RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others!

RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/16/2014 6:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Keep working with your reading tutor. Things will get better, even if reading is difficult for you at first. Keep taking your meds in your little rubber room with your straight jacket on

Musicmystery -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/16/2014 6:49:14 PM)
Did the voices tell you that too?

Sanity -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/16/2014 7:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Did the voices tell you that too? It feels like I am sinking down to the level of a ten-year-old whenever "debating" you Seriously. Don't mean it as a slam, this is just childish

Musicmystery -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/16/2014 7:54:12 PM)
Maybe eventually you'll figure out that "sinking" and then pretending you're about sinking is not convincing. But then, you believe Faux News is reality, so there's a steep learning curve there.

Politesub53 -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/17/2014 4:39:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It feels like I am sinking down to the level of a ten-year-old whenever "debating" you Seriously. Don't mean it as a slam, this is just childish You are not sinking down bruv, more like rising up a few levels.

Sanity -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/17/2014 5:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It feels like I am sinking down to the level of a ten-year-old whenever "debating" you Seriously. Don't mean it as a slam, this is just childish You are not sinking down bruv, more like rising up a few levels. The childish insult of your choice right back at you "polite"

Extravagasm -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/17/2014 8:45:19 PM)
RealOne, you have posed one of the most important questions in civilization: quote: {media disembling is} standard operating procedure. So I am looking for a credible source for information, anybody got one? how do you vet a source as credible? The method needs to be taught to every citizen: 1) Believe no source on face value, in part or whole. Become impervious to dog whistles. 2) Listen to every source you can, oral and written. 3) Piece the puzzle together, uniquely for yourself, like solving a mystery story. Like Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, Lt Columbo. At present, almost nothing held by large numbers of people is credible. If more carried out the described method, that would be different. 4) No stray pieces may be ignored, all must be linked and explained. (Ex of a stray piece, is the failed Russian agent assigned to preemptively kill the patsy Oswald, why?). 5) Then become yourself a source, for others, and listen to what they say back, it will hone ideas further. Tedious and rewarding but imperative and adictive. The decentralization of information, would be a great achievement in humanity. 6) Practice on history, where events have relatively slowed. Example: the overthrow & destruction, of Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Trotsky, Iran's 1940 President, JFK, Diana, Arafat for starters. 7) Never, ever, confuse dignity with truth. Of the speaker, or of the conclusion. Here's a solid example: the dignified Colin Powell told the UN that our knowledge of Iraq's mass weapons "is not just conjecture; we know what they are; and where they are." But see, if we knew WHERE they were, why hadn't we whispered this in the ear of the last unfettered UN inspection team, with unrestricted access, including the palaces. Countless deaths (plus US's loss of monopoly over Iraq, to Ahmed Chalabi's homeland Iran) never had to occur, just to find out that Powell was lying (not misinformed). If misinformed, we'd have transfered the misinformation to the UN inspectors. It was right there in the slip of his words. Told everyone I could. No one, right or left, cared because they confused dignity with truth. When Saddam had let the last inspection team into the palaces, the leader of the original inspection team knew US was lying, and began a one-man trip across US campuses to prevent our Iraq folly. Anybody remember him?

HeartAndSoul31 -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/17/2014 9:40:26 PM)
It is so sad. We love all people.

Real0ne -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/19/2014 12:35:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm RealOne, you have posed one of the most important questions in civilization: quote: {media disembling is} standard operating procedure. So I am looking for a credible source for information, anybody got one? how do you vet a source as credible? The method needs to be taught to every citizen: 1) Believe no source on face value, in part or whole. Become impervious to dog whistles. 2) Listen to every source you can, oral and written. 3) Piece the puzzle together, uniquely for yourself, like solving a mystery story. Like Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, Lt Columbo. At present, almost nothing held by large numbers of people is credible. If more carried out the described method, that would be different. 4) No stray pieces may be ignored, all must be linked and explained. (Ex of a stray piece, is the failed Russian agent assigned to preemptively kill the patsy Oswald, why?). 5) Then become yourself a source, for others, and listen to what they say back, it will hone ideas further. Tedious and rewarding but imperative and adictive. The decentralization of information, would be a great achievement in humanity. 6) Practice on history, where events have relatively slowed. Example: the overthrow & destruction, of Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Trotsky, Iran's 1940 President, JFK, Diana, Arafat for starters. 7) Never, ever, confuse dignity with truth. Of the speaker, or of the conclusion. Here's a solid example: the dignified Colin Powell told the UN that our knowledge of Iraq's mass weapons "is not just conjecture; we know what they are; and where they are." But see, if we knew WHERE they were, why hadn't we whispered this in the ear of the last unfettered UN inspection team, with unrestricted access, including the palaces. Countless deaths (plus US's loss of monopoly over Iraq, to Ahmed Chalabi's homeland Iran) never had to occur, just to find out that Powell was lying (not misinformed). If misinformed, we'd have transfered the misinformation to the UN inspectors. It was right there in the slip of his words. Told everyone I could. No one, right or left, cared because they confused dignity with truth. When Saddam had let the last inspection team into the palaces, the leader of the original inspection team knew US was lying, and began a one-man trip across US campuses to prevent our Iraq folly. Anybody remember him? You make very good points. The problem is that if these news organizations want to 'timely' if at all, get stories from the gubbermint they have no choice but to play the game, and of course that game is often to the detriment of the general population while they enjoy 'unjust enrichment' and get away with it. Basically it undermines any society that these events are allowed to occur and continue and sadly in america they flourish being set up under the english system of law. So in we wind up with government controlled news despite it carries the label 'free'. Despite knowing all this people still demand credible sources, how can we have credible sources when we dont have credible government or a credible system?

MrRodgers -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/19/2014 7:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Extravagasm RealOne, you have posed one of the most important questions in civilization: quote: {media disembling is} standard operating procedure. So I am looking for a credible source for information, anybody got one? how do you vet a source as credible? The method needs to be taught to every citizen: 1) Believe no source on face value, in part or whole. Become impervious to dog whistles. 2) Listen to every source you can, oral and written. 3) Piece the puzzle together, uniquely for yourself, like solving a mystery story. Like Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, Lt Columbo. At present, almost nothing held by large numbers of people is credible. If more carried out the described method, that would be different. 4) No stray pieces may be ignored, all must be linked and explained. (Ex of a stray piece, is the failed Russian agent assigned to preemptively kill the patsy Oswald, why?). 5) Then become yourself a source, for others, and listen to what they say back, it will hone ideas further. Tedious and rewarding but imperative and adictive. The decentralization of information, would be a great achievement in humanity. 6) Practice on history, where events have relatively slowed. Example: the overthrow & destruction, of Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Trotsky, Iran's 1940 President, JFK, Diana, Arafat for starters. 7) Never, ever, confuse dignity with truth. Of the speaker, or of the conclusion. Here's a solid example: the dignified Colin Powell told the UN that our knowledge of Iraq's mass weapons "is not just conjecture; we know what they are; and where they are." But see, if we knew WHERE they were, why hadn't we whispered this in the ear of the last unfettered UN inspection team, with unrestricted access, including the palaces. Countless deaths (plus US's loss of monopoly over Iraq, to Ahmed Chalabi's homeland Iran) never had to occur, just to find out that Powell was lying (not misinformed). If misinformed, we'd have transfered the misinformation to the UN inspectors. It was right there in the slip of his words. Told everyone I could. No one, right or left, cared because they confused dignity with truth. When Saddam had let the last inspection team into the palaces, the leader of the original inspection team knew US was lying, and began a one-man trip across US campuses to prevent our Iraq folly. Anybody remember him? Actually the obvious question then becomes if the US (CIA) can so easily take down the legitimately elected democratic govt. of Iran and Iraq in the 1950's...without starting a war, why couldn't we do the same in the 90's and now ? I am serious here...not enough profit ? We wouldn't have the geopolitical satisfaction of watching a very purposeful meltdown into Arab killing Arab ? This is all part & parcel of the US (CIA/neocon) plan to remake the ME that began in 2000. I want to know that if the CIA did create Ebola if only because Africans are aren't killing other Africans fast enough ? Can the west reliably assume Ebola will move to the ME because they just don't believe the science and in any case...aren't prepared for it ? The CIA has enough black money to throw around all over the place, so why all of the intrigue ? Maybe they pace these things so govt. will waste more billion$ just as in the bird flu epidemic that never happened.

MariaB -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/20/2014 1:43:04 AM)
quote: When Saddam had let the last inspection team into the palaces, the leader of the original inspection team knew US was lying, and began a one-man trip across US campuses to prevent our Iraq folly. Anybody remember him? Was that Hans Blix?

Extravagasm -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/21/2014 4:55:32 PM)
quote: RealOne post 29: You make very good points. The problem is that if these news organizations want to 'timely' if at all, get stories from the gubbermint they have no choice but to play the game, and of course that game is often to the detriment of the general population while they enjoy 'unjust enrichment' and get away with it. . . . So in we wind up with government controlled news despite it carries the label 'free'. I have always agreed with this. And its even worse, cuz the private sector does the same thing, to the press. Way back the Graham family used its media, to advocate cereal. Successfully moving the US public from a healthy protein breakfast, to an unhealthy carb one. Go figure, it was just to prevent masturbating. Guess it didn't work;);) Lets not forget that the horrors of WWII evolved from WWI. But Woodrow Wilson took office on the commitment to keep US out of WWI. Was the media (formerly called yellow journalism) that overcame him. Then in WWII Theodor Geisel (yet to become Dr. Seuss) led the media campaign to incarcerate and rob loyal citizens who were of Japanese decent. Anthony Fauci for the CDC stepped in many times to stop US media from presenting other scientists theories of cause/prevention of AIDS. So that science remains in its infancy. Finally lets remember that W Bush lacked the ability to get the US anywhere near war, without the salivating jingoistic media. quote: Basically it undermines any society that these events are allowed to occur and continue and sadly in america they flourish being set up under the english system of law. True, but the English Common Law can be changed in US, by constitutional change or otherwise. Cuz here it's written. I've always felt that laws could be developed against conflict or interest, and against influence peddling for media too. Since they're more important than legislators. Some news anchors have actually been salaried by tobacco companies, for example. And tobacco contributes large sums to environmental news sources, as a sort of hush money. Lets not get started on the drug companies. Government peddling access unevenly could be legislated against too, just like 'equal access'. Here's what I'd like to see some day. A major event occurs. Different news sources report diametrically opposite takes on it, like a debate, and keep it going. Not all kissing each others ass. Watching jailhouse interviews, I was struck by how clearly Charles Manson was a classic pimp with an agenda. Yet the public narative of every single book and media outlet then and now is something very different, like a satanic, demonic earthling with mystery eyes. Sort of the opposite of the tooth fairy. But neither born to human parents as we know them. quote: Despite knowing all this, people still demand credible sources, how can we have credible sources when we dont have credible government or a credible system? We can't and we won't. Information is power. I like to take it, for myself. As in my post 27. But for others the web HAS to be an improvement, cuz its more decentralized, and because it's gradually devouring the monolothic sources. Peace.

Extravagasm -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/21/2014 5:37:30 PM)
quote: MariaB Was that Hans Blix? Good guess, Maria. Hans Blix was the UN inspections leader during the run up to US's Iraq invasion. I call that team, the LATER inspection team. They ware allowed full access, including the Palaces, because Saddam was told by other Arab states that the US meant business, this time. (Ironically Bush W was telling US citizens at the same time that the 'decider' which he called himself, hadn't decided). Hans Blix had no use for George W., but NO he did not crisscross US campuses to stop support for invading Iraq. His predecessors were Scott Ritter and Richard Butler. They led the UN inspection teams after the FIRST Gulf War-- the action that basically just pushed Iraq troops back out of Kuwait. The terms of that settlement, required UN weapons inspection, which thus occurred during Bill Clinton's administration. I call that the ORIGINAL inspection team. (Remember way back then they didn't find anything either.) Scott Ritter came to serious clash with Saddam, to such an extent that Saddam Hussein asked that Madeleine Albright replace him. See Butler scoured the rest of Iraq, but Saddam would let them in the personal luxury palaces. Any serious observer (there weren't any in the run up to the final Iraq invasion) should have taken note of Ritter's change, from where he was two US administrations earlier. He felt the Palaces constituted the last stone unturned, now turned. (Many attempts have been made to smear him sexually and otherwise.) But nobody cared ultimately, leftists or rightist, because the media had made clear that Saddam's two sons had been bad to women. Respectable, dignified commentators such as Charlie Rose were being asked if he was 'stoked' with the thrill of an upcoming 'shock and awe' fireworks displays over Iraq. Charlie smiled childishly as he did when (only rarely) he was at a loss of what to say with dignity. Never confuse dignity with truth.

Extravagasm -> RE: Journalist Admits US CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Others! (10/21/2014 7:01:14 PM)
Broadening your question shows an answers to your question. quote: MrRogers post 30: question then becomes if the US (CIA) can so easily take down the legitimately elected democratic govt. of Iran and Iraq in the 1950's...without starting a war, why couldn't it do the same in the 90's and now? Same question, broadly stated: Why could US interfere with Native Americans, Mexico, Haiti, Canada, Panama, Hawaii, Peurto Rico, Alaska, right up to the immediate WWII aftermath, with workable intervention in Persia. Then mostly stumble, ever since. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Central America, Africa, Baltics, back to Persia again this time to fail. Why indeed. 1. The world no longer knuckles under like a doormat. . . to 'exceptionalism' or Anglo-authority or hegemony. Religion almost seems to be the defending warrior here, but it wouldn't have to be. Others are as well. 2. A fairly lean country, takes land, by ground. Bloated fat nations shoot at their adversaries safely from the air. The vast air power of Hitler was little use when humbled on the ground in Russia. The most classic clash tween air and land is shown in the Vietnam tunnels, which most now believe controled the course of the war. Similar things happened to Russian and US air power, in different eras of Afganastan. 3. Once upon a time, the US sent the social/political/strategic genius Benjaman Franklin to Europe (because we were lean and we had one to send). He played on some kind of curious influence that women aristocrats held in France. France did our work for us, in capturing actual British soldiers. 4. Similarly once upon a time, Iran secretly moled-out the social/political/strategic genius Ahmed Chalabi (because they were lean and they had one to send). He played on the curious lure that zionism held among US Neocons. Thus self-converting to zionism, he became intimately regarded by our governing Neocons. US did Iran's work for them. Overthrowing Sadam Hussan, whom US had previously propped there, to surpress Iran from outside. . . as the Shah had from the inside. The US CIA pretty much colluded on what the US Neocons wanted. Because Ahmed Chalabi had convinced Neocons that most everybody in Iraq other than Saddam's own village, were raring to bend over for the US at the first opportunity. Don Rumsfeld announced that Iraq was a country full of 'dead-enders' . . . Freudian when you think about it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125