.. 3 versions at least ...
.. each different = some lies ...
.. since only one version can be true
Subtitle: Gaddafi died in custody (= murdered); that OK with you?
Post-mortem; Q: What evidence do I have?
A: What I have gathered from/via the AusBC = publicly funded broadcaster.
From the "News Just In" section of a page in "The Drum:"
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:42:49 +0200 (CEST)
Anti-Gaddafi forces claim capture of Sirte
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:43:10 +0200 (CEST)
Gaddafi killed as home town captured
From the "Just In" page itself, and some from the articles:
NTC official claims Gaddafi dead
Posted October 20, 2011 21:29:14 | Updated October 20, 2011 23:33:20
There are unconfirmed reports deposed Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi has died of wounds suffered during his capture near his home town of Sirte.
"He has been captured. He is badly wounded, but he is still breathing," Mohamed Leith told AFP, adding that he had seen Gaddafi himself and that he was wearing a khaki uniform and a turban.
Mr Majid said Gaddafi was caught trying to flee Sirte in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked.
Other reports said he was found hiding in a hole shouting "don't shoot, don't shoot".
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, world-politics, libyan-arab-jamahiriya
Gaddafi dead, Sirte captured
Posted October 20, 2011 21:29:14 | Updated October 21, 2011 03:40:24
Deposed Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi has died of wounds sustained when fighters captured his home town of Sirte, interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril has confirmed.
"We have been waiting for this moment for a long time," Mr Jibril told a news conference in the capital Tripoli.
"Moamar Gaddafi has been killed."
His death, which came swiftly after his capture is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen.
Details about exactly how and where Gaddafi was found are mixed and there are also conflicting reports as to whether Gaddafi's son, Mutassim, has been captured alive or was killed.
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, world-politics, libyan-arab-jamahiriya
Gaddafi 'killed in crossfire' after capture
Middle East correspondent Anne Barker, staff
Posted October 20, 2011 21:29:14 | Updated October 21, 2011 11:11:01
Libya's new leaders say Gaddafi died from a bullet wound to the head after being dragged from his hiding place in a sewage pipe during the final hours of the struggle for control of the city.
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, world-politics, libyan-arab-jamahiriya
NTC official claims Gaddafi dead
Updated October 20, 2011 23:53:25
National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta earlier said Gaddafi was captured and wounded in both legs as he tried to flee Sirte in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked.
"He was also hit in his head," he said. "There was a lot of firing against his group and he died."
Gaddafi dragged out of sewer and shot in the head
Middle East correspondent Anne Barker, staff
Updated October 21, 2011 11:11:01
"At approximately 8:30am local time today, NATO aircraft struck two pro-Gaddafi forces military vehicles which were part of a larger group moving in the vicinity of Sirte," NATO military spokesman Colonel Roland Lavoie said.
"These armed vehicles were conducting military operations and presented a clear threat to civilians."
Comment 1: NATO flew something like 26,000 sorties into Libya. That's a lot of stopping "clear threats to civilians;" see my picture 'worth' more than a squillion words.
Comment 2: Note that forces crossing borders inbound are perpetrating aggression of the Nuremberg class.
Comment 3: Note that the headlines of each successive appearance in Just In are all different and mostly differ from those in the articles - why that?
Comment 4: Each of the (at least) three article-versions 'share' the same URL; it means that the 'superseded' articles disappear (and now that Google has dropped the caching function, we cannot even research the (recent) past to retrieve the original reports). This amounts to deliberately re-writing history by the AusBC = revisionism.
Comment 5: It's partly luck that I collected different versions. With AusBC setting out to delete their own history, we have some difficulty exposing their lies. Too bad; and anyway, the (dumbed-down) sheople just doze on.
Musing: Claim that Saddam's goons throwing babies out of humidicribs to die on the cold, stone floor. Claim that Hussein "fed people into huge shredders, feet first to prolong the agony". Claim that Saddam found in 'spider hole.' Then; snipers on roof-tops, mercenaries fed viagra in order to mass-rape, Gaddafi dragged out of sewer and shot in the head. Any common theme here? (Tip: Try 'filthy, propagandistic lies.')
Thesis: Barker usually operates in Z-ray Hell; guaranteed none of the reportage here is Barker's own 'eye-witness' news. Her job-description must include 'propagandiste' - here, she is putting up a smoke-screen excuse = 'killed in crossfire,' to try to let NATO/rebel-rabble off the murder-hook. Won't work, can't work; that's what US+NATO-F+UK are. Point: See how Barker/the AusBC insinuate their lies?
Something a bit different:
- TOP NEWS - (nyt eml 3mins ago, time of writing):
"Violent End to an Era as Qaddafi Dies in Libya"
Note the language: "Dies." (As opposed to 'killed,' say.)
Journalist's tweets: 'I saw Gaddafi's body'
Posted October 21, 2011 09:45:12 | Updated October 21, 2011 14:10:19
A journalist has revealed she chased the ambulance carrying Moamar Gaddafi's body, and saw the dictator's body in the back, describing him wearing gold pants and with a bullet wound in the chest.
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, world-politics, libyan-arab-jamahiriya
Photo: NTC fighters hold what they claim to be Moamar Gaddafi's gold-plated pistol (see below.)
A predicted consequence:
Gaddafi death 'may cut' petrol prices in Australia
By Peter Ryan, Sue Lannin and staff
Posted October 21, 2011 14:24:50 | Updated October 21, 2011 15:07:33
There was little sustained reaction on oil markets following the death of former Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi, but an end to conflict there could speed up the restoration of oil exports.
Topics: business-economics-and-finance, markets, oil-and-gas, unrest-conflict-and-war, libyan-arab-jamahiriya
Comment 1; (bad): They did/do this for Iraq as well; 'Western' actions (mainly US + snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on (SQSH-Os)) are 'saving' *our* oil supplies (under Arab/Muslim sands) - so the claim. Q: Saving supplies from what? (Oil owners presumably must sell; and where else but on some open market?) A: Not 'from what' but 'for what,' where 'what' = economic rent (= sale-price - production-cost). Digging Iraqi oil up is estimated to cost ~$1,- but it is currently sold in the range $80-$120 (Murdoch said destroying Iraq would return the price to $25). The US (+SQSH-Os) want the lot = the total profit rip-off, from oily-sand to forecourt-fuel-bowsers = economic rent - less the 5% royalties, say - just like in Aus.
Comment 2; (worse): Aus buys oil/petrol mostly via Singapore at the Tapis base-price; this has recently been ~+33% to +25% over the cost of West Texas Crude. Why that; why such a wide range? Why should anything happening in the Mediterranean affect the Tapis-price?
Comment 3; (worst): We may spot a trend; US+NATO+SQSH-Os attacking oil-owners; Iran feared to be next. Q: Can (mostly) US-style capitalism not survive without murder/theft? A: Apparently not. While we are at it, Q: Can the I/J/Z-plex not survive without murder/theft? A: Apparently not. And the I/J/Z-plex either owns or controls or both, the US M/I/C/4-plex. We can see the point of maximum immorality.
Earlier, I posed the Q: Gaddafi died in custody - that OK with you?
From/via the AusBC, we read:
"His death, which came swiftly after his capture" - me: was it really some sort of an accident ('killed in crossfire' as the Barker/Just In/v3 headline has it) or actually more like a lynching = extrajudicial execution (recall ObL's somewhat untimely, definitely irregular end)?
Epitaph: A US-NATO-F+UK supported rabble has destroyed one of Africa's most advanced nations - murder for spoil (oil again? No, still).
There you have it (see photo below, notice the neat symbolism of the baseball caps?) - make your own conclusions, I know you will.
Update, 22Oct'11, 11:43; PS ...
Now had enough of US+NATO+SQSH-Os' barbarity on this round - I blog because I must; I cannot bear to do nothing in the face of such utter evil, I blog to document and comment, since it's 'the best I can do.' Others blog too, some much better than I can, so here's Escobar's effort via ICH.
.. 3 versions at least ...
.. Z-ray-Hell ...
.. provides enduring proof ...
.. that we are ruled by psychopathic criminals
We, of the 'reality based' community, are neither amused, nor deceived.
The Zs' continuous, ghastly inhumanity to Palestinian ELO/Os (= forcefully, *illegally* dispossessed erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) - brings opprobrium (= public disgrace arising from someone's shameful conduct) onto *all* Js, *everywhere* - plus, of course, onto all supporters, apologists & bottle-washers. The theft of almost an entire country via genocidal, ethnic-cleansing oppression through Nuremberg-class criminality (the 'establishment' of Israel was a slow-motion, aggressive, armed-alien invasion = burglary/home invasion = murdering theft), including the deliberately lying hasbara deployed as cynical *attempted* 'cover-story,' will go down in history as *far, far* worse than the rightly despised 3rd Reich; hardly credible (for some) but nevertheless, *self-evidently true*.
(That paragraph all OK with *you*, personally?)
The *really* funny thing is that they (Zs&Co) thought that we'd never notice? Well, as long as the AusBC&Co (aka corrupt & venal MSM) had a monopoly on 'news' gatekeeper/dumbing-down functions, perhaps they may have had a chance (but snowball, Hell... word gets around.)
No way; at least not any more; even some of the TV-anaesthetised zombies are starting to wake up.
Proof: If the Zs had any valid claim, they'd be able to demonstrate legal land/property transfer via mutually agreed free & fair sale. So show us the title-deeds?
As if that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse, *far, far* worse. 1st, the *bloody* AusBC have misinformed this whole wide-brown, over my whole life - I 1st detected their lies (silly me; trust, fury, scorned) post 9/11 (suspected *inside job* = black-flag psyop), post Iraq, definitely *illegal invasion* thereof. Then we see bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic support of Z-ray-Hell by successive Aus governments. Not, of course, just Aus; UK & US were and are still involved, proven by Balfour (declaration) & Truman (same-day recognition of 'unilaterality', said to be 'for electoral reasons' = traitorous corruption of democracy), down to today with US continually arming the crims. Aus, UK & US; any more? Well, of course, (apart from other quisling sycophants) the UN - which(who) should have rescinded UNGA181 latest after Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin massacre etc. (such crimes continuing down to today) - incontrovertibly demonstrated the Zs' true colours.
GWBush: 'For or against!'
IF one is not actively *against* Israel, THEN one is *for* lying, thieving, *murdering* criminality = 'world-class' inhumanity (bad things can happen, when good people don't at the very least speak up).
No peace without justice - so when does the *moral, thinking* world smarten up?
.. some crims ...
.. have dropped ...
.. their mask (why that?)
Preamble; old joke, Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?
A: When you see their lips move.
It's not a very good joke, but it tells us something; see definition of lie.
Next Q: Who wants to be deceived?
It gets worse; the very fact that they set out to deceive us tells us that the project they are 'enhancing' with lies is not otherwise justifiable = at the very least it's some crooked scam, if not outright criminal. War, of course, is the worst; it *always* involves at least one aggressor, in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya, the prime aggressor was the US, plus any number of snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on (SQSH-Os), in the case of the hapless Palestinians' Nakba, the aggressor was and still is the alien invading Zs and now their descendents, apologists & fellow-travellers. All, note, resource-wars = murdering for spoil.
Short & sweet; when they lie, they're admitting their guilt.
Resource-wars = murdering for spoil = smash and grab armed-theft including the murder of innocents. If you or I tried it, there'd be hell to pay. Why should the US & Zs + SQSH-Os get away with it? System = civilisation's so-called 'leadership' failure.
This leadership failure = corruption also includes the UN, which means we can't even call the cops; we have to do something ourselves. I suggest continuous condemnation plus economic action, together BDS = boycott, divestment & sanction. Where ever possible, do *not* buy any thing or service from the criminal countries. End preamble.
Lies Unmasked As UK Admits Boots On The Ground
Britain's SAS leads hunt for Gaddafi
Thomas Harding, Gordon Rayner, Damien Mcelroy
August 26, 2011
«As a $1.6 million bounty was placed on his head, soldiers from 22 SAS Regiment began guiding rebel soldiers after being ordered in by the Prime Minister, David Cameron.
For the first time, defence sources have confirmed the SAS has been in Libya for several weeks, and played a key role in co-ordinating the battle for Tripoli.»
Comment: This is an admission of earlier lies; an admission that they've exceeded their remit, and an admission that they have taken part in an aggressive invasion = Nuremberg = gallows.
Aug 27, 2011
THE ROVING EYE
R2P is now Right 2 Plunder
By Pepe Escobar
«As for the Western "winners" in Libya, they are not even playing smoke and mirrors anymore. Richard Haass, president of that Gotha of the US establishment that is the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a Financial Times op-ed blatantly stating, "The 'humanitarian' intervention introduced to save lives believed to be threatened was in fact a political intervention introduced to bring about regime change."
As for those lowly bit part local actors - Libyans from Cyrenaica - Haass already dispatched them to the dustbin of history: "Libyans will not be able to manage the situation about to emerge on their own", and with "two million barrels of oil a day" at stake, the only solution is an "international force". Translation: occupation army - as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Welcome to neo-colonialism 2.0.»
Comment: Howard told us that invading Iraq was *not* about regime-change, and he enhanced *that* lie with his stories of Saddam's 'human shredders.' Same as above; he sent 'our boys' to take part in an aggressive invasion = Nuremberg = gallows.
They follow a 'standard-pattern narrative;' select the target, vilify, attack, murder to steal = plunder.
Vilification is easiest done by causing shocked revulsion; see 'stories' of human shredders, snipers hiding on roof-tops, mercenaries revved-up on Viagra raping innocent girls. Vilification is easiest done via and actively assisted by the corrupt & venal MSM, sadly including parts of 'our' AusBC, and propagandists like Barker.
They, our corrupt 'leaders,' seem to need public 'support' (did not get it beforehand on Iraq), then once the crime is underway, they exhort us to 'support the troops' (except they lied that their troops were in Libya - until now). Lies, lies & more lies, intermingled with their filthy, murdering crimes. If public 'support' - or merely resignation is acquired, it makes the public as guilty as the leaders via the accessory mechanism. That's why we must never cease to see through their plots, never cease to criticise = decry their crimes, and call for justice, like restoring Palestinians to their country, stolen at the point of a gun by invading Zs, ditto for the Afghans, Iraqis & now Libyans, invaded and smashed by the criminal US-regime & crooked entourage.
Fazit: They, our corrupt 'leaders,' (at least in UK) have now admitted to Nuremberg-class war crimes, scratching my head as to why the admission. I can say 'told you so,' see my Shockin' Whore Mk2 of 20Mar'11. Where we go from here depends on the decent among us; accept, acquiesce or reject; bring the perpetrators to justice or let 'em off? Up to each individual 'you.'
 lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]
 plunder -v. 1 rob or steal, esp. in wartime; loot. 2 exploit (another person's or common property) for one's own profit. -n. 1 activity of plundering. 2 property so acquired. [German plündern] [ibid.]
.. am I mad ...
.. or is it them? ...
.. I don't lie or kill -> it's them
Thesis/Subtitle: How long must we wait until sanity - and decency - is restored?
Nigger, d**k hanging in glass of curdled milk.
Passer-by: Hey, man - what you do'n?
Nigger: Ah'm f**k'n dis custard.
Trigger article 1:
Rebel celebrations wreak havoc on Qaddafi's compound
Updated August 24, 2011 10:09:00
Rebel fighters drive through Tripoli
«Their forces rushed in, cheering and firing their guns in the air.
With scenes similar to the fall of Baghdad, the Libyan forces set about destroying a statue of Muammar Gaddafi.»
Comment: Read it yourself. The propaganda was that G was attacking his own people (snipers, containers of Viagra), my bet is that it was much more the other way; pig-higorants shooting their gifted weapons at anything, nothing, and d*g help you if you were anywhere at all in range. We saw the pictures (US-style pick-ups, humungous weapons welded-on (careful in the round-abouts)), and speaking of which, by whom and how were the TV videos made, of berserkers imitating US-grunts, kicking doors in, guns at the obvious ready? Or down putative 'spider holes,' braving mines and/or ambush? A: True heroes, or Hollywood crews out on a (faked) lark?
Trigger article 2:
Rebels find Gaddafi's 'creepy' Condoleezza scrapbook
Updated August 26, 2011 23:12:02
«Among the pictures in the album are a series of photos of Dr Rice and Colonel Gaddafi during their 2008 diplomatic talks in Tripoli.»
Comment: Read it yourself. Not only Rice, but Blair et al., any number of snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on. Were they insincere then, now, or both?
Barker is an AusBC propagandist, see my previous post here. Every time she's 'allowed' an article on Iran, she inevitably includes something like: 'The west suspects Iran of wanting an A-bomb.' (This, despite the consensus of all 17(?) US 'intel' agencies: "Not!") She 'jumped' from the ME to London (riots; AusBC support for Cameron) sometime between Aug 3 and 10, now between Aug 19 and 23 to Libya. The 'girl' gets around - possibly because she has no ties-that-bind. If you saw a picture, you might understand her apparent preference for radio.
Back to Libya:
True, Gaddafi may not be dead yet; no so-called (Hollywood-cast) 'spider-hole,' no kangaroo court, no lynching filmed on mobile-'phone - yet. But with the NATO-sponsored rebel-rabble 'leadership' posting a $1.x mio 'dead or alive' reward, it won't be long. So much for civilisation, and US-NATO-F+UK 'ethical' support.
Worse than troglodytes; Libya had good education, lots of social programs, medical etc.. But they were thoroughly propagandised: 'You wanna be free!' (Don't we all, of lies & rip-offs.) Not just 'wanna,' they were helped - by 5mths aerial bombardment, then at the end, a NATO ship, brings the duds to Tripoli, while NATO helicopter gun-ships clear the way in front of them. Real 'men.' (Psst guys! Look for the containers filled with 'blueies!')
More like vicious ingrates. (For those with neither education nor dictionary: ingratitude n. lack of due gratitude.[POD])
.. we just ...
.. do not do ...
Preamble 1; from my uk riots: A proper "of, by, for the people etc." democracy requires at least these three; 1) an informed & engaged electorate, 2) full & free info-flows, and 3) a wide range of honest candidates who, if/when elected, represent the electorate by implementing the will of the majority, protecting any minorities. Our, i.e. US, UK, Aus and other such 'pretend democracy' rogue-regimes, fail all three. Deliberately dumbed-down citizens, distracted by trivia & disinformation on TV, a corrupt & venal MSM (did anyone mention Murdoch?), and most representatives sell-out to the highest bidder, usually corporations but worst-case, the "Israel Lobby."
Preamble 2: Back in the early 70s, I had a 'debate' with a friend on the ME problem, whereby I took a pro-Z approach. I was wrong, as wrong as wrong could be. *Why* I was wrong, was because I had based my arguments on what I had learned from 'reports' in the media, almost exclusively from the AusBC. Since I was wrong, so the info I had been 'fed' was wrong; this forms my prima facie case against the AusBC. Nothing of significance has changed much in the meantime - and further, that both the AusBC and the various Aus governments follow a pro-Z 'line' forms a prima facie case showing collusion, and since the Zs are criminal, this pro-Z collusion forms a conspiracy - primarily against truth & justice for the hapless Palestinians, but also against us, we the sheople, since by and large we are not criminal and do not wish to support or even associate with criminals.
Now, to Anne Barker. She had a 'wonderful' start to her stint as ME-correspondent; she was observing a demo by extremist Z-settlers (aka illegal occupiers) - and was spat upon by same extremist Z-settlers. But she persevered, regularly reporting from the ME - including, wherever possible, propagandist digs with a pro-Z slant and/or a pro-US regime slant - note that any slant = bias, and since the Z and US regimes are rogue, Barker's slant is, as the AusBC's itself in general, against we the sheople's interests. The easiest way to prove this is to Google for: iran nuclear weapon "the west" "Anne Barker" site:abc.net.au - which just returned "About 105 results (0.20 secs)". Q: Why is this propagandistic? A: Because it is the agreed verdict of the entire US-intelligence community, that Iran does *not* have a nuclear weapons program. Certain parties, namely the rogue Z-regime and the US-neoCons plus hangers-on & apologists wish to attack Iran; Barker's propaganda aligns with such wishes, quote; "The moves coincide with Iranian warnings against any attack. Its arch-foes, the United States and Israel, have not ruled out taking military action over Tehran's controversial nuclear program." Note the language; 'arch-foes,' 'military action.' Note the allegation; "controversial nuclear program" - which, whatever it is, is known *not* to be for weapons, see US-intel. Iran is under continual aggressive attack by rogue-regimes; has been since at least 1953 when the vile US/UK meddlers deposed the democratically elected Mossadegh. Not so BTW; Iran has oil, as does Iraq & Libya - as if you didn't know.
Another; "ANNE BARKER: ... But 20 per cent enriched uranium is enough to produce a weapon if there's a big enough quantity ..."
Me: What rubbish; criminal, inflammatory & *wrong* propagandist-rubbish. Yet this is what is passed off by the AusBC as 'responsible reporting.'
Now Anne Barker the ME-propagandist has a new assignment, see .
Clarification: I am a seeker after truth & justice; I present 'facts as I see them' (i.e. as reported), along with analysis/opinion based on my observations, i.e. all care but no responsibility; kindly do not shoot this messenger.
One report I saw, initially regarded with a bit of suspicion, alleged that these riots came at a 'good' time for an under-pressure Cameron, creating public outrage and thus allowing him to go 'tough on crime,' always good for politicians. The article further alleged that the police deliberately hung back, allowing the riots and looting to develop. I must admit that the scale as seen on TV was impressive, with entire blocks burning (how did they achieve that?); described as 'worst since the Blitz.' Perhaps the article was not too far off the mark after all; you could try looking here with follow-up article here.
Summary: Several coincidences, each getting less 'believable' (believing is what some people do in the absence of evidence); that the riots could take place at all, that they could be so impressive, that that suits both Cameron's & the militarised police's interests - *plus* the arrival on the scene of an AusBC propagandist. Make you go hmmm?
PS Moral 1: IF anyone violates the 'democratic covenant' - by telling us lies, say, since a mal-informed electorate may not make properly informed decisions, THEN they make themselves 'democratic criminals' - and thus we the people's enemies.
PPS Moral 2: Cameron&Co are (rightly) outraged by a few looters, armed with little more than sticks & BiCs. Q: What of the poor Libyan people, being attacked by NATO; more specifically, mainly F + UK, using the most modern aerial weapons, after the US cruise-missiles reduced Libya's air-defences to smouldering rubble? A: We can see who the really serious criminals are.
 List of recent Barker articles at time of writing - basically, just for the where/when:
ABC Online - 8 minutes ago
ABC Online - 3 hours ago
ABC Online - 3 hours ago
ABC Online - 19 hours ago
ABC Online - Aug 11, 2011
ABC Online - Aug 10, 2011
ABC Online - Aug 3, 2011
ABC Online - Aug 2, 2011
ABC Online - Anne Barker - Aug 1, 2011
ABC Online - Jul 31, 2011
ABC Online - Jul 29, 2011
ABC Online - Jul 27, 2011
ABC Online - Jul 26, 2011
ABC Online - Jul 19, 2011
.. after 63+ bloody years ...
.. ethnically cleansing Palestine ...
.. giving up even 1cm² would give Zs seizures
Putative subtitle: White man speak with forked-tongue.
This subtitle could be considered prima facie racist, but given a) that the US was built on land ethnically cleansed of its pre-European invasion natives, b) Israel is built on land ethnically cleansed of its pre-Zionist invasion natives and c) the Zionists' recognition-demand bleatings themselves include an undeniably racist term, it's not me who suffers from "deep-rooted racism."
Obama delivers Middle East peace vision
By Jane Cowan and Anne Barker
Updated May 20, 2011 09:53:00
«Barack Obama presented his most detailed vision yet on the path to Israeli-Palestinian peace.»
Comment: 63+ bloody, and bloody-well unsuccessful years of 'peace-process' stories, via and *assisted* by the AusBC, and *NO* visible change except Zionist outwards border 'creep' should tell us of a) the competency of the 'players' and/or b) the not-so hidden agendas they have 'in play.'
The Z-demands are always the same, and note the language: "demands," as opposed to the normal negotiation process of exchanging offers to compromise?
Z-apologist-demand #1: The right to exist.
Q #1: Why? UNGA181 offered a 'Jewish homeland' in a partition of Palestine; it did *not* envisage any diminution of the “civil and religious rights of [the] existing non-Jewish” Arab majority there, nor did it sanction any use of force. Once Plan Dalet & Deir Yassin-type massacres showed the Zionists' true colours, the 'Zionist project' should have been terminated (by the UN) to prevent the murdering ethnic cleansing which took place and still continues. Deir Yassin-type massacres are clearly illegal (as well as utterly immoral), and *cancel* any claimed 'right to exist,' as criminal acts extirpate all rights (except to a fair trial). Lacking legitimacy, all subsequent Zionist claims must fail.
Z-apologist-demand #2: The right to claim land won in a 'civil war.'
Q #2: Why? a) In the 1st place, the Zionists were overwhelmingly newly arrived immigrants. When new arrivals attack local natives, that's referred to as an 'alien invasion' = aggressive = Nuremberg. In the 2nd place, UNSCR242 refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." b) Land(property) may only be acquired by free&fair exchange; all improperly alienated land(property) should revest.
Z-apologist-demand #3: The right to unilaterally declare independence.
Q #3: Why? a) Following #1 = illegitimacy, nothing remains except to be brought to justice. b) May a burglar/home-invader declare their independence from justice? Absurd. Yet not merely 'tolerated' but supported by the US + sycophant-quisling regimes. It's called condoning crime.
Z-apologist-demand #4: The right to defend.
Q #4: Why? See #3, depending on #1 = illegitimacy = all rights extirpated. The correct response to a burglary/home-invasion is not to arm the criminals, but to send in the SWAT teams, to arrest and bring to trial. (Compare Abbottobad perversion of justice.)
Terminology: Alien invader-murderers for spoil = AIMs4S; this clearly fits the Zionist project perpetrators in Palestine. The hapless victims are erstwhile legal owner/occupiers = ELO/Os. Given the Deir Yassin-type massacres, more or less continuously down to the most recent outrage = shooting many unarmed Nakba-demonstrators dead, Q: what right did they ever have to renaming the ethnically-cleansed part of Palestine to Israel? A: IMHO none, no rights at all.
Comment: The Zionist project = Israel is clearly illegitimate. In UNGA273, Israel promised to honour UNGA181 (respect ELO/Os' rights) & UNGA194 (ELO/Os' right of return). That the Zionist AIMs4S violate their own promises is unremarkable, since lying is a minor sin compared to murdering theft.
Comment: That Obama may change the Zionists' modus operandi, let alone criminal course, is on the face of it risible = fails the 'giggle-test;' rage and threats from Israeli extremists are the 1st visible responses.
Fazit: There can be no peace without justice = finally respect ELO/Os' rights, and their right of return, their improperly alienated property to revest and/or a fair recompense and reparations. The US & UN both could earn some credibility; the Zs could begin a retreat from complete pariah-status. The Zs could start with a sincere "Sorry!"
and when they were bad, they were horrid
[US&Z *rogue* regimes -
propaganda, black- & psy-ops = lies]
.. the 'winning' ...
.. doesn't really end ...
.. until the gloating is done
Subtitle, 1: Out of the mouths of babes - err, crooks.
Subtitle, 2; Q: Who's to blame?
Thesis: Those who murder for spoil have zero qualms about lying; proof = no-one (in their right-mind) admits to crime, so lie the guilty ones must. Lying is per definition done to deceive, and when deceived by politicians, voters may not make properly informed voting decisions at least in the lying context, and not at all if the credibility of the candidate is deemed vital (what else? Vote for a liar?) Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward, we in Aus had the super-cynical mantra "All politicians lie!" imposed upon us - the 'all' may tend to hyperbole, but the particular was repeatedly demonstrated (i.e. the baseless 'Saddam uses people-shredders!' allegation = 'misleading the house' - and with it, the country) - why is it so? No worthwhile project ever requires propaganda-camouflage, yet we are continually being assaulted by lies. The lies are organised around 'narratives,' to keep them on-song and (often imperfectly) non-contradictory, like the lame fog-of-war 'extenuations' recently deployed; the 'lie-cloud' forms the pushed-propaganda paradigm = the perpetrators' own created perversion of reality.
The 'standard' crimes are cheating, theft and murder; lies are both the gateway and a give-away to criminal depredations.
- TOP NEWS -
Israeli Troops Fire as Marchers Breach Borders
«Israel's borders erupted into deadly clashes as thousands of Palestinians marched from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.»
Note the nytimes' language; "Breach," say. It is a 'biased' term with ideological/aggressive 'baggage,' also with its alternates, a more neutral and simpler 'crossed' would work better = be more accurate. But propaganda uses such 'coloured' terms for the desired (usually as here -ve) effects, although the opposite = +ve also occurs; i.e. "Land of the free, home of the brave." Oh, yeah: Free as in free to be denied medical treatment without a credit card, and/or to have their jobs shipped o/s, brave as in shooting unarmed civilians - not 'just' ObL, but the 100s of 1000s if not millions who have been killed/slaughtered as hapless 'collaterals' resulting from US wars for spoil. Here, the hyped +ves are actually -ves; more lies.
Comment 1: The headline is enough at the moment. 'Normal' people, even if traumatised by 63+ bloody years of murderingly violent dispossession and oppression, are nevertheless assumed to be non-idiotic; any demonstrator carrying anything that even remotely looked like a weapon would be seeking their martyr-hood in a hurry. Ergo, we can assume that the 'invading' Palestinians were unarmed, and were carrying out a peaceful demonstration; perhaps calling out "Return *our* land to us ELO/Os, the erstwhile legal owner/occupiers! - Observe UNGA181 & UNGA194, like you *promised* to, in UNGA273!" Also possibly "All AIMs4S (and descendants) to return to whence they came!"
Comment 2: Some say that Israel sits on stolen land; can we confirm/deny? Generally, land&property are alienable (adj. Law able to be transferred to new ownership [POD]), the 'normal' way is by *voluntary* exchange; $s for soil, say. UNSCR242 includes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Under the principle of "A fair exchange is no robbery," Q: Why are the Palestinians still trying to get their improperly alienated land/property back = revested (reinstate, restore, return)? More: "Revesting and restitution of property on conviction." (Aye, there's the rub: Actually achieving justice.) IMHO, 'confirmed.'
Comment 3: No burglar or violent home-invader may declare him/herself independent of justice; no alien invaders may ethnically cleanse via genocidal attacks - and remain 'legal' - let alone moral. Latest with the vile Deir Yassin massacre and such-like terrorist attacks (similar continuing down to today - or if not exactly today, then some immediate yesterday and tomorrow), the UN should have halted the crime that is the Zionist project (the UN did attempt a recovery with UNGA194, sadly failed = lack of application); *unless* the UN gets serious and stops wars & injustices, THEN it is what it appears to be, namely a total sham and worse, actually in the service of - *rogue* regimes, see the current neo-colonialist, UNSC-sanctioned attacks on Libya. As I wrote on 20Mar'11 in Shockin' Whore Mk2, it's Iraq (murder for oil) all over again, this time in slow-motion (AusBC: "Britain wants NATO to ramp up attacks against Moamar Gaddafi's regime in Libya by attacking electricity grids, roads and even oil supplies.") Me: Gives new meaning to 'revolting.' These *aggressive attackers* are out of all control. Why? Who lets 'em? Not me, matey.
Propaganda is old; a mini-review:
This story may begin with a deployed lie: "Making the world safe for democracy!" This was a 'mantra' used by Wilson during WW1 to 'convince' the US public that joining the war against "the Boche" was a good idea. Water well under the bridge, but the real questions are two: Why did Wilson have to 'sell' the war anyway, with the 2nd, more sinister Q: Why did Wilson himself want war? A: Same-old same-old, see the modern, wicked M/I/C/4-plex; this tiny minority gets *richer*, while lots of the cannon-fodder gets *killed*, not to mention the squillion *innocent* collaterals. The significant thing is that Wilson's "Making the world safe ..." was a trick then, as it still is a trick today; proof = it's still being deployed. But it's not 'merely' a trick; it's also a lie, easily proven: A tricked = deceived electorate cannot vote 'straight' (hence the derived jibe: JWHoward ‘couldn't lie straight in bed.’)
Bernays was fascinated by the Wilson mantra, and even more so because of its effects. He was sooo fascinated that he turned it into a career, morphing 'propaganda' into PR = public relations, because of the extremely negative connotations of propaganda; usually rotten lies. Bernays was successful; perhaps his most infamous stunt was convincing women that they could smoke tobacco & get away with it. Note that a lot of "convince ... get away with" is still going on.
To illustrate some negativity here, consider this:
«In his 1928 book, "Propaganda," he wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."»
Comment: As for an electorate deceived, so for one 'manipulated.' Bernays based his thinking on some of Freud's work, he of the 'un- and sub-conscious.' The theory went that the 'free' masses, with their unconscious drives would (somehow??!) run amok, so the masses could not be allowed to be free, and that meant crippling 'democracies' by the aforesaid manipulations via deceptions = propaganda = lies. A neater, more self-serving policy could hardly be imagined, proof = this one is still 'running,' and how.
«First is simply that this kind of deeper selling to the subconscious can be used in all kinds of ways, not all of them good.
Joseph Goebbels, for instance, would later use another Bernays book, "Crystallizing Public Opinion," to sway desperate Germans toward Hitler's murderous agenda.»
[frugalmarketing/John Forde, ibid.]
Which leads directly to "The Big Lie."
[Pause, for reflection...]
Q: OK, how big?
A "Big Lie" doesn't even have to be prima facie 'believable' - just as long as it has enough 'shock value' to 'flip' the listeners into an *emotional*, outraged state. It's the essence of Freud's 'un- and sub-conscious' but in reverse; recalling that 'belief' is done in the absence of *evidence*, here 'belief' is invoked (via lies) in the absence of *intelligence*, any available intelligence having been *switched-off* (another 'novel' = newly deployed propaganda-construct) - by the emotional shock. Example: Dumping babies out of incubators to steal such incubators away, abandoning the babies to death on a cold, stone floor. The story was 'presented' (= conduited, assisted) by the MSM as 'news' = truth - but was later proven false, demonstrating the 4th Estate's corrupt & venal modus operandi. Example: Saddam's totally non-existent WMDs. Example: Libyan snipers, firing on innocents from roof-tops. Example: Women (wives!) as 'human shields.' Example: IMF chief rapes hotel-maid. Q: Are they mad? A: Yes; those who murder for spoil have zero qualms about lying. And they can do all of these viciously criminal things because they are psychopaths, possibly resulting from faulty socialisation, *OR*: Are they deliberately, malevolently 'produced' by deliberate 'manipulation' of their 'un- and sub-conscious' *immature* minds? Whatever; vile monsters is what they are.
And apart from their murders for spoil (Zs = soil, US = oil), they are killing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, by revving-up CO2 production, instead of going sustainable.
I realised the other day that I keep asking questions like "Why," precisely because we're all being kept mostly in the dark - by being told outright lies, as well as having critical info withheld. Q: Why? A: Beats me (rich getting richer in the face of utter catastrophe tends to 'flip' me into an *emotional*, outraged state) - and that ain't too flash, I'll tell ya - 'for free.'
PS; Q: Who's to blame?
A: All the liars.
The M/I/C/4-plex = Military, Industrial, Congress (US for 'parliament'), the 4th Estate = corrupt & venal MSM + AusBC et al..
The I/J/Z-plex should be self-explanatory; criminal key is Zionism.
The AIMs4S = alien/aggressor invading-murderers for spoil.
The schools producing the psychologists = PR-types.
The schools producing the economists = banksters.
The sheople for their damnable 'incuriosity.'
But not me; I see the evil, and blog it.
It's the best I can do - and you?
 breach -n. 1 (often foll. by of) breaking or non-observation of a law, contract, etc. 2 breaking of relations; quarrel. 3 opening, gap. -v. 1 break through; make a gap in. 2 break (a law, contract, etc.). step into the breach help in a crisis, esp. as a replacement. [Germanic: related to *break] [POD]
 breach verb
1 the river breached its bank
BREAK (THROUGH), burst (through), rupture, force itself through, split; informal bust.
2 the proposed changes breached trade union rules
BREAK, contravene, violate, fail to comply with, infringe, transgress against; defy, disobey, flout, fly in the face of; law infract. [New Oxford Thesaurus]