tagged w/ Weapons of Mass Deception
-
Seven years after 9/11, the supposed mastermind behind the attacks is still at large, and the nation is entrenched in multiple wars in the Middle East. Is Bin Laden the evil behind the attack or a mere front man in a larger picture, a Bogeyman? Fabled Enemies is unlike any 9/11documentary ever put together. Rather than focusing on the physical anomalies at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, this film follows the intelligence ties of Osama Bin Laden, the alleged hijackers, and those who were actually detained on 9/11. The movie delves deeply into the roles of seperate Nations that were involved in supporting the 9/11 attacks. From Israel to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, and even the United States itself, no one is spared in this scathing expose that pulls no punches. Sit back and get ready to learn how members of the FBI had their investigations into Bin Laden obstructed and shut down, how the hijackers were trained at US bases, that military drills crippled our defense and facilitated the attacks, how the Shadow Government was actually activated that day, and much much more.Seven years after 9/11, the supposed mastermind behind the attacks is still at large,... more
-
-
The Debate over American Intelligence in Iraq is questioned, reminding us that the rest of the world won't sweep our lies under thier rug. They felt more than accomadating after 9/11 and thier patience is worn thin of U.S. policy.The Debate over American Intelligence in Iraq is questioned, reminding us that the... more
-
-
I am afraid this bill is going to limit conversation. Will we be afraid to speak when things happen that we feel are against our freedom? Will we still be able to utilize our Constitution to speak up against people who do not agree with certain portions of the Constitution? Will we be able to express our concerns, or will they silence our voices with bills enacted to instill fear? I fear many will be afraid to speak up, or support others who do. No one wants to be found guilty and declared a 'Homegrown Terrorist'.
by: Lee Rogers
The Internet is now becoming a new front in the phony terror war. Legislation like the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 that is in the forms of HR 1955 and S 1959 which seek to give the government powers to define thoughts and belief systems as homegrown terrorism, is on the brink of being pushed down our throats. HR 1955 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 404-6 and now it appears as if the U.S. Senate is attempting to justify its future passage. The U.S. Senate homeland security committee lead by war mongering fascist Joesph Lieberman, investigated the so called growing threat of terrorists using the Internet for recruiting and training purposes. In their report, they paint the Internet as a dangerous tool for terrorists and conclude that new laws need to be passed “to prevent the spread of the ideology.” It is incredibly convenient that S 1959 provides the legislation that is called for in their report. The true purpose of this report is to push for the passage of S 1959 which will give the government powers similar to what the government of Oceania used in George Orwell’s book 1984.
The Hartford Courant ran an article on this Senate homeland security committee report. According to their article, the report hypes the threat of homegrown terrorism and how the Internet is playing a key role in spreading the message of so called terrorists. Below is a blurb taken from the article.
A Senate homeland security committee report set for release Thursday details a growing threat from terrorists’ use of the Internet as a recruiting and training tool. The report concludes that the U.S. government should consider its own outreach program as a counter to the Web strategies of groups such as al-Qaida.
This report paints Internet use by terrorists as having an unlimited reach, including into English-speaking communities in the United States. Al-Qaida, it says, runs a “a multi-tiered online media operation in which a number of production units associated with [al-Qaida] or allied violent Islamist organizations produce content consistent with the core terrorist enlistment message.”
The “thousands” of terrorist-operated websites have become “an effective distribution system for the core enlistment message and other content,” the report contends. There is no longer as much of a need, it suggests, for physical training camps.
I am afraid this bill is going to limit conversation. Will we be afraid to speak when... more
-
-
NEVER FORGET THEIR WORDS. EVALUATE WHAT THEY SAID AND THE SAD REALITY OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THEIR WORDS HAD MEANING!
People in positions of power should not be able to say 'anything and everything' they want with no accountability. No accountability = No shame! What's to deter them from repeating their mistaken comments again. The misstatements which led us to War with Iraq has caused too much damage. Their misstatements should be covered by mainstream media and addressed so it doesn't happen again.
by: Victor Navasky
Below, an excerpt from the chapter titled "Their Finest Hour: America Readies Itself To Free The Iraqi People."
CAKEWALK!
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02
"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02
"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03
HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?
"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02
"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03
"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05
"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06
....
The list continues on the provided link.NEVER FORGET THEIR WORDS. EVALUATE WHAT THEY SAID AND THE SAD REALITY OF WHAT... more
-
-
There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.
There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the... more
-
-
** HELP US STAMP OUT SNEAKY PROPAGANDA, WITH FACTS! ** DON'T LET FELLOW AMERICANS BE MISLED WITH SPIN, STRAIGHTEN THEIR COURSE WITH FACTS! FACTS WILL PUT US BACK ON COURSE! BRING BACK 'ACCOUNTABILITY' AND 'PROPAGANDA' WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST!
With 8,000 pages of documents online for the world to see, will the networks continue their media blackout?
By John Stauber, PR Watch. Posted May 7, 2008
Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.
The Pentagon program, which clearly violated U.S. law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.
News of the Pentagon's online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times "limited information about a military office early in the reporting process."
Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/
More than two weeks after the New York Times reported on the Penatgon's military analyst program to sell controversial policies such as the invasion of Iraq, the broadcast television news outlets implicated in the program are hoping to tough out the scandal by refusing to report it. Recently Media Matters of America (MMA) reported that, according to a search of the Nexis database, "the three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have still not mentioned the report at all."
The Pew Excellence in Journalism project has a chart showing that " there was virtually no mainstream media follow up to The Times' expose" with the only national TV coverage being the introduction segment and live debate featuring CMD's John Stauber on the PBS NewsHour.
Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro and three dozen colleagues have sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General calling for an investigation of this "propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public."
** HELP US STAMP OUT SNEAKY PROPAGANDA, WITH FACTS! ** DON'T LET FELLOW AMERICANS BE MISLED WITH SPIN, STRAIGHTEN THEIR COURSE WITH FACTS! FACTS WILL SET US FREE! BRING BACK ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROPAGANDA WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST!
** HELP US STAMP OUT SNEAKY PROPAGANDA, WITH FACTS! ** DON'T LET FELLOW AMERICANS BE... more
-
