenda of sweeping the motives under the rug instead of antagonizing me, if suppression is your agenda too?

Chomsky on Syria PLUS Chelsea Stands Up Against the War!

Chomsky on Syria PLUS Chelsea Stands Up Against the War!

McCain has no shame

McCain has no shame: “They’re going to take revenge”