Paul Rigby
-
Posts
1,740 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Rigby
-
-
Ah, Misrata, you want to talk about Misrata?
While Cynthia didn't visit there, the city was pretty much totally destroyed by a three month seige that has now been broken. During that time, over 200 women have reported they were raped by Gadhafi forces, some in front of their parents, some in events found on the cell phone cameras of the Gadhafi soldiers who were later killed or captured. Gadhafi forces left military documents behind that prove that Gadhafi himself ordered the extermination of the city - and that's your word as well as Gadhafi's, so I suggest you talk to some people from Libya's third largest city before you make any allegations of racism and extermination of races. The documents and testimony from witnesses from Misrata served as the basis for the world court's indictment of Gadhafi this week.
And what about the Belgian nuns, Bill? Really, this is just a compendium of State Department nonsense attempting to justify an oil grab and regime change.
Libya: Unending American HostilityBy William Blum
July 02, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- If I could publicly ask our beloved president one question, it would be this: "Mr. President, in your short time in office you've waged war against six countries — Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. This makes me wonder something. With all due respect: What is wrong with you?"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28453.htm
The American media has done its best to dismiss or ignore Libyan charges that NATO/US missiles have been killing civilians (the people they're supposedly protecting), at least up until the recent bombing "error" that was too blatant to be covered up. But who in the mainstream media has questioned the NATO/US charges that Libya was targeting and "massacring" Libyan civilians a few months ago, which, we've been told, is the reason for the Western powers attacks? Don't look to Al Jazeera for such questioning. The government of Qatar, which owns the station, has a deep-seated animosity toward Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and was itself a leading purveyor of the Libyan "massacre" stories, as well as playing a military role in the war against Tripoli. Al Jazeera's reporting on the subject has been so disgraceful I've stopped looking at the station.
Alain Juppé, Foreign Minister of France, which has been the leading force behind the attacks on Libya, spoke at the Brookings Institution in Washington on June 7. After his talk he was asked a question from the audience by local activist Ken Meyercord:
"An American observer of events in Libya has commented: 'The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent.' That comment was made by Richard Haass, President of our Council on Foreign Relations. If Mr. Haass is right, and he's a fairly knowledgeable fellow, then what NATO has done in Libya is attack a country that wasn't threatening anyone; in other words, aggression. Are you at all concerned that as NATO deals more and more death and destruction on the people of Libya that the International Criminal Court may decide that you and your friends in the Naked Aggression Treaty Organization should be prosecuted rather than Mr. Gaddafi?"
Monsieur Juppé then stated, without attribution, somebody's estimate that 15,000 Libyan civilians had been killed by pro-Gaddafi forces. To which Mr. Meyercord replied: "So where are the 15,000 bodies?" M. Juppé failed to respond to this, although in the tumult caused by the first question, it was not certain that he had heard the second one. (For a counter-view of the Libyan "massacre" stories, see this video.)
It should be noted that, as of June 30, NATO had flown 13,184 air missions (sorties) over Libya, 4,963 of which are described as strike sorties. You can find the latest figures on the Allied Command Operations website.
If any foreign power fired missiles at the United States would Barack Obama regard that as an act of war? If the US firing hundreds of missiles at Libya is not an act of war, as Obama insists (to avoid having to declare war as required by US law), then the deaths resulting from the missile attacks are murder. That's it. It's either war or murder. To the extent there's a difference between the two.
It should be further noted that since Gaddafi came to power in 1969 there has virtually never been a sustained period when the United States has been prepared to treat him and the many positive changes he's instituted in Libya and Africa with any respect. For a history of this hostility, including the continual lies and scare campaigns, see my Libya chapter in Killing Hope.
America and its perpetual quest for love
Why can't we "get some of the people in these downtrodden countries to like us instead of hating us."
– President Dwight D.Eisenhower, in a March,1953 National Security Council Meeting 1
The United States is still wondering, and is no closer to an understanding than Good Ol' Ike was almost 60 years ago. American leaders still believe what Frances Fitzgerald observed in her study of American history textbooks: "According to these books, the United States had been a kind of Salvation Army to the rest of the world: throughout history, it had done little but dispense benefits to poor, ignorant, and diseased countries. ... the United States always acted in a disinterested fashion, always from the highest of motives; it gave, never took." 2
In 2007 I wrote in this report about the US military in Iraq:
I almost feel sorry for them. They're "can-do" Americans, accustomed to getting their way, accustomed to thinking of themselves as the best, and they're frustrated as hell, unable to figure out "why they hate us", why we can't win them over, why we can't at least wipe them out. Don't they want freedom and democracy? ... They're can-do Americans, using good ol' American know-how and Madison Avenue savvy, sales campaigns, public relations, advertising, selling the US brand, just like they do it back home; employing psychologists and anthropologists ... and nothing helps. And how can it if the product you're selling is toxic, inherently, from birth, if you're totally ruining your customers' lives, with no regard for any kind of law or morality, health or environment. They're can-do Americans, accustomed to playing by the rules — theirs; and they're frustrated as hell.
Here now the Google Cavalry rides up on its silver horse. Through its think tank, Google Ideas (or "think/do tank"), the company paid for 80 former Muslim extremists, neo-Nazis, U.S. gang members and other former radicals to gather in Dublin June 26-28 ("Summit Against Violent Extremism", or SAVE) to explore how technology can play a role in "de-radicalization" efforts around the globe. Now is that not Can-do ambitious?
The "formers," as they have been dubbed by Google, will be surrounded by 120 thinkers, activists, philanthropists and business leaders. The goal is to dissect the question of what draws some people, particularly young people, to extremist movements and why some of them leave.
The person in charge of this project is Jared Cohen, who spent four years on the State Department's Policy Planning staff, and is soon to be an adjunct fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), focusing on counter-radicalization, innovation, technology, and statecraft. 3
So ... it's "violent extremism" that's the big mystery, the target for all these intellectuals to figure out. ... Why does violent extremism attract so many young people all over the world? Or, of more importance probably to the State Department and CFR types: Why do violent extremists single out the United States as their target of choice?
Readers of this report do not need to be enlightened as to the latter question. There is simply an abundance of terrible things US foreign policy has done in every corner of the world. As to what attracts young people to violent extremism, consider this: What makes a million young Americans willing to travel to places like Afghanistan and Iraq to risk their life and limbs to kill other young people, who have never done them any harm, and to commit unspeakable atrocities and tortures?
Is this not extreme behavior? Can these young Americans not be called "extremists" or "radicals"? Are they not violent? Do the Google experts understand their behavior? If not, how will they ever understand the foreign Muslim extremists? Are the experts prepared to examine the underlying phenomenon — the deep-seated belief in "American exceptionalism" drilled into every cell and nerve ganglion of American consciousness from pre-kindergarten on? Do the esteemed experts then have to wonder about those who believe in "Muslim exceptionalism"?
-
We go to Tripolito rejoin the continuing American Revolution.
By William E. Kelly, Jr.
I see the parallel at once - both uprisings were a disaster for black people:
Ethnic Cleansing of Black LibyansRebels, with the help of NATO bombs and missiles, drove out Misrata's Black population
Global Research, June 26, 2011
Black Star News - 2011-06-21
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25400
The "rebels" in Misrata in Libya have driven out the entire Black population of the city, according to a chilling story in The Wall Street Journal today under the headline Libya City Torn by Tribal Feud."
The "rebels" now eye the city of Tawergha, 25 miles away, and vow to cleanse it of all Black people once they seize the city. Isn't this the perfect definition of the term "genocide"?
Racial exterminism - as American as apple pie:
North Carolina's reparation for the dark past of American eugenicsNorth Carolina's compensation to victims of forced sterilisation is a chance to illuminate a gruesome US tradition of racial 'science'
By Edwin Black, 28 June 2011
Oil magnate John D Rockefeller, in 1930. Millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as from steel magnate Andrew Carnegie and the railroad fortune of the Harrimans, funded racial 'science' eugenics programmes in the US and Nazi Germany.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/28/north-carolina-forced-sterilization
Hitler's race hate debt to America
The Nazis' extermination programme was carried out in the name of eugenics. Edwin Black in an extract from his new book describes how Adolf Hitler's ideas were shaped by American eugenicists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/feb/12/guardianweekly.guardianweekly11
-
I think with Chomsky--Mr. Cambodia Holocaust Denier--its different.
As it is with Cockburn. See, these guys are structuralists.
That's a smokescreen - they're nothing of the sort: They're intellectual secret policeman, working to channel dissent among the thoughtful and the politically active in directions either helpful or unthreatening to the deep state in general, and the CIA in particular.
The point is easy to prove. A genuine structuralist would examine the CIA as a power system and institution, precisely as he (or she) would any other: Chomsky runs a mile from doing any such thing, most notably in Rethinking Camelot, which, stripped of its rhetorical veneer of New Leftism - and a very thin layer it is, too, in this instance - is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hack-work yet committed to paper. Much of it is laughably contradictory, as Donald Gibson showed in The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (NY: Kroshka Books, 2000), most notably in his chapter "Establishment Radicals and Kennedy: Lamont, Chomsky, and Russell" (pp.203-223). What they were really up to is this:
These three men together established a two-fold strategy: first, discredit and misrepresent Kennedy; and second, misdirect the investigation of his assassination (Ibid.,p.222).What sustains them is a Foundation- and CIA-funded pseudo-Left, an echo chamber (based largely in British and US universities), and a control of the "alternative" media every bit as rigid and suffocating as that which pertains in its nominal opposite, the mainstream. Amy Goodman would no more permit a thorough-going critique of Chomsky's services to Langley - which funded him in his research endeavours - than NBC would give 9/11 dissidence a platform.
Calling them "structuralist" is not merely to reproduce their own preening propaganda, but to miss the point entirely.
-
No wonder Counterpunch never runs out of money...
Joe McCarthy's Boy Wonder: Bobby Kennedy Was No HeroBy DAVID MACARAY
http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray06272011.html
It’s a mystery why John F. Kennedy is still regarded as the family moderate—cautious, pragmatic, shrewd and calculating—while brother Bobby gets to be portrayed as the impetuous, left-leaning, idealistic humanitarian. It’s a mystery because even a cursory examination of history reveals that that wasn’t Bobby.
For openers, Bobby Kennedy was about as “leftist” as Douglas MacArthur. In truth, he, like his brother John, was a shrieking anti-Communist. The Kennedys were not only Cold Warriors, they were fairly paranoid about it—confusing progressivism with Bolshevism—which is why they believed, ludicrously, that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist, and is why they (John as president and Bobby as Attorney General) had King’s telephone tapped.
How much of an anti-Communist was Bobby Kennedy? Consider: During the early 1950s Bobby served as an aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy. Yes, that Joseph McCarthy. His witch-hunting senate committee ruined the careers of scores of Americans through the use of smears and innuendo. It’s a fact. Bobby (“Don’t get mad….get even”) Kennedy was Joe McCarthy’s boy.
It was only after family patriarch, Joe Kennedy, advised his son to jump off the McCarthy bandwagon (alas, “Tail-Gunner Joe” had become an embarrassment, having degenerated into a clownish, alcoholic demagogue) that Bobby sought a new vocation. It was only after Papa Joe urged him to abandon Commie-hunting and focus on another bogy man that Bobby Kennedy decided to make America’s labor unions his next victim.
Obviously, there were many corruption targets to choose from. He could have gone after Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, defense fraud, payola in the record industry, etc., but because Joe Kennedy had no ties, no loyalties, no connections of any kind to the working class—indeed, he held the common working man in contempt—organized labor became Bobby’s new whipping boy. Best to leave those well-groomed gentlemen in the three-piece suits alone, and go after the guys in the watchmen’s caps and mackinaws.
As for Bobby’s celebrated social conscience, that’s another exaggeration. In his award-winning history of the CIA (“Legacy of Ashes”), Tim Weiner reports that it was Bobby himself who spearheaded the plan to murder Fidel Castro. It was Bobby Kennedy who not only initiated the assassination plot, but who—following one ignominious failure after another—flogged the hare-brained operation to keep it going. After all, he was the president’s brother. Who was going to tell him to back off?
All those conspiracies—the exploding cigars, the LSD-laced coffee, the chemical additives to cause Fidel’s beard to fall out (!), bribing trusted Castro associates to poison him, hiring out-of-town Mafia hitmen to murder him outright—those were all sanctioned by Bobby.
Based on documents released via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), as well as material gleaned from numerous first-person interviews (“Legacy of Ashes” has 150 pages of notes), Weiner made the case that Bobby Kennedy was obsessed with killing Fidel Castro, that he ate, drank and breathed Castro assassination fantasies.
It’s also been documented that Bobby Kennedy bullied Lyndon Johnson into continuing the Vietnam war. According to Doris Kearns Goodwin (in “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream”), Bobby insisted to LBJ that President Kennedy would have done everything in his power to keep Southeast Asia from falling to the Communists, and that it was therefore incumbent upon Johnson to honor his dead brother’s legacy by not abandoning the war. He pressured LBJ to remain in Vietnam, arguing that pulling out would be the act of a coward and traitor.
It was only after the Vietnam war had become toxically unpopular and been deemed unwinnable that Bobby, who was now seeking the 1968 presidential nomination, reversed his position and declared himself America’s “peace candidate,” harshly criticizing Johnson for his hawkishness. So much for Bobby’s principles….and so much for Brother John’s “legacy.”
While Bobby Kennedy obviously had some good qualities, it’s a mistake to regard him as heroic—as a combination of Mahatma Gandhi, Cesar Chavez and Che Guevara. Bobby was no hero. He was a hardboiled player. If we insist on making comparisons, he was a combination of Lee Atwater, John Gotti and Henry Kissinger.
David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright, is the author of “It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor”. He served 9 terms as president of AWPPW Local 672. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net
Self-satire: the last refuge of the pseudo-Left
-
We go to Tripolito rejoin the continuing American Revolution.
By William E. Kelly, Jr.
I see the parallel at once - both uprisings were a disaster for black people:
Ethnic Cleansing of Black LibyansRebels, with the help of NATO bombs and missiles, drove out Misrata's Black population
Global Research, June 26, 2011
Black Star News - 2011-06-21
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25400
The "rebels" in Misrata in Libya have driven out the entire Black population of the city, according to a chilling story in The Wall Street Journal today under the headline Libya City Torn by Tribal Feud."
The "rebels" now eye the city of Tawergha, 25 miles away, and vow to cleanse it of all Black people once they seize the city. Isn't this the perfect definition of the term "genocide"?
According to The Journal's article, the "rebels" refer to themselves as "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin." The Journal quotes a rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous saying, of Black Libyans, "They should pack up," and that "Tawergha no longer exists, only Mistrata."
You won't read this kind of article in The New York Times, which has become as journalistically corrupt and as compromised as the old PRAVDA, during the Soviet era. This editorial page has been insisting since the beginning of the Libya conflict that the "rebels" embraced racism and used the allegation that Muammar al-Quathafi had employed mercenaries from other African countries as a pretext to massacre Black Libyans.
The evidence of public lynching of Black people are readily available online through simple Google or YouTube searches, even though The New York Times has completely ignored this major story. Does anyone believe that if people of African descent controlled the editorials in The New York Times or even the news pages that such a huge and damning story would be ignored?
If the case were reversed and Black Libyans were committing ethnic cleansing against non-Black Libyans, does anyone believe that the people who now control the editorials or the news pages at The New York Times would ignore such a story? Evidently, it doesn't much bother the sages at The Times that Black Libyans and specifically being targeted for liquidation because of their skin color.
Instead The New York Times is busy, as in a recent editorial boasting of its support for NATO's bombing campaign, which this week alone is reported to have killed 20 civilians. The Times has also ignored Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s call that the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigate NATO commanders on possible war crimes in connection to Libyan civilians killed.
The Times can't write about the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans and migrants from other African countries because it would diminish the reputation of the "rebels" who the Times have fully embraced, even after the ICC also reported that they too have committed war crimes. Instead, The Times is comfortable with the simplistic narrative: "al-Quathafi bad," and "rebels good," regardless of the fact that The Wall Street Journal also reported that the rebels are being trained by former al-Qaeda leaders who were released from U.S. custody on Guantanamo Bay.
The Times also has totally ignored the African Union (AU) peace plan, which actually calls for a ceasefire, negotiations for a constitution, and democratic elections, all to be monitored by the International community.
So what can one say about the Times for ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans by the "rebels" in Mistrata, with the help of NATO? Does this make The New York Times culpable of the ethnic cleansing, since the newspaper not only deliberately ignores the story, but also falsely depicts the "rebels" as Libya's saviors?
Call The New York Times at (212) 556-1234 and ask for the Foreign Desk editor--ask him why his newspaper is not reporting on the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
-
Obama used the same Grant Park as his staging area for public support when he ran and won the presidency
Bill Kelly
A modest proposal for an Obomber re-election speech:
"I have spoken of a thousand points of darkness, of all the agencies of our own and client states, that are spread throughout the world, doing subversion. We will work hand-in-Tweet, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding those who betray and torture their own people. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the darker points of night, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: lies, assassination, mass murder, and a treachery that finds its expression in opening a bank account in the Bahamas under a false name."With apologies to Peggy Noonan, a truly great satirist.
-
... today, there is a very decisive youthful element in the Arab revolt that is sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, successfully ousting two dictators in Tunisia and Egypt and with other tyrants on the ropes in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and possibly Iran. Women and young men in Saudi Arabia are now doing radical, revolutionary things - like women driving cars and young men attempting to enter shopping malls that previously banned young people.
You may be able to say that McCarthy was supported by liberal CIA officers, and to some extent they helped affect his candidacy, you can't say the same about the Arab revolutions, which appear to lack any central leader and are being organized by young men and women who are taking revolution more seriously than we did back in 1968.
Bill Kelly
Al Jazeera small ad:
"Wanted - Middle-eastern lesbians, computer literate - must have beard, testicles, PhD in something vaguely relevant, US passport, and a Swiss bank account. Ring Langley after 0130hrs EST. Ask for Mr Bishop."http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/14/second-lesbian-blogger-exposed-paula-brooks
Some antidotes to Bill's nonsense:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/fake-revolutions.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/11/libya
http://www.voltairenet.org/The-plan-to-destabilize-Syria
http://tarpley.net/2011/06/20/cia-fake-arab-spring-becoming-summer-of-war/
The Revolution Business:
-
McCarthy's showing in New Hampshire swelled the ranks of young students who thought they could affect the end of the Vietnam war through the democratic process, and learning othewise.
Just how naive so many students were - and, in the current moment in North Africa and elsewhere, remain - is clear:
One of those involved with founding the SDS, James Kunen, writes in his memoir The Strawberry Statement that Big Business sought to channel funds to the SDS as part of a dialectical process:In the evening I went up to the University to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS convention. He said that at the convention men from Business International Roundtables, the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government —tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.They agree with us on black control and student control…
They want McCarthy in.[28] They see fascism as the threat, see it coming from Wallace.[29] The only way McCarthy could win is if the crazies and young radicals act up and make Gene look more reasonable. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago.
We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the centre as they move to the left.[30]
This Big Business dialectic with the New Left is confirmed independently by Gerald Kirk, who as a student at the University of Chicago, and became active in the SDS, the DuBois Club,[31] the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party, as an informant for the FBI. Kirk broke from the Left in 1969. The following year, he testified before the House and Senate Internal Security panels:
Young people have no conception of the conspiracy’s strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below…. They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they’re fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realise that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes…[32]Twitterers of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left
by Dr. K R Bolton, February 28, 2011
[28] Left-liberal Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy.
[29] Conservative Southern Democratic presidential candidate George Wallace.
[30] James Kunen The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, (New York: Avon, 1970), “At the convention, Men from Business International Roundtables,” pp. 130–131.
[31] A Communist Party front named after Afro-American scholar W E B DuBois.
[32] “Investigation of SDS 1969,” Committee on Internal Security, 91st Congress, 1st Session, Pt. 5, pp. 1654-1705 of hearings.
-
Burnham and Rigby clearly demonstrate that they are blinded by bias.
I cheerfully confess to antecedent bias: I harbour a deeply-rooted objection to having my reading matter determined by an egomaniacal American. If I wanted the latter, I'd buy a Murdoch organ each morning.
Lifton’s thread touched on the assassination as much 9/11 and the moon landings. Fetzer’s replies dealt exclusively with 9/11.As for this thread unless I’m mistaken it was posted here, not move by a moderator.You are mistaken. Scully's boastful confession of responsibility is cunningly hidden from you in an obscure section of the JFK site, under the thoroughly misleading title of Moderator actions and guide for mods: How to move posts to a new thread. Post 82 in that drear list of interventions runs as follows:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14562&view=findpost&p=229181
Moved thread titled, "CONSPIRACY THEORY by Paul Craig RobertsRedefining the concept to equal irrational beliefs"
http://educationforu...showtopic=17857 to the forum titled, "Political Conspiracies A section for non-JFK conspiracies."
Gonna keep on moving OT threads out of JFK Debate forum because there are more appropriate places on the Education Forum to move them to, and because Evan will one day grow weary enough from the effects of being attacked personally by the authors of OT threads to cede the chore of moving such threads, to other members of the moderation team.
I have to learn to "take the punches" in reaction to moderating actions like this one, so have at it. I had no communication with Evan related to moving the thread described above.
I particularly enjoyed a) the attempt to cloak a petty and unjustified act of censorship in the uniform of heroic and disinterested self-sacrifice; and
the language of the Western, as Scully describes his activity in language better suited to the movement of steers, not intelligent contributions to an interesting topic.The notion that Roberts’ essay was relevant to the assassination is risible only 39 of its 1135 words (3.5%) referred to it.That's 39 words more than you've managed, and 4% more than a good many posters, all of whose posts have gone unmolested. If the Scully criterion - "No historical context or parallels, please, we're researchers" - were to be applied consistently, we'd presumably be obliged to ignore the passages in, for example, Thomas Buchanan's book wherein he looks back at previous presidential assassinations and demonstrates the prevalence & continuity of political motivation.
I'm also curious to establish whether or not you are the same Len Colby who objected to the same moderator's act of censorship in shutting down Todd Vaughn's thread concerning DiEugenio's somewhat startling knowledge of the former's acquisition of unpublished Weisberg manuscripts?
Or is it just the case that censorship is fine when it suits?
Do tell.
-
The issue being discussed was NOT necessarily whether or not 9/11 has been accurately reported per se. The equally significant issue is the common dismissal of both JFK conspiracy research and 9/11 conspiracy research by the MSM. Such research is relegated to the more obscure means of communication; to the less visible, less accessible, and less exposed outlets.
The irony of Mr. Scully's having unwittingly mimicked the very activity originally being cited and criticized in the original article is perhaps on topic, after all. He proved its validity in perhaps the most graphic fashion possible.
Thank you, Tom Scully, for making the author's point for him. By demonstrating that such suppresive activity is indeed rampant, even where least expected, you have shown that the author's concern was spot on.
An excellent post, with a number of nails hit firmly on the head. I would only dissent to this degree: Scully is a lethal combination of hyperactivity and inconsistency. That's fine as a poster, but not as a moderator. More, this was such a blatantly unfair action as to pose profound questions as to his agenda. If I could only read his extraordinary genealogical posts more easily, I would have some idea what, if any, that is.
-
Your opinion, Paul, and not supported by his actions on this board. It's just another example of when a moderator does something that some people don't like, some people decide that the moderator is "unsuitable" or "abuses their position". Perhaps some people should read the guidelines and try to adhere to them.
No , it isn't, Evan. As Greg Burnham rightly pointed out, Scully's decision to move Fetzer's posting was a) without justification (as it was germane to the subject of JFK); 2) brazenly hypocritical (given his non-action over Lifton's thread attacking Fetzer on the subject of 9/11; and 3) motivated, given 1), by (a) motive(s) not intrinsic to the piece itself, and thus ulterior.
Loyalty to a fellow-moderator possesses merit only when criticism is without foundation. In this case, Scully's action was inexcusable. I note that your own antipathy to Fetzer and his take on 9/11 is itself well-attested. Is this colouring your view?
Now, how about a response of substance: why was Fetzer's thread moved? Or is arbitrary and unaccountable moderation the new order of the day?
-
It is fascinating to note the "censorship" by disassociation taking place even on this forum. The 9/11 topic not only intersects the JFK topic, indeed it runs parallel to it!
The same forces that control the dissemination of information about the JFK assassination by suppression of it are responsible for the suppression of opposing views being reported by the main stream media regarding 9/11.
No matter what side of this fence you find yourself, it should be a BIG RED FLAG that discussion of the subject is censored...oh, pardon me, I meant to say "moderated" -- poppy-cock!
Where were you Tom Scully when Lifton started an ill advised Fetzer bashing in the JFK forum because of Fetzer's work on 9/11???
Where? Why was Fetzer's response moved to a different thread, but Lifton's entire thread remains in place--OFF TOPIC?
I have had enough of this.
Scully is manifestly unsuited to be a moderator. He should resign at once.
-
Since we don't see it on film, Yarborough was probably smoking pot when he described what happened. (Sarcasm intended)chris
There must have been quite a bit of that sort of thing going on that day, Chris - and I thought Texas was a conservative sort of place:
1) Earl Cabell: “No; we couldn't tell. We could tell, of course, there was confusion in the presidential car--activity. The Secret Service men ran to that car,” 7WCH479.2) James Chaney and other unnamed Dallas officers, as related by fellow motorcycle outrider, Marrion L. Baker: “I talked to Jim Chaney…during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get into the car…from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped…I heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly he was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely,” 3WCH265.
3) Norman Similas: “I swung back to look at the car. A Secret Service man ran up with his gun drawn…The Secret Service man opened the car door and I saw the President slumped down to the floor…,” Source: “‘I saw president fall’ – Willowdale man,” Toronto Daily Star, (All Star Night edition), Friday, 22 November 1963, pp.1&13
4) Robert Baskin: “The motorcade ground to a halt. There was a good deal of activity round the President’s car, with Secret Service men running about,” “Day Began As Auspiciously As Any in Kennedy’s Career,” The Dallas Morning News, 23 November 1963, p.2
5) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale (one of two rear mid-motorcade motorcycles): "After the shots were fired, the whole motorcade came to a stop. I stood and looked through the plaza, noticed there was commotion, and saw people running around his [JFK's] car. It started to move, then it slowed again; that's when I saw Mrs. Kennedy coming back on the trunk and another guy [Clint Hill] pushing her back into the car," Larry Sneed. No More Silence (1998), p. 134
-
From what I've read in Speer's work, he believes a silencer was used in the assassination. Would you care mentioning any WC lawyer who came close to raising that possibility? Which WC lawyer believed in a shot after frame 312? Which WC lawyer believed the bag in the archives is not the original? Which WC lawyer believes Howard Hughes financed the assassination? Which WC lawyer believed in a shot from the DalTex building and a shot (or diversionary firecracker) from behind the arcade area?
Good Lord, with one honourable exception*, what a far-out mish-mash. It's like Mae Brussel on acid.
Those are all positions held by Pat Speer.I know. Embarrassing, isn't it? Thank goodness for the sober common sense of the in-car shootists.
*CIA used a smoke-bomb as a distractor in the Audubon Ballroom on 21 Feb 1965.
-
Senator Ralph Yarborough sat the on the back seat behind the driver of the Vice-Presidential car. (7-10-64 affidavit, 7H439-440) “as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by….When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot…) a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up…" (Interview with Jim Marrs published in Crossfire, 1989) "I thought 'Was that a bomb thrown?" and then the other shots were fired. And the motorcade, which had slowed to a stop, took off." (1-18-92 Interview with Deborah and Gerald Strober, published in Let us Begin Anew, 1993) "The third one caused my confusion there. Immediately after the first shot the motorcade slowed up--slowed up to just nearly a walk. I thought it stopped. And I could smell smoke--gunsmoke --'cause it's coming down from that rifle right over us; we were in the back seat, behind it, that second shot, then it came. It was just like counting: one, two, three. I thought: My goodness. Was there a bomb? What's that smoke up there? And what are they stopping for?"
Sen. Yarborough's recollections? Let's be really daring, shall we, Pat - and try published stuff from November 1963?
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/2011/05/senator-yardborough-saw-driver-shoot.html#links
I loved this bit:
“The third shot he heard might have been a Secret Service man returning the fire, he said”Almost as much as I liked this earlier line:
"You could smell powder on our car all the way here to the hospital"Source: Carleton Kent, “Sen. Yarborough Terms It ‘A Deed of Horror,’” Chicago Sun-Times, 23 November 1963, p.14
No wonder you omitted this cutting from your list. Still, no excuses now, eh?
Paul
-
If memory serves correctly, there's a good feature on this in one of the books Jim Fetzer edited. I don't remember though if it was Assassination Science or Murder in Dealey Plaza though. I think the article was written by Vince Palamara but I might be wrong about that.
It seems to me that to use the Z film to say that the limo did not stop, is begging the question. It's been claimed that the fact that the film does not show the stop is one of the reasons to suspect its authenticity.
David Lifton mentioned this in his presentation to the Zapruder film alteration symposium in Duluth in 2003.
I wouldn't take the usual suspects too seriously, Martin. It's not exactly a secret what they're about: Scratch an anti-alterationist, and you tend to find a Warren Commission lawyer at work:
Apparently the witnesses were mistaken in remembering that the car stopped; motion pictures, according to the Commission, contradicted them. Yet it seems clear from the way counsel led witnesses that the Commission had considerable resistance to inferences which might be drawn from evidence that the car had stopped at the first shot. “Stopped” was transformed into “seemed to stop” and then “into slowed down.” Such leading of witnesses, which would have been challenged in a courtroom, was facilitated by the Commission’s closed hearings…The films of the assassination have not been released for public showing, although it is possible to see the most important one, the Zapruder film…at the National Archives. That film does not seem to support the witnesses who said that the car stopped dead. This being so, it is baffling that counsel conducted the questioning somewhat improperly and why the Report presents this evidence with some lack of impartiality…
Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.4-5.
Know them by their lineage.
-
Good for you, Paul. The brain of Southport returns to tell us that Kennedy died from a hail of bullets fired from inside the limousine, yes?
So, because Clarke says he did it then it's true? Bowron said she cleaned his back and saw the wound. Each forum member can take their pick. They ain't both right are they? One is lying or severely mistaken.
I dare not mention Clint Hill should I, Paul? He was in on it, right?...
...Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all.
For the most part, it's all pretty predictable fair. In fact, a typical Farley post, commingling, as it does, aggressive self-pity, tawdry logic, and self-satire - all suffused with that characteristic ill-suppressed hysteria. But then things take a turn for the better. Among the detritus of the the following paragraph, a sentence, highlighted, commands attention:
What I said is not what you say I said. Is it? Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all.The highlighted sentence is so clunkingly sub-tabloid that it just had to be the work of, not Farley, but DisIngenuous*.
All of which begs the inevitable question: how much of the rest of this, and other posts, ostensibly by Farley, are actually the work of DisIngenuous? And is this an isolated instance of DisIngenuous sock-puppetry? Keep your eyes peeled, folks, and perhaps also the ears: some of those Black Op emails to Jimbo are frightfully sycophantic.
*“That quote he uses does not mean what he takes it to mean,”
DisIngenuous, 6 Nov 2008
"You really might want to not stop taking your medication."
Thanks for the "clunky" feedback. My clunkometer was damaged when my spine fell out of my back whilst laughing at how somebody like you wields their own incredible intelligence with hands made out of stupid.
I think you may have had a hard day at the "Office of Writing Contractual Terms and Conditions." Have a night off, Paul.
Even when you do dispense with the thesaurus puking, I still have absolutely no idea what you're prattling on about.
P.S. Is everyone cool with members accusing other members of being other people and using pseudonyms?
Cool.
Because you Paul, you're a ringer for that Gollum bloke from The Lord of the Rings.
You're not what one would call naturally witty, are you?
Nighty-night, er, Jimbo.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15252&view=findpost&p=198588What we are witnessing is a co-ordinated attempt, by a ramified network under central direction, to restore JFK assassination research to the prelapsarian age of Thompsonian imagining – one in which body- and film-alteration never happened, and Kennedy’s Secret Service detail was a bit hung-over and a tad remiss on November 22.
Prophetic, indeed.
-
Good for you, Paul. The brain of Southport returns to tell us that Kennedy died from a hail of bullets fired from inside the limousine, yes?
So, because Clarke says he did it then it's true? Bowron said she cleaned his back and saw the wound. Each forum member can take their pick. They ain't both right are they? One is lying or severely mistaken.
I dare not mention Clint Hill should I, Paul? He was in on it, right?...
...Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all.
For the most part, it's all pretty predictable fair. In fact, a typical Farley post, commingling, as it does, aggressive self-pity, tawdry logic, and self-satire - all suffused with that characteristic ill-suppressed hysteria. But then things take a turn for the better. Among the detritus of the the following paragraph, a sentence, highlighted, commands attention:
What I said is not what you say I said. Is it? Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all.The highlighted sentence is so clunkingly sub-tabloid that it just had to be the work of, not Farley, but DisIngenuous*.
All of which begs the inevitable question: how much of the rest of this, and other posts, ostensibly by Farley, are actually the work of DisIngenuous? And is this an isolated instance of DisIngenuous sock-puppetry? Keep your eyes peeled, folks, and perhaps also the ears: some of those Black Op emails to Jimbo are frightfully sycophantic.
*“That quote he uses does not mean what he takes it to mean,”
DisIngenuous, 6 Nov 2008
-
In another thread, Pat Speer asked:
"Why in the heck would "they" make a "fraudulent transcript" that disproved the WC's claims Perry never claimed the throat wound was an entrance, and then hide it away for many years? If it was fraudulent, wouldn't the WC have made it an exhibit?"Question 1 assumes the compilers of 1327C were concerned with protecting the WC. In fact, the purpose of the publication of the 26 volumes was to destroy the former. The very act of detailing the evidentiary base from which the conclusions ostensibly derived was to expose them as an absurd non-sequitur.
Question 2 assumes 1327C was written in time for publication in the 26 volumes. I'm not convinced, for the success or failure of 1327C rested in considerable measure on the passage of time, both in distancing the fraudulent 1327C from memories of the Kilduff press conference which proceeded it; and in finalising the content of the recast fake Z-film.
So why manufacture it all?
In part, it was designed to negate the enduring suspicion which inevitably attended the "disappearance" of all film and sound recordings of the Parkland doctors' first, untainted descriptions of the wounds. It sought to turn this act of negation to advantage, in the classic CIA manner, by conceding ground (on the throat wound) even as it continued the suppression of Perry's initial location of the head entrance wound.
The first sustained attempt at negation came from CBS as early as 1967.
In conceding the throat wound as entrance, 1327C offered opponents of the official fiction a useful and desperately desired fillip, and a degree of vindication: But in suppressing the true nature of Perry's first description of the location of the head wound, it did nothing to challenge the grip exerted upon those same opponents by the CIA's primary weapon of ambiguity, the second version of the Z-fake. An accurate rendition of Perry's first and authentic testimony would have exposed as fabricated the fake's depiction of the exploding upper right side of Kennedy's head.
Just how glaringly obvious is the fraudulence of the transcript? This obvious:
At just after half-one CST, the president's official (albeit acting) press secretary, citing the president's official physician, informs the assembled journos that it is a simple matter of a bullet through the brain. A bullet, moreover, which entered the (right) temple.
A mere half hour latter - at most generous - more or less the same group of reporters find nothing remotely odd about about wound descriptions which make no mention of an entrance wound in the location specified by Kilduff,citing Burkley. Not one of them. This is not remotely plausible.
Better yet, the one (AP) despatch which does incur the wrath of the cover-up's defenders - most notably Manchester - just happens to be precisely the despatch in which we find consistency & congruence between the Kilduff location, and that provided by original,authentic Perry testimony: the front of the head. That's a striking coincidence.
-
Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination: Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December 1964 ( The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 [Pamphlet, 32pp]).
This is what we use as source material now?
An extemporaneous lecture?
Beats the hell out of the absurd official transcript of the press conference, for sure.
From defending the fake film to defending the fraudulent transcript - what a fearless opponent of the cover-up you are!
-
It's understandable to me that none of the Doctors at Parkland saw it because why bother looking when a large portion of the President's head is missing?
Er, is that so?
The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments…Dr. Clark said: “I examined the President’s back”, but thereafter when it was pointed out that there was a wound in the back, he said: “Well, I didn’t turn him over”, but on November 22nd he said: “I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.”Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination: Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December 1964 ( The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 [Pamphlet, 32pp]).
This is what this forum and this case is like. It doesn't matter what you put forward someone will be waiting to club you around the head before the sentence has fallen from your lips.Yup, particularly when you're so obviously wrong. But I have enjoyed both the amateur psychologizing and your repeated insistence that you have no interest in the medical evidence. The more frequently you repeat it, the more I believe it. Honest.
-
Bump in response to David Lifton's attempt to sell a patently censored news archive as the definitive word on who said what and when at Parkland on November 22.
-
As we've seen, the Newmans and Zapruder, standing on Kennedy's right side, all thought the bullet struck Kennedy on the right side of his head, by his right temple. But they weren't the only witnesses on the right side of Kennedy to note an impact on the side of his head.
The above is better than the below? Really?
i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]
iii) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]
iv) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.]
It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound.
Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa).
Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat?
-
Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?
I can't wait for Pat's explanation of how Chaney managed to get sufficiently ahead of Kennedy to turn round and see the latter shot in the face - while managing to elude the cameras of Z et al. Did he become invisible, Pat, or are the films a fake?
And speaking of Z's testimony before the cameras of WFAA, whatever happened to his statement that he filmed the presidential limo making the turn from Houston onto Elm?
A cynic could begin to conclude that your arguments are not merely contradictory and perverse, but plain dishonest. And that would be a pity, I'm sure.
the language of the Western, as Scully describes his activity in language better suited to the movement of steers, not intelligent contributions to an interesting topic.
Kill Gadaffi
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
Explains quite a bit, all things considered, Bill, not least your standards of "proof" and "evidence":
Goodness, that's compelling.
I wonder what the excuse was when the CIA helped the Guatemalan military and its death squads eradicate several hundred Mayan villages - and many of their occupants - in Guatemala?
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/peten.htm
The human rights of the land owners had been violated, perhaps?