Russian Tanker Seized Off Coast of West Africa
While "terrorists" have been blowing up pipelines from Ingushetia to Nigeria, recent maritime skirmishes have more often been overtly government-sponsored.
The seizure of a Russian tanker off the coast of Guinea (by 'unidentified armed men') takes place six days after a Russian patrol boat killed a Japanese crab fisherman aboard a boat which Russia claimed was poaching in disputed waters. The shooting was the first of its kind in fifty years. During the same week, Iran asked the UAE to return a drilling rig which was owned by a Romanian company, claiming the rig was still under rental contract to an Iranian company. Then, in a second 'commercial dispute' Iran fired on another Romanian rig.
When "disputes" erupt into government-perpetrated gunfire and death, we have crossed over from the realm of commerce into harbingers, if not acts, of undeclared war.
Iran Boosted by War on Terror
U.S. Lacks Iran Arms Intelligence, Report Says
Warming Reportedly Behind China's Killer Typhoons
Pakistan Arrests 6 Suspects for Attack on U.S. Consulate
Bush Declines Comment on Further North Korean Nuclear Tests
Uranium Lost in New Jersey
Oil Pool Tapped in Gulf of Mexico Could Boost U.S. Reserves by 50 Percent
ReplyDeletehttp://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11200
They are sounding happy, but it's not going to stave off peak oil. Further, it's in the Gulf of Mexico, which is not exactly a safe place for oil rigs any more.
9/11 Baiting
ReplyDeleteI see that Time magazine has joined the recent media onslaught with its own debunking article.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html
What's going on here? Many people say that because of all the investigative work done on the physical evidence, the tide is beginning to turn and the neocons are getting desperate.
Desperate they may be, but I see it a bit differently. I think this spate of media articles is part of a "baiting" campaign to focus attention on the physical evidence, where the regime has the advantage, and draw attention away from the arguments which apply logic and circumstantial evidence, the area where the neocons are at a huge disadvantage.
Why do these media articles focus on the video "Loose Change" and on the question of whether the towers were demolished, but ignore _Crossing the Rubicon_ and other arguments which have already made the case for us? The answer is obvious.
Unfortunately, as soon as the articles started emerging and citing NIST's arguments, 9/11 researchers instantly took the bait, drawn like flies to sugar. The regime is successfully focusing most of the movement's attention and energy on the fruitless task of debating the physical evidence.
The point I am making on blogs and mailing lists now is that the 9/11 truth movement should sidestep this trap, and demand answers to questions that cannot be finessed. I am pointing out that even though our case is already made, we are beating our heads against the wall arguing about the towers instead of putting Bush's back against the wall by demanding the answers he cannot give.
So, to recapitulate:
1) Thanks to Mike Ruppert, David Ray Griffin, and a few others who apply logic to known facts, OUR CASE IS ALREADY MADE.
2) The recent media onslaught is a BAITING CAMPAIGN meant to drag us into a quicksand trap of endless, fruitless debate.
Rice farmer - isn't that oil find the same one they talked about three years ago?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/june03/NN_gulf.html
It keeps popping up - I read about it again last January. I think someone is trotting out the story in new clothes for political purposes.
Take a look and tell us what you think.
re baiting on 911 - I think you are spot on.
Pandabonium is correct. The new stories actually mention that the first well was drilled in that field a few years ago, but they are spun as if the discovery is "new".
ReplyDeleteI expect gas prices to drop even more before Novemember 6th. Even if Houston takes a direct hit from a Cat 5 hurricane.
We'll be back to $3 or higher by December 1st.
Yes, that could well be the same oil "discovery." And the figures might be inflated, too.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as the item posted on FTW (which I saw after posting my own) is any guide, it's nothing to get excited about.
UBL video another red herring
ReplyDeleteNow we reportedly have a pre-9/11 video which shows UBL and his lieutenants discussing how to pull off the job. Is it real or fake?
Quite simply, it doesn't matter. The 9/11 truth movement should consider this to be another red herring used to throw us off the scent.
It doesn't matter whether UBL and 19 Arab hijackers were involved or not. The important thing is that the war games allowed the operation to proceed.
Good point, JMC! Yes, I listened to that program. I have recommended it to others, and they have emailed me back to say that it was an eye-opener with regard to how the 9/11 truth movement should proceed, i.e., sidestep the physical-evidence trap and just ask a few logical questions. That program was quite entertaining as well because we get to hear a debunker struggle for answers after being completely wrongfooted. My guess is that PM is falling back and regrouping. They have to rethink their debunking strategy now because it's plain that not everyone will take the bait.
ReplyDeleteNow here's something interesting. There is another new debunking article here:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/you_want_a_cons.html
Note that this article too baits the reader with the physical evidence argument. There were a few commenters who took the bait. An hour or two ago I posted a comment that called the writer on his baiting and said he should be looking into the war games instead. Now I just checked back (to see what the reaction has been) and found that all comments have been removed! Talk about a reaction!
What's going on? Have I struck a nerve?
Capitol Hill Blue has posted an item claiming that their reader comment data base was corrupted.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/reader_comment.html
We'll see if my comment reappears... I'm very eager to see if the writer responds.
Anyway, I hope everyone will call the media on this baiting campaign.
getoned, i forwarded your email to webmaster@copvcia.com and service@copvcia.com. for anyone with technical problems like this, that's where you should refer them. thanks
ReplyDeleteok 'service@copvcia.com' just got returned as 'user unknown.' but that's never happened with 'webmaster' so i think we'll be hearing from him.
ReplyDeleteRice Farmer,
ReplyDeleteIf it makes you feel any better, I posted a comment this morning to the same article - and my comments were omitted while several less prescient comments were posted.
I made a statement saying that the physical evidence is irrelevant when you look at motive, planning, means, and final results.
I focused on the PNAC plans and their stated objectives, along with the parallel recomendations of Brzezinski. I then described how their recommendations have all been implemented, and followed up with a list of PNAC members holding prominant positions in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department - by name and position.
The case is clear cut, and the editors decided not to post it. I can't help but wonder if CHB is another case of disinfo and distraction from "real" corruption.
Capitol Hill Blue - we're on to you.
getoned, the webmaster says that in order for him to respond he needs to have some contact info from you. the log-in problems on the website have been resolved. he says "Most likely, [you] have not cleared [your] internet cache files, and or cookies.'
ReplyDeleteWe should not be surprised at CHB. Read the FAQ section there and look who started it: Doug Thompson, who contrasts his site to a blog by saying, "We're working journalists, not a group of malcontents who sit in front of our computers in our underwear."
ReplyDeletepart of his bio reads:
"..press secretary to then-Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL). He later served as press secretary to a second Republican congressman and chief of staff for a third before coming special assistant to the Ranking Republican Member of the House Science and Technology Committee from 1985-87. In 1984, Thompson served as a writer for the Voices for Victory program of the Reagan-Bush Presidential Campaign and as a field consultant for the National Republican Congressional Committee. In 1986, he took a leave of absence from his Capitol Hill post to serve as communications consultant to the campaign of Amory Houghton (R-NY).
From 1987-1992, Thompson served as Vice President for Political Programs for The National Association of Realtors, running the nation's largest political action committee, issues mobilization program and independent expenditure campaigns. During that stint he became involved in campaign finance issues and was a founding board member of the Project for Comprehensive Campaign Reform. He later served as a senior communications consultant for The Eddie Mahe Company, a strategic business communications company based in Washington."
(emphasis added - Pb)
The guy is a long time Republican and a lobbyist who says he is "unbiased". My keister.
And what would be so good about being "unbiased" anyway? As RFK Jr. has said, "The job of a Journalist is not to 'balance', it's to find the truth and then convey the truth to the American public.
Would be nice if we could post on any supposedly public forum and have it stick, but obviouly some people aren't into being fair or honest. CHB amoung them I guess.
from the webmaster to getoned:
ReplyDeleteThat’s odd, because I show [getoned] in our system. Infact, I remember sending her 2 copies of her username and password, as well as update on info to log in not but a week ago. Perhaps her spam filter or junkmail is catching our emails. Her account is working, and I can log in just fine. I’ll send her an invoice once more, but failure to check spam or junkmail is also outside our realm :\
Shorebreak and Pandabonium -- The comments are back on that article, but my original comment is not! I have posted another comment. Let's see what happens to that one. And the news that my post was not the only one to disappear is quite valuable.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, CHB claims to be unbiased, but their 9/11 stance (all their articles have been of the debunking kind) is enough to show their bias.
BTW, a new 9/11 debunking article by left gatekeeper Alexander Cockburn:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060907131938726
Rice farmer -
ReplyDeleteCockburn's piece is the lead article on counterpunch.org as well.
We are in for an all out propaganda blitz on 9/11 this week, and many on the "left" will be revealing their true colors.
Behind the "shibai" (theatric drama) the Cheney/Bush Junta will continue their work. I wonder what they will do this week that won't be getting any coverage.
Wonder what the weather is like in Fiji today.
Yea, I see Cockburn has put his piece on the CounterPunch site as well. I sent CP an email, kept it short and just told Cockburn to investigate the war games. I hope other people send similar emails.
ReplyDeleteYou can drop CP a line at this address:
counterpunch@counterpunch.org
The latest debunking offensive is reaching fever pitch, isn't it? But I prefer to believe that the glass is half full: the 9/11 truth movement is starting to worry the regime.
Comandante Gringo -- not sure what book you are referring to. Mike Ruppert's masterpiece _Crossing the Rubicon_? This is a real eye-opener, and not just about 9/11. This book eschews the physical evidence and builds an excellent case on the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Mike has explained, from his experience as a police investigator, the problems with chasing after the physical evidence. The problem in the case of 9/11 is even more acute because Bush has destroyed most of the physical evidence, and controls almost all of what's left. What we have essentially is a bunch of photographs and a lot of poor-quality video footage. And that is why it's so easy for debunkers to muddy the water in arguments about the physical evidence.
The video Loose Change takes the physical evidence approach. It looks convincing at first (hence its popularity?), but upon critical inspection it's actually quite speculative. It has to be because there is hardly any hard physical evidence to go on. And that's why it's an easy target for the debunkers.
On the other hand, take the video Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime. This builds a much more convincing case using circumstantial evidence -- logic applied to known, verifiable facts (BTW, this video credits the work of Mike Ruppert, among others). Compare these two videos and tell me which one you would take into a court of law as evidence if you had to choose just one. The latter video wins hands down.
The regime and its media echo chamber know this. That is why debunkers continually bait the 9/11 truth movement with the physical evidence, especially the towers. It's a diversion, a red herring. They are happy that the movement absorbs itself mostly with endless arguments about how the towers fell, and that almost no one is asking about the war games.
Hope this answers your question.