On August 24 2011 23:04 Saji wrote: and Geyzer remember what you said to me about Zalz and RvB. Its pretty much the same with this guy
I must say Zalz sometimes writes sometimes reasonable. Hekisui is just a part of the western propaganda. As you can see he is quite smart and has some good knowledge.
I would like to bring in a quote from the movie I like "Thank you for smoking"
Hekisui is after them, after the crowd. He knows already that he cannot convince you.
On August 24 2011 21:38 Hekisui wrote: The journalists in the Rixos hotel are held hostage by Gaddafi loyalists. The idea that instead they are under threat of openly NATO spies is absurd.
Sites that go offline during big media events probably do so because they go viral and exceed their bandwidth.
It is enough to call the idea absurd and that's it Websites are not blocked, they just exceeded their bandwidth. And what about blocked facebooks accounts and banned youtube video? His task is to say something, he cannot live it unanswered otherwise the crowd may think that is true. I like also his prove of the black Gaddafi mercenaries, here it is. 100% proved! I at the first moment I thought that these are Mario brothers, but when I watched closer, I could see them, the mercenaries. They wear the yellow helmets, as all normal black mercenaries do, and armed with sticks
Hekisui "Also, media are owned by corporations. Media serve their own interest. No matter how left wing of a journalist you can somehow fight, they are going to have right wing bias because they are going to be biased in favour of their own interests. Which means serving their owners and serving their advertisers.
The US president election is a complete joke. One of the most undemocratic elections on the planet. Basically the elite nominate two of their own and these two candidates are marketed like any product to the voters. Politics never enters the debate and every statement these candidates make is based first and foremost on target audience studies."
Funny how he can see how it works there but not when it comes to war >_<
I basically follow the Chomsky line, very pro imperialism propaganda.
You people are mad that's why you get confused and can't even understand my position. Western media can't invent and fabricate evidence for US WMDs and they didn't. Bush did and he can and can get away with it. Also, it's not obvious Bush and co didn't believe in their own little myth.
If you want to know how the media really works, go watch or read Manufacturing Consent.
Start to think really critical.
I never supported this war. I just point out your claims are wrong and the evidence against Gaddafi is strong.
I would have expected to have to argue against NATO in this thread. But instead of people with a western imperialist bias, which is expected, we have anti NATO pro Gaddafi crackpot conspiracies. So I have to argue against that. Strange? No!
On August 24 2011 23:09 Hekisui wrote: The media didn't lie. Bush did. Huge difference.
You can't think critically and blame others they can't. Really a sad sad state. Go read some more of the green book.
Alternative media? Give me a break. Are you from a country that is anti NATO and you follow the party line? That's probably it. You are staked against NATO.
I am from a NATO country and I think NATO ought to be disbanded completely. And you claim I have to think critically.You buy all the propaganda you are being fed when I actually protested 4 times against the Iraq war.
The media was and is the outlet for Bush/Obama/Cameron etc. They never questioned him. They never asked hard question they are as much responsible for it as Bush, because if they did question him the american people wouldn't have accepted this war.
It is not the duty of Journalist to be the spokespersons of government officials. Other wise you can just rename journalist to PR which would make much more sense. (read some info about Edward Bernays specially about PR).
Instead of questioning they celebrated Bush endeavors.
Quote from John Pilger a real Journalist:
"We journalists... have to be brave enough to defy those who seek our collusion in selling their latest bloody adventure in someone else's country... That means always challenging the official story, however patriotic that story may appear, however seductive and insidious it is. For propaganda relies on us in the media to aim its deceptions not at a far away country but at you at home... In this age of endless imperial war, the lives of countless men, women and children depend on the truth or their blood is on us... Those whose job it is to keep the record straight ought to be the voice of people, not power."
and I`m from the Netherlands in noway that is a Anti-NATO country.
Did you even watch US media? They questioned Bush all the time because the people questioned him, that's why he's extremely disliked among my generation, or at least everyone I grew up with. (21) Of course, you're from the Netherlands and you'd know better than I would about whats on my television channels.
On August 24 2011 23:09 Hekisui wrote: The media didn't lie. Bush did. Huge difference.
You can't think critically and blame others they can't. Really a sad sad state. Go read some more of the green book.
Alternative media? Give me a break. Are you from a country that is anti NATO and you follow the party line? That's probably it. You are staked against NATO.
I am from a NATO country and I think NATO ought to be disbanded completely. And you claim I have to think critically.You buy all the propaganda you are being fed when I actually protested 4 times against the Iraq war.
The media was and is the outlet for Bush/Obama/Cameron etc. They never questioned him. They never asked hard question they are as much responsible for it as Bush, because if they did question him the american people wouldn't have accepted this war.
It is not the duty of Journalist to be the spokespersons of government officials. Other wise you can just rename journalist to PR which would make much more sense. (read some info about Edward Bernays specially about PR).
Instead of questioning they celebrated Bush endeavors.
Quote from John Pilger a real Journalist:
"We journalists... have to be brave enough to defy those who seek our collusion in selling their latest bloody adventure in someone else's country... That means always challenging the official story, however patriotic that story may appear, however seductive and insidious it is. For propaganda relies on us in the media to aim its deceptions not at a far away country but at you at home... In this age of endless imperial war, the lives of countless men, women and children depend on the truth or their blood is on us... Those whose job it is to keep the record straight ought to be the voice of people, not power."
and I`m from the Netherlands in noway that is a Anti-NATO country.
Did you even watch US media? They questioned Bush all the time because the people questioned him, that's why he's extremely disliked among my generation, or at least everyone I grew up with. (21) Of course, you're from the Netherlands and you'd know better than I would about whats on my television channels.
The thing is even here the media questioned Bush all the time his example is just plain wrong....
On August 24 2011 23:09 Hekisui wrote: The media didn't lie. Bush did. Huge difference.
You can't think critically and blame others they can't. Really a sad sad state. Go read some more of the green book.
Alternative media? Give me a break. Are you from a country that is anti NATO and you follow the party line? That's probably it. You are staked against NATO.
I am from a NATO country and I think NATO ought to be disbanded completely. And you claim I have to think critically.You buy all the propaganda you are being fed when I actually protested 4 times against the Iraq war.
The media was and is the outlet for Bush/Obama/Cameron etc. They never questioned him. They never asked hard question they are as much responsible for it as Bush, because if they did question him the american people wouldn't have accepted this war.
It is not the duty of Journalist to be the spokespersons of government officials. Other wise you can just rename journalist to PR which would make much more sense. (read some info about Edward Bernays specially about PR).
Instead of questioning they celebrated Bush endeavors.
Quote from John Pilger a real Journalist:
"We journalists... have to be brave enough to defy those who seek our collusion in selling their latest bloody adventure in someone else's country... That means always challenging the official story, however patriotic that story may appear, however seductive and insidious it is. For propaganda relies on us in the media to aim its deceptions not at a far away country but at you at home... In this age of endless imperial war, the lives of countless men, women and children depend on the truth or their blood is on us... Those whose job it is to keep the record straight ought to be the voice of people, not power."
and I`m from the Netherlands in noway that is a Anti-NATO country.
Did you even watch US media? They questioned Bush all the time because the people questioned him, that's why he's extremely disliked among my generation, or at least everyone I grew up with. (21) Of course, you're from the Netherlands and you'd know better than I would about whats on my television channels.
You have 24 hour news and opinion shows in America right? Of that air time how much % was Pro bush and how much was against bush?
And how was the build up to the WMD ? (it wasn't just US media alone so was the British and the Dutch they played the same game)
It is too hot topic for the moment to close it. Still there is no real news, just some rumors, unconfirmed, that the 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment (2ème REP) is in Tripoli now, fighting with loyalists.
There is another source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka.com (a Jerusalem-based English language Israeli open source military intelligence website with commentary and analyses on terrorism, intelligence, security, and military and political affairs in the Middle East.)
http://www.debka.com/article/21234/ "Our military sources report that the British deployed SAS commandoes and France, 2REP (Groupe des commando parachutiste), which is similar to the US Navy DELTA unit, as well as DINOP commandos. Fighting too were Jordan's Royal Special Forces, specialists in urban combat and capturing fortified installations like the Qaddafi compound in Tripoli, and the Qatari Special Forces, which were transferred from Benghazi where they guarded rebel Transitional National Council leaders."
On August 25 2011 00:58 GeyzeR wrote: There is another source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka.com (a Jerusalem-based English language Israeli open source military intelligence website with commentary and analyses on terrorism, intelligence, security, and military and political affairs in the Middle East.)
lol, seems to be a very realiable source - just quoting your wikipedia link: "Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors"
Finally it is official! They could not ignore the messages from "conspiracy theorists" news sources anymore about the presence of the foreign special forces in Tripoli so decided to make a statement. "Foreign forces in Libya helping rebel forces advance" http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/24/libya.foreign.forces/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Its says "The forces have helped rebels "improve their tactics" and "better organized" for operations" But they do not fight, no-no. It is unfair and against the UN resolution.
On August 25 2011 01:48 GeyzeR wrote: Finally it is official! They could not ignore the messages from "conspiracy theorists" news sources anymore about the presence of the foreign special forces in Tripoli so decided to make a statement. "Foreign forces in Libya helping rebel forces advance" http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/24/libya.foreign.forces/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Its says "The forces have helped rebels "improve their tactics" and "better organized" for operations" But they do not fight, no-no. It is unfair and against the UN resolution.
Euhm...welcome to 6 months ago?
There have been CIA agents on the ground once NATO signed on. It's not much of a secret and it's been known for a long time.
That's the big secret? The shit everyone allready knew? How the fuck else do you think the rebels got this organized? There is a difference between a CIA strategist and an airborne regiment that you fail to grasp however.
Peculiar enough not a single report of these NATO ground forces yet. Why is it that Gaddaffi is having trouble catching them on camera in the modern age?
What's next? NATO supplying rebels with weapons? Gasp! Shock!
Rofl yes, special forces have been on the ground in Libya even before the UN resolution was passed. That's a public secret that anyone who knows how special forces operate know. This has been reported all over the media as well.
Journalists have had a walk in with SAS a couple of times. That's your 'conspiracy theory' which is now proven correct?
Apparently you don't even watch the media. The stuff you claim is a myth was on the media the day it happened and the stuff you claim we say is a conspiracy theory and is now proven was also on the media the day it happened.
I know, also the presence of the western mercenaries is not a secret too. Pay attention in this article to the list of the special forces: Britain, France, Jordan and Qatar Also: "Some of these forces from all the countries have traveled with rebel units from towns across Libya as they advanced on Tripoli."
What makes you think guys that these forces do not fight with the loyalists? They travel with the rebels, but as soon as fight starts, they run away or what?
On August 25 2011 02:24 GeyzeR wrote: I know, also the presence of the western mercenaries is not a secret too. Pay attention in this article to the list of the special forces: Britain, France, Jordan and Qatar Also: "Some of these forces from all the countries have traveled with rebel units from towns across Libya as they advanced on Tripoli."
What makes you think guys that these forces do not fight with the loyalists? They travel with the rebels, but as soon as fight starts, they run away or what?
(Mercenaries? Do you even fucking know what that word means...a CIA agent or an SAS agent is not a mercenary)
They take commanding positions, they stick around with the commanding officers and make sure they instruct their soldiers properly. The CIA, SAS and other covert groups make sure the rebel officers adhere to a command structure, and higher up the command structure amongst the rebel generals you have the CIA and others working together with the generals to draft up an atack plan in combination with aerial strikes, this way the atack is coordinated. Combined arms is a basic feat for any modern army.
They don't fight because the people they have over there aren't soldiers, they are far more important people then your average soldier. What benefit would a single extra gun bring? Very little. What would a veteran tactician bring? Or a veteran strategist? Those people provide immense ammounts of combat value from their advisory positions. Putting them on the field would be something only you could think off. Way to go getting a CIA agent shot by a stray bullet for fucking nothing.
So no, these guys don't fight, that's not their role or their purpose. Use your brain or what little has been left after having subdued it in a fantasy reality for god knows how long.
"Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."
Soviets invaded in 27 December 1979.
I don't know if he is truthful or bragging in his own sick way. But that's what he said. Also, arabs stayed in Afghanistan afterward and one of him, OBL, founded Al Qaeda. Don't really know what you are arguing about anyway.
Dude, can you read?
What I wrote: "He says the US provided aid to the opponents of the pro-soviet leaders." What that quote from Brzezinski says: "President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."
Can you tell me how exactly that quote contradicts what I said? Does he say that they CREATED the mujahideen? NO. Does he say that the mujahideen turned into Al Qaida? NO. If you took the time to do a bit a research you would find out that there's a difference between the mujahideen and fighters from foreign countries who came to Afghanistan. Al Qaida was created by some of the latter, NOT BY THE AFGHAN MUJAHIDEEN. Get this through your head already.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://file.vustv.com/DlwIR_H3igikw.jpg)
