Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Alex Jones Interviews James David Manning About Obama’s Qualification To Be President


YouTube
April 28, 2010

Alex talks with James David Manning, chief pastor at the ATLAH World Missionary Church in New York City. Manning has provided evidence that Obama is not qualified to be president. On May 14–19, 2010 he plans to hold treason trials and prove that Obama was a CIA agent during the early 1980s when he was a student at Columbia University.

Gee, I guess it’s all about racism, huh? [Oh, by the way, James David Manning is BLACK!]









Friday, April 23, 2010

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11


Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was “on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
April 23, 2010

Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building [emphasis added]– since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.

In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.



Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.



“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”

The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.



“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.



Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.



Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Alex Jones Clone Luke Rudkowski Doesn’t Care If He’s Being Mocked, As Long As He Gets Fame And Exposure


Rudkowski speaks to Stephen Colbert about the Bilderberg Group during pre-taping of Colbert’s show. Colbert blatantly mocks him, and Rudkowski asks us to thank Colbert for mockingly mentioning it on the real show

by Larry Simons
April 19, 2010

Yesterday Prison Planet posted a video of We Are Change founder and Alex Jones clone Luke Rudkowski talking to Stephen Colbert during pre-taping of his Comedy Central show The Colbert Report. Rudkowski talked to Colbert about the Bilderberg Group while Colbert mocked and laid the sarcasm on thick to every comment Rudkowski made.

Here is the We Are Change video


Rudkowski then shows us a clip from the actual filmed show where Colbert mentions the Bilderberg Group during his news segment and then says to Rudkowski [in the audience], “You owe me one buddy”. Instead of doing what any normal and rational person would do: Keep the clip for a personal souvenir and memory of the experience, Rudkowski instead posts the clip of Colbert blatantly mocking him as if to say to Rudkowski, “You’re a nut for believing in this crap”.

Does Rudkowski see through Colbert’s intense sarcasm and mockery and realize he’s being made a fool of? Of course not. And there’s a reason for that. Rudkowski, like his puppeteer Alex Jones, loves exposure and fame, and he’ll take that fame anyway he can get it, even when a celebrity is telling him, “You’re an ass” via sarcasm and mockery.

To make matters even worse, Rudkowski tells us in his video that:

“I was extremely excited to see Stephen actually mention it on his news program and I really want to thank him because that reached out to millions and millions of people who never heard about the Bilderberg Group on live on his show. And I want to thank him for his courage, for actually bringing that issue up to everybody….and this is a huge victory for the Info war.

Now, he says I do owe him one, now I would like everybody who is a part of the Info war, who is a part of We Are Change to go out there and say ‘thank you’ to Stephen for supporting and talking about the Bilderberg Group….send him letters, send him emails, and definitely support him because this could be a huge ally in our Info war that is not afraid to bring up these issues.”


He didn’t “reach out” to millions who have never heard of the Bilderberg Group. He mocked you and made you look like a nitwit in front of millions on national TV. His courage? It’s “courageous” to say, “This turd thinks there is a secret group of powerful people who meet once a year and the media never covers it” to his viewers? He didn’t say those exact words, but he might as well have.

Rudkowski wants us to support a man who just embarrassed him on national TV and made jokes about the Bilderberg Group in the same form and fashion as he would have mentioned Big Foot and space aliens? Colbert could be a huge ally? How? Is We Are Change a stand up comedy club? “Not afraid to bring up these issues”? You would think Rudkowski was describing Colbert doing an exposé on 60 Minutes in Edward R. Murrow fashion!

Rudkowski ends with saying:

“The fight for freedom and humanity gained another friend with Stephen Colbert mentioning to millions of people the secretive and elite Bilderberg Group. Doing something that the main stream media have not dared to do. Please send your love and support to http://www.colbertnation.com/home”.

Yes, Stephen Colbert is now “our friend” for basically equating the Bilderberg Group to aliens, Big Foot and Elvis working at a Burger King in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The mainstream media have not dared to mock us? What galaxy is Rudkowski living in? Send our love and support to Colbert? We’d be better off sending our love and support to the Bilderberg Group themselves; at least they haven’t mocked us.

Or we could send our love to Popular Mechanics, Bill Maher, Geraldo Rivera, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews and everyone else who have ridiculed us and called us “nutjobs”.

I have never liked Rudkowski. He’s an Alex Jones wanna-be. He’s in it to be a celebrity and have a cameo in the next documentary. In the video above, Rudkowski even mentions they are now making a new DVD. He calls himself a journalist, despite the fact that all he is is some young kid who was fascinated with Alex Jones, and began parading around New York City with a bullhorn screaming into it like Jones does. That’s a journalist?

Apparently, I am not the only one who feels this way about this Colbert story. Here are a few of the posts underneath this story on Prison Planet.

From Dica Don: “Steven Colbert’s sarcastic tone was obvious. Its the typical “make him seem like a whacko” routine, then all the dumb azz people in the audience applaud Colbert like he’s actually doing something. I never did like that little rat faced son of a bitch. FU?K Steven Colbert”

From Richard_w64: “Thanks Steven Colbert, for doing what you do best. Making jokes and fun of a dire and desperate problem. Boy, its amazing to watch what happens to the average idiot after a big celebrity mentions them or their ideas on the television, no matter how demeaning it is!”

This is yet another thing to add to the list of things that hurt the truth movement. Why does Alex Jones allow this? Why does he associate with Rudkowski? Of course, Alex Jones himself hurts the truth movement [as I have pointed out], so I guess misery loves company.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Hand-Picked FOX News Audience Dead Silent During Applause Poll When Ron Paul’s Name Is Mentioned


Audience silent when Ron Paul’s name is called off despite the fact that Hannity’s show celebrated the first anniversary of the Tea Party movement, a movement whose theme originated with Ron Paul and his supporters and laid the groundwork for the Tea Party movement Hannity is celebrating

by Larry Simons
April 16, 2010

On Wednesday night’s telecast of Hannity, host Sean Hannity did his show live from Atlanta to celebrate the first anniversary of the Tea Party movement [April 15]. Roughly 40 minutes into the telecast, Hannity brought out pollster and FOX News hack Frank Luntz. Luntz asked the audience to applaud for the candidate they would vote for in the 2012 election as he read each GOP candidate off.

Luntz begins naming each candidate: Sarah Palin....Newt Gingrich....Mitt Romney....Haley Barbour....Tim Pawlenty. Each candidate received a moderate amount of applause except for Barbour and Pawlenty, who each got a few claps. Then when Luntz came to Ron Paul, the crowd was dead silent except for one woman who yells, “Woooooo!”. Luntz says, “Hello, Mrs. Paul”. Hannity then says, “I was going to say that’s Ron Paul’s daughter”, as the crowd, Hannity and Luntz have a good little chuckle.

watch FOX News's pre-screened, hand-picked zombies in action


What I find interesting [and hilarious] about the audiences' dead silence on applauding Ron Paul is the fact that this audience is “supposed” to be Tea Party supporters [or one would assume, since this specific telecast of Hannity is celebrating the one year anniversary of the Tea Party movement] and no one [except for one very excited woman] applauds Ron Paul despite the fact that the entire concept of the modern Tea Party movement originated with Ron Paul and his supporters as the theme for the Texas Congressman's 2008 Presidential campaign to reflect his fiscal conservatism.

Since then, the movement has been hijacked by neocons like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck [and their supporters] whose views on government do not come anywhere close to resembling Ron Paul's.

Either the people in the audience have no clue where the concept of the Tea Party movement came from, or they were completely pre-screened and hand-picked by FOX News prior to airing [or both].

Another interesting reason why one should call the audiences’ silence into question is the fact that just last week at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Ron Paul came within one vote of Mitt Romney for first place in their 2010 straw poll [of who voters would vote for President in 2012], getting 438 votes to Romney’s 439.

Additionally, a recent Rasmussen poll showed that in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up between Barack Obama and Ron Paul, it is nearly a dead heat, with Ron Paul getting 41% of the vote and Obama winning with 42% [and keep in mind, that’s just now. Imagine what a poll 3 years from now would reveal after Obama has completely wrecked the country].

Congressman Paul also won nearly every single post-debate call-in and texting poll during the 2008 Presidential election…even the one conducted by FOX News.

In February, Congressman Paul also won a 2012 Presidential bid straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, picking up 31% of the vote.

For FOX News to STILL be pulling stunts like this when Ron Paul wins or nearly wins every poll that is conducted [whether via the internet or TV] is simply laughable and a testament to just how fraudulent and dishonest FOX News still is.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Chris Matthews flat out LIES and says Giuliani “smacked down” Ron Paul during Presidential debates


Which debates was Matthews watching?

by Larry Simons
April 13, 2010

During Monday’s telecast of Hardball with Chris Matthews, host Chris Matthews ran a segment about how he was shocked about the fact that Ron Paul is nearly tied [1 vote shy] with Mitt Romney in a Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll.



Matthews said this:

“The question is, who’s leading, ‘cause Ron Paul was bashed apart…remember how Rudy Giuliani would smack him, smack him down every time he said something about 9/11? Last time around…now he’s, he’s tied with Mitt Romney.”

Hmmmm. Who smacked who, Chris? Apparently, Matthews has a very selective memory and not only fails to tell his viewers that Ron Paul annihilated Giuliani on foreign policy issues and even Giuliani’s “specialty” [terrorism], but that Ron Paul was the last standing candidate in the Presidential race next to John McCain, withdrawing from the race on June 12, 2008 [compared to Giuliani’s January 30, 2008 departure].

Hmmmm, I guess Giuliani’s “smack downs” of Ron Paul were not strong enough to keep him in the race beyond the date of the one he supposedly “smacked down”.

Another major piece of information Matthews conveniently leaves out is the fact that Ron Paul won nearly every post debate poll on every network…even FOX News. But, why should Chris Matthews concern himself with facts?

watch the clip

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Here’s Ron Paul annihilating Giuliani during the debates. Chris Matthews seems to have forgotten about this. The thunderous applause after Giuliani’s statement about Iraq only serves to illustrate that either the audience was hand-picked by FOX News, or that they didn’t know jack shit about the United States’ history with Iraq and Iran or had no clue what blowback is.


All Giuliani had to do was two things: 1. Say he was THERE on 9/11 and 2. Twist Ron Paul’s words and say “we were attacked on 9/11 because we had attacked Iraq” [which is not what Ron Paul’s point was] and bingo….instant applause from the imbeciles of America. The Department of Defense, the FBI, the Pentagon and the CIA have all confirmed that Ron Paul’s views are correct. Giuliani is a moron [as is Chris Matthews as well] and he was schooled on his favorite topic, 9/11, and he knows it. That’s why Mr. 9/11 left the race 5 months before Ron Paul did. Oh and by the way, Ron Paul annihilated Giulaini [and everyone else] in the post debate polls on FOX News.

Why would Giuliani consider himself such an expert on terrorism when the worst terror attack in this country's history happened on his watch in his city? I would think he would want to run as far away as he possibly could from the topic of 9-11, don't you? It would be the equivalent of a security guard constantly mentioning the fact that a bunch of thugs snuck past his post one night, burglarized and then set fire to the building he was hired to protect. Would the security guard constantly jump at the chance to go on TV and make public appearances, telling people, "Yep, I was there. I know what failed security is all about, I lived through it!", or would he want the incident to go away as quickly as possible, so as not to essentially proclaim to the whole world, "I'm the worst security guard on Earth"?

Another interesting question to think about is why also would Giuliani install his personal command center at the World Trade Center after it had already been a target of terrorism in 1993 when it was bombed? Hmmmm?

Here’s Ron Paul on Bill Maher talking about schooling Giuliani and about presenting Giuliani with a reading list [so Giuliani can read about blowback and foreign policy]

Sunday, April 11, 2010

CNN Article Equates Confederate Soldiers to Terrorists


According to CNN, Confederate soldiers were domestic terrorists and no different than Osama bin Laden

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
April 11, 2010

In a remarkably addlepated story about the Confederacy, Roland Martin of CNN tells us Confederate soldiers defending their homes against invasion by the North were no different than Osama bin Laden and the supposed 9/11 hijackers.

“Even if you’re a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist,” writes Martin. “They are the same” as Muslim terrorists.

Martin also feeds into the ongoing corporate media effort to demonize a large number of Americans as “extremists.” He does not mention the Hutaree or other exaggerated scapegoats, but his historical revisionist argument hints that opposition to federal power over the states is domestic terrorism.

Martin made his comments after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell decided to honor Confederates for their involvement in the so-called Civil War, actually a war against Northern aggression.

Since McDonnell issued his proclamation — and modified it to include a reference to slavery in response to intense pressure by the race-baiting crowd — the corporate media has gone into overdrive to characterize the North’s invasion as a heroic effort to end slavery.

As Infowars.com noted last week, the so-called Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about the North imposing economic policies on the South. The South seceded from the Union because the North had imposed punitive tariffs upon it. In 1828 the North began imposing agricultural tariffs on the Southern states to subsidize its industrial policies and this ultimately led to secession

In 1860, Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, although he did pledge to “collect the duties and imposts” the government claimed.

Lincoln admitted to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase that his Emancipation Proclamation was not designed to free the slaves but was a brazen piece of war propaganda.

McDonnell’s effort to honor Confederate soldiers arrives at precisely the right time for advocates of state power over the individual. Millions of Americans stand in opposition to Obama and the federal government in response to Obamacare, cap and tax, and additional authoritarian power vested in the Federal Reserve and the IRS at the expense of the states and in direct violation of the Constitution.

It is also a response to a number of states talking about secession and nullifiction.

“I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative,” writes Walter E. Williams. “Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them.”

Mr. Martin’s article is yet another example of the the Mockingbird corporate media in league with the federal government pulling out the stops to characterize patriotic Americans as extremists, racists, and domestic terrorists.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Neo-Cons Defend Massacre Of Iraqi Journalists, Children


Michelle ‘put Arab-Americans in concentration camps’ Malkin Hot Air website still claims cameras and tripods were rocket launchers despite U.S. military admitting otherwise

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
April 6, 2010

Bloodthirsty neo-cons who would defend barbecuing Arab babies on the White House lawn if they were told it was part of the “war on terror” are disgracefully scrambling to defend a shocking video released by Wikileaks which shows U.S. Apache helicopters massacring Iraqi journalists and children in Baghdad while laughing about it.

“The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007,” reports the Guardian. “Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.”

The video shows the journalists openly walking down the middle of the street with tripods and video cameras while talking to other Iraqis and preparing to set up filming.

Claiming the men are carrying RPG rocket grenade launchers, the Apache pilots indiscriminately open fire on the group, before firing again at people who attempt to rescue the dying men. The rescuers’ van, which is seen to contain at least two children, is blown to pieces as the soldiers laugh and chuckle, “Hahaha. I hit ‘em,” and “Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards.”

“One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.” A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. “Look at that. Right through the windshield,” says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh. Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.”

Shortly after, a U.S. Humvee drives over one of the dead bodies. “I think they just drove over a body,” one of the pilots says, while chuckling.

The video arrives in the same week it was revealed that U.S. special forces dug bullets out of victims following a botched raid in Afghanistan and then lied to their superiors about the incident in an effort to cover-up the murder of innocent civilians – two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother.

As the following clip highlights, this latest horror is merely the most recent in a long chain of videos cataloging the unreasonable and unprovoked abuse and brutality innocent Iraqis have been subjected to since the March 2003 invasion.

watch the massacre clip in full below




Some apologists, people like CFR stooge Brett H. McGurk, have blamed “fog of war” for the attack, while acknowledging the tragedy of the incident, but others have shamefully blamed the very people who were slaughtered for the entire incident.

Despite the fact that U.S. military admits that none of the men were carrying rocket launchers, Hot Air writer Ed Morrissey claims the Iraqis were gunned down because they were aiming RPG’s at U.S. troops. “It’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place. That’s exactly the kind of threat that US airborne forces were tasked to detect and destroy, which is why the gunships targeted and shot all of the members of the group,” Morrissey absurdly states, completely lying about the nature of the entire incident.

click to enlarge


As the Guardian report clarifies, “One of the helicopter crew is heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.”

The men are clearly walking openly and casually down the middle of the street, and are at ease with the fact that there are two Apache attack helicopters hovering over them. If they were preparing to attack the choppers or U.S. troops nearby, they would hardly be strolling around talking on mobile phones and chatting, they would be hunkered down amidst nearby buildings.

The men are clearly at ease and not in an attack posture – as is born out by the fact that they were journalists preparing to film interviews

Or as Wikileaks director Julian Assange puts it, “Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?”

Unsatisfied with just running defense for people who massacre innocents and kids while laughing about it, Morrissey then has the temerity to justify the subsequent slaughter of the brave individuals who tried to help the dying victims.

“Another accusation is that US forces fired on and killed rescue workers attempting to carry one of the journalists out of the area. However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces.

While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do. They don’t need to wait until someone gets hold of the RPG launcher and fires it at the gunship or at the reinforcements that had already begun to approach the scene,” he writes.

Again, Morrissey’s entire twisted logic is based around the premise that the men were carrying RPG rocket launchers, which is confirmed and admitted not to be the case by Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. Claiming the Apache pilots mistook the cameras for RPG rockets is one thing, but Morrissey continues to claim that the cameras were RPG’s in order to justify the slaughter, despite the fact that it’s fully confirmed that the men were not carrying RPG’s – they were journalists with tripods and long lens cameras.

“A military investigation concluded that the ‘RPG’ was really a long-range photography lens and the camera looked like an AK-47,” reports Sky News.

Morrissey’s characterization of the victims as the “terrorists that had just been engaged” is also completely at odds with the fact that the men were civilians, journalists and children.

Illustrating the level of denial and delusion that neo-cons wrap themselves in when acting as apologists for war crimes, one Hot Air reader even goes so far as to claim that the entire video is fake, despite the fact that the U.S. military admits it is genuine and has spent years trying to block its release.

“This has all the hallmarks of some bullshit Hollywood production. The soldiers sound scripted, the Bradley Fighting vehicles look inauthentic,” a poster named Cr4sh Dummy ludicrously claims.

“My conclusions is that (t)his is simply and unequivocally a viral video for some bullshit antiwar movie based on this event,” the commenter blathers.

Again, the U.S. military itself admits that the video is genuine, but that’s not enough for the tragically retarded “fans” of Michelle Malkin. This reminds us of when Malkin hysterically claimed that a video showing U.S. soldiers throwing a puppy off a clip was a hoax and that the dog was a stuffed toy.

“Watch the clip closely. The puppy doesn’t move. It’s clear to me that it’s either dead or a stuffed toy. The sound effects of a dog yapping seem to have been dubbed in,” wrote Malkin.



The soldier who threw the puppy off the cliff, Lance Cpl. David Motari, was later kicked out of the Corps, and a second Marine involved was disciplined. Malkin never retracted her ridiculous claim that the dog was a stuffed toy.

In another Malkin-linked blog piece, the writer recycles the lie that “the video shows armed insurgents engaging or about to engage US troops,” when it shows the exact opposite, as every analyst who has watched it agrees, and the author all but praises the murdering Apache pilots while attacking Wikileaks for releasing the video as, “Beyond stupid, they’re evil.”

Apparently, ripping innocent men who have families and children limb from limb for no good reason is perfectly acceptable, but releasing a film of the incident is “evil”. What pit of hell did these monsters climb out of?

Directing his vitriol at the brave van drivers who attempted to save their dying loved ones, the blogger snaps, “You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You’re asking to be killed.”

The rest of the article attempts to convince the reader that cameras and tripods were in fact RPG’s, when as we have exhaustively stressed was admitted not to be the case by the U.S. military itself. The victims were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver who also worked for Reuters news agency – they were not RPG carrying terrorists.

“Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher,” reports the Mail.

There were never any RPG’s, yet neo-cons are still trying to make the case that the slaughter was justified because the men were carrying RPG’s. The scale of this deception knows no bounds.

The vulgarity in seeing Malkin and her ilk defend these murderers is underlined by the fact that the soldiers immensely enjoyed killing these innocent men, laughing and chuckling all the way, and as Assange points out, “The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, their response is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon … It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number of kills.”

Amidst the myriad of obfuscation and denial, neo-con apologists have no come-back for this blatant barbarism. Blowing up vans containing little kids with enjoyment cannot be explained away by Malkin’s bloodthirsty readers, but judging by the comments in response to the article, many of them would indeed support barbecuing Arab babies on the White House lawn to ’send a message that we are getting tough with the terrorists’ – to these thugs, the means justifies the ends.

Neo-Cons will go to any lengths to defend and downplay wanton acts of cruelty and barbarism. To them, “supporting the troops” means defending people who slaughter kids and murder little puppies. These people are truly devoid of any human emotion. That’s why they have to invent convoluted theories and outright lies in a desperate effort to explain away something that fits every definition of a war crime.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Alex Jones Interview with Ron Paul: April 5, 2010


Alex has the Congressman on to discuss health care [the ‘medical’ industrial complex] and what wonders Obamacare will do for the corporations. Other topics include the economy, Rand Paul’s senate run, and freedom from government

YouTube.com
April 6, 2010