Posted by: quiscus | June 22, 2009

June 22, 2009

1.  ”

“Three major myths about marriage.

Marriage has always been about one man and one woman.

It is claimed that marriage has always been between individuals of the opposite sex.

Many on the religious right claim that marriage was a “divine institution” all along and that the state took control of marriage from the church.”

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/06/three-major-myths-about-marriage.html

2.  “Last Known Flights Of 9/11 Planes Took Place Nine Months Before 9/11

According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks. No pre-9/11 flight information is available for these planes during 2001.

No pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations requires carriers to provide on-time data for their commercial aircraft on a monthly basis.

My opinion on the way things played out is that they has remotely piloted planes hitting targets that day, and this definitively shows that they had 9 months to prepare these planes, or test them since the technology was most likely already built into them. It never ceases to amaze me at how subtle details in murder cases can end up being some of the most damning evidence. I doubt there is a good explanation about why three of the four aircraft that we know were involved in that fateful day were not used for 9 months prior, then just happened to all be destroyed on the first day back into service. One more coincidence that doesn’t add up.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20456

3.  “US Official: The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets

Stephen Kinzer’s book, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, tells the story of the overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, by the CIA and the British MI6 in 1953. The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

The 1953 street demonstrations, together with the Cold War claim that the US had to grab Iran before the Soviets did, served as the US government’s justification for overthrowing Iranian democracy. What the Iranian people wanted was not important.

Today, the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media—not for the Iranian government.

More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.” Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed Westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator, as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.

The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people. This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion.

On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young Westernized residents of Tehran.

Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes. But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct, paid troublemakers are in their ranks.

There are many American interest groups that have a vested interest in the charge that the election was rigged. What is important to many Americans is not whether the election was fair, but whether the winner’s rhetoric is allied with their goals.

For example, those numerous Americans who believe that both presidential and congressional elections were stolen during the Karl Rove Republican years are tempted to use the Iranian election protests to shame Americans for accepting the stolen Bush elections.

Feminists take the side of the “reformer” Mousavi.

Neoconservatives damn the election for suppressing the “peace candidate” who might acquiescent to Israel’s demands to halt the development of Iranian nuclear energy.

Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition.

The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for the future. The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.”

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_56090.shtml

4.  “It is difficult to exaggerate the perniciousness and childishness of those who, as the Iranian situation unfolds, are practicing what Peggy Noonan in her Wall Street Journal column Friday called “Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else’s delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.” Surely the sympathy of most Americans is firmly on the side of the protesters on the streets in Iran. But it doesn’t make Barack Obama a coward, appeaser, or friend of dictatorship that he hasn’t yet yelled from Mt. Everest that the U.S. government endorses the dissidents and scorns any regime that includes the dread Ahmadinejad.

Those who have been agitating for the U.S. government to do so – Obama’s reminder that the world is watching is apparently merely another sign of terminal lily-liveredness – are more interested in fawning and preening as bold freedom fighters (from the comfort of their easy chairs, clad in their pajamas) and name-calling domestic political opponents than in anything that might actually help to increase the freedom or dignity of actual people living in Iran. Indeed, such a declaration would more likely lead to harm than help for the brave souls filling city streets. You could think of them as peacocks spreading their colorful tails to display the bright colors, or adolescent boys boasting “my freedom penis is bigger than yours.”

The possible parallel few want to remember (understanding that there are no precise parallels, as even Wolfowitz acknowledges) is Hungary in 1956. During that uprising Americans encouraged the Hungarians, but when the crackdown came there was no tangible American help because it would have been logistically nigh-impossible to provide it. It is not impossible to imagine tangible U.S. assistance, perhaps in the form of money, equipment, or even some covert activity, to the people in the streets of Iran, but it is difficult. Would the U.S. be prepared to assist overtly with enough resources to topple an Iranian regime that has its supporters as well as detractors in the country? Or would a few encouraging words from a U.S. president amount to a false promise that would likely get a bunch of decent people killed while actually bolstering the strength of the regime?

Those who really want more freedom in the world are best advised to focus their efforts on the only government that poses a direct danger to their freedom, the government that rules in their own country. If that government is sufficiently tamed, or if one is in possession of valuable information or particular friends or acquaintances that give them a leg up on promoting freedom in other countries, there’s nothing wrong with that. But real freedom cannot be imposed from the outside. Those with the interests of Iranians sick of the mullahs truly at heart will understand that this is their country, their struggle, their set of goals, their country to take back.

As an individual American I’m not reluctant to say that my sympathies are fully with the demonstrators in the streets. As someone who really desires that Iranians – and everyone else, including Americans – enjoy more freedom in the future, I would just as soon not have the U.S. government intervening too actively in the conflict.”

http://original.antiwar.com/bock/2009/06/21/chest-thumping-interventionists/

5.  “These blatantly contradictory statements aren’t considered contradictions because of the core premises of our political culture:  We don’t really consider torture and mass pointless slaughter — when we do it — to be all that bad.  Those who advocated, defended and ordered it are still highly respectable — “honorable.”  Those who were so humiliatingly wrong that it cannot be adequately expressed in words still prance around, and are still treated as, wise experts, while those were right are naive and unserious.  The U.S stands for freedom, democracy and human rights — even when we don’t.   People who advocate unprovoked wars of aggression, torture and mass violence are irredeemable monsters — except when they’re American or our allies.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

6.  “Iran Falls to US PSYOPS

President Obama called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to control the streets in Tehran. Would Obama or any US president allow protesters to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?

There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran. But there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit the US government.

We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.

A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi, @IranRiggedElect, and @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that On June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new twitter.  He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.

One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.”

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22882.htm


Responses

  1. […] June 22, 2009 … on Proof: Israeli Effort to Desta… […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: