I'll tell you why. because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources. whatreallyhappened.com can post whatever garbage they want without any proof whatsoever....and people like you will take it as undeniable fact. its outright scary to see how easily you can be manipulated.
I'll tell you why. because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources. whatreallyhappened.com can post whatever garbage they want without any proof whatsoever....and people like you will take it as undeniable fact. its outright scary to see how easily you can be manipulated.
WRH broke the put option story, and WRH controls the FBI's involvement into Odigo's texting services?
Wow...that's news to me. I think I need to give Rivero more credit these days. He's a sly manipulator indeed. :rolleyes:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
you said it man.
its amazing. its like you mentally block out what you dont want to see. do you do it subconsciously?
I'll give you that, there seems to be some confusion on the names. What of the put options, and text messages. What do you know about that over what I know that makes you so sure of anything in the end?
In fact, most of what we were told were lies.
Also ...did you catch this part on the link you provided?
"Strength of the evidence:
There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
At best the evidence is circumstantial.
Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.
Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.
The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.
US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons.
When asserting that Bin Laden is behind the attacks, US and UK officials lean heavily on what they believe to be Bin Laden's record and his connection to other terrorist attacks.
They are in effect arguing that the attacks are part of a clearly discernable pattern linked to previous attacks - notably the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998."
Over a million people died on circumstantial evidence. Does that sit well with you, and put your mind completely at rest?
It doesn't for me.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources.
Like the fact that Sadaam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the Western world with his weapons of mass destruction, right?
Or that the island of Granada posed a threat to the U.S and threatened to invade U.S soil in 1983?
Or that Israel is acting in self-defense and deserves our full support.
I could go on all day. Suffice it to say, we should of course always believe the mainstream media.
Whatever you do, don't read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies'. They're just commie propaganda.
I'll give you that, there seems to be some confusion on the names. What of the put options, and text messages. What do you know about that over what I know that makes you so sure of anything in the end?
In fact, most of what we were told were lies.
I'm a trader. its what I've been doing for a living for the past 15 years. someone or some group made a bet the airlines were going down. so what? that happens every day. its pure coincidence.
as for the texts, this is the first I heard of it. I'll check it out.
There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
At best the evidence is circumstantial.
Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.
Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.
The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.
US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons.
When asserting that Bin Laden is behind the attacks, US and UK officials lean heavily on what they believe to be Bin Laden's record and his connection to other terrorist attacks.
They are in effect arguing that the attacks are part of a clearly discernable pattern linked to previous attacks - notably the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998."
Over a million people died on circumstantial evidence. Does that sit well with you, and put your mind completely at rest?
It doesn't for me.
there is much more the circumstantial evidence. the problem is, if I go out and find it, and post it, you will dismiss it because it will come from an "official" source. so honestly, should I bother?
Whatever you do, don't read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies'. They're just commie propaganda.
I'm a trader. its what I've been doing for a living for the past 15 years. someone or some group made a bet the airlines were going down. so what? that happens every day. its pure coincidence.
as for the texts, this is the first I heard of it. I'll check it out.
I didnt provide a link. you did. you just chose to ignore the part I posted.
and I dont see where this is. is it in the comments part?
there is much more the circumstantial evidence. the problem is, if I go out and find it, and post it, you will dismiss it because it will come from an "official" source. so honestly, should I bother?
So why weren't the put options investigated and put to rest if it was probably just routine speculation? A lot of people died on this one.
The link above (I posted re circumstantial evidence) was a sub link in the story you provided on the name thing.
Also here the FBI's wanted website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm still nothing on 9/11, so it appears it's still circumstantial evidence linking him to 9/11. One would expect if there was a discovered connection, the page would be updated for sure within the day of discovering it, not to mention probably a few day media blitz proclaiming it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
...Tell me how you know for a fact that these Zionist bankers rule the world. Initially, to me that sounds like good old anti-semitism with a modern twist...
Peace
Dan
Bingo. I've thought that lately reading Roland's posts. I wondered if he would ever come right out and reveal his anti-semitism. It appears he has. This is follows the same line of thinking anti-semites have used for years: the world is run by the machinations of money-grubbing Jews. Give me a break.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
He used Wmd's that we sold him in the 80's. He used them against the Iranians and against the Kurds with our full support. At the end of the first Gulf war he used them against the Arabs in the south of the country who were attempting to overthrow him, again with our full support.
and the main stream media never said saddam poised a threat. the American government did.
And how were these supposed 'threats' relayed to the general population? They were relayed unquestioningly, and without objection, and in many cases they were exaggerated and expanded upon by the media.
the main stream media NEVER says Israel deserves our full support.
Is that so?
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521 US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.
Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'
'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).
During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4
In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.
That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.
In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.
The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").
http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'
Bingo. I've thought that lately reading Roland's posts. I wondered if he would ever come right out and reveal his anti-semitism. It appears he has. This is follows the same line of thinking anti-semites have used for years: the world is run by the machinations of money-grubbing Jews. Give me a break.
There's no anti-semitism. That's a fallacy, and a common tactic used to cite racism over criticism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as false flag terrorism, it's exists (and has in the past) whether you want to believe it or not.
So you deny the whole issue of radical zionist interests having any involvement in what is going on?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There's no anti-semitism. That's a fallacy, and a common tactic used to cite racism over criticism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as false flag terrorism, it's exists (and has in the past) whether you want to believe it or not.
So you deny the whole issue of radical zionist interests having any involvement in what is going on?
Never said I don't believe in false-flag terrorism. I'm also positive there are extremist Jews, just as there are extremist Muslims and Christians and extreme members of any group of people. That doesn't mean the entire world is controlled by your so-called "Zionists."
What you need to see is that you sound like a crackpot, anti-semite when you spout off about this great "Zionist Jew" conspiracy. You always ask people to look at things; well, look at how you sound when you cite these extreme sources to back up your idea of reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?
That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Never said I don't believe in false-flag terrorism. I'm also positive there are extremist Jews, just as there are extremist Muslims and Christians and extreme members of any group of people. That doesn't mean the entire world is controlled by your so-called "Zionists."
What you need to see is that you sound like a crackpot, anti-semite when you spout off about this great "Zionist Jew" conspiracy. You always ask people to look at things; well, look at how you sound when you cite these extreme sources to back up your idea of reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?
That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.
You've got it a bit blown out of proportion. One would think that such a statement cannot be made against an entire group of people by default, and that perhaps the political structure itself is the question. My mistake was saying the word Jew. Big mistake.
There is more than just casual evidence linking mossad to 9/11, and with spying in and on the US immediately prior to 9/11 and the hijackers. Certain elements in the CIA were probably well aware of this as well. In fact there is an outstanding legal trial against AIPAC relating specifically to this. This trial has been perpetually postponed several times.
One has to wonder why this is, and also why Israel can not be criticised at all without being called anti-semitic. Where is that ideology coming from exactly? The mainstream media.
edit: was the anti Semitic crackpot name calling thing necessary? do you feel better about yourself now?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521 US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.
Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'
'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).
During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4
In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.
That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.
In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.
The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").
http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'
And even when you don't see blatant bias in the media you see the subtle bias that passes over people's heads.. not because they are stupid but because they are not emotionally invested in this conflict.. examples always seen are
1. Israelis are always "retaliating"
2. When Israel attacks it is a military operation while Palestinian attacks are terrorist attacks (even if they are against the IDF). This was also seen in the coverage of the 2006 Lebanon war.
3. Settler violence is aggression or petty crime while Palestinian aggression is due to terrorist/fundamentalist/extremist views.
Its happened many times where a friend of mine reads an article and sees absolutely nothing wrong with it until I start pointing out to him the subtle language usage that reflects Palestinian evil. I think nowadays we are starting to see more non-biased reports because of non-mainstream media making it to our computer screens via the internet; not because mainstream media is less biased.
I agree that there is bias in news coverage, though I also believe that any journalist worth his or her salt tries to avoid it. It's like when Katrina hit. I saw a picture of a black guy carrying some food (and beer) through the flood and he was "looting". There was later a picture of a white guy carrying food through the flood and he was "foraging".
Every person has biases. Keeping those biases out of news coverage is an undervalued responsibility.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
I agree that there is bias in news coverage, though I also believe that any journalist worth his or her salt tries to avoid it. It's like when Katrina hit. I saw a picture of a black guy carrying some food (and beer) through the flood and he was "looting". There was later a picture of a white guy carrying food through the flood and he was "foraging".
Every person has biases. Keeping those biases out of news coverage is an undervalued responsibility.
because the nature of journalism rewards those that conform. there is no room for anything but conventional ideology. reporters have a 5 minute window on tv to present their views...in no way can anything but conventional rheteoric be regurgitated in that time.
If someone says,
"the Federal reserve is slowly taking over America."
or something as significant, they are going to need more than the 5 minute slot to present their point of view. The structure of media does not allow that, or any dissenting views. notice the media is owned by the very people that the structure makes it impossible to question.
they reward those journalists, the individuals that conform.
Isn't it a bit incredible then that your media lines right up with Canada and the US? or are you getting a different story then what I'm hearing?
Ehm, didn't I just say that it seems our media DOESN'T fall in line with what you say you see. I seem to be getting a different story than you, definitely. I might well believe that some american press is biased in it's coverage, but it doesnt seem they control the world, as you claim.
The same deal could be said for the elements in the West since 9/11, or certain other figure heads in Israel, compared to Bin Laden, but it isn't painted that way now is it?
I thought you were going for the impartial angle?
Seems you've been affected without actually realising it.
I dont understand what you're saying here. What could be said of what elements? What about Bin Laden?
I am going for the "knowing your sources" angle in an attempt at imparitality, yes. And you are still offering nothing of it. Best thing you can do to convince/placate me, is giving me some credible sources that back you up on what you allude to. You're dodging that like crazy so far.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
He used Wmd's that we sold him in the 80's. He used them against the Iranians and against the Kurds with our full support. At the end of the first Gulf war he used them against the Arabs in the south of the country who were attempting to overthrow him, again with our full support.
LOL do you have a point here? I'm not debating whether or not saddam had WMDs and when, and where. I'm debating whether or not the media said saddam had them. which is a false claim you are making. the american government made the case, the media reported it.
And how were these supposed 'threats' relayed to the general population? They were relayed unquestioningly, and without objection, and in many cases they were exaggerated and expanded upon by the media.
case in point why I dont think you watch the american media. and if you do, its a rare occasion. here in America the main stream media is on 24/7/365. there is a counter point to every single thing. sure there might be a bais in certain things but all sides are always covered
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521 US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.
Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'
'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).
During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4
In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.
That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.
In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.
The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").
http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'
yes, there is a media bias towards Israel but thats not to say we are forced into taking sides on the issue.
Ehm, didn't I just say that it seems our media DOESN'T fall in line with what you say you see. I seem to be getting a different story than you, definitely. I might well believe that some american press is biased in it's coverage, but it doesnt seem they control the world, as you claim.
I dont understand what you're saying here. What could be said of what elements? What about Bin Laden?
I am going for the "knowing your sources" angle in an attempt at imparitality, yes. And you are still offering nothing of it. Best thing you can do to convince/placate me, is giving me some credible sources that back you up on what you allude to. You're dodging that like crazy so far.
Peace
Dan
I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you? It seems pretty homogeneous to me in the sense that everyone is rooting for the same team for the most part. If this wasn't the case, you would see a lot more mainstream media outlets continuously bashing Bush, Cheney, et al (Israel) incessantly for suspicious anti-humanitarian war crimes. Are you seeing this at all? I'm not. Maybe your news agencies portray this angle and I'm just not aware of it? Sure there is the occasional story that raises questions and doubts, but for the most part they all play along with what Reuters and AP churns out.
Get what I'm saying?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?
That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.
I've been researching all this 9/11 shit since Nov of 2001 and it still gives me braineurysms. I haven't come down on one side of the fence yet. What I can say is there is a whole lot of information out there, and not all 9/11 conspiracies fall into the "Loose Change" genre. There are some theorists that dismiss Loose Change and Alex Jones' Prison Planet as disinfo, which is funny because Alex Jones himself is always talking about disinfo. But this makes me wonder, how complicated can this be? How many people need to be involved?
Here's a few websites that I am not exactly promoting, but they don't get a lot of attention, so I think their worth looking at...
but beware, it would take months to read thru all of what you'll find there. I've probably only read 5-10% of it. That's all I can handle before the brain rebels.
I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you?
European news media, as a whole, offers quite some variation...tv as well as print media are critical of american policies. the war in afghanistan is a matter of great dispute, also within various countries political parties...
dunno about the bbc in particular...but being limited to English language news coverage might be a slight disadvantage when it comes to getting the overall picture of "world news"...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
European news media, as a whole, offers quite some variation...tv as well as print media are critical of american policies. the war in afghanistan is a matter of great dispute, also within various countries political parties...
dunno about the bbc in particular...but being limited to English language news coverage might be a slight disadvantage when it comes to getting the overall picture of "world news"...
m.
Times are changing as more people begin to figure out what the situation is, and ask questions for themselves. They (let's just say "radical elite elements" for sake of over complicating the argument) are losing the battle, and they know it. Knowledge is key.
Rewind to a few years ago, and I'd be very surprised to see anyone openly dissenting on an ongoing basis against the status quo....especially Israel. Still isn''t there really. The odd piece, but it's toned down. People are afraid to say what they really think.
I've been calling it out for a while now (and learning daily), and taking endless flack in the process. A lot of hate......so much hatred in the world is all I can say. I've been a magnet for it just by asking questions, and trying to get people to think differently.
The media has an extremely powerful hold on what reality is for a lot of people. It's a very insidious tool in the wrong hands.
It's encouraging to see people finally awakening to the reality that there is perhaps more than meets the eye. I kinda figured once people started getting hit in the pocketbooks perceptions would begin to shift in other directions and seek answers.
People push, they push back. Back and forth it goes, which is why they are now moving towards unifying the international currency structure, and giving (have already gave actually) the FED and IMF broad sweeping new powers of control and oversight. It's all very slight of hand, and cunning.
Call it conspiracy, but just like some that called Ron Paul (and other economists) crazy, etc... are now seeing that there is perhaps more to the picture, and maybe they were right after all about a few things.
I'm of the school of thought that nothing in politics is casual, and it is all very well orchestrated and thought out....especially when there is billions, and trillions of dollars at stake.
I'm still learning.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you?
Yes, I do. Some american networks can be pretty bad, but they do not set the tone for coverage worldwide.
It seems pretty homogeneous to me in the sense that everyone is rooting for the same team for the most part. If this wasn't the case, you would see a lot more mainstream media outlets continuously bashing Bush, Cheney, et al (Israel) incessantly for suspicious anti-humanitarian war rimes. Are you seeing this at all? I'm not. Maybe your news agencies portray this angle and I'm just not aware of it? Sure there is the occasional story that raises questions and doubts, but for the most part they all play along with what Reuters and AP churns out.
Well, I am seeing it. We even have a party in our coalition government now that wants to boycott Israel for their crimes. The coverage we get from there is pretty balanced actually. Israel is certainly not getting a free pass here.
But that is not what this thread was about. (I know you love to talk about Israel) This was about bankers controlling evrything, and with an addition from you: Zionist bankers. I was asking, and are still asking for some sources on that claim. So far you're only talking about perception of media coverage, not about the source that has you convinced that it's a zionist banking conspiracy alike to the one we (don't) see in the media.
I see that certain US media is Israel and generally US foreign policy cheer-leading (Notably Fox and CNN), but they are not the entire media, and their impact is far less outside US borders. Here, there is coverage both ways as there are politicians and parties that are very gung-ho pro-US and others that are the opposite. Neither the US nor Israel gets any free passes generally. (although certainly in fringe papers)
But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.
Peace
Dan
sources are sparse, I would assume, except the ones that cook up ground-breaking truths like "the jews run everything" and "gypsies steal little babies" for centuries now...that's my own personal conspiracy theory;)
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Yes, I do. Some american networks can be pretty bad, but they do not set the tone for coverage worldwide.
Well, I am seeing it. We even have a party in our coalition government now that wants to boycott Israel for their crimes. The coverage we get from there is pretty balanced actually. Israel is certainly not getting a free pass here.
But that is not what this thread was about. (I know you love to talk about Israel) This was about bankers controlling evrything, and with an addition from you: Zionist bankers. I was asking, and are still asking for some sources on that claim. So far you're only talking about perception of media coverage, not about the source that has you convinced that it's a zionist banking conspiracy alike to the one we (don't) see in the media.
I see that certain US media is Israel and generally US foreign policy cheer-leading (Notably Fox and CNN), but they are not the entire media, and their impact is far less outside US borders. Here, there is coverage both ways as there are politicians and parties that are very gung-ho pro-US and others that are the opposite. Neither the US nor Israel gets any free passes generally. (although certainly in fringe papers)
But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.
Peace
Dan
If you're looking for a mainstream article stating that, it's going to be about 5 - 10 years.
Mainstream isn't even willing to admit the FED is a private organisation (cartel really) of private interests completely separate of any sort of federal control or oversight.
Besides, they would be sued and slandered out of existence.
To say you don't see it, over me also does not indicate to me that it isn't the case considering all roads do eventually end at Israel's doorstep.
This is where the brush meets the canvas on the global landscape so to speak.
It's a rather tight inner circle. Why do you suppose it's so incredibly important to put Israel so high on a pedestal? It's a filter.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If you're looking for a mainstream article stating that, it's going to be about 5 - 10 years.
Mainstream isn't even willing to admit the FED is a private organisation (cartel really) of private interests completely separate of any sort of federal control or oversight.
Besides, they would be sued and slandered out of existence.
To say you don't see it, over me also does not indicate to me that it isn't the case considering all roads do eventually end at Israel's doorstep.
This is where the brush meets the canvas on the global landscape so to speak.
It's a rather tight inner circle. Why do you suppose it's so incredibly important to put Israel so high on a pedestal? It's a filter.
I'm not even asking about mainstream, although I am asking to refrain from obvious conspiracy-nut sites. There are some ground between the two. Can you get nothing from the in-between? If not, then fine, gimme the conspiracies. I want to see what's backing the claim.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
anyone who thinks the stockmarket is something more than white collar, for some reason respected gambling is fooling themself. stock market is a gamble. you play and you lose, its your fault. i have no sympathy. i put my money in a savings account. i will never get rich off it, but its my fucking money and it isnt going anywhere. unless my bank collapses, i will have it when i need it. if I do play the stock market, I make a quick buck, and move it to my savings account. buy and hold is retarded, and if you were duped into believing it, read a book.
id rather play the horses, its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more fun, and I think the payouts are much better. 25-1 within two minutes vs. 25-1 over twenty years?
fuck all this nonsense. nobody is controlling anyone. the only thing worth investing in is LAND, because THEY AINT MAKING ANYMORE OF IT. anyone with a brain knows that.
sure, the original post is exciting, and it makes a good read and would make a good book/movie, but its nothing more than fiction.
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
I'm not even asking about mainstream, although I am asking to refrain from obvious conspiracy-nut sites. There are some ground between the two. Can you get nothing from the in-between? If not, then fine, gimme the conspiracies. I want to see what's backing the claim.
Peace
Dan
Interesting how you're pressing on this give me links thing like it's going to prove you're right about something, and I'm wrong about something.
To be honest I don't keep a rolling excel spreadsheet of all the links I visit in every internet session over the *years* in case someone asks me for some of them. Someone, somewhere like that might exist somewhere in the world, perhaps in an internet almanac of some sort....besides, You can google whatever you like. I'm not going to dance for you in the area of discussion and lead it to a 10 page thread of people calling me every name in the book. I get enough of that already if you haven't noticed.
Call me wrong, exude your disbelief. that's fine. It changes nothing of what I know and have seen.
I've made my points. Take em...or leave em and apply them to what is happening in the world. If a lightbulb goes off, fine, if not...fine. The world still turns.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm not asking for a excel sheet either. But you havent given up 1 single source for your claims. Not 1 web-site, 1 book, 1 paper, nothing. I will assume you either have no source, or that they are so shady you wont show them. A claim is only as good as it's source. That's a very useful academic and scientific rule of thumb.
But fine, I'm not gonna force you to make your own case.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
I'll tell you why. because the main stream media, for the most part, only reports stories that can be backed up with proof and sources. whatreallyhappened.com can post whatever garbage they want without any proof whatsoever....and people like you will take it as undeniable fact. its outright scary to see how easily you can be manipulated.
WRH broke the put option story, and WRH controls the FBI's involvement into Odigo's texting services?
Wow...that's news to me. I think I need to give Rivero more credit these days. He's a sly manipulator indeed. :rolleyes:
edit btw....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
so easily manipulated I am...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
thanks for posting..this article you posted was written Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
did you click on the click at the bottom of the article? that says this..
(Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors' blog)
here is the link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
Screen grab of original website storyWe later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.
We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
you said it man.
its amazing. its like you mentally block out what you dont want to see. do you do it subconsciously?
I'll give you that, there seems to be some confusion on the names. What of the put options, and text messages. What do you know about that over what I know that makes you so sure of anything in the end?
In fact, most of what we were told were lies.
Also ...did you catch this part on the link you provided?
"Strength of the evidence:
There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
At best the evidence is circumstantial.
Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.
Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.
The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.
US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons.
When asserting that Bin Laden is behind the attacks, US and UK officials lean heavily on what they believe to be Bin Laden's record and his connection to other terrorist attacks.
They are in effect arguing that the attacks are part of a clearly discernable pattern linked to previous attacks - notably the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm
Over a million people died on circumstantial evidence. Does that sit well with you, and put your mind completely at rest?
It doesn't for me.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Like the fact that Sadaam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the Western world with his weapons of mass destruction, right?
Or that the island of Granada posed a threat to the U.S and threatened to invade U.S soil in 1983?
Or that Israel is acting in self-defense and deserves our full support.
I could go on all day. Suffice it to say, we should of course always believe the mainstream media.
Whatever you do, don't read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies'. They're just commie propaganda.
I'm a trader. its what I've been doing for a living for the past 15 years. someone or some group made a bet the airlines were going down. so what? that happens every day. its pure coincidence.
as for the texts, this is the first I heard of it. I'll check it out.
I didnt provide a link. you did. you just chose to ignore the part I posted.
and I dont see where this is. is it in the comments part?
there is much more the circumstantial evidence. the problem is, if I go out and find it, and post it, you will dismiss it because it will come from an "official" source. so honestly, should I bother?
are you chinese? do you even watch american news? serious question.
the main stream media NEVER says Israel deserves our full support.
please do nope, but you can bet they have more proof of what they report they some random blog buried in the aybss of the internet.
thats bullshit
Overpopulation allows the manipulation to be carried out under the guise of public interest.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So why weren't the put options investigated and put to rest if it was probably just routine speculation? A lot of people died on this one.
The link above (I posted re circumstantial evidence) was a sub link in the story you provided on the name thing.
Also here the FBI's wanted website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm still nothing on 9/11, so it appears it's still circumstantial evidence linking him to 9/11. One would expect if there was a discovered connection, the page would be updated for sure within the day of discovering it, not to mention probably a few day media blitz proclaiming it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Bingo. I've thought that lately reading Roland's posts. I wondered if he would ever come right out and reveal his anti-semitism. It appears he has. This is follows the same line of thinking anti-semites have used for years: the world is run by the machinations of money-grubbing Jews. Give me a break.
He used Wmd's that we sold him in the 80's. He used them against the Iranians and against the Kurds with our full support. At the end of the first Gulf war he used them against the Arabs in the south of the country who were attempting to overthrow him, again with our full support.
Is that so?
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28521
US Media Bias: Covering Israel / Palestine
'Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The New York Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.
Since the uprising in September of 2000, more than 3800 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories as a result of the conflict. Most Americans are unaware of the toll because it is not properly reported. In 2004, If Americans Knew—an American organization that exposes and examines the facts of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—reported that 808 Palestinian conflict deaths occurred while 107 Israelis conflict deaths occurred. The study, however, found that The New York Times covered Israeli deaths in the headline or the first paragraph in 159 articles—meaning in some cases they covered the same death numerous times. In contrast, The New York Times only covered about 40 percent of Palestinian deaths—334 of 808—in the headline or in the first paragraph of the articles. Nearly eight Palestinians died for every one Israeli. Disturbingly The New York Times is considered the quintessential “liberal” newspaper of the US...'
Associated Press Coverage of
Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html
'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).
During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4
In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.
That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.
In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004...'
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0507-23.htm
'Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.
The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").
http://www.imemc.org/article/55334
'The three major candidates for the US Presidency all voiced their overwhelming support for the state of Israel this week, at the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, or AIPAC...'
There's no anti-semitism. That's a fallacy, and a common tactic used to cite racism over criticism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as false flag terrorism, it's exists (and has in the past) whether you want to believe it or not.
So you deny the whole issue of radical zionist interests having any involvement in what is going on?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Never said I don't believe in false-flag terrorism. I'm also positive there are extremist Jews, just as there are extremist Muslims and Christians and extreme members of any group of people. That doesn't mean the entire world is controlled by your so-called "Zionists."
What you need to see is that you sound like a crackpot, anti-semite when you spout off about this great "Zionist Jew" conspiracy. You always ask people to look at things; well, look at how you sound when you cite these extreme sources to back up your idea of reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?
That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.
You've got it a bit blown out of proportion. One would think that such a statement cannot be made against an entire group of people by default, and that perhaps the political structure itself is the question. My mistake was saying the word Jew. Big mistake.
There is more than just casual evidence linking mossad to 9/11, and with spying in and on the US immediately prior to 9/11 and the hijackers. Certain elements in the CIA were probably well aware of this as well. In fact there is an outstanding legal trial against AIPAC relating specifically to this. This trial has been perpetually postponed several times.
One has to wonder why this is, and also why Israel can not be criticised at all without being called anti-semitic. Where is that ideology coming from exactly? The mainstream media.
edit: was the anti Semitic crackpot name calling thing necessary? do you feel better about yourself now?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And even when you don't see blatant bias in the media you see the subtle bias that passes over people's heads.. not because they are stupid but because they are not emotionally invested in this conflict.. examples always seen are
1. Israelis are always "retaliating"
2. When Israel attacks it is a military operation while Palestinian attacks are terrorist attacks (even if they are against the IDF). This was also seen in the coverage of the 2006 Lebanon war.
3. Settler violence is aggression or petty crime while Palestinian aggression is due to terrorist/fundamentalist/extremist views.
Its happened many times where a friend of mine reads an article and sees absolutely nothing wrong with it until I start pointing out to him the subtle language usage that reflects Palestinian evil. I think nowadays we are starting to see more non-biased reports because of non-mainstream media making it to our computer screens via the internet; not because mainstream media is less biased.
Every person has biases. Keeping those biases out of news coverage is an undervalued responsibility.
because the nature of journalism rewards those that conform. there is no room for anything but conventional ideology. reporters have a 5 minute window on tv to present their views...in no way can anything but conventional rheteoric be regurgitated in that time.
If someone says,
"the Federal reserve is slowly taking over America."
or something as significant, they are going to need more than the 5 minute slot to present their point of view. The structure of media does not allow that, or any dissenting views. notice the media is owned by the very people that the structure makes it impossible to question.
they reward those journalists, the individuals that conform.
I dont understand what you're saying here. What could be said of what elements? What about Bin Laden?
I am going for the "knowing your sources" angle in an attempt at imparitality, yes. And you are still offering nothing of it. Best thing you can do to convince/placate me, is giving me some credible sources that back you up on what you allude to. You're dodging that like crazy so far.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
LOL do you have a point here? I'm not debating whether or not saddam had WMDs and when, and where. I'm debating whether or not the media said saddam had them. which is a false claim you are making. the american government made the case, the media reported it.
case in point why I dont think you watch the american media. and if you do, its a rare occasion. here in America the main stream media is on 24/7/365. there is a counter point to every single thing. sure there might be a bais in certain things but all sides are always covered
yes that is so. you made a blanket claim that "media tells us to give FULL support to Israel" thats simply not true.
yes, there is a media bias towards Israel but thats not to say we are forced into taking sides on the issue.
I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you? It seems pretty homogeneous to me in the sense that everyone is rooting for the same team for the most part. If this wasn't the case, you would see a lot more mainstream media outlets continuously bashing Bush, Cheney, et al (Israel) incessantly for suspicious anti-humanitarian war crimes. Are you seeing this at all? I'm not. Maybe your news agencies portray this angle and I'm just not aware of it? Sure there is the occasional story that raises questions and doubts, but for the most part they all play along with what Reuters and AP churns out.
Get what I'm saying?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I've been researching all this 9/11 shit since Nov of 2001 and it still gives me braineurysms. I haven't come down on one side of the fence yet. What I can say is there is a whole lot of information out there, and not all 9/11 conspiracies fall into the "Loose Change" genre. There are some theorists that dismiss Loose Change and Alex Jones' Prison Planet as disinfo, which is funny because Alex Jones himself is always talking about disinfo. But this makes me wonder, how complicated can this be? How many people need to be involved?
Here's a few websites that I am not exactly promoting, but they don't get a lot of attention, so I think their worth looking at...
http://www.oilempire.us/media-strategy.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
but beware, it would take months to read thru all of what you'll find there. I've probably only read 5-10% of it. That's all I can handle before the brain rebels.
European news media, as a whole, offers quite some variation...tv as well as print media are critical of american policies. the war in afghanistan is a matter of great dispute, also within various countries political parties...
dunno about the bbc in particular...but being limited to English language news coverage might be a slight disadvantage when it comes to getting the overall picture of "world news"...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Times are changing as more people begin to figure out what the situation is, and ask questions for themselves. They (let's just say "radical elite elements" for sake of over complicating the argument) are losing the battle, and they know it. Knowledge is key.
Rewind to a few years ago, and I'd be very surprised to see anyone openly dissenting on an ongoing basis against the status quo....especially Israel. Still isn''t there really. The odd piece, but it's toned down. People are afraid to say what they really think.
I've been calling it out for a while now (and learning daily), and taking endless flack in the process. A lot of hate......so much hatred in the world is all I can say. I've been a magnet for it just by asking questions, and trying to get people to think differently.
The media has an extremely powerful hold on what reality is for a lot of people. It's a very insidious tool in the wrong hands.
It's encouraging to see people finally awakening to the reality that there is perhaps more than meets the eye. I kinda figured once people started getting hit in the pocketbooks perceptions would begin to shift in other directions and seek answers.
People push, they push back. Back and forth it goes, which is why they are now moving towards unifying the international currency structure, and giving (have already gave actually) the FED and IMF broad sweeping new powers of control and oversight. It's all very slight of hand, and cunning.
Call it conspiracy, but just like some that called Ron Paul (and other economists) crazy, etc... are now seeing that there is perhaps more to the picture, and maybe they were right after all about a few things.
I'm of the school of thought that nothing in politics is casual, and it is all very well orchestrated and thought out....especially when there is billions, and trillions of dollars at stake.
I'm still learning.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, I am seeing it. We even have a party in our coalition government now that wants to boycott Israel for their crimes. The coverage we get from there is pretty balanced actually. Israel is certainly not getting a free pass here.
But that is not what this thread was about. (I know you love to talk about Israel) This was about bankers controlling evrything, and with an addition from you: Zionist bankers. I was asking, and are still asking for some sources on that claim. So far you're only talking about perception of media coverage, not about the source that has you convinced that it's a zionist banking conspiracy alike to the one we (don't) see in the media.
I see that certain US media is Israel and generally US foreign policy cheer-leading (Notably Fox and CNN), but they are not the entire media, and their impact is far less outside US borders. Here, there is coverage both ways as there are politicians and parties that are very gung-ho pro-US and others that are the opposite. Neither the US nor Israel gets any free passes generally. (although certainly in fringe papers)
But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
sources are sparse, I would assume, except the ones that cook up ground-breaking truths like "the jews run everything" and "gypsies steal little babies" for centuries now...that's my own personal conspiracy theory;)
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
If you're looking for a mainstream article stating that, it's going to be about 5 - 10 years.
Mainstream isn't even willing to admit the FED is a private organisation (cartel really) of private interests completely separate of any sort of federal control or oversight.
Besides, they would be sued and slandered out of existence.
To say you don't see it, over me also does not indicate to me that it isn't the case considering all roads do eventually end at Israel's doorstep.
This is where the brush meets the canvas on the global landscape so to speak.
It's a rather tight inner circle. Why do you suppose it's so incredibly important to put Israel so high on a pedestal? It's a filter.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
id rather play the horses, its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more fun, and I think the payouts are much better. 25-1 within two minutes vs. 25-1 over twenty years?
fuck all this nonsense. nobody is controlling anyone. the only thing worth investing in is LAND, because THEY AINT MAKING ANYMORE OF IT. anyone with a brain knows that.
sure, the original post is exciting, and it makes a good read and would make a good book/movie, but its nothing more than fiction.
Interesting how you're pressing on this give me links thing like it's going to prove you're right about something, and I'm wrong about something.
To be honest I don't keep a rolling excel spreadsheet of all the links I visit in every internet session over the *years* in case someone asks me for some of them. Someone, somewhere like that might exist somewhere in the world, perhaps in an internet almanac of some sort....besides, You can google whatever you like. I'm not going to dance for you in the area of discussion and lead it to a 10 page thread of people calling me every name in the book. I get enough of that already if you haven't noticed.
Call me wrong, exude your disbelief. that's fine. It changes nothing of what I know and have seen.
I've made my points. Take em...or leave em and apply them to what is happening in the world. If a lightbulb goes off, fine, if not...fine. The world still turns.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But fine, I'm not gonna force you to make your own case.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965