by jon wood 2:42pm Thu May 27 '04 article#41825
if you do not comment, argue or debate you don't count in opposition. By default you remain as support.Silent with majority backing , followers to where our leaders may take us next.
Can I get to your attention? youre in totally disregard for the opinions of others that is already evident. your city site has fewer comments than any other IMC on WW shame on you.
Can I involve you in debate? Can I attract your attention to the real issue, the big issue.
Could I illicit any response?
Are you dissuaded? Have you been bought?
Did you read ? Can you retain? Are your senses so dulled is your comprehension burnt?
Is your an attention span far too short for measure or has your search for relevance or connection drawn a blank. Has discovery evaded you?
Are you still waiting for someone to confirm what you already know but the popular media continues to deny.
I read the Michel Moore piece in the Australian 23 may, the paper reported that he won an award, and chipped in with an opinion, on page 7.
I did my favorite thing; I predicted what the fat flaky fuck of a reporter was asked to write before I read it. And how did I know it would be derogatory?
Because I remember almost word for word what MM said about the trouble he had printing his book SWM in 2001, its distribution was stalled through a Fox subsidiary, yeah the Australian's News Corps parent body.
It withdrew his book from distribution just like Disney; its the same story all for all the same reasons but moores story is different... thats what they hate.
It is pro American to denounce Mr. Moore, and its anti free speech to support his work.
So why do I Involve you in the AUSTRALIANS SHAME? The reason is so simple; Mr. Moore had a go to reach you with an alternate point of view, as I am about to.He displayed in an entertaining way. Your free press set up the story for you, then within a following article three times the size gave you a fixed opinion, riddled with deception and bias, defaming Mr. Moore as a liar he had no right of reply.
Mr. Moore lists his evidence and catalogues his research for all to investigate and is shielded by the blatant Awful truth that he portrays.
He is after all only pointing out something that is kept secret from you. And Hes just about on the money, while the Australian reporter fixates about small details in columbine to blanket the expose with disbelief. Its flatulance but the Autralian is right, the plant makes satellite dishes and communication Tec, nothing whatever to do with attack force contracts should we suppose?
Although the licensed media sways opinion by deriding the notions of others, we should be able to discern the difference between right and wrong. The paper states Mr. MOORE MAKES millions!, but isnt that our system?, we pay ¦is he supposed to refuse the moneies?¦
what about the money the Australian receives? Does this money establish power and is it corrupt because of the link? Are the News corps interests supported by established governments throughout the western world?¦
of course those governments count on Murdock for positive reports and the flavor of news is received warmly.
Too bad for anyone who tries to report a different news!
A -new -news...Of corse we should not accept it but for balance we should be exposed to it, that would be a balance of report wouldnt it?, I'm from Adelaide where the news is squezed between furniture ads, so I expect nothing more. I just want unbias, in a national daily, its a fantacy here but your numbers should demand it in sydney with 7 million of you.
So you think we have a free press?
Ever thought hard about it? Does the government control the press? Or does the press have controlling interests in the government, isnt it all just a corporate affair ever noticed?
Heres a test, try to disagree¦.
Headline.., Saddam Hussein is an environmental vandal because he burnt the oil wells in 1991.
This one crops up time and again but Have you ever heard it argued?
what were we going to do with all that oil?
Now read through the following statements and be assured there is more truth in these small paragraphs than most lengthy articles in pop press.
The coalition willingly lied to us.
Saddam was not deceptive, our nations were.
Saddam tortured and our nations behave no differently.
If Saddam had promised an investigation into his own torture and murder and offered plausable deniability would we believe his shit?
Is it so much better for Iraqi's that we now torture and kill? Is it morally worse for Hicks to defend a nation than for us to attack one?
America supports the dictatorship of Uzbekistan where boiling prisoners to extract information is common.
Al Qaeder had nothing to do with Iraq pre 2003.
Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeder or 911.
America gave permission for Iraq to invade Kuwait in July 1990.
Ossama bin Laden Offered to oust Iraq from Kuwait before January 1991
The Iraq war has been going on for fourteen years.
During this time only an 11 year old boy was succesfully disarmmed and his family killed along with 2.6 innocent Iraqis because one man opposed UN resolutions.
Israel has been unrepentant in its acts of suppression and occupation while in total disregard of UN resolutions for forty years.
If Australians proved one thing then it was that we can support the killing of more people than Saddam was ever capable of.
America invaded Saudi Arabia with the House of Saud permission in 1991, bought by offers of protection and sweet deals over oil.
America allowed 150 Saudi nationals to flee America in the days following 911 while flights were banned for Americans and even though most of the terrorist suspects came from the Saudi Arabian nation and the passengers on the jet carried the name bin laden they did so with immunity.
Explain why America has never identified Saudi Arabia as a threat.
Iraq and Saudi Arabia have both been named as enemy states of Al Qaeder by Sheikh Laden because of the nature of the western controlled dictatorship.
During the Russian Afghan conflict America supported Ossama Bin Laden and the forces, of which he was apart.
Ossama bin Laden fought against foreign invaders and foreign interference and for the sovereignty of Arab states.
America supported this fight.
America ousted the Russian puppet government of Afghanistan in 1992 allowing the Taliban to fill the void.
America assisted and aided the Taliban Regime in its joint war on drugs and negotiated the same pipeline deal Russia wanted to implement and install during its occupation.
Taliban officials visited America in 1999.
America invaded and now occupies Afghanistan and has installed a pro American governing council.
Afganistan continues to be occupied by US Attack forces.
America has no longer the right to have a defence force since that force was used in attack.
The afghan pipeline is still a US funded project
The war on terror is exclusively against Muslim opposition.
Notice the link two slightly distorted african embassys 1998, one sunk battle cruiser2000,Pentigon2001. Yes AlQaeder, Yes millitary targets, All Causulties = collateral damage
In which way except for the nationality of Sheikh Ladens enemys has his noble and justifiable war changed since his enemy was.Russia.
THe Cause for Jihad remains uncurrupted, by the exchange of occupyers.We tag teamed the soviets thats all, and now we suport genocide in Chechnya.
Name one target destroyed by Al Qaeder, which had no military or economic significance to the enemy. (Exclude Bali and Madrid, which have no direct connections or interest to Al qaeder)
Remember that The WTC held the US stock markets mainframe, closing the stock market for a week resulting in $13 trillion of losses and the US recession and is dated back to that day in 2001. just the continued reminder of civillian causualties is not enough to hide the damage done or the real objective of Bin laden.
Has Sheik laden been consistent in opposition and loyal to his cause? Has he deceived? Or Has only the nationality of his enemy changed?
He is a wealthy man, but has never sought power.
He has lived for twenty years as a freedom fighter.
We know him as a terrorist.
Nelson Mandela or the prime minister of east Timor were also known to us as terrorists, however once their enemies are defeated these demons become human once again.
So Imagine if we held the views of Romans for instance, how would Jesus look to us now?
Should we expect terrorist qualities from our leaders?
Has the wests stated cause and objectives changed in relation to Middle Eastern policy in the last decade? Has the war on terror been expanded to include invasions and occupations forcing a false democratic model around obvious puppet regimes? Is this just an attempt to achieve an empire with public support? Is MY opposition for this farce understandable?
We know Bush was not elected... we know his war was never agreed with by his people or by those within the democracys he represents. This is not a democracy we should export.
Could we support Al Qaeder in our free country in a verbal way?
Does free speech allow us to support his cause in articles here on Indy or in mainstream press?
We know our government lied to us and we know the free press assisted them in these deceptions, but can we be honest with our selves and retract our support for western aggression across the board?NO to war and no to War ON MUslims
Sheik Laden was once the hero of the west, he can be again. Its time to realize what he fights for, now that it is obvious that we do not share such a noble cause.
Thankyou for your time