Wednesday, November 29, 2006

What's In Suriname?

9-11 Deniers, apparently.

After looking at the movies on the first day of the event, which discussed the mainstream media in the USA, one of the journalists who attended the event said “I had absolutely no idea things were THIS bad with the media in the USA, no idea.” And this coming from a journalist. And many other people made similar remarks as well.

Suriname is the old Dutch Guyana. According to Wikipedia, its principal export appears to be footballers (soccer players).

12 Comments:

At 29 November, 2006 07:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy,

Bringing light to us all.

Man, Rush Limbaugh needs to watch his back with Troy shining the light of truth so brightly.

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

BG:

Troy has his means and methods, and they are certainly much less annoying and irritating than Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh.

Keep giving it to them Troy.

TAM

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

with respect to Troy:

Based on the content of his posts, and the conversations that I've listened to when he has called into AJ and others, my impression is that Troy is a well-meaning guy, who happened not to have been an "A" student in history, and hasn't made up for his lack of an inquiring mind in the time since he left school.

He's welcome to post here with everyone else. However, the ad hominem and "piling on" type posts that he consistently makes, I will consider it my pleasure to make fun of him, tweak him, point out the error in his arguments, or whatever.

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:07, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Troy, Of course, I'm educated and
I know it's all a bunch of shit.


Have you studied U.S. History and the documents used to create Terrorstorm?
That video is dead on when it comes to U.S. state sponsored terror to justify war. I would agree that it is a bit early to declare 9/11 as such.

Bohemian Grove, according to Richard M. Nixon, was also a fag hangout for the time being.

 
At 29 November, 2006 12:53, Blogger Alex said...

Whatever you think of it, it's a perception that many people have of US mainstream media.

Are so many people outside of the US wrong about your media?


Yes, actually.

I always get a good laugh when i hear Brits accusing US media of being "too biased". Meanwhile, the BBC and the Guardian are so left wing, they may as well rename themselves to "Pravda".

Ditto for here in Canada. People make fun of Fox news, but gladly eat up the nonsense that gets written in The Star and the Globe and Mail, or televised on the CBC.

It's a little disquieting to see people so clearly bigoted, yet not at all aware of how...vulgar their behaviour is. Especially when that behaviour is accepted by the rest of society with almost no comment.

 
At 29 November, 2006 14:41, Blogger Alex said...

Sorry Acme, I'm just pissed at them for an article they wrote recently about the army :)

And I quote:

"There is a big difference between Canada and the United States," Mr. Azizullah said, tapping his fingertips together in a pensive gesture.

"If we attack the Canadians, they call for aircraft and bomb everything in the area. The U.S. only tried to kill the Taliban. The Canadians try to kill everybody."..


So yeah, I'm not too thrilled with one of our national newspapers publishing enemy propaganda.

 
At 29 November, 2006 16:30, Blogger shawn said...

Are so many people outside of the US wrong about your media?

Yes.

Countries in Europe accept Noam Chomsky as a valid or insightful source of foreign policy criticism and they are wrong.

Popularity does not make something true or not.

That video is dead on when it comes to U.S. state sponsored terror to justify war.

No, it isn't.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:02, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Swing Dangler said:

Have you studied U.S. History and the documents used to create Terrorstorm?


Yes. Terror Storm lies about most of them. It's the Loose Change of American history.

 
At 01 December, 2006 17:43, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Are you actually going to give some arguments or is it just gonna be a cheap shot.

Arguments about what? It simply lists a bunch of historical events and claims they're false flag or other operations regardless of what kind (or regardless of whether or not) perfidy or any evidence of perfidy was involved.

For example it raises the USS Liberty was an example of false flag operation even though the Israelis immediately admitted it was them but claimed it was an accident (something the US government has never explicitly accepted), so what could it possibly be a false flag for? The claim that it was to embroil the Americans against the Egyptians is nonsensical and legitimate controversies are glossed over in a simplistic way.

The film does something similar with the Gulf of Tonkin. The second incident is accepted as a mistake today, but an honest one, something confirmed by declassified Naval documents which show conclusively that the crew of both US ships believed they had been fired on (one of them, the USS Maddox, had been fired on a few days earlier and naturally the crews of both N Vietnamese and American ships were subsequently a lot jumpier). There's some evidence the NSA studied the attacks, initially believed them to be accurate, but realised too late they had made a mistake and covered their mistake up but that doesn't make it false flag nor is it evidence that the US government intentionally fabricated the incident.

I mean he also raises Operation Northwoods, and mentions the planning of loads of terrorist attacks, but fails to note that all but one were rejected before MacNamara simply failed to implement it (the video fabricates a claim that Operation Northwoods was actually conducted). It also ignores the fact that actual CIA operations (eg., the Bay of Pigs fiasco) resulted in a complete overhaul of the responsibilities and powers of intelligence organisations.

I mean every point in the film is like this, speculative navel gazing is presented authoritatively and a huge number of claims are made up without any attempt at explanation or justification while contradictory facts are glossed over. The 7/7 and Madrid bombing stuff is especially appalling - eg. in the London bombing the police did not take special control of the number 30 bus for example, it had to change its route because a number of roads were closed by the earlier subway bombing.

Alex Jones seems almost pathological in his need to string together every worldly event as a contiguous string of United States evil. He simultaneously claims that terror attacks are covered up to keep the public calm but also terror is fabricated in order to keep the public scared. In his worldview everything is a potential motivation and establishing potential motivations is all that is needed for evidence. Like the 9/11 Denial movement itself he absolutely refuses to construct and analyse any cohesive explanation for a body of facts. I mean I can keep pointing out just how terrible it is but this is off topic enough.

 
At 01 December, 2006 17:45, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Yeah I'm sticking with one liners from now on.

 
At 15 February, 2007 12:26, Blogger BUSHLOVER said...

I'M TOO SCARED TO THINK THAT IT WAS ARE GOVERNMENT, SO I'M JUST NOT GOING TO BELIEVE IT. I WOULD RATHER JUST BLAME TERRORISTS AND HAND MY FREEDOM OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT SO THEY CAN PROTECT ME

 
At 12 January, 2010 23:01, Blogger Angela said...

BushLover: That is the most braindead comment I've read yet. You can disagree for sure, but to reject your own thoughts on the subject makes me sad you're an American. Stay home on election days pleeeease.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home