Posts Tagged ‘Lies’

s_500_opednews_com_0_1--jpg_80489_20140728-216

 

Admitted Liar Claims Russia Is Shooting Artillery Into Ukraine

120216104810-james-clapper-story-top

 

Should We Believe a Known Liar?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is a known liar:

  • The author of the Patriot Act and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — Congressman James Sensenbrenner — says that Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress and the American people about NSA spying.

One of the nation’s top military and constitutional law experts — Professor Jonathan Turley –writes:

“National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared before Congress and lied about the program. He later said that he gave the least untruthful statement he could think of. But it was nevertheless untrue and potentially a crime for which he could be prosecuted.”

And a huge majority of Americans agree that Clapper should be prosecuted for perjury.

Should we believe a known liar?

Clapper now claims that satellite photos show that Russia fired artillery into Ukraine…

 

Obama’s entire administration should be impeached and prosecuted for war crimes. They are now dead set on escalating the Ukraine fiasco into war against nuclear-armed Russia. Such insanity needs to be checked, now, before we all pay the price.

Wake up, generation dumbshit.

 

bbc-censored-Ukraine-fraud-mh17

no-buk-censored-bbc

 

 

BBC deleted this report where residents dispute the Ukraine coup (Nazi) government’s version of events.

  • Fighter Jet seen with MH17
  • No BUK missile unit witnessed where Ukrainian intelligence (sic) claims
  • No trace of missile fired
  • Frudulent video shows missile launcher convoy in town controlled by Ukraine military, not rebels

BBC now completely discredited for hiding this information from the world.

BBC-Lies-hour (1)

 

Alexander Khodakovsky

Alexander Khodakovsky in Donetsk. ‘That Buk I know about … They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence,’ he said. Photograph: Maxim Zmeyev/Reuters

The Guardian has interviewed a confused “commander” in the east who has no direct knowledge whatsoever of what went on, and tries to turn it into an admission of guilt.

“That Buk I know about. I heard about it. I think they sent it back. Because I found out about it at exactly the moment that I found out that this tragedy had taken place. They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence,” Khodakovsky told Reuters.

He heard the same news story put out by the Ukrainian government, the fraudulent audio “intercept” that was sent everywhere. He’s relaying the news story without any first hand knowledge that a rebel-controlled BUK ever existed, or was “sent back,” to Russia which was the Kiev government fraud, exposed by its sloppy video evidence.

So this interview subject, Alexander Khodakovsky, a “commander” has no first hand knowledge that any BUK system even existed prior to the Malaysian incident. Odd?  No?

Nor any knowledge that it was ever sent “back” anywhere. He’s clearly speculating. He has no knowledge that it ever existed at all, and is only relaying stories he’s heard, though where he heard them from is of no concern to the Guardian.

The Guardian then goes one better–

” This week the Guardian also spoke to witnesses who said they saw a missile-launching system that looked like a Buk drive through Torez, near the crash site, last Thursday, a few hours before the plane was downed.”

Really?  No Names. Nothing to corroborate this story. No idea of the sympathies of those who are allegedly making these claims, but since it fits in with the ‘blame Russia’ bias of the rag, let’s throw that in too.

This is the standard of evidence for deciding matters of war and peace?

PS: The Spy Satellite that Didn’t Bark

There’s an easy rebuttal to the Guardian’s Torez claims from unnamed so-called witnesses: the spy satellite photos.  Where are they? Why is the US hiding them?

If the US had pictures of these large lumbering vehicles, as claimed, they would be on the front page of every newspaper in the west. The propaganda is shown by what they won’t show as well as what they do claim.

 

Israeli Facebook warriors…

war_room_flag

Hasbara,” literally “explaining,” is the term used in Israel for government propaganda aimed at overseas audiences.

A video accompanying the Ynet report shows rows of students beavering away at computers in a hall with a sign on its door saying “Advocacy Room” in English. In Hebrew, it says “Hasbara war room.”

Last year a “covert” Israeli government initiative came to light which planned to pay students for spreading propaganda online.

“The whole point of such efforts is to look like they are unofficial, just every day people chatting online,” Israel expert Dena Shunra told The Electronic Intifada.

“But in fact, these are campaigns of organized lying, orchestrated with government-approved talking points and crowdsourced volunteers and stipend recipients,” Shunra added.

“War Room” to Sell Gaza Massacre on Facebook

Unlike those shills, no one pays me to say anything about these immoral land grabs and massacres. It’s only my conscience and ability to rationally analyze the evidence that drives this blog.

 

1405639233203.cached

 

This lie made it all the way into official Washington propaganda. But what are we actually looking at?

“It is beyond incredibly sloppy for Ukraine to release such a video with a clear billboard of something in Ukraine-held territory, purportedly showing a Buk missile launcher headed back to Russia.”

Video of Rebel Buk Launchers Headed Back to Russia? No – Images From Ukraine-Held Territory Since May

On Friday, the Daily Mail, one of the major UK tabloids carried photos and video of what was alleged to be a rebel “Buk” launcher heading back to Russia.  The article carried a claim from some Ukrainian source that the launcher was missing several missiles after having shot them at the Malaysian 777.

…The video referenced by the New York Times was, in fact, posted on the Facebook account of the Ukrainian Interior Minister. The allegation was that the launcher was crossing the border with Russia.

However, going by the billboard and other features of the scenery, Russian bloggers and news sources claim to have identified the road in the video as having been taken in or near the town of Krasnoarmeisk (“Krasnoarmiysk” in Ukrainian), which has been under Kiev’s control since May.

 

So it appears that the real life Nazis are as stupid and incompetent as the TV sitcom variety. They just provided proof that the launcher most likely responsible for shooting down the airliner is one of their own, in a town controlled by Ukraine military.

 

s_500_cdn_rt_com_0_8.si

 

It was Putin’s missile?

Pepe Escobar, Asia Times reporter, has been investigating anomalies related to the downed Malaysian airliner…

“A simple search reveals that MH17 was in fact diverted 200km north from the usual flight path taken by Malaysian Airlines in the previous days — and plunged right in the middle of a war zone. Why? What sort of communication had MH17 received from the Kiev air control tower?

Kiev has been mute about it. Yet the answer would be simple, had Kiev released the Air Traffic Control recording of the tower talking to flight MH17; Malaysia did it after flight MH370 disappeared forever.

It won’t happen; SBU security confiscated it. So much for getting an undoctored explanation as to why MH17 was off its path, and what the pilots saw and said before the explosion.

The Russian Defense Ministry, for its part, has confirmed that a Kiev-controlled Buk anti-aircraft missile battery was operational near the MH17’s crash. Kiev has deployed several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers; these are all perfectly capable of bringing down jets flying at 33,000 ft.”

Then there’s an alleged air traffic controller / witness named “Carlos,” that you’ll want to investigate.

 

MORE:
Russian MH17 Evidence Against Ukraine Nazi Regime
Russian Audio Analysis: Ukraine Intercepts a Fraud!

The Hunger Games: The Official Illustrated Movie Companion

 

In a moment straight out of 1984, this propagandist imbecile pretends that bombed out Palestinians are Israelis.

 

The conflict is so lopsided and such a crime against humanity, spanning 70 years of land theft and mass murder, and yet corporate news can’t seem to grasp what’s going on with the US client state having now killed 70+ innocent civilians over the past couple of weeks.

original

ABC News’ Diane Sawyer Mistakes Stricken Palestinians for Israelis

 

GOEBBELS

 

Journalists Accuse White House of Politically-Driven Suppression of News

Over three dozen journalist organizations including the Radio Television Digital News Association, National Press Foundation, and the Society of Professional Journalists, have asked the President to drop the “excessive controls” on public information by federal agencies, branding it “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies.”

There has been an ongoing tension between broadcast, print and online journalists and the Obama administration, with complaints that the Administration has limited access to events, while providing its own “coverage” through official channels.

For those who’ve been drunk and tied up in a basement this past decade, the fascism of the federal government is becoming harder and harder to disguise. Fascism is corporate/state partnership to fuck over the powerless common people – like you. Welcome to Mussolini’s America. Grow up and take a stand for real freedom, not this prepackaged flag waving, orchestrated mindlessness they feed the rubes. It requires knowledge, vigilance, logic and courage.

Unless the people say NO, they will seize more power until the America you once knew is unrecognizable, except for the red, white and blue propaganda banners littering the slums.

 

120314uk2

 

Good article on propaganda from Eric Zuesse today.

Media Lies and The Propaganda War about Ukraine

The public in the West are being played for fools, and it’s now becoming so blatant, even worse than the lies that produced the scandalously vile invasion of Iraq (which our aristocratically controlled media also fooled the masses into supporting), so that the result will be either masses in “democratic” countries who really are fools, and who don’t at all hold the press to account for having raped their minds, or else it will be mass boycotts of the major “news” media, to protest it, and to change it — so as to restore democracy to America.

If boycotts of the press don’t soon start, democracy has already ended here, because, ever since we invaded Iraq in 2003, we’re already way past the time when there should be a mass boycott by Americans of their major “news” media — media that lie to them so brazenly, and so repeatedly, for so long.

 

0615MANNINGsub-master675
“I was shocked by our military’s complicity in the corruption of that [Iraqi] election.”

“The embedded reporter program, which continues in Afghanistan and wherever the United States sends troops, is deeply informed by the military’s experience of how media coverage shifted public opinion during the Vietnam War. The gatekeepers in public affairs have too much power: Reporters naturally fear having their access terminated, so they tend to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags.

The existing program forces journalists to compete against one another for “special access” to vital matters of foreign and domestic policy. Too often, this creates reporting that flatters senior decision makers. A result is that the American public’s access to the facts is gutted, which leaves them with no way to evaluate the conduct of American officials.”

The Fog Machine of War

Chelsea Manning on the U.S. Military and Media Freedom

 

FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — WHEN I chose to disclose classified information in 2010, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others. I’m now serving a sentence of 35 years in prison for these unauthorized disclosures. I understand that my actions violated the law.

However, the concerns that motivated me have not been resolved. As Iraqerupts in civil war and America again contemplates intervention, that unfinished business should give new urgency to the question of how the United States military controlled the media coverage of its long involvement there and in Afghanistan. I believe that the current limits on press freedom and excessive government secrecy make it impossible for Americans to grasp fully what is happening in the wars we finance.

If you were following the news during the March 2010 elections in Iraq, you might remember that the American press was flooded with stories declaring the elections a success, complete with upbeat anecdotes and photographs of Iraqi women proudly displaying their ink-stained fingers. The subtext was that United States military operations had succeeded in creating a stable and democratic Iraq.

Those of us stationed there were acutely aware of a more complicated reality.

Military and diplomatic reports coming across my desk detailed a brutal crackdown against political dissidents by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and federal police, on behalf of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Detainees were often tortured, or even killed.

Early that year, I received orders to investigate 15 individuals whom the federal police had arrested on suspicion of printing “anti-Iraqi literature.” I learned that these individuals had absolutely no ties to terrorism; they were publishing a scholarly critique of Mr. Maliki’s administration. I forwarded this finding to the officer in command in eastern Baghdad. He responded that he didn’t need this information; instead, I should assist the federal police in locating more “anti-Iraqi” print shops.

I was shocked by our military’s complicity in the corruption of that election. Yet these deeply troubling details flew under the American media’s radar.

It was not the first (or the last) time I felt compelled to question the way we conducted our mission in Iraq. We intelligence analysts, and the officers to whom we reported, had access to a comprehensive overview of the war that few others had. How could top-level decision makers say that the American public, or even Congress, supported the conflict when they didn’t have half the story?

Among the many daily reports I received via email while working in Iraq in 2009 and 2010 was an internal public affairs briefing that listed recently published news articles about the American mission in Iraq. One of my regular tasks was to provide, for the public affairs summary read by the command in eastern Baghdad, a single-sentence description of each issue covered, complementing our analysis with local intelligence.

The more I made these daily comparisons between the news back in the States and the military and diplomatic reports available to me as an analyst, the more aware I became of the disparity. In contrast to the solid, nuanced briefings we created on the ground, the news available to the public was flooded with foggy speculation and simplifications.

One clue to this disjunction lay in the public affairs reports. Near the top of each briefing was the number of embedded journalists attached to American military units in a combat zone. Throughout my deployment, I never saw that tally go above 12. In other words, in all of Iraq, which contained 31 million people and 117,000 United States troops, no more than a dozen American journalists were covering military operations.

The process of limiting press access to a conflict begins when a reporter applies for embed status. All reporters are carefully vetted by military public affairs officials. This system is far from unbiased. Unsurprisingly, reporters who have established relationships with the military are more likely to be granted access.

Less well known is that journalists whom military contractors rate as likely to produce “favorable” coverage, based on their past reporting, also get preference. This outsourced “favorability” rating assigned to each applicant is used to screen out those judged likely to produce critical coverage.

Reporters who succeeded in obtaining embed status in Iraq were then required to sign a media “ground rules” agreement. Army public affairs officials said this was to protect operational security, but it also allowed them to terminate a reporter’s embed without appeal.

There have been numerous cases of reporters’ having their access terminated following controversial reporting. In 2010, the late Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings had his access pulled after reporting criticism of the Obama administration by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff in Afghanistan. A Pentagon spokesman said, “Embeds are a privilege, not a right.”

If a reporter’s embed status is terminated, typically she or he is blacklisted. This program of limiting press access was challenged in court in 2013 by a freelance reporter, Wayne Anderson, who claimed to have followed his agreement but to have been terminated after publishing adverse reports about the conflict in Afghanistan. The ruling on his case upheld the military’s position that there was no constitutionally protected right to be an embedded journalist.

The embedded reporter program, which continues in Afghanistan and wherever the United States sends troops, is deeply informed by the military’s experience of how media coverage shifted public opinion during the Vietnam War. The gatekeepers in public affairs have too much power: Reporters naturally fear having their access terminated, so they tend to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags.

The existing program forces journalists to compete against one another for “special access” to vital matters of foreign and domestic policy. Too often, this creates reporting that flatters senior decision makers. A result is that the American public’s access to the facts is gutted, which leaves them with no way to evaluate the conduct of American officials.

Journalists have an important role to play in calling for reforms to the embedding system. The favorability of a journalist’s previous reporting should not be a factor. Transparency, guaranteed by a body not under the control of public affairs officials, should govern the credentialing process. An independent board made up of military staff members, veterans, Pentagon civilians and journalists could balance the public’s need for information with the military’s need for operational security.

Reporters should have timely access to information. The military could do far more to enable the rapid declassification of information that does not jeopardize military missions. The military’s Significant Activity Reports, for example, provide quick overviews of events like attacks and casualties. Often classified by default, these could help journalists report the facts accurately.

Opinion polls indicate that Americans’ confidence in their elected representatives is at a record low. Improving media access to this crucial aspect of our national life — where America has committed the men and women of its armed services — would be a powerful step toward re-establishing trust between voters and officials.

Mideast Iraq

 

From the “no shit” department…

 

Sunni caliphate has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia

From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles.

Now a little reality check.

For many years little old me has been writing on the US deals with the devils, from the Saudis to dictators all around the earth. The debacle in Syria, next door to Iraq, has been one of the most glaring and despicable events in modern history.

Under Bush the “redirection” decided to partner up with Sunni regimes in the Middle East in order to finish off the allies of Russia and Iran and to some degree China as well. Empire games. Grand chessboard.  Death squads.

Libya was bombed. Arms and money poured in to rile up the so-called “Arab Spring” and to guide it in directions that the US and its partners preferred (main partner with the deep pockets being Saudi). That meant anyone who would go kill or blow themselves up near America’s targeted enemies was no longer considered a “terrorist,” and that the long-hyped “war on terror” was a fraud, a gimmick, a sham for the uninformed.

In Libya America became “Al Qaeda’s Air Force” according to Representative Kucinich, and the Al Qaeda flag wound up flying over the court house in Benghazi.

Syria would be many times worse than the carnage in Libya. America’s allies: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and many others, had Syria surrounded on all sides. They trained, armed, funded, coordinated thousands upon thousands in terrorist militias to take over the Syrian countryside, and to create fake pretexts for sending in even more direct military aid.  The Syrian terror brigades had their own public relations arm, known to the western media world as “activists,” but in reality these were the propagandists of that illegal war, a foreign-sponsored war and “Jihad.”

Thousands of civilians were killed in order to take pictures of their bodies and to claim that Assad had done it, when in reality it was the terrorists themselves.  The criminal complicity of western media, repeating bald lies with flimsy evidence, actually ENCOURAGED more war crimes, massacres of children with nerve gas, etc.

The western media could be relied upon to spin just one story: everything bad was Assad’s fault, no matter what the facts were.

But you know, it’s pointless trying to tell you people the truth.  You don’t give a flying fuck. No one is blowing up your neighborhoods, and you have the morality of an insect nest.

Heck of a job there in Iraq.  Let’s all cry patriotic tears staring at the national rag…

 

 PS

To the entire political and media class: Fuck you.

0