Category: media


They want your soul

The Middle-East wars were planned before 9/11 by the Project for the New American Century.

Many things have changed since 9/11. For example, your constitution has been dismantled (we in the UK have never had one) and democracy has been destroyed. There is no freedom of the media; all outlets are now controlled by 5 mega corporations (and that includes our entertainment).

We are now free to do as they tell us.

Why? Because we have refused and continue to refuse to see the simple truth — they want our souls.

So go back to bed, America, “Big Government” is in control. The two parties have merged into one system, have become a neo-con hybrid.

But what are they trying to conserve?

WATCH THIS VIDEO WHILE SITTING DOWN. HEART PATIENTS ARE ADVISED AGAINST VIEWING IN ONE SITTING.

Call me a sceptic but…

“LONDON (Reuters) — The government is likely to announce an easing of air travel rules next week after security was tightened last month in the wake of what police said was a foiled plot to bomb airliners.”

“What police said”? Who believes what the police said? Who cares?

As you’ve probably guessed by now, I don’t really get this.

You see my point: if it was so important, in the light of “intelligence”, to impose those rules last month, what’s happened since then to make [the authorities] think that the restrictions are no longer necessary (apart from the fact that they have half the Muslim population of the UK under surveillance)?

It almost seems that they don’t want us to believe that there really was a high grade terror alert; or at any rate they want us to forget it.  

Did we believe it in the first place?

Well, look, get real — Did you? Do you know anyone with half a brain who did?

Not I, my friends, not I.

Click here for it.

J’accuse

The following “news” report by Mohammed Zaatari was published in the Daily Star 21 August:

MARJAYOUN: Mohammad Ali Qobeissi, a member of the National Council for Scientific Research, said on Sunday that a crater caused by an Israeli munition in Khiam contained “a high degree of unidentified radioactive materials.”

Qobeissi, along with Ibrahim Rashidi from the Faculty of Sciences at the Lebanese University, have inspected the crater – which is 3 meters deep and has a diameter of 10 meters – in the Jlahiyyeh quarter in Khiam, with a Geiger-Muller radioactivity counter and nuclear material detector.

“A team from the council will test a sample from the crater in order to find out what kinds of radioactive materials it contains,” Qobeisi told The Daily Star.

He added that the Israeli weapons launched on Khiam and the neighboring areas of South Lebanon “probably contained a high level of uranium.”

The scientific team doubted, however, that the dust caused by these weapons was likely to contain the kind of radioactive materials which would later lead to cancers.

Copyright © 2006, The Daily Star.

This article refers to depleted uranium-tipped weapons, known in the popular media as “bunker busters”.

It is no news that the Israelis used US supplied weapons in the rape and destruction of Lebanon.

And that the Americans have been using DU ordnance since the first Gulf war is a matter of public record.

There is no doubt that scientists tested samples from the crater.

However, that the dust they found was unlikely “to contain the kind of radioactive materials, which would later lead to cancers” is a lie, and everyone responsible for the publication of the report knows it.

In 1998 the following article appeared in the Lancet:

The office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights has received a report hypothesising that the current health and environmental problems in Iraq may be linked to US and British weapons left behind after the Gulf War in 1991.

[It] points out that mortality rates among children have increased sharply along with cancer rates: as many as 500 children a day are dying in Iraq.

He proposes that radioactive waste caused by projectiles containing depleted uranium (DU) may have played a part.

DU weapons were developed by the Pentagon in the late 1970s as anti-tank armour-piercing shells but were not used in combat until the Gulf War.

DU is a radioactive by-product of the enrichment process used to make nuclear fuel rods and nuclear bombs.

The report notes that the death rate per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993.

Cases of lymphoblastic leukaemia have more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing “at an alarming rate”.

In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers show the highest increase.

In women, the highest increases are in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Diseases such as osteosarcoma, teratoma, nephroblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma are also increasing with, according to the review, the most affected being children and young men.

Congenital malformations have also increased, as have diseases of the immune system.

The review says that a confidential report by the British Atomic Energy Authority in 1991 estimated that at least 40 tonnes of DU were dispersed in Kuwait and Iraq; but according to Greenpeace-based on US government information released under the Freedom of Information Act-“over 300 tonnes of DU mostly in fragmented form (dust) were left on the battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait”.

The review also quotes a letter from UK’s former Defence Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, to Sir David Steel, former Liberal leader, in December, 1994, saying that British troops used 88 DU rounds and that the USA had used much more.

The letter also said that the weapons would emit radioactive and toxic substances that “present a health hazard”.

Karen Birchard.

I accuse the “scientific team” cited in Zaatari’s article, because of their denial of the deadly nature of the radioactive dust bequeathed to Lebanese civilians and their unborn generations by Israel’s murderous campaign, of complicity in crimes against humanity.

And I accuse the Star “newspaper” of wilful and propagandistic dissemination of disinformation.

Sue me.

“The mother of all talk shows”

On Saturday, Respect politician and anti-war maverick George Galloway (to whom, as far as I know, I am not related) made broadcasting history by hosting a radio phone-in show from the ruins of southern Beirut.

Speaking about the ‘mother of all talk shows’ coming live from Beirut, Galloway said prior to the broadcast:

“I’m the first British political figure to visit the wreckage of Beirut and the south of Lebanon, seeing for myself the enormous toll taken by 33 days of aerial bombardment.

“I’ll be reporting to talkSPORT listeners on just what I’ve found here and inviting guests from across the spectrum in Lebanon who know what they’re talking about.

“I’ll be taking calls from the listeners across the UK as normal during this two day special on the conflict in the Middle East, its fundamental causes and, a way forward for peace.”

Click here to listen

24 rules of disinformation

This has been floating on the net in one form or another since the late ’90s at least. I’ve shortened a few things and made a couple of changes to make it scan better.

You can find the unabridged version at 9/11 Truth.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it–especially if you are a public figure. If you don’t report it, it didn’t happen, and you will never have to deal with the issues.

2. Be incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues. Focus on side issues which portray the topic as critical of some otherwise sacrosanct theme: freedom, democracy, family values… This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumour-mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all as mere rumours and wild accusations.

4. The straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument, which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent look bad, while avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the “shoot the messenger ploy”. Associate opponents with unpopular titles — “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviants”, “intellectuals” — thereby discouraging 2nd wave opposition and avoiding discussion of difficult issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack on your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded. Alternatively, simply ignore any answer.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify facts to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”; always make it clear that God is on your side. 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial: “Lacks credibility”, “Doesn’t make any sense”, “Provides no proof”, “Doesn’t contain or make a point”, “Lacks logic”, “Supports no conclusion” (mix well for maximum effect).

10. Establish fall-back positions. Using a minor element of the facts, “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

11. Enigmas have no solution. Draw upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding an acusation and the multitude of players and events; make out the entire affair as too complex to solve. Commentators will loose interest and the actual issues will not have to be addressed.

12. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

13. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.

14. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

15. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

16. Change the subject. 

17. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents, draw them into emotional responses, which will make them look foolish and overly motivated.

18. Ignore presented proof and demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Declare any material presented by an opponent in public forums irrelevant; be critical of media reports or books as valid sources, damn witnesses as unacceptable….

19. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

20. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. For example, if you own the prosecuting attorney, you can rest assured that the Grand Jury will hear no damaging evidence and that such evidence will not be available to subsequent investigators. In short, the matter can be considered officially closed.

21. Create a new truth. Manufacture your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s); or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

22. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working, create bigger news stories.

23. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive means: blackmail, destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, threats against family mambers, arrest and detention…or death by murder if all else fails.

24. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, vacate the kitchen.

%d bloggers like this: