Today's paper has little in it, so let's take a few looks back at issues that seem to be of no interest to our news media.
Remember the airliner that was shot down over Ukraine. It's now being examined by experts in The Netherlands to determine what shot it down. I don't know why they bother. I mean, Obama knew right away what shot it down. It was a rocket shot from Russian rebels on the ground in eastern Ukraine. Obama was almost half a world away at the time. But he can tell.
There was a photo of it in the papers. It seemed pretty clear to me that it was shot down by aircraft fire from above. There were the bullet holes, shot through the top of the wing and the side of the fuselage. The lines of holes were straight, and parallel to each other. Rockets don't do that. But Obama, well, if he says so, he must be right.
The scientists have the fuselage now, and they've been studying it. But they haven't come to any conclusion - and the news media haven't been asking them. Not even a "How's it goin', guys and gals?"
Obviously, these are retarded scientists. Heck. Obama could tell in minutes, and from thousands of miles away. So when will we get the official results? Don't hold your breath. And be careful about trusting them.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Another story we aren't hearing much about is a British one. It's about the parliamentary investigation of the entry of Britain into the Iraq war when Blair was prime minister. All indications are that the report will be dynamite. That is, it will be what was obvious from the start - that Blair and Bush lied about their reasons for invading Iraq. In fact, they gave different reasons at different times - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (whatever that means), that he was involved in 9/11, and just that he was a "bad man".
So they tried Saddam and hanged him as a war criminal.
Well, lying about the reason for going to war is also a war crime. Killing a million people and more for no legal reason is also a war crime. Inflicting torture on people is a war crime.
But not to worry. There is so far no trial of Bush and Obama for authorizing the use of torture. And there isn't going to be. And the news media aren't going to make a fuss about it. In fact, they hardly mention it even now. And there won't be any trial for anybody who lied about why he went to war. Only the losers ever get tried. Check the record.
Oh, It's also illegal under international law to bomb a country and to kill people you aren't at war with. But the US does it every day with drones. It's killed thousands by now, many of them quite innocent and including children. So how many reports have you read about it? And where is the death count?
Actually, the US hasn't declared war on anybody since 1941. It's a peace-loving country.
Gee! Isn't it terrible what the Naziis did? I wonder how the German people could possibly have supported that.
_________________________________________________________________________
Then there was the incident at Rexton, New Brunswick. It was over two years ago that an over-excited premier Alward declared the anti-shale gas demonstrators were an armed camp. The only evidence I have seen of that is a photo of three rifles and three knives. Heck. I went to schools that had more weapons than that.
Now, I have no doubt that the violence had to be dealt with. In fact, it should have been dealt with earlier - and differently. And differently is the key word.
The position of native peoples was that it was their land. It had never been ceded to Canada. It was legally theirs, and they had a right to determine the use of it. Alward knew that. So why didn't he deal with that BEFORE there was a protest?
The answer is obvious ( though never mentioned by the news media). The shale gas developer was in a hurry. He claimed that delays were costing him $60,000 a day. Now, an intelligent premier would have told the developer that the issue of his right to be there would have to be settled first. And, if the developer had persisted, the premier would have sent the RCMP to clear out the shale employees and their gear. He might also have arrested the President of the company for behaving in a manner to provoke a violence.
Well, we know the chances of a New Brunswick premier doing that. So he chose to turn the RCMP loose on the weaker side - and the one that had little money to contribute to his election campaigns. Well, it may have happened, but I can't think of a single incident in all Canadian history in which the police have been used to put down dangerous behaviour by big business.
Alward created the situation that sent that protest out of control. And that sort of thing has been VERY common in Canadian history. And there was something even more dangerous about this incident - the presence of a line of police wearing camouflage, and carrying semi-automatic combat rifles with large capacity magazines.
The only possible reason for planting them there was to fire into the crowd.
It is not possible to fire into a crowd without killing innocent people -and even worse with semi-auto combat rifles. I looked to where they were placed - on an open field behind the riot squad. I presume they were standing so that they would be able to fire over the heads of the riot squad.
But of all positions for shooting, standing is the least stable and the least accurate. Even at short range, the chances of hitting an innocent person are high. And that's if the target is in the front row. I have no idea how one could get an accurate shot to hit a specific person anywhere behind that..
And, whoever is hit, doesn't just grunt like in old cowboy movies and say "ya got me in the shoulder" Modern combat rifles use bullets that are high unstable. They tend to flip sideways on a hit, slowing them to a stop while still in the body, and ensuring that the body takes up the whole shock. (This is also what hollow point and soft-point bullets do. But hollow point and soft point bullets are illegal in warfare. That's why we developed unstable combat riles - to do exactly the same thing that it's cruel to do with mushrooming bullets.)
In short, the riflemen were carrying guns that were hopelessly unsuited for use against a crowd unless the whole crowd was made up of psychotic killers.
Then there were the camouflage outfits. Why? They weren't hiding. They were standing in an open field. I could see them quite easily.
But the camouflage suit has become the uniform of a new kind of police. It's kind that has always been there, but usually in small numbers. I knew a few of them. They wanted to beat up people. They wanted an excuse to shoot. I'm not sure why, but it always seemed to be linked to a personality that craved attention and respect - from the better sort of people. That's why they looked forward to policing strikes or protests. They called protesters of any sort 'shit disturbers', and in need of beating. Having a beard, too, was very bad. Most of them, I noticed, didn't last long on the force. (And none of the ones I knew was RCMP)
You'll see the type on some US city police forces, wearing camouflage in the middle of a concrete city. The message is that they aren't there to enforce the law. They're there to keep people in line, to close down the shit disturbers.
They're the ones in the US (and, apparently) in Canada who are getting more powerful weapons - including machine guns, and even tanks. They exist for the war against - us, all of us.
It does not appear to have occurred to any of our news media to ask questions about any of this, or even to notice the odd things that are going on.
__________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday, I was furious at Tom Mulcair and the NDP for the seeming acceptance of the expansion of the numbers and the privileges of our spy service. I expected it from Trudeau. I expect it from Heil Harper. But I thought the NDP would never descend to that.
I'm happy to note that they didn't descend to it. Yesterday, Mulcair asked the questions that our media should have been asking from the start. And he made demands that everyone who claims to believe in democracy should have asked.
As it is, Harper has given us an intelligence service with powers closely resembling those of the gestapo. And, no, I am not exaggerating. Worse, it is a service that is designed to spy on us (like the boys in camouflage outfits) and designed to treat us all as shit disturbers who can be jailed without charge. And they're free to accuse and jail anybody who isn't "in line". You don't have to be a jihadist - or even a Muslim. Anybody who isn't in line, Harper's line, is eligible.
Harper doesn't see a problem with letting such a 'service' run loose in this country. Of course not. Harper has utter contempt for democracy. And Trudeau has obviously decided that the best way to win the election is to have no policy or principals, just lots of photos of him and his family at the pool.
Harper reminds me of the class bully when I was in grade five. The teacher appointed him to line us up in the classroom to march into class. He would roughly push us into line (even if we were already in line), then work to the front of the line smashing each kid on the head saying to the kid behind "You - keep your eyes on this spot."
Henry later made a name for himself as a hockey scout for New York, discovering a Montreal boy who turned into a star on the ice. The star then retired to work a bit on radio with me - until he was named in a nasty mess about defrauding elderly people.
Remember the airliner that was shot down over Ukraine. It's now being examined by experts in The Netherlands to determine what shot it down. I don't know why they bother. I mean, Obama knew right away what shot it down. It was a rocket shot from Russian rebels on the ground in eastern Ukraine. Obama was almost half a world away at the time. But he can tell.
There was a photo of it in the papers. It seemed pretty clear to me that it was shot down by aircraft fire from above. There were the bullet holes, shot through the top of the wing and the side of the fuselage. The lines of holes were straight, and parallel to each other. Rockets don't do that. But Obama, well, if he says so, he must be right.
The scientists have the fuselage now, and they've been studying it. But they haven't come to any conclusion - and the news media haven't been asking them. Not even a "How's it goin', guys and gals?"
Obviously, these are retarded scientists. Heck. Obama could tell in minutes, and from thousands of miles away. So when will we get the official results? Don't hold your breath. And be careful about trusting them.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Another story we aren't hearing much about is a British one. It's about the parliamentary investigation of the entry of Britain into the Iraq war when Blair was prime minister. All indications are that the report will be dynamite. That is, it will be what was obvious from the start - that Blair and Bush lied about their reasons for invading Iraq. In fact, they gave different reasons at different times - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (whatever that means), that he was involved in 9/11, and just that he was a "bad man".
So they tried Saddam and hanged him as a war criminal.
Well, lying about the reason for going to war is also a war crime. Killing a million people and more for no legal reason is also a war crime. Inflicting torture on people is a war crime.
But not to worry. There is so far no trial of Bush and Obama for authorizing the use of torture. And there isn't going to be. And the news media aren't going to make a fuss about it. In fact, they hardly mention it even now. And there won't be any trial for anybody who lied about why he went to war. Only the losers ever get tried. Check the record.
Oh, It's also illegal under international law to bomb a country and to kill people you aren't at war with. But the US does it every day with drones. It's killed thousands by now, many of them quite innocent and including children. So how many reports have you read about it? And where is the death count?
Actually, the US hasn't declared war on anybody since 1941. It's a peace-loving country.
Gee! Isn't it terrible what the Naziis did? I wonder how the German people could possibly have supported that.
_________________________________________________________________________
Then there was the incident at Rexton, New Brunswick. It was over two years ago that an over-excited premier Alward declared the anti-shale gas demonstrators were an armed camp. The only evidence I have seen of that is a photo of three rifles and three knives. Heck. I went to schools that had more weapons than that.
Now, I have no doubt that the violence had to be dealt with. In fact, it should have been dealt with earlier - and differently. And differently is the key word.
The position of native peoples was that it was their land. It had never been ceded to Canada. It was legally theirs, and they had a right to determine the use of it. Alward knew that. So why didn't he deal with that BEFORE there was a protest?
The answer is obvious ( though never mentioned by the news media). The shale gas developer was in a hurry. He claimed that delays were costing him $60,000 a day. Now, an intelligent premier would have told the developer that the issue of his right to be there would have to be settled first. And, if the developer had persisted, the premier would have sent the RCMP to clear out the shale employees and their gear. He might also have arrested the President of the company for behaving in a manner to provoke a violence.
Well, we know the chances of a New Brunswick premier doing that. So he chose to turn the RCMP loose on the weaker side - and the one that had little money to contribute to his election campaigns. Well, it may have happened, but I can't think of a single incident in all Canadian history in which the police have been used to put down dangerous behaviour by big business.
Alward created the situation that sent that protest out of control. And that sort of thing has been VERY common in Canadian history. And there was something even more dangerous about this incident - the presence of a line of police wearing camouflage, and carrying semi-automatic combat rifles with large capacity magazines.
The only possible reason for planting them there was to fire into the crowd.
It is not possible to fire into a crowd without killing innocent people -and even worse with semi-auto combat rifles. I looked to where they were placed - on an open field behind the riot squad. I presume they were standing so that they would be able to fire over the heads of the riot squad.
But of all positions for shooting, standing is the least stable and the least accurate. Even at short range, the chances of hitting an innocent person are high. And that's if the target is in the front row. I have no idea how one could get an accurate shot to hit a specific person anywhere behind that..
And, whoever is hit, doesn't just grunt like in old cowboy movies and say "ya got me in the shoulder" Modern combat rifles use bullets that are high unstable. They tend to flip sideways on a hit, slowing them to a stop while still in the body, and ensuring that the body takes up the whole shock. (This is also what hollow point and soft-point bullets do. But hollow point and soft point bullets are illegal in warfare. That's why we developed unstable combat riles - to do exactly the same thing that it's cruel to do with mushrooming bullets.)
In short, the riflemen were carrying guns that were hopelessly unsuited for use against a crowd unless the whole crowd was made up of psychotic killers.
Then there were the camouflage outfits. Why? They weren't hiding. They were standing in an open field. I could see them quite easily.
But the camouflage suit has become the uniform of a new kind of police. It's kind that has always been there, but usually in small numbers. I knew a few of them. They wanted to beat up people. They wanted an excuse to shoot. I'm not sure why, but it always seemed to be linked to a personality that craved attention and respect - from the better sort of people. That's why they looked forward to policing strikes or protests. They called protesters of any sort 'shit disturbers', and in need of beating. Having a beard, too, was very bad. Most of them, I noticed, didn't last long on the force. (And none of the ones I knew was RCMP)
You'll see the type on some US city police forces, wearing camouflage in the middle of a concrete city. The message is that they aren't there to enforce the law. They're there to keep people in line, to close down the shit disturbers.
They're the ones in the US (and, apparently) in Canada who are getting more powerful weapons - including machine guns, and even tanks. They exist for the war against - us, all of us.
It does not appear to have occurred to any of our news media to ask questions about any of this, or even to notice the odd things that are going on.
__________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday, I was furious at Tom Mulcair and the NDP for the seeming acceptance of the expansion of the numbers and the privileges of our spy service. I expected it from Trudeau. I expect it from Heil Harper. But I thought the NDP would never descend to that.
I'm happy to note that they didn't descend to it. Yesterday, Mulcair asked the questions that our media should have been asking from the start. And he made demands that everyone who claims to believe in democracy should have asked.
As it is, Harper has given us an intelligence service with powers closely resembling those of the gestapo. And, no, I am not exaggerating. Worse, it is a service that is designed to spy on us (like the boys in camouflage outfits) and designed to treat us all as shit disturbers who can be jailed without charge. And they're free to accuse and jail anybody who isn't "in line". You don't have to be a jihadist - or even a Muslim. Anybody who isn't in line, Harper's line, is eligible.
Harper doesn't see a problem with letting such a 'service' run loose in this country. Of course not. Harper has utter contempt for democracy. And Trudeau has obviously decided that the best way to win the election is to have no policy or principals, just lots of photos of him and his family at the pool.
Harper reminds me of the class bully when I was in grade five. The teacher appointed him to line us up in the classroom to march into class. He would roughly push us into line (even if we were already in line), then work to the front of the line smashing each kid on the head saying to the kid behind "You - keep your eyes on this spot."
Henry later made a name for himself as a hockey scout for New York, discovering a Montreal boy who turned into a star on the ice. The star then retired to work a bit on radio with me - until he was named in a nasty mess about defrauding elderly people.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment