Published (cut/censored!) around 12:05pm.
(Text in this colour was cut from WD version.)
Subtitle: only believe (half of) what we can actually see?
-=*=-
G'day Eliot Ramsey, I refer to your post 'Zionist-Kurdish-Iraqi-Infidel conspiracy?' of August 28, 2007 - 12:10pm which you end with:
«David, do you doubt this incident occurred?»
OK. From 'the top:'
Q: Eliot, could you please explain (why; connection) your usage of "Zionist?[1]"
Q: Similarly, Eliot, could you please explain (why; connection) your usage of "Infidel?[2]"
-=*=-
Now. Eliot, you've challenged David over some MSM report. I could counter with Q: "How do you, Eliot, know the truth (or otherwise) of that/any report?"
A: In this case, I don't care; I've been busy elsewhere.
BUT: I recall seeing this:
«This is now a matter of public record.»
[Eliot Ramsey on August 23, 2007 - 2:42pm.]
Which I challenged, in a minor way, in my own 'élite hypocrisy:'
«While I have every respect for this page/organisation, it is only one voice; it is part of what we like to call the MSM, itself often alleged to be variously 'venal' or 'corrupt' if not both; my own expressions include pro-status quo propaganda pushers, and 'transmitter/amplifiers' of such propaganda. And propaganda by its very nature (being designed to deceive) is often described as 'filthy' and 'lying.'»
Then later, funnily enough, I came upon this:
«Wednesday, August 22, 2007
An Independent hoax
On Monday, the Independent published an exclusive interview with Muqtada al-Sadr.
The Independent’s article is really enlightening. “The young nationalist cleric heads Iraq's largest Arab grassroots political movement” the Independent tells us among other interesting things.
Too bad that interview seems to be an hoax.»
[Gabriele Zamparini]
And Q: Just who wrote that (allegedly) hoax-article?
A: (Well, wha'd'ya know!) - Exactly the same two who wrote the article Eliot quoted; the one that I expressed my doubts over!
Now, it is said, that one can find (almost!) everything on the net; I can only repeat something I also wrote in my 'élite hypocrisy:' caveat emptor!
More? - Yes, I - at least - am in the mood for more.
-=*=-
We know that the MSM lies. Not 'just' that they transmit lies, but they do so often without any comment, and worse, far worse: they amplify! Examples from the run-up to "Shock'n whore®" are Judith Miller (NYT), Tony Parkinson (theAge) and all of Murdoch's 150 or so editors, and including Murdoch himself who said invading Iraq would bring oil-prices down.
There is a valid and current point to be made right here and now; you may have heard of the demands being made of the (US puppet) Iraqi govt., for "reconciliation?"
What is meant, among other "bench-marks" is the demand being made - also now, note, by the cheese-eating surrender-monkey French, who have (with Sarkozy) jumped into the (criminal) frying pan, a key demand is for the passing of the 'oil-law' - this law being the penultimate step in the long awaited (mostly US, some UK) oil-theft in Iraq, aka murder for oil.
And the point is, that any 'news' organisation which (a) reports these bench-mark/reconciliation demands, (b) without including the (filthy, criminal) significance, is guilty of propagandising us, we the sheople®. All IMHO, as usual and of course.
More? - Yes, there is one important piece more.
-=*=-
My subtitle: only believe (half of) what we can actually see?
One of few things we can actually see, is the shocking results of the (illegal) invasion, now turned (brutal) occupation of Iraq, namely the death toll now estimated to be in the region of one million overwhelmingly innocent Iraqis.
Another of the other things we can actually see, is the brutal slaughter in and around the former Palestine, typified by the 1000+ killed as a result of the recent (2006) IDF incursion into Lebanon. Only the tip of a very large, very filthy and criminal iceberg, one which got underway with incidents such as the King David Hotel bombing introduction to modern terrorism (by Irgun, a perpetrator/member of which was Begin; not the only one such, refer to Sharon (aka "the Butcher of Beirut"), the list of such (alleged) murderers is looong), and the hideous Deir Yassin slaughter, as only two incidents in a 60+ year history of blood-letting, aka murder for land and water.
(I'm under the impression that those (allegedly) stealing Palestinian land and water call themselves Zionists. So could you please tell us, just what was the reason you used it, Eliot?)
-=*end*=-
[1] Zionism n. movement for the re-establishment and development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Zionist n. & adj. [POD]
[2] infidel —n. unbeliever in esp. the supposed true religion. —adj. 1 of infidels. 2 unbelieving. [Latin fides faith] [ibid.]
[cross-posted]
No comments:
Post a Comment