Len Colby Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Amazing that the FSA could get so close Syrian military post and attack Turkey without being noticed by the army, // END COLBY GEE IF THE COMMAND STAFF OF TURKISH ARMY IS WORKING WITH FSA < THEN FINDING RIGHT SPOT FOR FALSE FLAG VERY EASY !!!!!!! So do you think the attack really originated in Turkey or that the Turkish Army could help the the FSA shell across the boarder from Syria close to the Syrian Army without being detected by the latter? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Saudi deputy finance minister at the time and bore responsibility for providing money for the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence-building program. undisputed // USA WORING WITH MB in that time frame. “ undisputed” try 'undocumented', how is this relevant to the claim “ the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia”? researcher John Loftus, “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Dr Abdullah Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” [15] LOFTUS IS CREDIBLE TO ME Of course “Loftus is credible to [you]” he's telling you what you want to hear. He did not cite any sources. Do you agree with his thesis that the CIA, MI6 and other Western intelligence agencies have been engaged in a decades long “secret war” against the Jewish state? From Wikipedia: “On August 7, 2005, he provided the United States address of an alleged terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. Only afterwards was it revealed that Hilal had left the address three years previously and the home was now owned by a family, which was then subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection as a result of Loftus' words.[5] Fox terminated Loftus's contract to commentate after the event.[6] Loftus said "I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist," but he did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner” John Loftus has come under fire from former representatives of the International Holocaust Education Center, who are concerned about him using the organization's tax-exempt status improperly to promote his intelligence activities. The St. Petersburg Times noted that "Walter Loebenberg, who founded the Holocaust education center and approved of turning the name over to Loftus in 2005 because of his high regard for him, says that he knew Loftus was doing intelligence work at the time. 'But ... we agreed he would change the name if he did his intelligence work under the name of the Holocaust education center. It has gone farther than we expected,' said Loebenberg. 'We never would have organized or sponsored an intelligence conference.'" An IRS spokesperson explained the impropriety: "If a tax-exempt charitable organization changes the name, the purpose or the structure, it must let IRS know by corresponding with us. And, it must remain neutral and nonpartisan."[2] Loftus has also been criticized for listing sponsors of the Summit who never consented to being so listed, including <a href="file:///wiki/Konica_Minolta">Konica Minolta and Florida Holocaust Museum board member Bruce Epstein.[2] He also pals around with a guy tied to the Russian mafia. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And you have yet to give a legitimate reason why Syria would not allowed it before the civil war. // END COLBY GOLLY RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT QATAR'S SUPER-AMOUNT OF GAS IN EUROPEAN MARKET...ASSAD OBEYED ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So “Russia does not want Qatar’s super-amount of gas in European market” but has no problem with Iran supplying gas from the same “super” field? How much more expensive would be to ship it directly from Qatar to Europe than pumping it from Qatar to Syria and shipping from there after the cost of building and operating the pipeline and paying transit fees to three countries? According to your favorite source Syria actually has more gas than Qatar, this would make the pipeline irrelevant. Sooooooo you found in MSM oil pipeline geopolitical analysis RE SYRIA ?? I ASSERT above ALMOST ZERO but the real main motivation for USA Syrian actions. Perhaps because there is about zero credible evidence it is a factor? So you think the US and Europe are doing this for Qatar, talk about the tail wagging thr dog! The Iranian pipeline only got the green light well after the civil war broke out, cause has to precede effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) So you think the US and Europe are doing this for Qatar, talk about the tail wagging thr dog! //COLBY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Who said US/Europe doing this for Qatar ?? Its one hand washing another with the circulation around and around of ye old petrodollars. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How much more expensive would be to ship it directly from Qatar to Europe than pumping it from Qatar to Syria and shipping from there after the cost of building and operating the pipeline and paying transit fees to three countries? // COLBY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Still a little more ,but there is more than pipeline here (but still energy orientated issue). ======================================================= So “Russia does not want Qatar’s super-amount of gas in European market” but has no problem with Iran supplying gas from the same “super” field? // COLBY ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ YUP u got it in one. Russia can modulate/moderate Iran. Qatar will do bidding of West and flow gas to max. Flow gas to max ,why ? ANSWER ::::: NOW GOAL IS TO REDUCE RUSSIA'S IMPORTANCE AS SUPPLIER OF ENERGY = WEAKEN RUSSIA (to create political climate (BAD ECONOMY) to elect pro-west Russian after Putin. Libya helping out flow to Europe also. Libya was considering to work in China to its energy mix and thats not with the isolate Russia RE energy plan. Take over Russia ,bribe India (and thats complex,but can be done). NOW Whats left ?? CHINA , ISOLATED CHINA . Make a deal with China re DEPOPULATION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER HAS ARRIVED. NO GREAT DEPOPULATION UNLESS CHINA ON BOARD.......what elites want as I have stated....... Syria is just a square on the great game chess board of world domination in secret by a federation of banks,as Carroll Quigley has stated. The banking elite think nationalism is a small minded disease and that they should rule....... +++++++++++++++ POSTED OCT 03,2012 by GAAL Posted by Steven Gaal on 03 October 2012 - 10:48 PM in Political Conspiracies IMHO Depopulation wont occur until a Western elite quisling is in place in Russia 2) India leadership is bribed / bought off to quisling status and 3) a secret deal is made with the Chinese leaders for depopulation. Said changes: Russia 2024 to 2030,India 2030 to 2036 and China 2036 to 2040. Depopulation wont occur until at least the 2037 to 2041. IMHO. Depopulation as an idea forms a contextual basis for issues such as : sterilizing people / killing people /centralization (Agenda 21) / decreasing their reproduction potentiality (economic restraints/illness). Thus what makes people sick is also part of the plan , thus ancillary issues of depopulation are : bad vaccines,GMOs,fracking water,water shortages ,bad pharmaceuticals ,endles war,ect. =========================================== see http://www.bilderberg.org/bis.htm ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ U.S. Steps up War on Syria: CIA is the Anchor of a Coordinated Secret Operation By Brian Becker Global Research, March 27, 2013 ANSWER ============================ While pretending to be cautious about its intervention in Syria, the Obama administration has conducted a massive clandestine operation over the past two years to pump guns, heavy military equipment and money to fuel the civil war that is destroying Syria. The CIA is the anchor of this highly coordinated secret operation. Under the CIA’s supervision, more than 160 military cargo flights have delivered weapons to anti-government armed units in Syria. (The New York Times, March 25) Image right. Civilians killed by Syrian rebels, funded, armed and trained by the U.S. One of the ridiculous fictions about the war against Syria is that the Obama administration publicly claims “caution” in arming the rebels, in contrast to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have openly acknowledged their role in fueling the civil war by sending arms and money to the enemies of the Assad government. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both absolute and hereditary monarchies whose existence is completely dependent on their role as clients of the United States. So too is the royal family in Jordan, which allows its territory to be a transfer pivot for the massive arms shipments into Syria. Qatar, with its citizen population of only 250,000 people, does not derive its fighting posture toward Syria from a robust military capability. That is a joke. Rather, Qatar is the location of the Pentagon’s Central Command Forward Headquarters and its Combined Air Operation Center. Qatar is also home to Al Jazeera, which promotes the cause of the armed rebellion against the Assad government. Qatar is not directing anything except that which the Pentagon approves. The equally hideous Saudi royal family remains on the throne only because of its close ties to the Pentagon and CIA. The Saudi monarchy is protected by U.S. imperialism because it is part of an undeclared but real U.S. sphere of influence, and it is the largest producer of oil in the world. The U.S. attitude toward the Saudi monarchy was put succinctly by Ronald Reagan in 1981, when he said that the U.S. government “will not permit” a revolution in Saudi Arabia such as the 1979 Iranian revolution, which removed the U.S. client regime of the Shah. Reagan’s message was clear: The Pentagon and CIA’s military forces would be used decisively to destroy any democratic movement against the rule of the Saudi royal family. Reagan’s explicit statement in 1981 has in fact been the policy of every successive U.S. administration, including the current one. It is hard to overstate the extreme irony of Secretary of State John Kerry’s public condemnations of Iran and Russia for maintaining their longstanding relationships with the sovereign and secular government of Syria, while the United States uses the most anti-democratic hereditary monarchies in the Middle East as their clients to fuel a civil war under the banner of “democracy” and “change.” U.S. policy appears as irony, but it reveals a remarkable consistency and sameness in purpose regardless of whether the occupant in the White House is a conservative Republican or a centrist Democrat. Liberal Democrats in Congress and right-wing Tea Party types are unanimous in their boisterous and vile support for overthrowing the independent governments in the Middle East. At most, their differences are about some tactics versus other tactics. They profess the same goals and objectives. The invasion and war in 2003 overthrew a nationalist, secular and independent government in Iraq. The NATO bombing war of Libya destroyed Qaddafi’s government, which was likewise nationalist, secular and independent. Now the U.S. war machine and clandestine spy services are determined to destroy a similar government in Syria. The fevered demonization campaign directed at Syria’s government by the same forces that protect the most retrograde monarchies in the Middle East should give pause to those on the “left” who function as an echo chamber for the arguments and rationales provided by the corporate-owned media and the U.S. government. The U.S. seeks only puppets and client regimes in a region that possesses two-thirds of the world’s oil. The rest is rhetoric. That is the ABCs of the endless pursuit of regime change by the United States against independent governments whose origin and existence was a consequence of the anti-colonial revolutions that rocked the Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s. Statement by Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition ++++++++++++++++++++++ BRIAN BECKER & STEVEN GAAL OF MIND ONE Edited March 27, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 RE: Part 1 - Got any citations in support of your claims? Iran is in Russia's pocket? You really think so? They don't seem to be happy about the former's nuclear program because they either voted for or abstained from voting against all those sanctions. Why would they want any competition? Whose going to buy Iran's gas? The country is under EU and UN sanction. Part 2 - irrelevant to this thread. Part 3 - not especially relevant either; no one disputes the US and other western powers started helping the rebels AFTER the civil war began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Part 1 - Got any citations in support of your claims? Iran is in Russia's pocket? You really think so? They don't seem to be happy about the former's nuclear program because they either voted for or abstained from voting against all those sanctions. Why would they want any competition? Whose going to buy Iran's gas? The country is under EU and UN sanction. // Colby+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A little competion RE oil OK. GOLLY with sanctions IRAN gets more militant and wants arms ....gee where could they get them....where ????????????????????????? PressTV - No legal restrictions on arms sales to Iran: Russiapresstv.com › Iran › PoliticsCachedOct 20, 2012 – Korotchenko argued that the embargoes by the UN Security Council (UNSC) against Iran over its nuclear energy program do not incorporate ... [PDF] Russian Weapons Sales to Iran: Why they arecsis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/pm_0427.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick ViewRussian Weapons Sales to Iran. Why They Are Unlikely to Stop. PONARS Policy Memo No. 427. Alla Kassianova. Tomsk State University. December 2006 ... Russia-Iran Arms Trade - Council on Foreign Relationswww.cfr.org › IranCachedNov 1, 2006 – The flow of Russian conventional weapons to Iran—notably sophisticated surface-to-air defense missiles—has increased markedly of late, ... Russia May Sell S-300s to Iran If Syrian Government Falls ...www.businessweek.com/.../russia-may-sell-s-300s-to-iran-if-syrian-...CachedJul 3, 2012 – Then-President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree prohibiting the sale of Russian weapons, including S-300s, to Iran in 2010 after the United ... News for russian arms sales iran 05]UN close to deal on first global arms trade treaty, but Iran could still block moveHaaretz - 3 hours ago Syria is in a two-year-old civil war and hopes Russian and Iranian arms ... The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the ... ############### PART # 3 Part 3 - not especially relevant either; no one disputes the US and other western powers started helping the rebels AFTER the civil war began. // COLBY +++++ Prof Michel Chossudovsky does not agree with you http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-nato-s-next-humanitarian-war/29234 ############### Part 2 - irrelevant to this thread. // end Colby Syria part of geopolitical chess board of Banks ......Today you FIRST have to ask is this war started for BANKING ELITE, and then look for other reasons for the war. Edited March 28, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Part 1 - Got any citations in support of your claims? Iran is in Russia's pocket? You really think so? They don't seem to be happy about the former's nuclear program because they either voted for or abstained from voting against all those sanctions. Why would they want any competition? Whose going to buy Iran's gas? The country is under EU and UN sanction. // Colby+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A little competion RE oil OK. GOLLY with sanctions IRAN gets more militant and wants arms ....gee where could they get them....where ????????????????????????? PressTV - No legal restrictions on arms sales to Iran: Russiapresstv.com › Iran › PoliticsCachedOct 20, 2012 – Korotchenko argued that the embargoes by the UN Security Council (UNSC) against Iran over its nuclear energy program do not incorporate ... [PDF] Russian Weapons Sales to Iran: Why they arecsis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/pm_0427.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick ViewRussian Weapons Sales to Iran. Why They Are Unlikely to Stop. PONARS Policy Memo No. 427. Alla Kassianova. Tomsk State University. December 2006 ... Russia-Iran Arms Trade - Council on Foreign Relations[...] None of this changes the fact Russia voted for or failed to vote against all the sanctions indicating they are not pleased indicating Iran is not their poodle. It is not especially surprising they want to able to sell arms to Iran netting considerable profits for gov't. owned companies or private ones closely tied to the MIC. Jul 3, 2012 – Then-President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree prohibiting the sale of Russian weapons, including S-300s, to Iran in 2010 after the United ... [...] UN close to deal on first global arms trade treaty, but Iran could still block move Haaretz - 3 hours ago Syria is in a two-year-old civil war and hopes Russian and Iranian arms ... The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the ... These two snippets don't really help you, see what I mean about you posting stuff you haven't read? ###############PART # 3 Part 3 - not especially relevant either; no one disputes the US and other western powers started helping the rebels AFTER the civil war began. // COLBY +++++ Prof Michel Chossudovsky does not agree with you http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-nato-s-next-humanitarian-war/29234 ############### He's a kook, but that aside post any relevant excerpts from the book, have you eben read it? Part 2 - irrelevant to this thread. // end Colby Syria part of geopolitical chess board of Banks ......Today you FIRST have to ask is this war started for BANKING ELITE, and then look for other reasons for the war. You're stretching more than Richard Simmons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 Part 2 - irrelevant to this thread. // end Colby Syria part of geopolitical chess board of Banks ......Today you FIRST have to ask is this war started for BANKING ELITE, and then look for other reasons for the war. You're stretching more than Richard Simmons. // Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Part 2 - irrelevant to this thread. // end Colby Syria part of geopolitical chess board of Banks ......Today you FIRST have to ask is this war started for BANKING ELITE, and then look for other reasons for the war. You're stretching more than Richard Simmons. // Colby Gee if a Holocaust denier says so it must be true. Just for starters there are no matches for the supposed Franklin quote on Google Books. And all of this is still irrelevant to this thread. Edited March 30, 2013 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Gee if a Holocaust denier says so it must be true// COLBY NO HOLOCAUST MENTIONED IN VIDEO. Will have to look up FRANKLIN QUOTE. Only found this garynorth A bogus quote from Franklin on colonial paper money Ellen Brown That quote is not in my 4th edition. I had to restructure the whole chapter to take it out, but I did it, in the interests of accuracy. In fact I had to restructure two whole chapters, a total nightmare; but I did it. I actually think I've spent too much time on details -- I should be writing another book -- but like you, I find it interesting.+++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++ QUOTE CORRECTED 4th ed Edited March 30, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Gee if a Holocaust denier says so it must be true// COLBY NO HOLOCAUST MENTIONED IN VIDEO. Never said that it was, only that the maker is a Holocaust denier. Did you actually watch the whole video' Will have to look up FRANKLIN QUOTE.Only found this garynorth A bogus quote from Franklin on colonial paper money Ellen Brown That quote is not in my 4th edition. I had to restructure the whole chapter to take it out, but I did it, in the interests of accuracy. In fact I had to restructure two whole chapters, a total nightmare; but I did it. I actually think I've spent too much time on details -- I should be writing another book -- but like you, I find it interesting.+++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++ QUOTE CORRECTED 4th ed OK thanks for acknowledging that, so the video started with a fake quote, doesn't bode well for the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Washington Post Fights Censorship Accusations Posted on March 27, 2013 by Sean — ======================================= An American journalist with a long history of covering national politics says the Washington Post wrongly threw out an op-ed he penned last week that critiqued the media’s role in the Iraq War. Greg Mitchell, an accomplished author and reporter with by-lines throughout his career in both the Post and New York Times, says the DC-based paper tossed out an assigned piece of his slated to run this week, instead replacing it with one nowhere near as critical. Miller says he was commissioned by the Post to write about the American media’s blunder during the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in turn handed in a hard-hitting analysis that examines the shortcomings of US journalists who failed to ask the right questions as the Bush administration ramped-up calls for war by feeding disinformation…. …Read More… Edited March 31, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Ex-CNN Reporter: I Received Orders to Manipulate News to Demonize Syria and Iran Mar 30, 2013 PRAGUE, (SANA)- Ex-CNN reporter Amber Lyon revealed that during her work for the channel she received orders to send false news and exclude some others which the US administration did not favor with the aim to create a public opinion in favor of launching an aggression on Iran and Syria. Lyon was quoted by the Slovak main news website as saying that the mainstream US media outlets intentionally work to create a propaganda against Iran to garner public opinion's support for a military invasion against it. She revealed that the scenario used before launching the war on Iraq is being prepared to be repeated where Iran and Syria are now being subject to constant 'demonization'. The former reporter clarified that the CNN channel manipulates and fabricates news and follows selectiveness when broadcasting news, stressing that the Channel receives money from the U.S. government and other countries' governments in exchange for news content. H. Said Edited March 31, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Ex-CNN Reporter: I Received Orders to Manipulate News to Demonize Syria and Iran Mar 30, 2013 PRAGUE, (SANA)- Ex-CNN reporter Amber Lyon revealed that during her work for the channel she received orders to send false news and exclude some others which the US administration did not favor with the aim to create a public opinion in favor of launching an aggression on Iran and Syria. Lyon was quoted by the Slovak main news website as saying that the mainstream US media outlets [...] So says the official Syrian news agency citing an unnamed Slovak website. But let's assume it's true. Lyon was bounched by CNN and was upset that one of her documentaries did not air in full on CNN International, to make a long story short, he axe is in need of grinding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Washington Post Fights Censorship Accusations Posted on March 27, 2013 by Sean — ======================================= An American journalist with a long history of covering national politics says the Washington Post wrongly threw out an op-ed he penned last week that critiqued the media’s role in the Iraq War. Greg Mitchell, an accomplished author and reporter with by-lines throughout his career in both the Post and New York Times, says the DC-based paper tossed out an assigned piece of his slated to run this week, instead replacing it with one nowhere near as critical. Miller says he was commissioned by the Post to write about the American media’s blunder during the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in turn handed in a hard-hitting analysis that examines the shortcomings of US journalists who failed to ask the right questions as the Bush administration ramped-up calls for war by feeding disinformation…. …Read More… OK so the WP for whatever reasons did not opt to publish the op-ed and instead was picked up by the Nation, compare that to the situation in Syria.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 to make a long story short, he (Sic) axe is in need of grinding. // Colby =========================================================== HOW CAN ANY Whistle Blower BE BELEIVED ? YOUR STANDARD GUARDS THE ESTABLISHMENT (which I have contened you do all the time) see http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/02/amber-lyon-cnn-obama-administration-pays-for-cnn-content-fake-stories-unfriendly-stories-deleted-nick-robertson-egypt-report-suppressed-george-orwell-1984-2455740.html #################### Glenn Greenwald replies to CNN's attempt to discredit story about compromised Bahrain coverage Cory Doctorow at 3:07 pm Fri, Sep 7 — I blogged Glenn Greenwald's Guardian story about CNN suppressing its own award-winning documentary on human rights abuses in Bahrain, which Greenwald linked to CNNi's commercial relationship with the ruling Bahraini regime. I was quickly contacted by two different PR flacks from CNN with a list of small, picky points it disputed about Greenwald's article, presented as though this constituted a thorough rebuttal. I immediately noticed that CNN's reps didn't dispute that the company had threatened to cut off Amber Lyon's severance payment if she continued to speak out on the issue, so I asked about it. CNN's reps both told me they couldn't comment on "individual employees," which is awfully convenient. How nice for them that they can prepare and circulate a dossier that disconfirms minor elements of its critics' stories, but that it has some nebulous confidentiality code that prevents it from confirming the most damning claims made by those critics. Given that Lyon is no longer a CNN employee, and that she has divulged this threat, this feels more like an excuse than a reason. I certainly hope that CNN's own investigative journalists wouldn't accept such a pat evasion from the PR flacks that contact them. Glenn Greenwald has published a thorough rebuttal to CNN's memo: CNNi has nothing to say about the extensive financial dealings it has with the regime in Bahrain (what the article called "the tidal wave of CNNi's partnerships and associations with the regime in Bahrain, and the hagiography it has broadcast about it"). It has nothing to say about the repellent propaganda it produces for regimes which pay it. It has nothing to say about the Bahrain-praising sources whose vested interests with the regime are undisclosed by CNN. It provides no explanation whatsoever for its refusal to broadcast the iRevolution documentary. It does not deny that it threatened Lyon's severance payments and benefits if she spoke critically about CNNi's refusal. And it steadfastly ignores the concerns and complaints raised by its own long-time employees about its conduct. In sum, CNNi's response does not deny, or even acknowledge, the crux of the reporting, and simply ignores the vast bulk of the facts revealed about its coverage of, and relationship with, the regime in Bahrain. Indeed, one searches its response in vain for any explanation to the central question which New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asked nine months ago: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Thanks for posting that it only increases the evidence Lyon had an axe to grind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now