On 5 June last year Will Howard, propagandist, apologist and liar par excellence for the Australian Israeli Loony Lobby, wrote at Webdiary:
“OBL and other al Qaeda members are on record numerous times claiming "credit" for AQ for 9/11.”
This, of course, is a lie and it is well known that the recording that was purported to be of Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility for 9/11 is a fake; indeed, very shortly after 9/11, bin Laden, while applauding the atrocity actually denied having any part in it whatsoever.
Will Howard goes on to say: “Really I wouldn't know where to begin.” He then recommends the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ as a good place to start. Of course he would. This is the bible for the government 9/11 conspiracy theory liars and their supporters like Will Howard.
Will Howard, as we now know, is a proven and unmitigated liar who relies on his academic qualifications, a PhD in earth sciences of some sort, to give his lies an aura of credibility.
On 17 May 2006 Will Howard wrote this in an effort to justify the expansionist policies of the Zionists of Israel:
“No other country is subjected to the existential questioning that Israel is… That their very founding was a crime. For all that the founding of Australia and the US clearly entailed the dispossession of indigenous peoples, I have not seen even implicit suggestions these countries should be disestablished. Even the most strident advocates for Aboriginal rights in Australia are not suggesting that non-Aboriginal people should pack up and go back to wherever it is they came from.”
Indeed, but we are talking 1948, not 1748. There are still people alive in Israel that were responsible for the crime of ethnically cleansing virtually the entire Palestinian population from the lands which the Zionists coveted and now occupy. They are still committing that crime. This is a reversible crime whereas the crimes that were committed against the native and aboriginal peoples of America and Australia are not. To use the analogy of America’s and Australia’s past treatment of its respective native peoples and compare it with the way the Zionists of Israel treated the Palestinians is but just one example of Will Howards deceit.
Then there is this classic lie from will Howard on the same day when he suggests that it was not Ben-Gurion that attacked the Arabs but the other way around:
“That Ben Gurion attacked the Arabs in 1948, not the other way around? There are people alive today who remember - so don't try trotting out that lie on me.”
There certainly are people around that remember; including some of the Zionist participants and the Palestinian survivors. This nonsense about the Palestinians and Arabs attacking the Zionists is pure garbage; the classic Zionist lie. The Zionist policy of ethnic cleansing during the later months of 1947 and through 1948 was deliberately planned and executed by David Ben-Gurion and his clique of murdering thugs when they met weekly at Ben-Gurion’s own home to methodically plan exactly how village by village, town by town and city by city they would expel the people, execute prominent Arabs, and destroy the homes. The Zionists methodically collected full details about every village and town including lists of those that were to executed on the spot by the Irgun and Stern Gang thugs that acted in much the same way as Himmler’s Einsatzgruppen did during the Second World War.
The Zionist ways haven’t changed since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists; Ben-Gurion used fear mongering by telling the Jewish settlers that there would be a second Holocaust unless they took action against the ‘Arabs’ in the lands they wanted. The Zionists also had a specific policy in the earlier period of the ethnic cleansing of attacking villages only as ‘retaliation’ to Palestinian actions against Jewish settlers. This was deliberate policy; in fact so deliberate that the Zionists would actually commit acts against Jewish settlers whilst dressed as Palestinians in order to ‘retaliate’. They also dressed as Palestinians in order to infiltrate villages so that they could mount surprise attacks indiscriminately shooting at anyone they could in order to inflict the maximum amount of fear among the Arab population.
Nothings changed. The Zionists even today invoke the Holocaust in order to promote unwarranted hatred and fears in the Israeli people as the Zionists attempt to provoke Iran by the use of lies and twisted translations. And they still use the excuse of their actions only ever being ‘retaliatory’ when they attack the peoples of the Gaza and Lebanon when in fact these attacks are planned months in advance of their ‘retaliatory’ actions – another lie that the Zionist liar Will Howard attempted during last years war against Lebanon.
Will Howard – Zionist propagandist and Israeli Loony Lobbyist; he hides behind the mask of respectable academia. He’s no better than the sickening Islamophobic racists Geoff Pahoff and Noelene Konstandinitis.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
Friday, July 20, 2007
MORE FEARMONGERING FROM JENNY HUME AND THE RIGHT-WING – BUT NOW IT’S GETTING DESPERATE!
I note that the extreme right-wing propagandist Jenny Hume at Webdiary, that’s the one who Margo Kingston thinks is left of center, is again promoting the US governments conspiracy theory with regards to 9/11 in order perpetuate the idea that the entire Western world is under attack and that we must therefore continue to be in a state of fear; this is despite recent news that at least one ‘terrorist’, this one in Iraq that the US had been promoting as a leader of terror there doesn’t actually exist. One has to wonder how many others don’t exist.
Those on the right that continue to base their propaganda on what they thought was the solid foundation of the US governments 9/11 story had better soon look elsewhere for a framework upon which to base their propaganda and lies. The controversy over the deliberate demolition of WTC7, a building that was not hit by aircraft and the government’s failure to account for its destruction is beginning to gain traction in the US and around the world.
The lies of the Bush administration and their allies, including John Howard in Australia, are unravelling quickly and the recent farce in Australia over the fearmongering that is the arrest and detention of Brisbane doctor Mohammed Haneef is testament to the West’ and Howard’s desperation to perpetuate the fear factor among the western people. It’s become a joke.
John Howard and his neo-fascist government have made a mockery of Australian justice into the bargain over this travesty – and when justice, along with honesty, goes out the window, then so does democracy. Welcome to John Howards New Fascist Australia ably helped along by the right-wing at Webdiary and the likes of lying propagandists like Jenny Hume who’d feel right at home with the likes of One Nation and Pauline Hanson.
ELIOT RAMSEY (ALIAS C. PARSONS) EXPOSES HIS FASCIST INCLINATIONS.
Over at Webdiary the liar and fraudster who now calls himself Eliot Ramsey reckons:
“The Soviet KGB had a novel programme in its dealings with Middle Eastern terrorists after a couple of Soviet diplomats were taken hostage in Lebanon. It rounded up the kids in the suspected terrorist’s home villages. And killed them one at a time until the hostages were released.”
This ‘Ramsey’ is one very sick person.
Those on the right that continue to base their propaganda on what they thought was the solid foundation of the US governments 9/11 story had better soon look elsewhere for a framework upon which to base their propaganda and lies. The controversy over the deliberate demolition of WTC7, a building that was not hit by aircraft and the government’s failure to account for its destruction is beginning to gain traction in the US and around the world.
The lies of the Bush administration and their allies, including John Howard in Australia, are unravelling quickly and the recent farce in Australia over the fearmongering that is the arrest and detention of Brisbane doctor Mohammed Haneef is testament to the West’ and Howard’s desperation to perpetuate the fear factor among the western people. It’s become a joke.
John Howard and his neo-fascist government have made a mockery of Australian justice into the bargain over this travesty – and when justice, along with honesty, goes out the window, then so does democracy. Welcome to John Howards New Fascist Australia ably helped along by the right-wing at Webdiary and the likes of lying propagandists like Jenny Hume who’d feel right at home with the likes of One Nation and Pauline Hanson.
ELIOT RAMSEY (ALIAS C. PARSONS) EXPOSES HIS FASCIST INCLINATIONS.
Over at Webdiary the liar and fraudster who now calls himself Eliot Ramsey reckons:
“The Soviet KGB had a novel programme in its dealings with Middle Eastern terrorists after a couple of Soviet diplomats were taken hostage in Lebanon. It rounded up the kids in the suspected terrorist’s home villages. And killed them one at a time until the hostages were released.”
This ‘Ramsey’ is one very sick person.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
CARS STOLEN IN THE U.S. TURN UP AS CAR BOMBS IN IRAQ??!!
Apparently cars that are being stolen in the US are turning up in Iraq and being used as car bombs. (Sounds familiar.)
The story in the International Herald Tribune reckons that: “Bought and sold on the international black market, cars and trucks help fund criminal operations and can be turned into the terrorist weapon of choice against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians: vehicles packed with explosives. The FBI declined to estimate how many stolen U.S. cars have turned up as car bombs in Iraq but said the number is believed to be at least in the dozens.”
One really needs to ask the most obvious of questions: Why on earth would an insurgent want to go to the trouble of nicking a car in the US, have it taken to a US port, smuggled on to a cargo ship, sailed around to the Middle East, have it unloaded at a ME port, smuggled into Iraq just to stuff it full of explosives and then blow it up when that same insurgent can just get out of bed in the morning, stroll downtown, nick a car, drive it round to his lock-up, and then fill it up with explosives and blow it up? Alternatively, why would an insurgent want to buy a car stolen in the US when he could pop downdown and nick one himself?
There are the dumb and there are the gullible that will actually go along with this story.
HEIDELBERG UPDATE
Out of a population in the world that’s reckoned to be about 6.6 billion there are millions… well, not millions; hundreds of thousands… well, not hundreds of thousands; hundreds… well, maybe not hundreds; scores… no, not scores; dozens… well, not dozens, maybe a dozen… well at least eight at Harry Heidelberg’s right-wing lie and hate-site that don’t like me.
Tim Blair’s hate-site could at least muster fifteen. Mind you, three of them were from Heidelberg’s.
Even Will Howard said something horrible about me; but then, he’s such a lying little toe-rag it’s difficult to tell whether he’s lying about that or not.
Ah well.
The story in the International Herald Tribune reckons that: “Bought and sold on the international black market, cars and trucks help fund criminal operations and can be turned into the terrorist weapon of choice against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians: vehicles packed with explosives. The FBI declined to estimate how many stolen U.S. cars have turned up as car bombs in Iraq but said the number is believed to be at least in the dozens.”
One really needs to ask the most obvious of questions: Why on earth would an insurgent want to go to the trouble of nicking a car in the US, have it taken to a US port, smuggled on to a cargo ship, sailed around to the Middle East, have it unloaded at a ME port, smuggled into Iraq just to stuff it full of explosives and then blow it up when that same insurgent can just get out of bed in the morning, stroll downtown, nick a car, drive it round to his lock-up, and then fill it up with explosives and blow it up? Alternatively, why would an insurgent want to buy a car stolen in the US when he could pop downdown and nick one himself?
There are the dumb and there are the gullible that will actually go along with this story.
HEIDELBERG UPDATE
Out of a population in the world that’s reckoned to be about 6.6 billion there are millions… well, not millions; hundreds of thousands… well, not hundreds of thousands; hundreds… well, maybe not hundreds; scores… no, not scores; dozens… well, not dozens, maybe a dozen… well at least eight at Harry Heidelberg’s right-wing lie and hate-site that don’t like me.
Tim Blair’s hate-site could at least muster fifteen. Mind you, three of them were from Heidelberg’s.
Even Will Howard said something horrible about me; but then, he’s such a lying little toe-rag it’s difficult to tell whether he’s lying about that or not.
Ah well.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
HAS THE SCHIZOID DAVID DAVIS GANG TAKEN OVER WEBDIARY? AND A SECOND COAT FOR JENNY HUME.
It seems that most of the foul-mouthed right-wing liars and delusional lunatics from the schizoid Harry Heidelberg website have managed to impose themselves at Webdiary – not only that, but Margo Kingston has actually welcomed these warmongering guffaws with open arms.
This mob of blustering propagandists and pseudo-libertarian thugs that have nothing to say at all that would make the world a better place have now ingratiated themselves at Webdiary where the standard of debate will plummet to the kind of waffle from the likes of Chief Piss-Taker (both literally and metaphorically) Park, the Islamophobic Ziononazi lunatic Pahoff, the very seriously ill and delusional Warton, tag-along-me-too-I’m-with-you Farrelly, et al, that has been appearing at Heidelberg’s for some time.
One wonders how long it will be before the pseudo-academic and lying propagandist Will Howard and the Great Predictor Jay White show up at Webdiary. Perhaps it would have been easier for Kingston to simply have posted at Club Chaos leaving Webdiary for those that want to have an input into making the world into a place where liars and warmongers don’t govern.
A SECOND COAT FOR THE JENNY HUME SPRAY JOB
Oh dear! Jenny Hume just couldn’t help herself; she just had to respond. She, and anyone of the other right-wing liars and warmongers that seem to have gathered at Webdiary, can rest assured that there will be plenty more ‘sprays’ to come.
I have no problem at all with making ad hominen attacks on liars and warmongers regardless of who they are.
I note also that Jenny Hume is still as manipulative as ever as she attempts to patronisingly pit another Webdiarist on the left against me, and she still remains arrogant enough to think that such classic divide and rule manipulation is not transparent. Truely pathetic!
Talking of pathetic, I note also Craig Walton’s pathetic attempt to find an ally in Jenny Hume to share the burden of being known as a proven liar. For those who do not recall or who do not know, this delusional lunatic actually claimed that he witnessed someone he knows fly an aircraft around an airport circuit having had no actual flight training whatsoever but having had only spent several hours in a flight simulator. Unadulterated garbage from an unmitigated liar.
As for Geoff Pahoff, I should remind readers of this Islamophobic extreme right-wing Zionist’s classic piece of hate-speak:
“I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss, ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.”
Now that Jenny Hume, really is what you call ‘hate and bile’!
This mob of blustering propagandists and pseudo-libertarian thugs that have nothing to say at all that would make the world a better place have now ingratiated themselves at Webdiary where the standard of debate will plummet to the kind of waffle from the likes of Chief Piss-Taker (both literally and metaphorically) Park, the Islamophobic Ziononazi lunatic Pahoff, the very seriously ill and delusional Warton, tag-along-me-too-I’m-with-you Farrelly, et al, that has been appearing at Heidelberg’s for some time.
One wonders how long it will be before the pseudo-academic and lying propagandist Will Howard and the Great Predictor Jay White show up at Webdiary. Perhaps it would have been easier for Kingston to simply have posted at Club Chaos leaving Webdiary for those that want to have an input into making the world into a place where liars and warmongers don’t govern.
A SECOND COAT FOR THE JENNY HUME SPRAY JOB
Oh dear! Jenny Hume just couldn’t help herself; she just had to respond. She, and anyone of the other right-wing liars and warmongers that seem to have gathered at Webdiary, can rest assured that there will be plenty more ‘sprays’ to come.
I have no problem at all with making ad hominen attacks on liars and warmongers regardless of who they are.
I note also that Jenny Hume is still as manipulative as ever as she attempts to patronisingly pit another Webdiarist on the left against me, and she still remains arrogant enough to think that such classic divide and rule manipulation is not transparent. Truely pathetic!
Talking of pathetic, I note also Craig Walton’s pathetic attempt to find an ally in Jenny Hume to share the burden of being known as a proven liar. For those who do not recall or who do not know, this delusional lunatic actually claimed that he witnessed someone he knows fly an aircraft around an airport circuit having had no actual flight training whatsoever but having had only spent several hours in a flight simulator. Unadulterated garbage from an unmitigated liar.
As for Geoff Pahoff, I should remind readers of this Islamophobic extreme right-wing Zionist’s classic piece of hate-speak:
“I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss, ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.”
Now that Jenny Hume, really is what you call ‘hate and bile’!
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
MY NOTE TO MARGO KINGSTON
Last week I emailed this letter to Margo Kingston; as expected, she has not even acknowledged it. I therefore have no problems in publishing it here as I said I would.
Margo, I shall be withdrawing from further comment at Webdiary. Your outrageous nepotism has become transparent – especially as you have not allowed me to respond to Jenny Hume’s arrogant and self indulgent comments to me. Furthermore, on the several occasions I have written to you about this and other matters you have not even had the common courtesy to respond.
Despite having withdrawn from further comment at Webdiary, I shall nonetheless be ensuring that my words are heard at Webdiary by the use of my own blog which I know many Webdiarists visit and where I shall be making known your bias and the hypocrisy that you call a ‘code of ethics’, at least three of which you have violated yourself. You will find details at my blog later. I shall also be publishing the full details and extent of the bias you have displayed toward and in favour of your friend Jenny Hume. (Already done.)
I shall continue to criticise right-wing commentators at Webdiary when necessary. I shall be exposing the sham of Eliot Ramsey/C. Parsons which you have continued to allow to post at Webdiary for whatever reason. This liar and deceiver has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and it is shameful that you continue to accommodate him. (His recent denial that he was C. Parsons only compounds his deceit.)
I’m afraid to say that I lost my considerable respect for you some time ago when you failed to stand up to the threats that were made against you and caved in for purely mercenary reasons to the extreme right that used to frequent Webdiary then, most of who have since left (and have now returned) to spew their hatred and garbage elsewhere (and now back at Webdiary); three of whom I have since exposed as unmitigated liars. (One of these, Craig Warton, has now returned and you have welcomed this proven liar.) They, it seems, have simply been replaced at Webdiary by more right-wing liars and deceivers to the point now where one needs to wonder if indeed you have not practiced at least some deceit yourself as did your brother Hamish Alcorn who lied as well as deceived; certainly you were not particularly honest with Webdiarists with regard to the reasons why you so abruptly left Webdiary. (And I’m not talking about the deterioration of your emotional or mental health but the reasons for it.)
It is a shame that you have sacrificed your integrity by accommodating warmongers and racists at Webdiary just to satisfy your own ego and to protect those that have manipulated you. Hundreds are dying daily but all you seem to care about is protecting the image of some of your more arrogant favourites in order to maintain an audience at your site rather than to allow that audience to debate the real issues of the day.
Rest assured that I shall be doing all that I can to expose the liars and deceivers that use Webdiary to peddle their hatred and propaganda. You will find me utterly relentless in attacking right-wingers at Webdiary and, if necessary, Webdiary it self.
You make a mockery of your credo; ‘Webdiary – independent, ethical, accountable and transparent’. It seems to me that the only people that you are ‘accountable’ to are the right-wing warmongers and neo-fascists that you entertain at Webdiary. Webdiary has now turned out to be not much better than some of the other hate sites one finds around the blogosphere; the only difference is that they don’t attempt to hide their bigotry behind a façade of faux liberalism.
Margo, I shall be withdrawing from further comment at Webdiary. Your outrageous nepotism has become transparent – especially as you have not allowed me to respond to Jenny Hume’s arrogant and self indulgent comments to me. Furthermore, on the several occasions I have written to you about this and other matters you have not even had the common courtesy to respond.
Despite having withdrawn from further comment at Webdiary, I shall nonetheless be ensuring that my words are heard at Webdiary by the use of my own blog which I know many Webdiarists visit and where I shall be making known your bias and the hypocrisy that you call a ‘code of ethics’, at least three of which you have violated yourself. You will find details at my blog later. I shall also be publishing the full details and extent of the bias you have displayed toward and in favour of your friend Jenny Hume. (Already done.)
I shall continue to criticise right-wing commentators at Webdiary when necessary. I shall be exposing the sham of Eliot Ramsey/C. Parsons which you have continued to allow to post at Webdiary for whatever reason. This liar and deceiver has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and it is shameful that you continue to accommodate him. (His recent denial that he was C. Parsons only compounds his deceit.)
I’m afraid to say that I lost my considerable respect for you some time ago when you failed to stand up to the threats that were made against you and caved in for purely mercenary reasons to the extreme right that used to frequent Webdiary then, most of who have since left (and have now returned) to spew their hatred and garbage elsewhere (and now back at Webdiary); three of whom I have since exposed as unmitigated liars. (One of these, Craig Warton, has now returned and you have welcomed this proven liar.) They, it seems, have simply been replaced at Webdiary by more right-wing liars and deceivers to the point now where one needs to wonder if indeed you have not practiced at least some deceit yourself as did your brother Hamish Alcorn who lied as well as deceived; certainly you were not particularly honest with Webdiarists with regard to the reasons why you so abruptly left Webdiary. (And I’m not talking about the deterioration of your emotional or mental health but the reasons for it.)
It is a shame that you have sacrificed your integrity by accommodating warmongers and racists at Webdiary just to satisfy your own ego and to protect those that have manipulated you. Hundreds are dying daily but all you seem to care about is protecting the image of some of your more arrogant favourites in order to maintain an audience at your site rather than to allow that audience to debate the real issues of the day.
Rest assured that I shall be doing all that I can to expose the liars and deceivers that use Webdiary to peddle their hatred and propaganda. You will find me utterly relentless in attacking right-wingers at Webdiary and, if necessary, Webdiary it self.
You make a mockery of your credo; ‘Webdiary – independent, ethical, accountable and transparent’. It seems to me that the only people that you are ‘accountable’ to are the right-wing warmongers and neo-fascists that you entertain at Webdiary. Webdiary has now turned out to be not much better than some of the other hate sites one finds around the blogosphere; the only difference is that they don’t attempt to hide their bigotry behind a façade of faux liberalism.
Monday, July 16, 2007
FOR WEBDIARY’S JENNY HUME THE LIE IS IN THE DECEIT – PART 2
In continuing to expose the lie that is in the deceit of Jenny Hume we should examine some of the postings made by her on just one thread at Webdiary. We’ll take a look at the ‘Yep, says Honest John, Iraq is all about the oil! Hallelujah!” thread at Webdiary.
In her July 5 2007, 11.18pm post Hume writes: “Well most people would know and accept that any policy or intervention in the ME will always have at least something to do with oil. So it makes little difference what Howard and Nelson say, or don't say on the subject.” The first sentence is a concession to the painfully obvious. The second sentence attempts then to excuse Howard and Nelson by virtue of ‘it’ not making much difference, presumably to the reality. What Hume ignores entirely, however, is the fact that Howard had previously said quite specifically on several occasions that it was not about the oil. By ignoring this Hume is supporting Howard’s lie.
In her July 6 2007, 12.00pm post Hume reveals her true aspirations: “So while surveys show that 70% of Australians are appalled at the determination of Governments to continue a live animal trade while knowing that it is grossly inhumane and has been found to be so by its own inquiries, they will not vote a government down on such an issue, much as I would like them to. Moral outrage is rarely if ever the cause of election failure or win in this country.”
Here Hume would like the Australian people to express moral outrage over the live animal trade but is quite happy for the Australian people to remain quiet over the 650,000 Iraqi humans that have perished as a result of the allied invasion and plundering of the Iraqi nation that the same government was has been a party to. This astounding hypocrisy is from one that claims to be of the ‘left’.
It shows where Hume’s priorities lay! It also demonstrates where many Australians sympathies lay as well! The live animal trade for Hume seems to be far more important than the lives of Iraqis as far as she is concerned. The sheep, after all, are Australian!
She goes on in the same post to say: “If people consider international issues at all they will look at climate change, and at the rise of Islamists world wide.” This is clever stuff. She chucks in a bit of meaningless left-wing stuff about ‘climate change’ but then throws in the fearmongering Islamaphobia crap to go along with it to create the impression of political balance within her rhetoric. This is classic right-wing propaganda tactics. The deceit highlights the lie that is Jenny Hume.
Then, again, in the same post she says: “I find it a bit difficult to relate to the views on this site about the US. It seems to me that no matter what the issue, most here have to look for any evidence they can find that will support their anti-America line and yes, one could say hatred.” This again is classic pro right-wing American propaganda. She sees everything that is to the left as being anti-American when the reality is that the left is anti-Bush, not anti-American. This is not the rhetoric of anyone that is remotely to the ‘left’ as she claims she is. Jenny Hume is a liar and a fraud.
By now, in the same post, Hume is nigh on hyperventilating as she broaches the point of her post; the question of discussing 9/11.
She says: “I would see the left's views [and this is from someone who professes to from the left herself] as more balanced and reasoned if some were able to admit that in going into Afghanistan the US had justifiable cause. But even Afghanistan is to many on the left only about oil, and nothing but oil.” This, as I later pointed out to Hume, is not the case; other motives related to energy resources were also considered when the US attacked the Afghan people.
She goes on: “And to support that argument some give credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories suggesting the US engineered that event in order to justify that particular war. In the absence of any verifiable facts whatsoever that that was so, I find that view appalling to put it mildly.” The destruction of WTC7 alone is enough to question all that was 9/11. Hume demands ‘verifiable facts’ to support theories that the events of 9/11 was anything other than what she was told by the US government but doesn’t demand those same ‘verifiable facts’ from the US government whose story is losing credibility daily as more and more people come forward to refute the governments version of events. Ignoring the fact that the governments story about 9/11 is in itself a conspiracy theory, why should anyone believe that the US went to Afghanistan except for the hegemony it would have over the resources of the region. Hume’s overall view here is typical right-wing reactionary – and she insists on the lie that she is of the left.
Then there’s the exposure of Hume’s blatant manipulative skills. She writes in the same post: “I think Margo is right to not allow that issue to be debated on WD. It would kill the site completely. It would bring every type of crank here from all over the world. And I suspect Margo has little energy for that and I don't blame her.” This is a totally unveiled attempt to manipulate Kingston into censoring debate on the events of 9/11. Hume’s attempt to influence Kingston by reminding her of her ‘fragility’ in the face vigorous debate is a blatant attempt at manipulation and abuse of Kinston’s emotional weaknesses in order to stifle debate for purely political purposes.
At this point Kingston gets on her high horse and confirms in an oddly back-handed way that indeed she has been manipulated. Kingston writes: “I am personally offended that you accuse Jenny, who is a dear friend of mine, of attempting to emotionally manipulate me. That is preposterous.” Kingston played straight into Hume’s hands. And, just to top it off, Hume then shows how deceitful she really is by accusing me of personal abuse and at the same time tries to promote her own self-importance by writing this piece of desperate nonsense: “Though just for the record I am a bit put out, coz Damian, dear boy, I am definitely not middle class. I'm upper class, at least on one side of the blanket. Old family, squattocracy, aristocratic blue blood don't y'know.”
Jenny Hume left-wing?
Jenny Hume arrogant right-wing liar more like!
To be continued…
A NOTE FOR PAUL WALTER
Paul, I caught up with your post at Webdiary regarding my stoush with Jenny Hume. I have now written to Margo Kingston and have told her that I shall be withdrawing from further comment there but shall continue to comment on various aspects of topics that are being discussed at Webdiary at my own blog. This way I don’t have to suffer censorship as a result of the right-wing lobbying that goes on there.
You know me too well Paul. I don’t so much as ‘get frustrated at the opposition’ – it’s just that I simply cannot abide liars, deceivers and manipulators, especially arrogant ones! Nor can I abide the kind of nepotism that Margo Kingston has displayed in political debate.
In her July 5 2007, 11.18pm post Hume writes: “Well most people would know and accept that any policy or intervention in the ME will always have at least something to do with oil. So it makes little difference what Howard and Nelson say, or don't say on the subject.” The first sentence is a concession to the painfully obvious. The second sentence attempts then to excuse Howard and Nelson by virtue of ‘it’ not making much difference, presumably to the reality. What Hume ignores entirely, however, is the fact that Howard had previously said quite specifically on several occasions that it was not about the oil. By ignoring this Hume is supporting Howard’s lie.
In her July 6 2007, 12.00pm post Hume reveals her true aspirations: “So while surveys show that 70% of Australians are appalled at the determination of Governments to continue a live animal trade while knowing that it is grossly inhumane and has been found to be so by its own inquiries, they will not vote a government down on such an issue, much as I would like them to. Moral outrage is rarely if ever the cause of election failure or win in this country.”
Here Hume would like the Australian people to express moral outrage over the live animal trade but is quite happy for the Australian people to remain quiet over the 650,000 Iraqi humans that have perished as a result of the allied invasion and plundering of the Iraqi nation that the same government was has been a party to. This astounding hypocrisy is from one that claims to be of the ‘left’.
It shows where Hume’s priorities lay! It also demonstrates where many Australians sympathies lay as well! The live animal trade for Hume seems to be far more important than the lives of Iraqis as far as she is concerned. The sheep, after all, are Australian!
She goes on in the same post to say: “If people consider international issues at all they will look at climate change, and at the rise of Islamists world wide.” This is clever stuff. She chucks in a bit of meaningless left-wing stuff about ‘climate change’ but then throws in the fearmongering Islamaphobia crap to go along with it to create the impression of political balance within her rhetoric. This is classic right-wing propaganda tactics. The deceit highlights the lie that is Jenny Hume.
Then, again, in the same post she says: “I find it a bit difficult to relate to the views on this site about the US. It seems to me that no matter what the issue, most here have to look for any evidence they can find that will support their anti-America line and yes, one could say hatred.” This again is classic pro right-wing American propaganda. She sees everything that is to the left as being anti-American when the reality is that the left is anti-Bush, not anti-American. This is not the rhetoric of anyone that is remotely to the ‘left’ as she claims she is. Jenny Hume is a liar and a fraud.
By now, in the same post, Hume is nigh on hyperventilating as she broaches the point of her post; the question of discussing 9/11.
She says: “I would see the left's views [and this is from someone who professes to from the left herself] as more balanced and reasoned if some were able to admit that in going into Afghanistan the US had justifiable cause. But even Afghanistan is to many on the left only about oil, and nothing but oil.” This, as I later pointed out to Hume, is not the case; other motives related to energy resources were also considered when the US attacked the Afghan people.
She goes on: “And to support that argument some give credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories suggesting the US engineered that event in order to justify that particular war. In the absence of any verifiable facts whatsoever that that was so, I find that view appalling to put it mildly.” The destruction of WTC7 alone is enough to question all that was 9/11. Hume demands ‘verifiable facts’ to support theories that the events of 9/11 was anything other than what she was told by the US government but doesn’t demand those same ‘verifiable facts’ from the US government whose story is losing credibility daily as more and more people come forward to refute the governments version of events. Ignoring the fact that the governments story about 9/11 is in itself a conspiracy theory, why should anyone believe that the US went to Afghanistan except for the hegemony it would have over the resources of the region. Hume’s overall view here is typical right-wing reactionary – and she insists on the lie that she is of the left.
Then there’s the exposure of Hume’s blatant manipulative skills. She writes in the same post: “I think Margo is right to not allow that issue to be debated on WD. It would kill the site completely. It would bring every type of crank here from all over the world. And I suspect Margo has little energy for that and I don't blame her.” This is a totally unveiled attempt to manipulate Kingston into censoring debate on the events of 9/11. Hume’s attempt to influence Kingston by reminding her of her ‘fragility’ in the face vigorous debate is a blatant attempt at manipulation and abuse of Kinston’s emotional weaknesses in order to stifle debate for purely political purposes.
At this point Kingston gets on her high horse and confirms in an oddly back-handed way that indeed she has been manipulated. Kingston writes: “I am personally offended that you accuse Jenny, who is a dear friend of mine, of attempting to emotionally manipulate me. That is preposterous.” Kingston played straight into Hume’s hands. And, just to top it off, Hume then shows how deceitful she really is by accusing me of personal abuse and at the same time tries to promote her own self-importance by writing this piece of desperate nonsense: “Though just for the record I am a bit put out, coz Damian, dear boy, I am definitely not middle class. I'm upper class, at least on one side of the blanket. Old family, squattocracy, aristocratic blue blood don't y'know.”
Jenny Hume left-wing?
Jenny Hume arrogant right-wing liar more like!
To be continued…
A NOTE FOR PAUL WALTER
Paul, I caught up with your post at Webdiary regarding my stoush with Jenny Hume. I have now written to Margo Kingston and have told her that I shall be withdrawing from further comment there but shall continue to comment on various aspects of topics that are being discussed at Webdiary at my own blog. This way I don’t have to suffer censorship as a result of the right-wing lobbying that goes on there.
You know me too well Paul. I don’t so much as ‘get frustrated at the opposition’ – it’s just that I simply cannot abide liars, deceivers and manipulators, especially arrogant ones! Nor can I abide the kind of nepotism that Margo Kingston has displayed in political debate.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
FOR WEBDIARY'S JENNY HUME THE LIE IS IN THE DECEIT
Dangle a wee bit of bait and watch the pseudo wannabe left-wingers bite! The more arrogant they are the more likely they are to put on a show for you as they tug on the bait. Those that are on the right but call themselves ‘left’ are the ultimate liars and deceivers.
Hats off to Jenny Hume’s husband, Ian MacDougall, who, while not quite as arrogant, nor even as bright, as his wife, did nonetheless dash to defend her honour at Webdiary. Ian MacDougall’s piece at Webdiary did, however, demonstrate one thing; that the charge I had levelled at his wife needed to be responded to. Only the guilty respond with anger to an accusation – the innocent ignore it.
But this isn’t about Ian MacDougall, it’s about Jenny Hume; perhaps I’ll catch up with Ian MacDougall another time.
Margo Kingston claims that her friend Jenny Hume is left of centre. I argued that she was nowhere near the left and that her attitude and some of her views demonstrated otherwise. To show this I invited Webdiarists to do an online political ‘self-test’ designed to show where individuals are on the political spectrum. The test itself was of no particular merit and its accuracy has not, a far as I’m aware, been qualified. All that, however, was incidental in this case because the prime idea of introducing the test was to see if Jenny Hume would respond.
She did of course. It was a challenge she couldn’t resist. This was her response:
“Well I am always curious to know where I stand on these sorts of scales and am not afraid to have a go. How accurate they are is another matter and my political leanings have changed considerably over my lifetime and could do so again. Those who never change their mind on anything must live in a very rigid mental cage.
When one does not have to reveal what the scale result is one can be totally honest with oneself, so I was. And yes, it was a bit of a surprise.
But for what it is worth it tells me I am -6.63 on the left/right axis and on the A/L axis -0.56 on the A/L axis.
I would have thought I was more to the centre on the L/R axis, but there you go. Is it a reliable measure? Who knows? I found a few questions a bit obscure as to what was meant so had to take a punt on those. But on the face of it, it looks like the country party would not take me back.
Incidentally, you take my remarks about class far too seriously. I happen to value the poor settler side of the family the most, by a British mile.
But BTW: You refer to Al Quaeda as a myth. Are you saying there is no such organization, that there are no and never have been any training camps run by such an organization for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, and no such acts have been perpetrated by any such organization? Now don't post me a long list of links as I do not have time to read them. Just tell me, briefly what you mean by Al Quaeda, the myth. I am sure you can summarize the conclusions you have reached in that regard.
I then wrote this in reply:
“Jenny, the ‘Political Compass’ test is, in the way that I used it at least, more about psychology than it is about accurately measuring peoples position on the political spectrum.
I should explain.
I’ve used this test before to subliminally measure people’s psychological reaction. I won’t bore you with how it’s used in an experimental setting but I’m happy to explain how and why I used it in this instance. It needs to be done in a group setting and in this case the group was Webdiarists. It also needs a target; in this case it was you. You were the obvious target both because of our recent vehement debates and the fact that I had already made an assessment of your political position – one which Margo, presumably on your behalf or to your satisfaction, denied. It was at this point that I thought of the political compass test.
You see Jenny; I knew that, for you, the test would be a challenge from me to you. (For other Webdiarists doing the test it would just be a personal challenge out of idle curiosity.) Historically you’ve always responded to me when challenged; you’re the sort of person that likes to have the last word, so you couldn’t resist this challenge. The reason why you couldn’t resist is because you needed to prove me wrong. There was two ways you could have done that. First, you could have said words to the effect that it is ‘a silly boring piddly little test that I couldn’t be bothered with’ or some such, or you would have done the test. Either way I would have succeeded in getting a reaction from you. You needed to respond to my challenge in order to prove me wrong either by showing that you wouldn’t lower yourself by doing such a test or by doing as you did, actually doing the test. But not only did you do the test but – and this is the really important bit – you couldn’t resist mentioning the result.
I don’t know how many other Webdiarists did the test; it’s not really important, but what is important is that you did, and, furthermore, you just had to mention the result. You needed to prove me wrong. No one else even said they did the test and certainly no one else gave their score – only you.
The problem with disclosing your score is that it’s unverifiable. This is where your deceit comes in. You wanted so desperately to prove me wrong that you almost ‘willed’ yourself if not deliberately then at least subconsciously to do the test in a way that would provide an answer that would prove me wrong. In a way you verified that because you actually admitted pondering over a few questions claiming that they were a bit obscure. (Frankly, I don’t believe for one moment that a person of your intelligence would have found any of the questions ‘obscure’.) You see Jenny, your psychological profile, based on reading your work here on Webdiary, doesn’t at all fit the political profile that you claim. There are little things that you say – and sometimes don’t say – which provide clues as to your psychological profile.
I’ll give you two examples. In the post regarding your queries about my views on al Qaeda you wrote: “Now don't post me a long list of links as I do not have time to read them.” This tells me a great deal about you. You hadn’t given a thought to the idea that other readers might like to have links even if you don’t. It demonstrates self-centredness and shows lack of consideration for others, in a word, selfishness, all traits – among many others that you have displayed in your writings – that are not associated with the position you have located yourself on in the Political Compass test.
In the same post you wrote in the first paragraph: “…my political leanings have changed considerably over my lifetime and could do so again. Those who never change their mind on anything must live in a very rigid mental cage.” In the first part it’s all about you and in the second part it’s all about what you think of other people relative to you. It indicates judgemental arrogance and self importance, in a word; conceit, neither of which, again, are traits that would place you where you would like to think you are on the political spectrum. And then there is always the right-wing’s classic favourite last resort in debate; ‘I don’t want to debate with you any more’, followed up in your case by ‘over and out’, when it all gets too hard or frustrating for you. And have you noticed it always ends that way with people you are debating with who really are on the left.
Interesting is it not!
Try the test again only this time don’t tell us the result.”
Needless to say, this post wasn’t published.
But what makes Jenny Hume’s remarks deceitful is the way she delivers what she says is opinion as ‘fact’ without any attempt whatsoever at substantiation. Example:
“I suspect most Australians anyway do not subscribe to the view here that Australia and the US is in Iraq deliberately murdering for oil. Most are able to see that the deaths in Iraq are a direct consequence of internal hatreds and power struggles between the Sunnis, dispossessed of their brutal power, and the Shia’s who are determined not to be the oppressed ever again.”
This is a most subtle form of deceit that borders on lying and is a typical trait of the extreme right-wing. She says to start with ‘I suspect’ using her well-known conceit as the qualifier for what she is about to say as being a given, and then says ‘most Australians anyway’ without any qualification at all; not even a link to any survey to substantiate her suspicion. She goes on to say: ‘Most are able to see that the deaths in Iraq are a direct consequence of internal hatreds and power struggles between the Sunnis, dispossessed of their brutal power, and the Shia’s who are determined not to be the oppressed ever again.’ This again is a totally unsubstantiated remark delivered as fact. The reality is that most Australians are only able to form an opinion (and that’s assuming that they actually are interested enough to want to have an opinion anyway) based on what the Western mainstream media has told which means, of course, that it remains only an opinion, one that is not based in any way at all on substantiated fact. The fact is; most Australians do not have a clue about what is going on in Iraq nor, indeed, do they have any interest. Jenny Hume knows that.
To sum up, it is Jenny Hume’s calculated and deliberated deceit that makes her a liar. To claim to be on the left of politics when she demonstrates all the traits of being on the right and up there with the likes of Pauline Hanson, is a claim that is a deliberate lie.
And, of course, having an interest in animal rights does not a left-winger make – even Hitler had an interest in animal rights.
Hats off to Jenny Hume’s husband, Ian MacDougall, who, while not quite as arrogant, nor even as bright, as his wife, did nonetheless dash to defend her honour at Webdiary. Ian MacDougall’s piece at Webdiary did, however, demonstrate one thing; that the charge I had levelled at his wife needed to be responded to. Only the guilty respond with anger to an accusation – the innocent ignore it.
But this isn’t about Ian MacDougall, it’s about Jenny Hume; perhaps I’ll catch up with Ian MacDougall another time.
Margo Kingston claims that her friend Jenny Hume is left of centre. I argued that she was nowhere near the left and that her attitude and some of her views demonstrated otherwise. To show this I invited Webdiarists to do an online political ‘self-test’ designed to show where individuals are on the political spectrum. The test itself was of no particular merit and its accuracy has not, a far as I’m aware, been qualified. All that, however, was incidental in this case because the prime idea of introducing the test was to see if Jenny Hume would respond.
She did of course. It was a challenge she couldn’t resist. This was her response:
“Well I am always curious to know where I stand on these sorts of scales and am not afraid to have a go. How accurate they are is another matter and my political leanings have changed considerably over my lifetime and could do so again. Those who never change their mind on anything must live in a very rigid mental cage.
When one does not have to reveal what the scale result is one can be totally honest with oneself, so I was. And yes, it was a bit of a surprise.
But for what it is worth it tells me I am -6.63 on the left/right axis and on the A/L axis -0.56 on the A/L axis.
I would have thought I was more to the centre on the L/R axis, but there you go. Is it a reliable measure? Who knows? I found a few questions a bit obscure as to what was meant so had to take a punt on those. But on the face of it, it looks like the country party would not take me back.
Incidentally, you take my remarks about class far too seriously. I happen to value the poor settler side of the family the most, by a British mile.
But BTW: You refer to Al Quaeda as a myth. Are you saying there is no such organization, that there are no and never have been any training camps run by such an organization for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, and no such acts have been perpetrated by any such organization? Now don't post me a long list of links as I do not have time to read them. Just tell me, briefly what you mean by Al Quaeda, the myth. I am sure you can summarize the conclusions you have reached in that regard.
I then wrote this in reply:
“Jenny, the ‘Political Compass’ test is, in the way that I used it at least, more about psychology than it is about accurately measuring peoples position on the political spectrum.
I should explain.
I’ve used this test before to subliminally measure people’s psychological reaction. I won’t bore you with how it’s used in an experimental setting but I’m happy to explain how and why I used it in this instance. It needs to be done in a group setting and in this case the group was Webdiarists. It also needs a target; in this case it was you. You were the obvious target both because of our recent vehement debates and the fact that I had already made an assessment of your political position – one which Margo, presumably on your behalf or to your satisfaction, denied. It was at this point that I thought of the political compass test.
You see Jenny; I knew that, for you, the test would be a challenge from me to you. (For other Webdiarists doing the test it would just be a personal challenge out of idle curiosity.) Historically you’ve always responded to me when challenged; you’re the sort of person that likes to have the last word, so you couldn’t resist this challenge. The reason why you couldn’t resist is because you needed to prove me wrong. There was two ways you could have done that. First, you could have said words to the effect that it is ‘a silly boring piddly little test that I couldn’t be bothered with’ or some such, or you would have done the test. Either way I would have succeeded in getting a reaction from you. You needed to respond to my challenge in order to prove me wrong either by showing that you wouldn’t lower yourself by doing such a test or by doing as you did, actually doing the test. But not only did you do the test but – and this is the really important bit – you couldn’t resist mentioning the result.
I don’t know how many other Webdiarists did the test; it’s not really important, but what is important is that you did, and, furthermore, you just had to mention the result. You needed to prove me wrong. No one else even said they did the test and certainly no one else gave their score – only you.
The problem with disclosing your score is that it’s unverifiable. This is where your deceit comes in. You wanted so desperately to prove me wrong that you almost ‘willed’ yourself if not deliberately then at least subconsciously to do the test in a way that would provide an answer that would prove me wrong. In a way you verified that because you actually admitted pondering over a few questions claiming that they were a bit obscure. (Frankly, I don’t believe for one moment that a person of your intelligence would have found any of the questions ‘obscure’.) You see Jenny, your psychological profile, based on reading your work here on Webdiary, doesn’t at all fit the political profile that you claim. There are little things that you say – and sometimes don’t say – which provide clues as to your psychological profile.
I’ll give you two examples. In the post regarding your queries about my views on al Qaeda you wrote: “Now don't post me a long list of links as I do not have time to read them.” This tells me a great deal about you. You hadn’t given a thought to the idea that other readers might like to have links even if you don’t. It demonstrates self-centredness and shows lack of consideration for others, in a word, selfishness, all traits – among many others that you have displayed in your writings – that are not associated with the position you have located yourself on in the Political Compass test.
In the same post you wrote in the first paragraph: “…my political leanings have changed considerably over my lifetime and could do so again. Those who never change their mind on anything must live in a very rigid mental cage.” In the first part it’s all about you and in the second part it’s all about what you think of other people relative to you. It indicates judgemental arrogance and self importance, in a word; conceit, neither of which, again, are traits that would place you where you would like to think you are on the political spectrum. And then there is always the right-wing’s classic favourite last resort in debate; ‘I don’t want to debate with you any more’, followed up in your case by ‘over and out’, when it all gets too hard or frustrating for you. And have you noticed it always ends that way with people you are debating with who really are on the left.
Interesting is it not!
Try the test again only this time don’t tell us the result.”
Needless to say, this post wasn’t published.
But what makes Jenny Hume’s remarks deceitful is the way she delivers what she says is opinion as ‘fact’ without any attempt whatsoever at substantiation. Example:
“I suspect most Australians anyway do not subscribe to the view here that Australia and the US is in Iraq deliberately murdering for oil. Most are able to see that the deaths in Iraq are a direct consequence of internal hatreds and power struggles between the Sunnis, dispossessed of their brutal power, and the Shia’s who are determined not to be the oppressed ever again.”
This is a most subtle form of deceit that borders on lying and is a typical trait of the extreme right-wing. She says to start with ‘I suspect’ using her well-known conceit as the qualifier for what she is about to say as being a given, and then says ‘most Australians anyway’ without any qualification at all; not even a link to any survey to substantiate her suspicion. She goes on to say: ‘Most are able to see that the deaths in Iraq are a direct consequence of internal hatreds and power struggles between the Sunnis, dispossessed of their brutal power, and the Shia’s who are determined not to be the oppressed ever again.’ This again is a totally unsubstantiated remark delivered as fact. The reality is that most Australians are only able to form an opinion (and that’s assuming that they actually are interested enough to want to have an opinion anyway) based on what the Western mainstream media has told which means, of course, that it remains only an opinion, one that is not based in any way at all on substantiated fact. The fact is; most Australians do not have a clue about what is going on in Iraq nor, indeed, do they have any interest. Jenny Hume knows that.
To sum up, it is Jenny Hume’s calculated and deliberated deceit that makes her a liar. To claim to be on the left of politics when she demonstrates all the traits of being on the right and up there with the likes of Pauline Hanson, is a claim that is a deliberate lie.
And, of course, having an interest in animal rights does not a left-winger make – even Hitler had an interest in animal rights.
Friday, July 13, 2007
ANOTHER WEBDIARY FRAUDSTER EXPOSED! C. PARSONS AS ELIOT RAMSEY, OR IS THAT ELIOT RAMSEY AS C. PARSONS?
Margo Kingston, in continuing to pander to the fraud of C. Parson/Eliot Ramsey at Webdiary, makes herself complicit in this liar’s deceit.
Since C. Parsons disappeared from Webdiary, a character calling himself ‘Eliot Ramsey’ has appeared posing as a newcomer to Webdiary. Since his emergence at Webdiary there has been a lot of speculation based on very strong evidence that Eliot Ramsey and C. Parsons are one and the same.
Lets take a brief look at some of the syntax similarities used. One only need to visit Webdiary to back read C. Parsons past comments and then read Eliot Ramsey’s current comments to see the startling very strong circumstantial evidence of fraud quickly take shape.
C. Parsons, 2 June 2007, 12.52pm on the ‘Yep, says honest John, Iraq is all about oil! Hallelujah!’ thread at Webdiary.
“So why wouldn't they just fly over Lebanon? What, for fear of upsetting the Lebanese? While on their way to attack Syria? With whom the Israelis actually share a border?”
Eliot Ramsey, 5 July 2007, 9.07am on the same thread.
“That's odd, isn't it? That the Fuhrer's second most important ally of 1940 (after the Soviet Union of course) was thinking that the invasion was being taken sufficiently seriously to want to be a part of it? And to offer troops?”
Eliot Ramsey, 4 July 2007, 9.21am on the same thread.
“What, Canada? And didn't Spain pull out of Iraq? To the warm congratulations of al Quaeda as I recall. So, now Spain is attacked again?”
C. Parsons, 24 April 2007, 1.11pm on the same thread.
“There. Does that all sound familiar?”
It certainly does all sound familiar; all too familiar!! The syntax that Eliot Ramsey uses is identical to that which was used by C. Parsons – not just similar; identical. Many Webdiarists who have contacted me simply don’t believe that Eliot Ramsey and C. Parsons are not one and the same. Eliot Ramsey feigned shock when Kingston confronted him and mentioned that his writing is like C. Parsons writing, and, while he insists that he is ‘Eliot Ramsey’, what he hasn’t done is deny that he was also writing under the name of C. Parsons. That’s a line that ‘Eliot Ramsey’ is not prepared yet to step over because once he has and it is subsequently confirmed that he is a fraud then it’s all over.
As far as most Webdiarists are concerned, however, for Eliot Ramsey, it’s all over now. He has absolutely no credibility. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence is enough to condemn and expose him for what he is – just another right-wing liar and deceiver to be put on the list with those other right-wing lying and deceiving Webdiarists that have been exposed including the wannabe academic Dylan Kissane and the pseudo academic Will Howard together with the Islamophobic racists Geoff Pahoff and Noelene Konstandinitis.
Margo Kingston should put a stop to this fraud – or wear the guilt with him.
COMING SOON: THE DECEITS, LIES AND MANIPULATIONS OF WEBDIARY'S JENNY HUME
Jenny Hume at Webdiary: “Just being in Sydney was nearly too much! But a nice touch as we walked out was our barrister saying to me: You are the most intelligent people I have ever had to work for.”
One could be forgiven for feeling ill.
Remarks like that tell you much about this extraordinarily arrogant person. But there’s worse; beneath the arrogant personality lies a personality that is far more sinister – one that practices deceit under the pretence of being ‘left-wing’, a person that lies about her manipulative skills and one that carefully attempts to disguise the reality of her true right-wing views.
More next week! Stay tuned!
Since C. Parsons disappeared from Webdiary, a character calling himself ‘Eliot Ramsey’ has appeared posing as a newcomer to Webdiary. Since his emergence at Webdiary there has been a lot of speculation based on very strong evidence that Eliot Ramsey and C. Parsons are one and the same.
Lets take a brief look at some of the syntax similarities used. One only need to visit Webdiary to back read C. Parsons past comments and then read Eliot Ramsey’s current comments to see the startling very strong circumstantial evidence of fraud quickly take shape.
C. Parsons, 2 June 2007, 12.52pm on the ‘Yep, says honest John, Iraq is all about oil! Hallelujah!’ thread at Webdiary.
“So why wouldn't they just fly over Lebanon? What, for fear of upsetting the Lebanese? While on their way to attack Syria? With whom the Israelis actually share a border?”
Eliot Ramsey, 5 July 2007, 9.07am on the same thread.
“That's odd, isn't it? That the Fuhrer's second most important ally of 1940 (after the Soviet Union of course) was thinking that the invasion was being taken sufficiently seriously to want to be a part of it? And to offer troops?”
Eliot Ramsey, 4 July 2007, 9.21am on the same thread.
“What, Canada? And didn't Spain pull out of Iraq? To the warm congratulations of al Quaeda as I recall. So, now Spain is attacked again?”
C. Parsons, 24 April 2007, 1.11pm on the same thread.
“There. Does that all sound familiar?”
It certainly does all sound familiar; all too familiar!! The syntax that Eliot Ramsey uses is identical to that which was used by C. Parsons – not just similar; identical. Many Webdiarists who have contacted me simply don’t believe that Eliot Ramsey and C. Parsons are not one and the same. Eliot Ramsey feigned shock when Kingston confronted him and mentioned that his writing is like C. Parsons writing, and, while he insists that he is ‘Eliot Ramsey’, what he hasn’t done is deny that he was also writing under the name of C. Parsons. That’s a line that ‘Eliot Ramsey’ is not prepared yet to step over because once he has and it is subsequently confirmed that he is a fraud then it’s all over.
As far as most Webdiarists are concerned, however, for Eliot Ramsey, it’s all over now. He has absolutely no credibility. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence is enough to condemn and expose him for what he is – just another right-wing liar and deceiver to be put on the list with those other right-wing lying and deceiving Webdiarists that have been exposed including the wannabe academic Dylan Kissane and the pseudo academic Will Howard together with the Islamophobic racists Geoff Pahoff and Noelene Konstandinitis.
Margo Kingston should put a stop to this fraud – or wear the guilt with him.
COMING SOON: THE DECEITS, LIES AND MANIPULATIONS OF WEBDIARY'S JENNY HUME
Jenny Hume at Webdiary: “Just being in Sydney was nearly too much! But a nice touch as we walked out was our barrister saying to me: You are the most intelligent people I have ever had to work for.”
One could be forgiven for feeling ill.
Remarks like that tell you much about this extraordinarily arrogant person. But there’s worse; beneath the arrogant personality lies a personality that is far more sinister – one that practices deceit under the pretence of being ‘left-wing’, a person that lies about her manipulative skills and one that carefully attempts to disguise the reality of her true right-wing views.
More next week! Stay tuned!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
WEBDIARISTS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW ALTERNATIVE TO U.S. GOVERNMENTS CONSPIRACY THEORY OF 9/11
Yesterday I posted a link to the recently released full length feature documentary titled ‘9/11: Ripple Effect’ at the slowly becoming extreme right-wing Australian blog called Webdiary. Overnight the link has been removed from the Webdiary site thus denying Webdiarists direct access to the film. Webdiarists will now have to visit elsewhere in order to view the film. (I have linked the film below this piece.)
The blatant censorship of this important film comes as a result of pressure from the extreme right-wing that frequent Webdiary and who have manipulated the sites proprietor, ex-journalist Margo Kingston, who made the ban on discussing alternatives to the US government’s conspiracy theory, amongst other controversial subjects, some time ago.
Once again it seems Margo Kingston has caved in to the extreme right-wing that frequent Webdiary and she has done so for purely mercenary reasons. Discussion of the most important event of the twenty-first century is not allowed at Webdiary.
It’s a shame that a website like Webdiary that started life with so much promise in a world offering little more than chaos should slide into the hands of a handful of right-wing racists and warmongers that frequent there.
To view the documentary go here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488
The blatant censorship of this important film comes as a result of pressure from the extreme right-wing that frequent Webdiary and who have manipulated the sites proprietor, ex-journalist Margo Kingston, who made the ban on discussing alternatives to the US government’s conspiracy theory, amongst other controversial subjects, some time ago.
Once again it seems Margo Kingston has caved in to the extreme right-wing that frequent Webdiary and she has done so for purely mercenary reasons. Discussion of the most important event of the twenty-first century is not allowed at Webdiary.
It’s a shame that a website like Webdiary that started life with so much promise in a world offering little more than chaos should slide into the hands of a handful of right-wing racists and warmongers that frequent there.
To view the documentary go here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
THE WEST AS THE REAL 'APPEASERS' OF BUSH'S WAR AIMS
Over this last weekend the ‘New York Times’ decided that enough is enough and called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The backlash from America’s right-wing media was inevitable and heading the list of reasons that the right have used to justify the continued presence of US troops in Iraq is appeasement; they have invoked, directly or by inference, the so-called ‘Munich analogy’.
There have been whole processions of post-Second World War American Presidents that have invoked the so-called ‘Munich analogy’ in order to justify a range of America’s wars or threats of war. Here’s a few of them.
Harry Truman reckoned: “That communism was acting in Korea as Hitler and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen, twenty years earlier”. (1) After the Korean War ended Eisenhower when speaking of the victory of the communists over the French in Indo-China said: “…we failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time… May it not be that [we] have not learnt something from that lesson?” (2) And when Kennedy confronted the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crisis he said the “…1930s taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked, ultimately leads to war”. (3)
President Johnson told Doris Kearns, the historian, that “…everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon… then I’d be doing exactly what Chamberlain did… I’d be giving a fat reward for aggression.” (4) Nixon, also talking of Vietnam, said: “…what had been true of the betrayal of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 was no less true of the betrayal of South Vietnam to the communists advocated by many in 1965.” (5)
In 1983 Reagan, when contemplating intervention in Granada and Nicaragua said in a speech: “One of the great tragedies of this century was that it was only after the balance of power was allowed to erode and a ruthless adversary, Adolph Hitler, deliberately weighed the risks and decided to strike that the importance of a strong defence was realised.” (6) Then, of course, there was George Bush senior who, reacting to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait said: “…if history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms. Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930s, we see Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbours.” (7)
The problem with the so-called ‘Munich analogy’ in each and every one of the cases mentioned above, including the latest one regarding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, is that they are all completely misplaced and out of context.
The original ‘appeasement’ was that of Britain’s appeasement of Hitler as Hitler prepared to take over Eastern Europe. Basically the idea was that, in exchange for allowing Hitler to have bits of Czechoslovakia, Hitler would promise that he would not make any more territorial claims and that their would therefore be continued peace. Chamberlain returned to England and waved a piece of paper about announcing ‘Peace in our time’. The rest, of course, is history. Misguided as Chamberlain was, the point was that, apart from wanting to avoid war with Germany, Chamberlain also wanted to ensure that Hitler did not want to take any further territories for himself. (Chamberlain was a bit old fashioned and thought that a bloke’s word was his bond.) It’s this aspect of the ‘Munich analogy’ as used by American Presidents, and their allies others, that takes the analogy out of context.
In every single case mentioned above it is the US that uses the analogy yet it is the US that ends up behaving as Hitler did going on to invade or threaten another nation. If the ‘Munich analogy’ is used in its proper context one can see that it is in fact the rest of the world, including Britain and Australia, that is appeasing the US by allowing it to invade bits of the world just as Hitler did when taking bits of Europe.
It is the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard and co that are the real appeasers. It is they that have appeased Bush in his determination to occupy Iraq under the pretence of giving us ‘peace in our time’ from someone that was of no threat to us. Not only that, but we were told that the world would be a safer place as a result of it. It is the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard that are the real Neville Chamberlain’s of the twenty-first century masquerading as wartime leaders and Churchillian wannabes.
Endnotes
(1) Harry S Truman, ‘Memoirs, Volume 2. Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-1952’. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956.) p. 335.
(2) Eisenhower letter to Winston Churchill, 1954, excerpted in Robert J. MacMahon (ed.) ‘Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War’ 2nd. ed. (Lexington MA: D.C. Heath, 1995.) p. 373.
(3) Quoted in Theodore C. Sorenson, ‘Kennedy’. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965.) p. 703.
(4) Doris Kearns, ‘Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream’. (New York: Harper and Row, 1976.) p. 252.
(5) Richard Nixon, ‘The Memoirs of Richard Nixon’. (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978.) pp. 269-270.
(6) Radio address to the nation on defence spending, 19 February, 1983, in Ronald Reagan, ‘Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1983’, vol. 1. p. 258.
(7) Address to nation announcing deployment of United States armed forces to Saudi Arabia, 8 August 1990, in George Bush, ‘Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990’. vol. 2. p. 1,108.
There have been whole processions of post-Second World War American Presidents that have invoked the so-called ‘Munich analogy’ in order to justify a range of America’s wars or threats of war. Here’s a few of them.
Harry Truman reckoned: “That communism was acting in Korea as Hitler and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen, twenty years earlier”. (1) After the Korean War ended Eisenhower when speaking of the victory of the communists over the French in Indo-China said: “…we failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time… May it not be that [we] have not learnt something from that lesson?” (2) And when Kennedy confronted the Soviets over the Cuban Missile Crisis he said the “…1930s taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked, ultimately leads to war”. (3)
President Johnson told Doris Kearns, the historian, that “…everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon… then I’d be doing exactly what Chamberlain did… I’d be giving a fat reward for aggression.” (4) Nixon, also talking of Vietnam, said: “…what had been true of the betrayal of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 was no less true of the betrayal of South Vietnam to the communists advocated by many in 1965.” (5)
In 1983 Reagan, when contemplating intervention in Granada and Nicaragua said in a speech: “One of the great tragedies of this century was that it was only after the balance of power was allowed to erode and a ruthless adversary, Adolph Hitler, deliberately weighed the risks and decided to strike that the importance of a strong defence was realised.” (6) Then, of course, there was George Bush senior who, reacting to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait said: “…if history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms. Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930s, we see Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbours.” (7)
The problem with the so-called ‘Munich analogy’ in each and every one of the cases mentioned above, including the latest one regarding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, is that they are all completely misplaced and out of context.
The original ‘appeasement’ was that of Britain’s appeasement of Hitler as Hitler prepared to take over Eastern Europe. Basically the idea was that, in exchange for allowing Hitler to have bits of Czechoslovakia, Hitler would promise that he would not make any more territorial claims and that their would therefore be continued peace. Chamberlain returned to England and waved a piece of paper about announcing ‘Peace in our time’. The rest, of course, is history. Misguided as Chamberlain was, the point was that, apart from wanting to avoid war with Germany, Chamberlain also wanted to ensure that Hitler did not want to take any further territories for himself. (Chamberlain was a bit old fashioned and thought that a bloke’s word was his bond.) It’s this aspect of the ‘Munich analogy’ as used by American Presidents, and their allies others, that takes the analogy out of context.
In every single case mentioned above it is the US that uses the analogy yet it is the US that ends up behaving as Hitler did going on to invade or threaten another nation. If the ‘Munich analogy’ is used in its proper context one can see that it is in fact the rest of the world, including Britain and Australia, that is appeasing the US by allowing it to invade bits of the world just as Hitler did when taking bits of Europe.
It is the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard and co that are the real appeasers. It is they that have appeased Bush in his determination to occupy Iraq under the pretence of giving us ‘peace in our time’ from someone that was of no threat to us. Not only that, but we were told that the world would be a safer place as a result of it. It is the likes of Tony Blair and John Howard that are the real Neville Chamberlain’s of the twenty-first century masquerading as wartime leaders and Churchillian wannabes.
Endnotes
(1) Harry S Truman, ‘Memoirs, Volume 2. Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-1952’. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956.) p. 335.
(2) Eisenhower letter to Winston Churchill, 1954, excerpted in Robert J. MacMahon (ed.) ‘Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War’ 2nd. ed. (Lexington MA: D.C. Heath, 1995.) p. 373.
(3) Quoted in Theodore C. Sorenson, ‘Kennedy’. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965.) p. 703.
(4) Doris Kearns, ‘Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream’. (New York: Harper and Row, 1976.) p. 252.
(5) Richard Nixon, ‘The Memoirs of Richard Nixon’. (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978.) pp. 269-270.
(6) Radio address to the nation on defence spending, 19 February, 1983, in Ronald Reagan, ‘Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1983’, vol. 1. p. 258.
(7) Address to nation announcing deployment of United States armed forces to Saudi Arabia, 8 August 1990, in George Bush, ‘Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990’. vol. 2. p. 1,108.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
AUSTRALIA’S PM JOHN HOWARD REVEALS THE LIE! IT WAS ABOUT OIL AFTER ALL!
In a sensational speech today Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard revealed to the world that the war against Iraq was about oil.
For years I’ve been calling Howard a Lying Tyrant but it hasn’t stopped the dumb and gullible from continuing to vote for him and his warmongering cronies in the Liberal Party. Howard now shows himself once again to be a liar and a fraudster as he tells an audience of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra in a major foreign policy speech that the war against Iraq was indeed about securing oil.
This is in direct contradiction to the lies that Howard told the Australian people just a few weeks before the invasion and plundering of Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displaced millions more from their homes when he told Jon Faine of Radio 3LO on 14 February 2003:
“Well can I deal with the question of oil. I mean this suggestion that America wants to do what it does because it wants to get hold of Iraqi oil is just completely wrong, it's completely dishonest, it's not based on any reality.”
A week later on 21 February 2003 he was lying again. A caller at Neil Mitchell’s radio show at Radio 3AW said: “I think the point is it's all about oil, it's about US domination and it's about reshaping the Middle East to suit Israel”, to which Howard responded, lying, of course, “Well it's not about any of those things. It's about the danger to Australia if countries like Iraq continue to have chemical and biological weapons, and those weapons get into the hands of international terrorists. That fundamentally is what this is about.”
But, of course, the repurcussions of Howards remarks don’t just affect the Howard government in Australia; it also reflects on Bush and Blair who are just as complicit in the lies.
For years I’ve been calling Howard a Lying Tyrant but it hasn’t stopped the dumb and gullible from continuing to vote for him and his warmongering cronies in the Liberal Party. Howard now shows himself once again to be a liar and a fraudster as he tells an audience of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra in a major foreign policy speech that the war against Iraq was indeed about securing oil.
This is in direct contradiction to the lies that Howard told the Australian people just a few weeks before the invasion and plundering of Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displaced millions more from their homes when he told Jon Faine of Radio 3LO on 14 February 2003:
“Well can I deal with the question of oil. I mean this suggestion that America wants to do what it does because it wants to get hold of Iraqi oil is just completely wrong, it's completely dishonest, it's not based on any reality.”
A week later on 21 February 2003 he was lying again. A caller at Neil Mitchell’s radio show at Radio 3AW said: “I think the point is it's all about oil, it's about US domination and it's about reshaping the Middle East to suit Israel”, to which Howard responded, lying, of course, “Well it's not about any of those things. It's about the danger to Australia if countries like Iraq continue to have chemical and biological weapons, and those weapons get into the hands of international terrorists. That fundamentally is what this is about.”
But, of course, the repurcussions of Howards remarks don’t just affect the Howard government in Australia; it also reflects on Bush and Blair who are just as complicit in the lies.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
ISRAEL’S HISTORY OF CONCOCTED WARS OF EXPANSIONISM: PREPARING FOR THE FINAL CONFRONTATION.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Israel is preparing itself in a big way for war. Recent reports suggest that this war will be against Hamas, Hizbollah and Syria. Naturally, al Qaeda’s name has also been thrown in for good measure. Significantly, Iran hasn’t been mentioned in terms of war directly between Israel and Iran, at least not in the same context as a war against Hamas, Hizbollah and Syria, though the Israeli Air Force has been training hard separately from Israeli ground and naval forces for long range missions.
This has lead to speculation that a joint Israel/US operation is in the offing, hence the long range air force training, while the war against Hamas, Hizbollah and Syria will ostensibly be what they will term as a ‘defensive’ war as they respond to Hamas, Hizbollah and Syrian attacks that are in fact retaliatory after the Israeli/US attack on Iran – in short; planned escalation to achieve an end.
Ilan Pappe wrote:
“Clashes with Palestinian militias provided the perfect context and pretext for implementing the ideological vision of an ethnically cleansed Palestine. The Zionist policy was first based on retaliation against Palestinian attacks in February 1947, and it transformed into an initiative to ethnically cleanse the country as a whole in March 1948”. (1)
Over the last sixty odd years, nothing at all has changed! The Zionists still attack the Arab peoples based on what they tell the world is a ‘defensive retaliation’. The attacks on both the Gaza and Lebanon in June and August 2006 were based on three of their soldiers being captured yet it is abundantly clear that these attacks on the Gazan people and the people of Lebanon, particularly in the south, were meticulously planned long before their soldiers were captured. According to World Tribune piece the Israelis are simply waiting for the next casus belli to make their move: “Israeli military intelligence has projected that a major attack could come from any of five adversaries in the Middle East. Officials said such a strike could spark a war as early as July 2007.”
Naturally, if there is no casus belli forthcoming then one could always rely on the Zionists to concoct one. The difference this time is that this war really could be the war to end all wars!
ENDNOTE
(1) Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications Ltd., 2007.) p. xii.
This has lead to speculation that a joint Israel/US operation is in the offing, hence the long range air force training, while the war against Hamas, Hizbollah and Syria will ostensibly be what they will term as a ‘defensive’ war as they respond to Hamas, Hizbollah and Syrian attacks that are in fact retaliatory after the Israeli/US attack on Iran – in short; planned escalation to achieve an end.
Ilan Pappe wrote:
“Clashes with Palestinian militias provided the perfect context and pretext for implementing the ideological vision of an ethnically cleansed Palestine. The Zionist policy was first based on retaliation against Palestinian attacks in February 1947, and it transformed into an initiative to ethnically cleanse the country as a whole in March 1948”. (1)
Over the last sixty odd years, nothing at all has changed! The Zionists still attack the Arab peoples based on what they tell the world is a ‘defensive retaliation’. The attacks on both the Gaza and Lebanon in June and August 2006 were based on three of their soldiers being captured yet it is abundantly clear that these attacks on the Gazan people and the people of Lebanon, particularly in the south, were meticulously planned long before their soldiers were captured. According to World Tribune piece the Israelis are simply waiting for the next casus belli to make their move: “Israeli military intelligence has projected that a major attack could come from any of five adversaries in the Middle East. Officials said such a strike could spark a war as early as July 2007.”
Naturally, if there is no casus belli forthcoming then one could always rely on the Zionists to concoct one. The difference this time is that this war really could be the war to end all wars!
ENDNOTE
(1) Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications Ltd., 2007.) p. xii.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
AFTERMATH OF THE TIM BLAIR EXERCISE
A few have suggested that my deletion of some posts (usually theirs) and not others are a form of censorship. Let me put these people’s minds to rest; I never censor any posts.
However, when someone comes to my blog, drops his daks and craps on the floor I will, with one click of the mouse button, clear up the mess before anyone comes along and accidentally puts their foot in it thereby spreading it around the place.
Occasionally I’ll leave some garbage out to decompose naturally. For example, some extreme right-wing garbage will be left out for a while so that their stupidity can get full exposure. Eventually I’ll get around to clearing these little messes up as well. Occasionally I instantly clean up some messes because they are of no value whatsoever, or sometimes because I simply feel like it. Others get left a bit because I’ve been busy doing other things and haven’t noticed the mess yet.
Some have argued that this is denial of free speech. If it were ‘speech’ that was being left here then it would stay here but unfortunately what these people claim is ‘speech’ is actually crap and it needs clearing up just as one would have to clear up after a puppy dog with an upset tum that didn’t quite make it to the dirt box in time. Delusional liars and assorted deceivers fall into that category.
Others have suggested that as an academic I should be more respectful and tolerant of those with opinions that differ from mine.
Rubbish!
First off, just because I’m doing a PhD doesn’t make me an academic. I’m doing a PhD because I can, that’s all. I’m coming up to 60 so I can assure you it’s not a career move! I have other degrees, most of which were done for the fun of learning. I am no longer an academic! And once this degree is finished I’ll move on and do maybe do another one. Second, let me make it quite clear that I have absolutely no problem at all in calling the right-wing all the names under the sun and making ad hominen attacks upon them. I have no time whatsoever for racists of any description, warmongers, liars and deceivers, invaders and pillagers, or those that support them.
Why did I have a spray at Tim Blair? Simple; because he is a warmongering fascist and racist that supports liars and deceivers, invaders and pillagers, simple as that.
All of the dirty little messes left behind will be cleaned up soon – including the ones that result from this post!
However, when someone comes to my blog, drops his daks and craps on the floor I will, with one click of the mouse button, clear up the mess before anyone comes along and accidentally puts their foot in it thereby spreading it around the place.
Occasionally I’ll leave some garbage out to decompose naturally. For example, some extreme right-wing garbage will be left out for a while so that their stupidity can get full exposure. Eventually I’ll get around to clearing these little messes up as well. Occasionally I instantly clean up some messes because they are of no value whatsoever, or sometimes because I simply feel like it. Others get left a bit because I’ve been busy doing other things and haven’t noticed the mess yet.
Some have argued that this is denial of free speech. If it were ‘speech’ that was being left here then it would stay here but unfortunately what these people claim is ‘speech’ is actually crap and it needs clearing up just as one would have to clear up after a puppy dog with an upset tum that didn’t quite make it to the dirt box in time. Delusional liars and assorted deceivers fall into that category.
Others have suggested that as an academic I should be more respectful and tolerant of those with opinions that differ from mine.
Rubbish!
First off, just because I’m doing a PhD doesn’t make me an academic. I’m doing a PhD because I can, that’s all. I’m coming up to 60 so I can assure you it’s not a career move! I have other degrees, most of which were done for the fun of learning. I am no longer an academic! And once this degree is finished I’ll move on and do maybe do another one. Second, let me make it quite clear that I have absolutely no problem at all in calling the right-wing all the names under the sun and making ad hominen attacks upon them. I have no time whatsoever for racists of any description, warmongers, liars and deceivers, invaders and pillagers, or those that support them.
Why did I have a spray at Tim Blair? Simple; because he is a warmongering fascist and racist that supports liars and deceivers, invaders and pillagers, simple as that.
All of the dirty little messes left behind will be cleaned up soon – including the ones that result from this post!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
TIM BLAIR, AUSTRALIAN ANTI-ISLAM RACIST JOURNALIST AND BLOGGER, EXPOSED ON AUSTRALIA’S MAINSTREAM ABC TV!
Tim Blair, Australian extreme right-wing fascist/racist commentator, blogger, conspiracy theorist (he actually believes the US government’s conspiracy theory!) and host to equally extreme right-wing warmongers, Islamaphobes, right-wing Israeli Loony Lobbyists, right-wing Zionist supporters, and other assorted liars, deceivers and thugs, in short, the ugly face of anti-Islamic right-wing extremism in Australia, got short thrift on national TV earlier this week when ABCs Media Watch exposed the Tim Blair site for what it is – a disgusting example of the extreme right-wing racism that prevails in Australia.
Tim Blair’s response to Media Watch’s expose of the disgusting racist comments that Blair actively encourages and supports at his hate site was predictable. He snivels when he finds out that other editors were contacted by Media Watch’s editor, Tim Palmer, but he wasn’t, and then goes on to have a blast at Palmer about some incident in 2002 when Palmer caught Blair out in a deceit and threatened to sue. Blair conceded and apologised; fear of a big legal bill was his pathetic excuse.
The usual bunch of loony racist shills that roost at Blair’s Lair came out in support; Paco, El Cid who was featured in the Media Watch piece, and a small menagerie of other regulars including the proven liar, pseudo-intellectual and wannabe academic Dylan Kissane. The comments of some of these lunatics need to be seen to be believed.
The more often these people are exposed for what they really are on the mainstream media TV the better.
AND JUST TO PROVE THE POINT…
Since this piece has been posted, the flock of right-wing loonies that normally roost in contented flocks at Tim Blair’s hate site, fly off like a bunch of captive homing pigeons released for a little exercise to come to this site to deposit their droppings before heading back to their roost for a bit of self satisfied gloating.
Just take a look at the comments to see what I mean.
So predictable.
It seems that some of those commenting are labouring under the illusion that racism is just about blood and biology; it isn’t. There is also another racism, one that is even more prevalent than that of blood and biology and that is the racism of religion and culture. It's the kind of racism that most of those that have commented here indulge in.
IT SEEMS SOME ON THE RIGHT ARE STILL CONFUSED ABOUT 'RACISM'...
For the really dumb among the right-wing that either can’t cope with the idea that they are racist or are simply too thick to comprehend the concept of the new racism of religion and culture content only to quote definitions from some ancient dictionary, give this site a whirl or page 39, para. 2, of this UK report – you may actually learn something!
Tim Blair’s response to Media Watch’s expose of the disgusting racist comments that Blair actively encourages and supports at his hate site was predictable. He snivels when he finds out that other editors were contacted by Media Watch’s editor, Tim Palmer, but he wasn’t, and then goes on to have a blast at Palmer about some incident in 2002 when Palmer caught Blair out in a deceit and threatened to sue. Blair conceded and apologised; fear of a big legal bill was his pathetic excuse.
The usual bunch of loony racist shills that roost at Blair’s Lair came out in support; Paco, El Cid who was featured in the Media Watch piece, and a small menagerie of other regulars including the proven liar, pseudo-intellectual and wannabe academic Dylan Kissane. The comments of some of these lunatics need to be seen to be believed.
The more often these people are exposed for what they really are on the mainstream media TV the better.
AND JUST TO PROVE THE POINT…
Since this piece has been posted, the flock of right-wing loonies that normally roost in contented flocks at Tim Blair’s hate site, fly off like a bunch of captive homing pigeons released for a little exercise to come to this site to deposit their droppings before heading back to their roost for a bit of self satisfied gloating.
Just take a look at the comments to see what I mean.
So predictable.
It seems that some of those commenting are labouring under the illusion that racism is just about blood and biology; it isn’t. There is also another racism, one that is even more prevalent than that of blood and biology and that is the racism of religion and culture. It's the kind of racism that most of those that have commented here indulge in.
IT SEEMS SOME ON THE RIGHT ARE STILL CONFUSED ABOUT 'RACISM'...
For the really dumb among the right-wing that either can’t cope with the idea that they are racist or are simply too thick to comprehend the concept of the new racism of religion and culture content only to quote definitions from some ancient dictionary, give this site a whirl or page 39, para. 2, of this UK report – you may actually learn something!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
IS THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE GAZA ABOUT TO BEGIN?
The Gaza Strip has now been almost completely isolated since Hamas decisively won its battle to wrestle control from Fatah on the strip. While the world is being told by the western mainstream media the big lie about the ‘Hamas coup’ in the Gaza, ignoring entirely the fact that it was Hamas that won the Palestinian elections of January 2006, elements of the Israeli government are already pushing for the transfer of the ordinary Gazan people to the West Bank under the guise of calling them refugees. The Israeli Justice Minister, Daniel Friedmann, is already calling for the Israeli government to allow Gazan residents to flee to the West Bank.
Life in the Gaza was bad enough before the fighting between Fatah and Hamas got under way with the help of the Israelis, the Saudis and Elliot Abrams in the Bush administration but now it is likely to get worse as they bunker down in readiness for the expected Israeli invasion as they go after Hamas. Already the Israelis are cutting off fuel supplies and the Fatah-dominated government in the West Bank are unlikely to be releasing any funds that are now to be released to them by the Israelis, to Hamas in the Gaza.
Clearing away the rhetoric and propaganda of how Hamas has unexpectedly ‘won’ the battle in the Gaza in a ‘coup’ and, as a result, has ‘created another headache for Israel’, the geo-political reality is that Hamas has played directly into the hands of the Israelis to the point where it would be a fairly safe bet to assume that Fatah in the Gaza was ‘sacrificed’ in order to isolate Hamas so that the process of both destroying Hamas and the transfer of the Gazan people can begin with the ultimate goal of Israel annexing the Gaza after it had been ‘abandoned’ by its people.
The world needs to act and act now before disaster strikes the Palestinian people of the Gaza.
Life in the Gaza was bad enough before the fighting between Fatah and Hamas got under way with the help of the Israelis, the Saudis and Elliot Abrams in the Bush administration but now it is likely to get worse as they bunker down in readiness for the expected Israeli invasion as they go after Hamas. Already the Israelis are cutting off fuel supplies and the Fatah-dominated government in the West Bank are unlikely to be releasing any funds that are now to be released to them by the Israelis, to Hamas in the Gaza.
Clearing away the rhetoric and propaganda of how Hamas has unexpectedly ‘won’ the battle in the Gaza in a ‘coup’ and, as a result, has ‘created another headache for Israel’, the geo-political reality is that Hamas has played directly into the hands of the Israelis to the point where it would be a fairly safe bet to assume that Fatah in the Gaza was ‘sacrificed’ in order to isolate Hamas so that the process of both destroying Hamas and the transfer of the Gazan people can begin with the ultimate goal of Israel annexing the Gaza after it had been ‘abandoned’ by its people.
The world needs to act and act now before disaster strikes the Palestinian people of the Gaza.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
GAZA FIGHTING PART OF ISRAELI PLAN TO ACCELERATE ETHNIC CLEANSING?
The Western media would have us believe that the fighting in the Gaza between Fatah and Hamas is merely a battle for control of the Gaza; and, at a very superficial level, there is some truth in this. However, there are aspects of the fighting which the mainstream media are not telling us in an effort to portray the fighting as something that has escalated solely because of differences between Fatah and Hamas domestic politics.
Such a notion could not be further from the truth.
In January 2006 Hamas became the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people having won 76 out of the 132 seats available, a clear overall majority which in any normal democratic system would have allowed them to govern in their own right. However, despite this, the Israelis and the US refused to accept them as the legitimate government of the Palestinians and have made every effort to diminish the ability of Hamas to govern by cutting off funds and arresting their leaders.
In March of this year, Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah President, appointed the corrupt Gaza warlord, Mohammad Dahlan, to head Fatah security. Recently, Elliot Abrams, the extreme right-wing neoconservative Deputy National Security Advisor and pro-Zionist Israeli expansionist, has been supplying arms and money to Dahlan with which to fight Hamas. It now seems that the money and the arms have not been well spent; Hamas now dominate in the Gaza after several weeks of sporadic fighting.
Hamas is an organisation dedicated to restoring Palestinian sovereignty; an anathema to the right-wing Zionists who seek to expand Israel into the West Bank, the Gaza and southern Lebanon, and to maintain their hold on the Golan Heights.
It is the Israeli’s aim to tighten their grip on the Gaza to such an extent that Palestinians will want to leave. Of course, once the Gaza has been laid waste by continued attacks and aggression from the IDF and the continued fighting between Hamas and Fatah fighters who are using the Gaza as a battleground, the Israelis will move back in claiming that the Gaza has been all but abandoned. The Gazan Palestinians are already applying to leave to head off to wherever they can away from the fighting, the grinding poverty and daily deterioration of life generally in the Gaza.
This is nothing less than ethnic cleansing. Once completed in the Gaza, the West Bank will have the screws that are already making life intolerable there tightened even further.
Such a notion could not be further from the truth.
In January 2006 Hamas became the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people having won 76 out of the 132 seats available, a clear overall majority which in any normal democratic system would have allowed them to govern in their own right. However, despite this, the Israelis and the US refused to accept them as the legitimate government of the Palestinians and have made every effort to diminish the ability of Hamas to govern by cutting off funds and arresting their leaders.
In March of this year, Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah President, appointed the corrupt Gaza warlord, Mohammad Dahlan, to head Fatah security. Recently, Elliot Abrams, the extreme right-wing neoconservative Deputy National Security Advisor and pro-Zionist Israeli expansionist, has been supplying arms and money to Dahlan with which to fight Hamas. It now seems that the money and the arms have not been well spent; Hamas now dominate in the Gaza after several weeks of sporadic fighting.
Hamas is an organisation dedicated to restoring Palestinian sovereignty; an anathema to the right-wing Zionists who seek to expand Israel into the West Bank, the Gaza and southern Lebanon, and to maintain their hold on the Golan Heights.
It is the Israeli’s aim to tighten their grip on the Gaza to such an extent that Palestinians will want to leave. Of course, once the Gaza has been laid waste by continued attacks and aggression from the IDF and the continued fighting between Hamas and Fatah fighters who are using the Gaza as a battleground, the Israelis will move back in claiming that the Gaza has been all but abandoned. The Gazan Palestinians are already applying to leave to head off to wherever they can away from the fighting, the grinding poverty and daily deterioration of life generally in the Gaza.
This is nothing less than ethnic cleansing. Once completed in the Gaza, the West Bank will have the screws that are already making life intolerable there tightened even further.
Monday, June 11, 2007
AN ATTACK ON IRAN VIA THE BACK DOOR? BUSH AND RICE MIGHT JUST GO ALONG WITH THAT!
In their continued efforts to wedge the Sunni and Shia peoples in the Middle East (bearing in mind that Sunnis are by far the largest Muslim group in the Middle East generally) the Americans have decided to take a punt and are now planning to arm Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq (where Sunnis are a minority group) under the guise of the Sunnis combating ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’.
The reality is that there is no ‘al Qaeda’ in Iraq per se (nor, indeed, hardly anywhere else). There used to be an ‘al Qaeda’ years ago in Afghanistan and there are still remnants of it scattered throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan today, but the label ‘al Qaeda’ today has essentially been hijacked by the US and their allies in order to perpetuate the myth of a monolithic and highly organised extremist pan Islamic global movement out to take over the world and convert it to hard-line Islam; great for propaganda purposes and the rhetoric of Western leaders but the accusations are completely baseless and founded entirely on the imagination of assorted neoconservative think tanks and propagandists and totally lacking any actual evidence.
Whereas the Sunnis of Iraq in the past were the most aggrieved by the invasion of their country by the US and their allies and, indeed, did lead the insurgency in attempting to rid their nation of the invader, the Shiites are now also expressing their displeasure at the prospect of having the US and their allies continuing what is looking like a long-term occupation by the US. As a result of this Shiites are now increasingly joining the insurgency against the US and their allies and, of course, they are doing this with the help of the Iranians (whose population, like Iraq, is mostly Shiite).
Most of the bodies that have been turning up all over Iraq showing signs of having been tortured and then executed are not as a result of secular tit-for-tat killings as the western media has portrayed, but as a result of insurgents having been rounded up by covert Iraqi police and army units acting under the auspices of American commanders. While many are actually insurgents there have also been many men of military age that have innocently been caught in the round-ups and have suffered the same fate.
In the bigger picture, the real enemy of the US (and Israel) is Iran and it is for this reason that the US are trying to wedge the two groups, the Sunni and the Shia. Their thinking is that if they can stir up the Shia of Iraq enough to begin making overt, as against the current covert, connections with Iran then this will provide casus belli for the US to attack Iran under cover of stopping Iranian intervention in Iraq as against halting Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons ambitions. In other words, war against Iran would be seen simply as an extension of their efforts to keep a lid on Iraq rather than as a separate war of aggression against Iran on top of the continuing war in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan, something the American people will absolutely not tolerate.
Action against Iran, however, if presented to the American people as efforts to protect American troops in Iraq, might be a little more acceptable to the American people – or so some in and close to the administration hopes. It’s certainly the road that Sen. Joe Lieberman would like to see the US take and it’s a view that Dick Cheney would be likely to support. But, and this is what’s really frightening, it’s also a perspective that George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice, both of whom lean more toward a diplomatic solution to the ‘Iran crisis’ may also consider favourably.
As always, however, the neocons dream up these scenarios but they never seem to actually play out when they try to put them into practice. This present scheme is also due to fail simply because the neocons have failed to realise that, while there is some, but now diminishing, animosity between the two groups in Iraq, their animosity toward the US and their allies is far, far greater and the US could well find that they’ve bitten off far more than they are able to chew if they attack Iran for any reason.
The reality is that there is no ‘al Qaeda’ in Iraq per se (nor, indeed, hardly anywhere else). There used to be an ‘al Qaeda’ years ago in Afghanistan and there are still remnants of it scattered throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan today, but the label ‘al Qaeda’ today has essentially been hijacked by the US and their allies in order to perpetuate the myth of a monolithic and highly organised extremist pan Islamic global movement out to take over the world and convert it to hard-line Islam; great for propaganda purposes and the rhetoric of Western leaders but the accusations are completely baseless and founded entirely on the imagination of assorted neoconservative think tanks and propagandists and totally lacking any actual evidence.
Whereas the Sunnis of Iraq in the past were the most aggrieved by the invasion of their country by the US and their allies and, indeed, did lead the insurgency in attempting to rid their nation of the invader, the Shiites are now also expressing their displeasure at the prospect of having the US and their allies continuing what is looking like a long-term occupation by the US. As a result of this Shiites are now increasingly joining the insurgency against the US and their allies and, of course, they are doing this with the help of the Iranians (whose population, like Iraq, is mostly Shiite).
Most of the bodies that have been turning up all over Iraq showing signs of having been tortured and then executed are not as a result of secular tit-for-tat killings as the western media has portrayed, but as a result of insurgents having been rounded up by covert Iraqi police and army units acting under the auspices of American commanders. While many are actually insurgents there have also been many men of military age that have innocently been caught in the round-ups and have suffered the same fate.
In the bigger picture, the real enemy of the US (and Israel) is Iran and it is for this reason that the US are trying to wedge the two groups, the Sunni and the Shia. Their thinking is that if they can stir up the Shia of Iraq enough to begin making overt, as against the current covert, connections with Iran then this will provide casus belli for the US to attack Iran under cover of stopping Iranian intervention in Iraq as against halting Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons ambitions. In other words, war against Iran would be seen simply as an extension of their efforts to keep a lid on Iraq rather than as a separate war of aggression against Iran on top of the continuing war in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan, something the American people will absolutely not tolerate.
Action against Iran, however, if presented to the American people as efforts to protect American troops in Iraq, might be a little more acceptable to the American people – or so some in and close to the administration hopes. It’s certainly the road that Sen. Joe Lieberman would like to see the US take and it’s a view that Dick Cheney would be likely to support. But, and this is what’s really frightening, it’s also a perspective that George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice, both of whom lean more toward a diplomatic solution to the ‘Iran crisis’ may also consider favourably.
As always, however, the neocons dream up these scenarios but they never seem to actually play out when they try to put them into practice. This present scheme is also due to fail simply because the neocons have failed to realise that, while there is some, but now diminishing, animosity between the two groups in Iraq, their animosity toward the US and their allies is far, far greater and the US could well find that they’ve bitten off far more than they are able to chew if they attack Iran for any reason.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
THE NEOCONS ARE ALREADY DITCHING BUSH – HIS FAILURE TO PARDON LIBBY CLINCHES IT
William Kristol, writing in the neocon comic ‘The Weekly Standard’, has told readers:
“So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?”
Bush’s days are numbered but there are still a few to go before he goes. America is still well over a year away before they are rid of him but, or at least so it seems, the neocons are already preparing the way for the candidate they are giving their support to, John McCain.
Of course, the President the neocons would really like to have is Dick Cheney but, short of something nasty happening to Bush, that is unlikely to happen. The problem for the neocons is that there are a lot of hoops to go through before their man gets to the top – not least of which is, first, getting him up as the Republican candidate and, second, winning the 2008 Presidential election. If he, or the any Republican candidate for that matter, loses then the neocons are going to be back out in the political wilderness where they were after the demise of the Reagan/Bush snr. era when Clinton got elected.
Naturally, a lot can happen in a year but, from where everyone is sitting at the moment, the President and the Republican Party are pretty much on the American people’s collective nose right now and the chances of a Republican President getting elected next time round looks fairly remote.
One couldn’t put it past the ultra-hawks not to try and arrange some way of getting Cheney in considering the circumstances. Just prior to the last Presidential election the idea was mooted that there may be some ‘October Surprise’ that would ensure that either Bush or Cheney retained power. One scenario was a massive ‘terrorist attack’ that would guarantee a Bush re-election while another scenario suggested that Bush may be ‘assassinated’ by some deranged lone gunman which would give Cheney the Presidency who would immediately suspend the constitution on the basis of ‘national security’ effectively giving himself dictatorial powers. As it turned out, there was instead a ‘November Surprise’ where Bush was returned by virtue of massive voter fraud at the election – just as he was ‘voted-in’ in the first place in 2000. Of course, there could be a massive ‘November Surprise’ in the 2008 Presidential election but its going to be very difficult to repeat that again if, going into the election, the opinion polls are about where they are now. It’ll be more than just a bit suspect if a Republican candidate gets up under those circumstances.
This brings us back to another shot at the ‘October Surprise’ scenario; except it doesn’t necessarily have to be in October 2008, it could be any time between now and then.
Whatever happens, it’s quite clear that the neocons have had it with Bush. And there really is only Cheney left standing as far as the neocons are concerned at this moment of time. A worry!
“So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?”
Bush’s days are numbered but there are still a few to go before he goes. America is still well over a year away before they are rid of him but, or at least so it seems, the neocons are already preparing the way for the candidate they are giving their support to, John McCain.
Of course, the President the neocons would really like to have is Dick Cheney but, short of something nasty happening to Bush, that is unlikely to happen. The problem for the neocons is that there are a lot of hoops to go through before their man gets to the top – not least of which is, first, getting him up as the Republican candidate and, second, winning the 2008 Presidential election. If he, or the any Republican candidate for that matter, loses then the neocons are going to be back out in the political wilderness where they were after the demise of the Reagan/Bush snr. era when Clinton got elected.
Naturally, a lot can happen in a year but, from where everyone is sitting at the moment, the President and the Republican Party are pretty much on the American people’s collective nose right now and the chances of a Republican President getting elected next time round looks fairly remote.
One couldn’t put it past the ultra-hawks not to try and arrange some way of getting Cheney in considering the circumstances. Just prior to the last Presidential election the idea was mooted that there may be some ‘October Surprise’ that would ensure that either Bush or Cheney retained power. One scenario was a massive ‘terrorist attack’ that would guarantee a Bush re-election while another scenario suggested that Bush may be ‘assassinated’ by some deranged lone gunman which would give Cheney the Presidency who would immediately suspend the constitution on the basis of ‘national security’ effectively giving himself dictatorial powers. As it turned out, there was instead a ‘November Surprise’ where Bush was returned by virtue of massive voter fraud at the election – just as he was ‘voted-in’ in the first place in 2000. Of course, there could be a massive ‘November Surprise’ in the 2008 Presidential election but its going to be very difficult to repeat that again if, going into the election, the opinion polls are about where they are now. It’ll be more than just a bit suspect if a Republican candidate gets up under those circumstances.
This brings us back to another shot at the ‘October Surprise’ scenario; except it doesn’t necessarily have to be in October 2008, it could be any time between now and then.
Whatever happens, it’s quite clear that the neocons have had it with Bush. And there really is only Cheney left standing as far as the neocons are concerned at this moment of time. A worry!
Friday, June 08, 2007
WHAT YOU MISSED AT WEBDIARY
For those who occasionally visit here from Webdiary (and elsewhere) and are wondering what David Roffey, the new head honcho there, refused to publish in response to yet another load of rhetoric and propaganda from Chris Parsons, here it is in its entirety:
GEO-POLITICAL REALITY VERSUS RHETORIC AND PROPAGANDA
I wonder how the Iranian President is going to ‘wipe Israeli off the map’ C. Parsons.
You see, the geo-political reality is, and this is with total disregard to the rhetoric and propaganda (R&P) of either side, Iran is posturing the way it does because it feels threatened by the US and to a lesser extent Israel. Reality: Bush has called Iraq, Iran and N. Korea an ‘Axis of Evil’. Reality: Iran then witnesses Bush change regime in Iraq, indeed, ‘wipe the Iraqi regime from the map’ (to us a metaphor you like so much in your R&P, for that is all it is).
Reality: The right-wing Zionists of Israel, supported by the neoconservatives in the US who wield influence in the Republican Party and the Bush administration, wish to create a Greater Israel that includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and even possibly the south of Lebanon up to the Litani River (as they attempted to do last year).
Reality: the only nation stopping the right-wing Zionists achieving its ambitions of a Greater Israel is Iran. How? Iran supports Hizbollah that defends south Lebanon from the Israelis and also supports Hamas as they resist Israeli aggression in the occupied territories. Iran also assists Syria who also supports Hizbollah and Hamas. How to redress this problem? Easy. Get the US to get rid of the Iranian threat to Israeli aspirations. How? Wind up the R&P accusing Iran of wanting to ‘wipe Israel of the map’ with its non-existent ‘nuclear weapons’. Once the present Iranian ‘regime’ is out the way and replaced with a nice submissive and compliant government acceptable to the US and Israel, Syria will quickly capitulate and, so it is then hoped, Hizbollah and Hamas resistance will then collapse leaving the right-wing Zionists a free hand to realise its dream of a Greater Israel.
Reality: All the chatter about what Ahmadinejad has and hasn’t said is just R&P. Even if he said ‘wipe Israel of the map’ there is no means by which he could do that. Despite all the R&P about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons the reality is; Iran doesn’t have any. A further reality is, despite the R&P, is that there is no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons. It’s all just R&P just like Bush’s R&P leading up to the invasion and plundering of Iraq which has left some 600,000-700,000 people dead, mostly killed by the US and their allies (despite the R&P) and another 4 million displaced and seeking refuge because their country has been utterly destroyed.
Ahmadinejad can carry on with all the R&P he wants and you can carry on with all the R&P you want to counter his R&P but for all of that the geo-political reality doesn’t change – Iran doesn’t have the means to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, the right-wing Zionists are only using R&P against Iran in order to further their own political interests in relation to their dream of a Greater Israel. They think because the R&P worked against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who was supporting the Palestinian cause against the Israelis, that it will work again against Iran. The reality is it won’t.
If the US is dumb enough to try and attack Iran, and if they’re dumb enough to believe that the Iraqi people were going to welcome the US and their allies as ‘liberators’ when they invaded Iraq then they might just try it, then the world is going to be in a serious mess. Iran will retaliate.
Reality: Israel must withdraw entirely from all of the territories it occupies and return to behind the 1967 line. It must withdraw all of its settlements which are on real estate that isn’t theirs. They must tear down the wall. They must accept sharing their land with others that they displaced in occupying it.
There will be no peace until this happens. The peoples of the world must understand the reality and make peace happen. The R&P that you espouse will only perpetuate the violence and killing.
GEO-POLITICAL REALITY VERSUS RHETORIC AND PROPAGANDA
I wonder how the Iranian President is going to ‘wipe Israeli off the map’ C. Parsons.
You see, the geo-political reality is, and this is with total disregard to the rhetoric and propaganda (R&P) of either side, Iran is posturing the way it does because it feels threatened by the US and to a lesser extent Israel. Reality: Bush has called Iraq, Iran and N. Korea an ‘Axis of Evil’. Reality: Iran then witnesses Bush change regime in Iraq, indeed, ‘wipe the Iraqi regime from the map’ (to us a metaphor you like so much in your R&P, for that is all it is).
Reality: The right-wing Zionists of Israel, supported by the neoconservatives in the US who wield influence in the Republican Party and the Bush administration, wish to create a Greater Israel that includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and even possibly the south of Lebanon up to the Litani River (as they attempted to do last year).
Reality: the only nation stopping the right-wing Zionists achieving its ambitions of a Greater Israel is Iran. How? Iran supports Hizbollah that defends south Lebanon from the Israelis and also supports Hamas as they resist Israeli aggression in the occupied territories. Iran also assists Syria who also supports Hizbollah and Hamas. How to redress this problem? Easy. Get the US to get rid of the Iranian threat to Israeli aspirations. How? Wind up the R&P accusing Iran of wanting to ‘wipe Israel of the map’ with its non-existent ‘nuclear weapons’. Once the present Iranian ‘regime’ is out the way and replaced with a nice submissive and compliant government acceptable to the US and Israel, Syria will quickly capitulate and, so it is then hoped, Hizbollah and Hamas resistance will then collapse leaving the right-wing Zionists a free hand to realise its dream of a Greater Israel.
Reality: All the chatter about what Ahmadinejad has and hasn’t said is just R&P. Even if he said ‘wipe Israel of the map’ there is no means by which he could do that. Despite all the R&P about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons the reality is; Iran doesn’t have any. A further reality is, despite the R&P, is that there is no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons. It’s all just R&P just like Bush’s R&P leading up to the invasion and plundering of Iraq which has left some 600,000-700,000 people dead, mostly killed by the US and their allies (despite the R&P) and another 4 million displaced and seeking refuge because their country has been utterly destroyed.
Ahmadinejad can carry on with all the R&P he wants and you can carry on with all the R&P you want to counter his R&P but for all of that the geo-political reality doesn’t change – Iran doesn’t have the means to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, the right-wing Zionists are only using R&P against Iran in order to further their own political interests in relation to their dream of a Greater Israel. They think because the R&P worked against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who was supporting the Palestinian cause against the Israelis, that it will work again against Iran. The reality is it won’t.
If the US is dumb enough to try and attack Iran, and if they’re dumb enough to believe that the Iraqi people were going to welcome the US and their allies as ‘liberators’ when they invaded Iraq then they might just try it, then the world is going to be in a serious mess. Iran will retaliate.
Reality: Israel must withdraw entirely from all of the territories it occupies and return to behind the 1967 line. It must withdraw all of its settlements which are on real estate that isn’t theirs. They must tear down the wall. They must accept sharing their land with others that they displaced in occupying it.
There will be no peace until this happens. The peoples of the world must understand the reality and make peace happen. The R&P that you espouse will only perpetuate the violence and killing.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
DURING WAR DID ISRAEL BOMB LEBANESE BUSINESSES THAT WERE COMPETING WITH ISRAELI BUSINESSES IN SAME MARKETS?
Evidence is coming to light that shows that this is indeed the case.
During last years war between Israel and the Lebanese people the Israeli Air Force (IAF) were provided with targets that had nothing to do with diminishing the ability of Israel’s stated enemy to strike back at Israel. Many of these targets were small and medium sized Lebanese industrial businesses that were manufacturing products for the global and regional market – a market that Israeli businesses were also competing in.
An Australian-Lebanese businessman that has recently returned from an investigative visit to Lebanon armed with a documentary film unit has evidence that indicates that many of the small and medium sized businesses that were hit by the Israel Air Force in Lebanon were deliberately targeted for reasons that seem to indicate that Israel wished to destroy, not so much the Lebanese industrial sector because it was in some way aiding Hizbollah efforts, but solely because they were a threat to Israeli commercial interests. In virtually all instances where businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, were destroyed or badly damaged, there was no evidence to suggest that their destruction or damage was because of collateral damage due to them being close to any target that could have been construed as offensive to the Israelis.
A Lebanese cousin of the Australian-Lebanese businessman had, with other family members who had pooled some several million dollars of their resources, built and operated a high-tech business manufacturing innovative medical supplies. The business was remotely located in an olive grove that belonged to one of the family stakeholders. After all the hard work and effort the entire project was totally destroyed in an instant when it was hit by Israeli air force bombs and missiles.
Amnesty International in their initial report of the conflict, published 23 August 2006, noted that some 900 ‘commercial enterprises were hit’.
Since the Israeli’s stated war aims was to retrieve two arrested soldiers and to destroy Hizbollah it seems incongruous that Israel’s air force would need to deliberately target a remotely situated medical supplies manufacturing business that were involved in no activities that could in any way be construed as a threat, directly or indirectly, to the Israelis.
This report will be developed further when the supporting evidence is made available for publication.
During last years war between Israel and the Lebanese people the Israeli Air Force (IAF) were provided with targets that had nothing to do with diminishing the ability of Israel’s stated enemy to strike back at Israel. Many of these targets were small and medium sized Lebanese industrial businesses that were manufacturing products for the global and regional market – a market that Israeli businesses were also competing in.
An Australian-Lebanese businessman that has recently returned from an investigative visit to Lebanon armed with a documentary film unit has evidence that indicates that many of the small and medium sized businesses that were hit by the Israel Air Force in Lebanon were deliberately targeted for reasons that seem to indicate that Israel wished to destroy, not so much the Lebanese industrial sector because it was in some way aiding Hizbollah efforts, but solely because they were a threat to Israeli commercial interests. In virtually all instances where businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, were destroyed or badly damaged, there was no evidence to suggest that their destruction or damage was because of collateral damage due to them being close to any target that could have been construed as offensive to the Israelis.
A Lebanese cousin of the Australian-Lebanese businessman had, with other family members who had pooled some several million dollars of their resources, built and operated a high-tech business manufacturing innovative medical supplies. The business was remotely located in an olive grove that belonged to one of the family stakeholders. After all the hard work and effort the entire project was totally destroyed in an instant when it was hit by Israeli air force bombs and missiles.
Amnesty International in their initial report of the conflict, published 23 August 2006, noted that some 900 ‘commercial enterprises were hit’.
Since the Israeli’s stated war aims was to retrieve two arrested soldiers and to destroy Hizbollah it seems incongruous that Israel’s air force would need to deliberately target a remotely situated medical supplies manufacturing business that were involved in no activities that could in any way be construed as a threat, directly or indirectly, to the Israelis.
This report will be developed further when the supporting evidence is made available for publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)