Posted by: quiscus | December 7, 2009

December 7, 2009

1.  Of course he’s dead:

“Obama’s National Security Adviser: Bin Laden sometimes slips into Afghanistan

I don’t understand how someone as sickly as bin laden could go back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan, dragging a dialysis machine with him, etc… He is the “boogey man” of the “War On Terror” or rather the “widely perceived direct external threat” used “to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues” as Zbigniew Brzezinski says.

This goes so far off the non-credibility scale as to verge on comedic…only the US corporate media can be this stupid and naive.

If OBL was alive and in a specific part of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, there is no way in hell that (US) intelligence are going to broadcast that fact.

If he’s not dead, then he is more than likely in some maximum security US custody, perhaps a rendition facility. If so, his appearance is probably drastically altered. His ongoing “alive status” is one of the PTB’s greatest “asset” in the so-called “war on terror” and they will continue to do everything they can to preserve that status, even if deceased.”

2.  “Two kinds of people who say they believe the official story of 911.

1-those who haven’t done even minimal research into the events.
2-those that are part of the cover-up.”

3.  Continuity Of Government (COG), anyone?

“What the media has done is shown us that they are not free to even investigate, let alone report on, matters of the deep (national security) State. My suspicion is that their inability to do so in regards to 9/11 is circumscribed by two factors: First, ownership by corporate interests with substantial ties to the military industrial complex and other monied interests and, Second, the full (unknown to us) meaning of COG protocols. My suspicion is that this latter strictly limits any broadcast or publication of ‘news’ discussion of 9/11, requiring it to adhere to and never contradict the established narrative for “national security” reasons. Of course on the individual level there is the psychological denial rooted in incredulity that we all have faced when attempting to inform our fellow citizens about 9/11. Only in this sense can we speak of the “failure” of the press to use its First Amendment right (and, indeed, obligation) to inform the public. But on the institutional level we can’t give them the courtesy of “failure” as an excuse. They haven’t merely failed us, they’ve betrayed us. Even if, as I suspect, they have done so “lawfully” as directed under COG protocols, their adhesion to these protocols in the face of mass murder, treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity, allows only one conclusion: They are enemies of both our national ideals and the larger enterprise of human freedom. Freedom by its very nature can not be built upon a foundation of deception.

For each individual media member that knows in their own personal mind that the government’s version of 9/11 doesn’t hold up to the facts that are verifiable listen to this. You are making a horrible mistake with your decision to remain silent and you are definitely betrayers to the goodness of humanity. If you made that decision to stay silent because of your job and economic security I feel sorry for you. You should have quit your job and found a new way of making a living.

They certainly haven’t failed those countries and those corporations hellbent on dragging the entire world into a conflict and those who want to continue the destruction of the environment and the exploitation and disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples everywhere…..
the media hasn’t failed the criminal psychotic killers who are a blight on the planet at all…
The media is in perfect alignment with the state sponsored terrorists who are behind 911 and most of the crimes committed all over the world
as well.”

4.  “The first and most obvious is the Internet, which has not only bypassed the “mainstream” media and, indeed, driven it into near-bankruptcy, but which has also delivered a body blow to the cult of the “experts.” After all, who is an “expert,” and why are they so called? Well, because they generally have credentials and, therefore, are given a platform by the media to expound on matters they supposedly know everything about. Yet with the advent of the Internet, the significance of this “mainstream” platform is radically reduced. Add to this the wide availability of previously obscure knowledge – thanks be to the gods of Google! – and credentialism is thrown out the window. Today, an unknown writer can take to the Internet, set up a blog, and – perhaps – become the go-to source for this or that specialized branch of knowledge. An alternative crop of experts has arisen, which rivals the old crowd and indeed seems to be fast surpassing them, at least so far as influence over the public is concerned.

Yet the elite stranglehold on our foreign policy continues, in large part due to the iron grip of the interventionists on the two-party system. Our present conundrum – a president elected to office largely on the strength of his “antiwar” stance, who is now taking us into a wider and more difficult war than his warlike predecessor ever conceived – is an eloquent testament to this cruel fact.

If the leadership of both major parties sees Afghanistan as a “war of necessity,” then the War Party can relax – because the restive public will have no one to turn to even as it rejects the policies put forward by the elites. This is why the policymakers can continue to ignore the rising rebellion against interventionism roiling the American street and continue talking only to themselves.

In their view, ordinary Americans don’t matter: only politicians, lobbyists, and other policy wonks matter. But this Marie Antoinette attitude can only take them so far before they run the risk of revolution.”

5.  This is why American Exceptionalism is such an evil, murderous lie:

“There is a deep-rooted expectation – and not, alas, just among the elite — that the world should jump to America’s tune, by force if necessary. And when, for whatever reason, some part of the world does not jump – or bump and grind – to the Potomac beat, then it becomes a “problem” that must be “solved,” by one means or another, with, of course, “all options on the table,” all the time. And whether these “problems” are approached with blunt, bullying talk or a degree of cajolery and pious rhetoric, the chosen stance is always backed up with the ever-present threat of military action, up to and including the last of those “options” that always decorate the table: utter annihilation.

This is not even questioned, must less debated or challenged. America’s right to intervene in the affairs other nations by violent force (along with a constant series of illegal covert activities) – and to impose an empire of military plantations across the length and breadth of the entire planet – is the basic assumption, the underlying principle, the fervently held faith shared by both national parties, and the entire elite Establishment. And if you want to have the necessary instruments to maintain such a state of hegemony, then you must indeed structure your society and economy around war.

As historian Adam Tooze reminds us in The Wages of Destruction, the Nazis had drawn up detailed plans for the extermination – by active mass murder and deliberate starvation – of up to 40 million East Europeans.

Today, we all recognize the inhuman madness behind this hegemonic ambition. We shake our heads and say, “Whatever evils we may be accused of, we have never and would never do such a thing.” Perhaps. But leaving aside for a moment the millions – millions – of African slaves and Native Americans who died in order to procure the living space and natural resources of North and South America for European peoples, it is clear that most Americans – the elite above all – can easily countenance the deaths of, say, more than one million innocent Iraqis, or upwards of three million Southeast Asians, without any disturbance in their sense of national righteousness, their bedrock belief that the United States has the natural right, even the duty, to assert its hegemony over world affairs.”

6.  “79% of Americans Want an Audit of the Fed, Only 21% are in Favor of Confirming Bernanke, and Only 20% Think Geithner is Doing a Good Job

They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:

“Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,” writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods, it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic system.

Although it is easy to demonstrate that Bernanke and Geithner’s actions have harmed the economy, it is not even necessary to show what a poor job they have done economically.

America knows that Bernanke and Geithner have acted in the interests of the largest banks, and have done too little to help Main street and the American people.

Trust will not be restored until Bernanke and Geithner are replaced with people whose loyalty is to the American public and small businesses, rather than the Wall Street giants, and whose track record demonstrates that they will put the American people and entire economy as a whole – rather than the big boys – first.”

7.  “Supreme Court May Rule to Allow Unlimited Corporate Funding

“The American people are powerless to stop corporations from influencing state and federal elections”

8.  Like 9/11, the Madrid ‘terror attack ‘ is also wrongly blamed on Muslim terror.  Unfortunately, this article doesn’t discuss the fake victims in Madrid, just as there were on 9/11:

“March 11, 2004. The Madrid 3/11 Bombings: Was it Really an Attack by “Islamic Terrorists”?

Division exists even among skeptics who oppose the theory of an Islamist attack. Some incriminate ETA while others suspect the secret services of Spain as well as of foreign nations. Our article does not take up the issue of the real perpetrators of the attack but rather is limited to showing that the official version is false.

Given that the Spanish justice system has endorsed the theory of an Islamist attack, it is essential to begin by laying out this theory. As incredible as it may seem, the evidence that supposedly confirms the theory can not stand up to rigorous analysis. And the suspicious behavior of certain elements of the police forces clearly indicates the existence of an intent to sabotage the investigation.”

9.  “Israel’s Bedouin denied right to elections

“The Bedouin have a claim on a large area of the Negev and the government wants someone ruling the council who is on its side until the case is settled to the state’s advantage,” said Thabet Abu Ras, who was head of an empowerment scheme for Abu Basma’s residents until 2007.

The residents of Abu Basma are among 90,000 Bedouin in the Negev desert who have been denied any local representation since Israel’s founding in 1948. For most of that time the state has refused to recognise any of their villages.

According to officials, the Bedouin are living illegally on state land and must move to a handful of locations in the Negev approved by the government.

Bedouin leaders counter that their villages predate Israel’s creation and that the approved locales are so tightly confined that they cannot maintain their traditional pastoral way of life.

Israel has faced mounting criticism for its treatment of the 45 so-called “unrecognised villages”, which are denied all public services, including electricity and water. The inhabitants are invariably forced to live in tents or tin shacks because concrete homes are subject to demolition.”

10.  “Climate Change: The Global Media presents an Apocalyptic Scenario”

11.  More murderous US lies:

A new report questions “suicides” at Guantanamo

On the night of June 10, 2006, three Guantanamo detainees were found dead in their individual cells.  Without any autopsy or investigation, U.S. military officials proclaimed “suicide by hanging” as the cause of each death, and immediately sought to exploit the episode as proof of the evil of the detainees.  Admiral Harry Harris, the camp’s commander, said it showed “they have no regard for life” and that the suicides were “not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetric warfare aimed at us here at Guantanamo”; another official anonymously said that the suicides showed the victims were “committed jihadists [who] will do anything they can to advance their cause,” while another sneered that “it was a good PR move to draw attention.”

Questions immediately arose about how it could be possible that three detainees kept in isolation and under constant and intense monitoring could have coordinated and then carried out group suicide without detection, particularly since the military claimed their bodies were not found for over two hours after their deaths.  But from the beginning, there was a clear attempt on the part of Guantanamo officials to prevent any outside investigation of this incident.

War crimes never stay hidden, and the only question from the start was whether the Obama DOJ would be complicit in the attempt to shield them from disclosure.  That question has now been answered rather decisively.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: