Tuesday, May 09, 2006

he seemed to be cool with everything our leaders were doing except the baby sacrifice... which i completely understand...

you know... a friend asked me the other day about alex jones... he thought he was crazy for believing certain things... like at Bohemian Grove retreat our elite sacrifice live babies... i clarified that jones didn't really believe that nor has he any evidence... so that was weird... but he has clear video footage of the burnt skeleton effigy they used instead... and that burning a baby was the roots of the ritual they performed in dark robes... late at night... under a giant stone owl named Moloch... called the Cremation of Care... and oddly enough... he seemed to be cool with everything our leaders were doing except the baby sacrifice... which i completely understand... the baby sacrifice is a hell of a distraction from the rest... and really the only crime being committed in the false story... but the rest is still pretty damn weird for supposedly good Christians... i mean c'mon... how much credibility do these guys have for us to ignore it... or ignore anything passionately voiced against them... when we all know we don't know the whole story... and in fact... based on how secretive they are... how controlled the media is... and still what we all know they're doing as admitted in public... the crimes against humanity... the hitlerian ambitions for territorial dominance and war... i mean c'mon... how do they have any crediblity left at all... let alone enough to trump their legions of accusers... or any human being on earth...


Alex Jones (radio)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio host and video producer. He is particularly notable for questioning the official accounts of the September 11th terrorist attacks. [1]

SOURCE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_%28radio%29



Top U.S. officials blamed for torture

Matthew Schofield / Knight Ridder | May 9 2006

Berlin - Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees by U.S. forces is widespread and, in many cases, sanctioned by top government officials, Amnesty International charged this week.

The allegations, contained in a 32,000-word report released in New York and London and posted on the human rights organization's Web site, are likely to influence a U.N. hearing on U.S. compliance with international torture agreements that begins Friday in Geneva. Amnesty International sent a copy of the report to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, which is holding the hearings.

"Although the U.S. government continues to assert its condemnation of torture and ill-treatment, these statements contradict what is happening in practice," said Curt Goering, the group's senior deputy executive director in the United States.

"The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish."

American officials denied the allegations. "There's no more staunch defender of human rights around the world than the United States government," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, said "humane treatment of detainees is and always has been the [Defense Department] standard." He noted that a dozen reviews of military detention operations had found no evidence that the top officials encouraged abuse.

The report notes that American military officials have listed 34 deaths of detainees in U.S. custody as "confirmed or suspected criminal homicides." It suggested that the true number may be much higher, saying "there is evidence that delays, cover-ups and deficiencies in investigations have hampered the collection of evidence."

"In several cases," it says, "substantial evidence has emerged that detainees were tortured to death while under interrogation . . . what is even more disturbing is that standard practices as well as interrogation techniques believed to have fallen within officially sanctioned parameters, appear to have played a role in the ill-treatment."

The Amnesty International report was a foretaste of the hearing in Geneva, scheduled for Friday and Monday.

The United States is dispatching a delegation of 30 officials to testify at the hearing, which is a follow-up to a review in 2000 that was critical of America's treatment of inmates in its domestic prisons.

The hearing is expected to focus on the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners taken captive in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or seized by U.S. agents in other countries and later jailed at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or at undisclosed locations.

The United States is one of seven nations the committee is reviewing during meetings this month. The others are Georgia, Guatemala, Peru, Qatar, South Korea and Togo.

The United States is one of more than 140 nations that have approved the convention against torture. The U.S. has written to the committee saying it's unequivocally opposed to torture.

The Amnesty International report questions that, saying there's evidence that top American officials had approved abusive interrogation techniques.

"Most of the torture and ill-treatment stemmed directly from officially sanctioned procedures and policies, including interrogation techniques approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld," said Javier Zuniga, Amnesty International's Americas director.

The report criticizes the United States for giving those convicted of abuse relatively light sentences.

"The heaviest sentence imposed on anyone to date for a torture-related death while in U.S. custody is five months, the same sentence that you might receive in the U.S. for stealing a bicycle," Goering said. "In this case, the five-month sentence was for assaulting a 22-year-old taxi driver who was hooded and chained to a ceiling while being kicked and beaten until he died."


REAL SOURCE - http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/torture_top_officials_blamed_for_torture.htm


i feel you man, we all make sense of the world based on our info-intake, and based on yours the fears are unfounded. however, one of the things i'm working on is how dangerous artificial equivocation is, and while you said you don't, you also said:

[I don't care about either side]

and went on to say:

[Bush still does suck]

i dunno meng, when one side proves they're assholes and the other doesn't, it only makes sense to favour the latter. after all, the bush administration and other large institutions (govt, academia, media) are automatically given the benefit of the doubt with no contrary evidence, so why not their critics?

what seems to happen to the middle of the spectrum is they are inventing an imaginary equal response to administration criticisms through demonizing the critics, and branding ones that are wholly unfamiliar as automatically crazy with little or no study or evidence. this stereotype is reinforced by the media who don't like getting
called-out for doing a crappy job, but really, the level of antipathy is empirically shocking when it's based on so little presentable evidence.

very, very, very few people can explain why "conspiracy theories are wrong" and why "conspiracy theorists are dangerous" with any more depth than that they reflexively disagree on principle. i hope things are settled by 2008 - and that's the plan, but i've gotta say it won't be the result of the natural order of things, it'll be because people worked their asses-off to fight against empirically provable evil.

make no mistake - by your "they're bad and we all know it so it'll sort itself out" theory... they should've been gone in 2004.

they didn't go, they stole another election (new can of worms!), and the backers benefiting from an escalation of current abhorrent policies have no intention of giving up power anytime soon. hell - as long as we're in a "post 9/11 world" they (those profiting of insane public policies) can just get hilary to continue screwing us, and if she doesn't agree beforehand she won't get (the support from a variety of
institutions to get) elected.

there are very legitimate concerns about the state of the world my friend, many coming from very legitimate sources - people who's titles you'd instantly respect, and the fact that the only place to find them is among advocates of "conspiracy theory" is, in itself, proof of a conspiracy... ;)



yo dawg, you moved, i moved, hopefully we're both comfortable with where we landed, and that's cool, we're supposed to grow and learn from conversations anyway. things disappear in strange ways today very quickly, we're a society based on consuming a disposable culture, and if i wasn't focused on this i'd waver in my belief too - as i have, numerous times. i get it, and that's why i and millions of others don't press it with our friends unless it's a welcome discussion - it's often pointless, and worse can be harmful. as for the parade of 9/11 theories, i've got room for the debate between them, although i would disagree with the majority being false since that's just not true. most tenets are shared and separately confirmed, and really, they are just variations of the same theory: the people who should tell us what the hell happened definitely aren't. everything else by everyone else solidly supports that conclusion for sure, and that's enough for me to indict them.

just keep yer chin up and eyes open man, if these people are as bad as you're saying and even half as bad as i'm saying, then they just may not be particularily inspirational role models for a promising young man like yourself, and listening to them may make you feel bad. that sucks, but it's like we're all sucking back a lite version of the crap the red state retards choking on fox news and other right wing rhetoric are, suffering depression and intellectual indigestion, and oblivious to the mountains of evidence that many of our chosen news sources are crap. it's complicated, but when they get it right 'cause they get it early and get it out before they can be reigned in they can still nail it. in fact, that's where most of the "conspiracy theory" evidence comes from (guys in their boxers at their computers don't have big budgets) before a story is widely sanitized (or "Orwellized") and standardized by the major media outlets. however, they often run screaming from boldly repeating their most interesting and important findings, or exploring them further, or they just water them down in hindsight.

actually, i strongly recommend a film - non 9/11 related, but one i've enjoyed a lot and seen a couple of times. it's called "orwell rolls in his grave" and it's about the media's least favourite subject - itself. with great reviews, wonderful timing, and ex-bigtime journalists revealing how corrupt the media is, it should have been up there with fahrenheit 9/11 as a topic of 2004 conversation. but, unfortunately, it remains a real gem of a film buried by... the media.

you should check it out, for me anyway it makes the rest of the charges against anything and everything make a lot more sense... :)

SITE - http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/

WATCH - http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1166



ALSO DOWNLOAD AND WATCH - http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911

Reviewer: Black Krishna - 5 out of 5 stars - August 2, 2005

Subject: Amnesty Intellectual: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th..."

President George W. Bush spoke to the World before the UN General Assembly on November 10, 2001:

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

Throughout the corridors of power around the world, a clear message was sent: shut up.

It disseminated from The White House, then corporate media, and now there's peer pressure to deny any other possibilities.

It's crazy how much credibility one gets from just saying: "Well I'm not one for conspiracy theories..." no matter the nonsense or sins of omission that follow. Our herded gullibility buys fake credibility, and even after Fahrenheit 9/11 recently showed millions the media lies to protect the government from the people, we still fight like hell to defend the half-truths we learned against concerned citizens with a wealth of evidence.


So: I present my all-purpose argument for anybody to tell everybody...


1) All information we receive is based on editorial decisions. Here, footage, interviews, and and documents from hundreds of mainstream news sources is very real, including live slip-ups or great stories that got buried. The documentation using "news" makes this "news", not blind theorizing.

2) The militarization of security everywhere is troubling, especially when they don't tell us about it. This movie shows where society may be going, and whether it gets there or not this establishes clear intent. Widespread information may provoke public outrage, it'll be impossible to stop otherwise.

3) "Qui bono" is latin for "who profits", and this film establishes the money to be made from their actions. The rich are making billions of dollars off increased security, and this film is being given away for free by the people who care to expose it.

4) They rip Michael Moore: just in case you thought they were Left. And Communists.

5) They rip Republicans: just in case you thought they were Right. And Rednecks.

6) They've gone after the crimes of Clinton and Bush equally hard, while recognizing that military-industrial complex initiatives are accelerating under Bush.

7) What exists? We don't know anymore: there is no universality. This movie is not just a matter of taste: it's critical information about the people who have the most power over everyone else, and how they're getting much more control. The bias is simple: this is bad, here's proof, and there's an objective morality being violated in how people are being treated.

8) You can believe what you want: belief and disbelief require an equal measure of proof. Don't set the bar higher than for anything else and I guarantee you'll like it, and don't think just because you haven't heard it yet that it's not true. We often believe anecdotes from anybody, this movie at least provides proof.

9) It's snapshot of current events from a different angle starting at the Republican National Convention in New York last fall, and serves as a deeper sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 with a different timeline and similar impact: Why didn't we see that? Where was the press?

10) People's reactions are priceless, both those on film and your own. Check the logic used to dismiss info, and ask why you fight to avoid revising an opinion. Our thoughts are not entirely our own, there is a "normal", safe, shrinking and inclusive knowledge-base that forms common opinion about what we are supposed to know. This makes everything else "crazy" for no good reason: these are just "people" trying to tell us something for God's sake!

Our distrust of all media based on the massive failures of the corporate media is leaving us all hopelessly ignorant.

So: "Qui bono?"

With the best sources of alternative media: we do.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy - http://blackkrishna.blogspot.com/

Music - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/blackkrishna.htm