Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Who Is Payday Monsanto?

Or, it just wouldn't be a Troof-fest without Jew-bashing. One of the "acts" scheduled for Jon Gold's upcoming "Treason in America" event is Payday Monsanto. As you can probably guess, his music is the usual paranoid stew that we see from the kooks every day; chemtrails, the New World Order, etc. And yes, the requisite "anti-Zionism". Here's just a sample:

Or this image:

The World Without Zionism was the title of a conference held by that great humanitarian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Payday's friends on MySpace include the trifecta of stupid: Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Jesse Ventura:


He's what we could call a crapper:


I wonder if Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2002 knows the kind of people she's going to be associated with at this confab.

Kudos to our commenter, New Yorker, for pointing this out. Great find!

Labels: , , , , , ,

146 Comments:

At 20 January, 2010 10:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat, can a person be anti-zionist and still like the Jewish people?

Ahhh never mind, "debunkers" still don't know the difference between a political movement and a racial group.

See

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

and keep up the poor character attacks.

 
At 20 January, 2010 10:14, Blogger Pat said...

As long as you guys keep promoting poor characters!

 
At 20 January, 2010 10:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat, is there any reason you can't separate criticism of a political state from from racism targeted towards an ethnic group?

 
At 20 January, 2010 10:26, Blogger Pat said...

Let me ask you this; what does the word "Zionism" mean?

 
At 20 January, 2010 11:13, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Pat, can a person be anti-zionist and still like the Jewish people?'

Seeing as a Zionist is someone who believes that the Jewish people have a right to their own state, I'd say the answer to that question is pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a retard, or a truther (or - as is often the case - both).

'Anti-Zionism' is simply a convenient little tag for someone to use if he/she wants to peddle the old conspiracy theories about Jews manipulating governments, the media and public opinion to provoke wars, regime change etc (a standard claim from the 'Protocols' onwards, which is still very popular in a certain region of the world) without wanting to admit that they're anti-Semites. No surprise that the 'truth' movement is full of these cnuts.

 
At 20 January, 2010 11:29, Anonymous John E. Smoke said...

Who was that other guy who spent a lot of time complaining about Zionism? Adolf something or other. I wonder whatever happened to him?

 
At 20 January, 2010 11:41, Anonymous troyfromwv said...

I hate jews more than I do niggers, spics, and chinks.

 
At 20 January, 2010 11:58, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Pat, can a person be anti-zionist and still like the Jewish people?

Of course, but being against "zionism" is codespeak for hating hook-nosed money-grubbing, blood-drinking Jews.

People can legitimately be opposed to Obama as well, but I have a hard time seeing the "birther" nuttiness as anything but hatred of an African-American president.

It's not hard to read between the lines, it just takes a modicum of intelligence and awareness, something the "truth" movement is missing.

 
At 20 January, 2010 12:01, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Of course, but being against "zionism" is codespeak for hating hook-nosed money-grubbing, blood-drinking Jews.

Or I should say that many people (but not all) who rail against "zionism" are unhinged anti-semites. It's just that they know they have to tone the rhetoric down to sound legitimate. Our pal Payday Monsanto is obvious a rabid anti-semite if you look at the loony images on his site. It's obvious Kevin Barrett hates Jews, but you'll only catch him railing against "zionism".

 
At 20 January, 2010 12:19, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

I'm listening to Alex Jones for the first time in a while and today he's Mr. Dead Air. He's just not entertaining anymore.

 
At 20 January, 2010 12:34, Anonymous Average 911 "truther" said...

They used that beam project in Alaska to cause the earthquake in Haiti.

 
At 20 January, 2010 13:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually a lot of people use the term "anti-zionist" to reflect their belief in the single-state solution in Palestine, and their opposition to all supporters of the state of Israel, many of whom are not Jews at all but are funsamentalist Christians who believe that stirring up trouble between the Jews and the Arabs is the best way to bring about Armageddon and get them into heaven.

It's also used by some Jew-haters as a code word, and some dishonest people like to confuse the issue.

 
At 20 January, 2010 13:23, Anonymous AngryJew said...

Opposing the actions of the State of Israel is one thing.
Alleging that the aforementioned state exercises complete control over the United States and other Western governments through a network of JEWS is recycled 19th century anti-Semitic paranoia. Alleging that the world's financial institutions are run by a secret network of Jews is also anti-Semitic nonsense.
Give me a fucking break, look at the "artwork" on this wanna-be rapper's website and tell me he doesn't indulge in wild theories about Jewish cabals.
Sometime in the mid 1990's the White Supremacists stopped using the acronym JOG (Jewish Occupied Government) and started using ZOG. I'll let you guess what the Z stands for.

 
At 20 January, 2010 13:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He isn't MySpace buddies with Ahmadinejad or Hassan Nasrallah?

 
At 20 January, 2010 13:54, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Btw, personally, I do think Monsanto deserves a nice payday for the Bt corn and hardy wheat strains.

And I wish all the European GMO nuts would shadddupppp.

 
At 20 January, 2010 14:36, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Pat, can a person be anti-zionist and still like the Jewish people?"

It's like people who a pro segregation who say they’re not racist. If it walks like a duck.......

 
At 20 January, 2010 15:25, Anonymous Marc said...

No.

A person who is anti-zionist does not like Jews much either.

Out of all the countries in the world, to single out Israel to be the root cause of all bad things it racist.

The level of hate and paranoia against Jews and Israel within the 9/11 "Truth" movement is unforgivable at any level.

 
At 20 January, 2010 15:51, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"The level of hate and paranoia against Jews and Israel within the 9/11 "Truth" movement is unforgivable at any level."

Unless it's Borat: "He insist we not fly in case the Jews repeated their attack of 9/11."

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know a lot of Jews who are anti-zionist. Maybe if Israel didn't do such odious things they wouldn't get so much criticism.

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odious things like what, carry out 9-11?

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:41, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I know a lot of Jews who are anti-zionist.

Yeah, like that lunatic Hasidic rabbi who appeared in Bill Maher's movie shaking Ahmadinejad's hand and then denying it on camera.

Something tells me that Payday Monsanto's big problem isn't the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His big problem is that Hitler didn't finish the job.

 
At 20 January, 2010 17:13, Blogger Triterope said...

but being against "zionism" is codespeak for hating hook-nosed money-grubbing, blood-drinking Jews.

Yup. Sorry all you "anti-Zionists", you're not fooling anyone with that act.

 
At 20 January, 2010 17:24, Blogger Triterope said...

I wonder if Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2002 knows the kind of people she's going to be associated with at this confab.

Hey, if she's OK with the parade of human filth at this conference -- Cindy Sheehan, Richard Gage, Jon Gold, Jack Blood, Dylan Avery, and so on -- she's not going to blow a gasket over Payday Monsanto.

 
At 20 January, 2010 17:44, Blogger J said...

Not liking people who don't think Palestine had a right to act like it was on the right side in World War II is mere stupidity. But 9/11 deniers don't stop at saying they "hate Zionism." Their sole line of reasoning for indicting virtually everyone they indict in 9/11 who they call "Zionist" is actually that they're Jewish. They infer a blind ethnocentrism from someone's last name.

There are morally reasonable reasons for being okay with Israel that have nothing to do with the racial or political character of its inhabitants. I'm not Jewish, I don't believe ethnic identity qualifies you for a state, and I'm glad Israel exists. 9/11 deniers have to graft stupidity and bigotry onto their enemies because its easier for them than actually opening a dialogue.

That's how cults work, after all.

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of zionists are not Jews. They're fundamentalist Christians who want to stir up trouble between the Jews and the Arabs to bring on Armageddon and get their ass into heaven quick. I don't understand what their hurry is.

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:30, Anonymous SheihkYerbuti said...

As an American of Arab descent I can tell you that some in my family will blame Mossad every time the toilet gets clogged. Conspiracy theories are the norm in the Arab world, and many/most places outside of The West. They have to tell themselves that Mossad is omnipotent because it's the only way they can cope with getting beaten by tiny Israel over and over and over again.
Great site guys, keep up the good work.

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:40, Anonymous infotardfanclub said...

I knew there was a reason I keep going to infowars.
http://www.infowars.com/activist-watch-out-for-idf-stealing-organs-in-haiti/
Here's the story from a legitimate site.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3836929,00.html
Nope. No antisemitism here. None at all. Notice how some random nutjob's youtube post qualifies as a legitimate source to these pieces of shit.

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:54, Anonymous New Yorker said...

A lot of zionists are not Jews. They're fundamentalist Christians who want to stir up trouble between the Jews and the Arabs to bring on Armageddon and get their ass into heaven quick. I don't understand what their hurry is.

That's true. It's also a total red herring. When Kevin Barrett is ranting against "zionists", do you really think he's talking about fundamentalist Christians?

 
At 20 January, 2010 19:39, Blogger Billman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 January, 2010 19:56, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

is there any reason you can't separate criticism of a political state from from racism targeted towards an ethnic group?

I have a lot of problems with America's unquestioning support of Israel, since I don't think our interests are synonymous. Having said that, American support of Israel was ironclad before 9/11, the notion Jews or anyone else had to stage an attack on the US to increase American support of Israel is ridiculous, even leaving aside the the more important point THERE ISN'T A SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

 
At 20 January, 2010 19:58, Anonymous John said...

But haven't you heard, Cons? A lot of people who were affected by 9/11 have Jewish-sounding last names and are therefore die-hard Zionist zealots working for Mossad on the sly.

 
At 20 January, 2010 20:06, Anonymous paul w said...

"but being against "zionism" is codespeak for hating hook-nosed money-grubbing, blood-drinking Jews"
New Yorker


Everything truthers do is 'codespeak'.

That's why they so often use "'" in their writings, i.e. "we all know that the 'engineers' at NIST...".

Let's face it, what else have they got?

Facts are few and far between, so their language is a mix of codespeak, joining the dots, and asking questions.

The latter could be the only reasonable argument they have, if they didn't fuck it up by consistently ignoring the answers.

Then again, why ruin a perfectly good fantasy?

 
At 20 January, 2010 20:11, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Billman, I don't know that we should be putting Brian's phone number out there. I mean, it's fair game to mock him here since nobody is making him post here, but I know I wouldn't want my number out in a public forum.

Just my $.02

 
At 20 January, 2010 20:14, Blogger Triterope said...

Yeah, that's not cool. I'm sure Pat and James will delete it as soon as they see it.

 
At 20 January, 2010 20:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I have a lot of problems with America's unquestioning support of Israel, since I don't think our interests are synonymous.

I do too. I think the West Bank settlements need to be fully dismantled, and I also am disturbed by the alliance of messianic settlers and apocalyptic Christians in this country (Brian Good wins a broken clock award for bringing that up).

That being said, Israel had nothing to do with 9/11.

 
At 20 January, 2010 21:54, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

"Jews Against Zionism" is the Nueteri Karta. a tiny, insignificant branch of nominally jewish orthodox extremists who have a view of the Holocaust that is possibly even more offensive than Holocaust denialism. Namely that the holocaust happened but the jewish people deserved it.

It takes a special talent to be a bigger asshole than Holocaust deniers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6171503.stm

Some of them belong to Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), a Hasidic sect of a few thousand people which views Zionism - the movement to establish a Jewish national home or state in what was Palestine - as a "poison" threatening "true Jews"

Neturei Karta's views are regarded with abhorrence by most other Orthodox Jews, according to Rabbi Jeremy Rosen of the Yakar centre in London.

"And I think, frankly, even among the Hasidic world, by and large Neturei Karta are regarded as freaks," the Orthodox rabbi told the BBC News website.



So you've tried to prove you aren't racist by linking to a couple thousand morons who hate the other 18 million jews even worse than most anti-semites.

Good job, you racist dirtbag.

 
At 20 January, 2010 22:33, Anonymous New Yorker said...

"Jews Against Zionism" is the Nueteri Karta. a tiny, insignificant branch of nominally jewish orthodox extremists who have a view of the Holocaust that is possibly even more offensive than Holocaust denialism. Namely that the holocaust happened but the jewish people deserved it.

Yup, the loon Bill Maher interviewed in "Religulous", Yisroel Dovid Weiss, is a member of Nueteri Karta. The weasel lied to Maher about being at Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference, even though there were images of him on stage with Ahmadinejad.

 
At 21 January, 2010 07:15, Anonymous New Yorker said...

They used that beam project in Alaska to cause the earthquake in Haiti.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/20/chavista-experts-say-us-milita

No wonder the "truthers" are such fans of Hugo Chavez. Birds of a feather and all that.

 
At 21 January, 2010 10:28, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Let's nail some lies here about 'anti-Zionists'. Firstly, when they say they back a one-state solution, they are actually going against the aspirations of the people they claim they support (namely the Palestinians, who are prepared to accept the state of Israel - based on 1967 borders - provided that the West Bank and Gaza constitute an independent Palestinian state):

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/137.php (from 2002).
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080267.html (from 2009).

They are either also ignorant of the terms of the Hamas Charter (and what it promises for Jews), or they endorse its terms.

They rant about the nabka (the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) in 1948, but have no words to condemn the expulsion of around 1 million Jews from the Arab states in the late 1940s-early 1950s. What about their 'right of return'?

They condemn the 'odious' actions of the Israeli state, but are suspiciously quiet about far worse war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Arab regimes. I don't recall any anti-Zionists showing any solidarity with the people of Darfurn (whose death toll over the past six years exceeds the entire toll of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1948 by a factor of three, at the very least). And I don't see the 'defend Gaza' crowd complaining about Saudi air-strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

So when it comes down to it, if you're of the attitude that the region's only democracy is responsible for all the ills of the world, and you don't care about anything the Arabs and Iranians have done, you're just one step down the road towards being an out-and-out anti-Semite. No wonder the truth movement is infested with them.

 
At 21 January, 2010 13:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sackcloth,
I think you're pretty right about most of what you say describing the usual suspects. There are some groups out there that criticize Israel but also criticize other flagrant abuses in the region (there's certainly no shortage). Ironically I'd say the most effective critics of Israel are Israeli's themselves.
"Anti-Zionists" don't care about Palestinians or even Israel for that matter. They care about the (imaginary) vast network of Jewish operatives that control world financial institutions and Western governments.

 
At 21 January, 2010 14:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saa, your complaint that the anti-zionists don't complain about other evils in the world is disingenuous. We don't support the other evil doers financially like we support Israel.

 
At 21 January, 2010 15:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you fucking kidding me? We don't support Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey and a variety of other thugs in the world? Give me a break. What makes Israel so special?

 
At 21 January, 2010 15:32, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Saa, your complaint that the anti-zionists don't complain about other evils in the world is disingenuous.'

When's your next march for Darfur? When are you going to demand that the Syrian authorities responsible for the mass murder at Hama in 1981 face war crimes charges? When are you going to protest against the murder of opposition activists in Iran? When are you going to protest against the second-class treatment of women in all Arab countries, or the murder of Sudanese asylum seekers by Egyptian border guards?

'We don't support the other evil doers financially like we support Israel.'

Aha, I think we have this mentality nicely nailed. If you're not a US ally, you can do whatever you want to either your own people or your neighbours. Hypocrite much?

 
At 21 January, 2010 15:36, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'There are some groups out there that criticize Israel but also criticize other flagrant abuses in the region (there's certainly no shortage).'

Anti-Zionists do not condemn the actions of the state of Israel. They condemn the existence of a state called Israel.

 
At 21 January, 2010 15:43, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

What makes Israel so special?

It's a modern western liberal democracy. Its neighbors and enemies aren't.

We support democracy by supporting democracies.

 
At 21 January, 2010 16:13, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Somebody inform Sakrete that the US and Britain have been aiding and abetting the scumbag warlords of Afghanistan for many decades.Women's rights and protections have always come behind heroin loot and oil interests.It's still going on right now you pretentious twit! We won't even bother lecturing you on the Saudis.Last I've checked they are our main men! Mr.Sackpile,when DID Saudi women achieve the right to drive a car alone?

 
At 21 January, 2010 16:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's my favorite klown!

 
At 21 January, 2010 16:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are no oil interests in Afghanistan. We haven't always been backing the same group of warlords. In the 80s we backed the Pashtun against the Soviet backed Tajiks and Uzbeks, today we back Tajiks and Uzbeks against the Pashtun. Stop oversimplifying things.

 
At 21 January, 2010 16:57, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Great Cthulu, it just keeps on getting better and better:

Teh Twoooofer's™ favorite marxist thug regime called out the go ol' USA with proof positive:

"Hugo Chavez Mouthpiece Says U.S. Hit Haiti With 'Earthquake Weapon'"

"The United States apparently possesses an "earthquake weapon" that set off the catastrophic quake in Haiti and killed 200,000 innocents. Don't believe it's true? Just ask Hugo Chavez.

Citing an alleged report from Russia's Northern Fleet, the Venezuelan strongman's state mouthpiece ViVe TV shot out a press release saying the 7.0 magnitude Haiti quake was caused by a U.S. test of an experimental shockwave system that can also create "weather anomalies to cause floods, droughts and hurricanes.""

Modern science.

Is there anything it can't do?

 
At 21 January, 2010 17:00, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

forgot link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html

 
At 21 January, 2010 17:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

LL, yeah, I linked to the Reason blog entry on that earlier. I'm sure we need to build a pipeline across Haiti, or something.

As for Chavez himself, well, I doubt his regime survives the inevitable implosion of the Bolivar, which is already happening.

 
At 21 January, 2010 18:11, Anonymous HAARPsicord said...

Oh man! I saw discussions of HAARP among the info-tards and thought "Please God, let Hugo Chavez accuse us of HAARPing Hait, I'll never ask for anything else."
What's amusing is that the Russians built an Ionospheric heater just as powerful as HAARP a full decade before HAARP was built.
Never mind that this things are pointed UP at the sky and not down, but since when has science ever stopped conspiretards from opening their mouths?

 
At 21 January, 2010 19:01, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, I don't know that we should be putting Brian's phone number out there. I mean, it's fair game to mock him here since nobody is making him post here, but I know I wouldn't want my number out in a public forum.

Just my $.02


Nah, you're right. I didn't think because it was a public posting Brian made himself on a different site. I'm not for mocking anybody outside of this forum. Bafdillio or whatever his name was wanted me to pass that link that number to you. Don't know why he couldn't do that himself. Sorry about that.

 
At 21 January, 2010 19:40, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

As for Chavez himself, well, I doubt his regime survives the inevitable implosion of the Bolivar, which is already happening.

Much as I'd love to see that prick booted, don't bet on it.

The decline of the bolivar is the least of his worries, Venezuela is now undergoing water and electricity rationing. Chavez, of course, blames previous governments even though he has been in power for 11 years and for the last 7 or 8 he has had virtual dictatorial power. Nevertheless, he is blameless for whatever ills the country is facing!

Having said that, he has survived potentially fatal blows in the past and still enjoys dictatorial powers.

 
At 22 January, 2010 04:35, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Somebody inform Sakrete that the US and Britain have been aiding and abetting the scumbag warlords of Afghanistan for many decades'.

Somebody inform Arsehoolie that as soon as the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 (remember those charmers? 1m dead and 5m refugees as a result of their actions?) the Western countries disengaged themselves from Afghanistan and took no further interest in the country until after 9/11. So when it came to the civil war and the rise of the Taliban, it was Pakistan and other neighbouring countries (e.g. Iran) that were the players. Remedial reading, mongchild. Ahmed Rashid's 'Taliban'. It's got lots of long words, but it's worth a try.

'Women's rights and protections (sic) have always come behind heroin loot and oil interests.'

Afghanistan has oil?

Incidentally, you've got nothing to say about the fact that the USA and NATO are at war with the worst drug traffickers in Afghanistan, namely the Taliban. And as for women's rights in that country? You honestly give a fuck? Pur-lease. Maybe you might want to compare the current situation on gender rights with that of the Taliban. Who gets the chance to go to school and to uni, and to teach, practice medicine and participate in politics? Who didn't have that chance before 2001?

Grow up, you fucking ritalin-deprived child.

 
At 22 January, 2010 05:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, but being against "zionism" is codespeak for hating hook-nosed money-grubbing, blood-drinking Jews.

Apparently you all missed this website: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

 
At 22 January, 2010 05:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you've tried to prove you aren't racist by linking to a couple thousand morons who hate the other 18 million jews even worse than most anti-semites.

Good job, you racist dirtbag.


Another ignorant individual who can't separate criticism of a country/political movement from typical racism.

Oh look more Jews against Zionism_

http://www.thepencil.org/index.php?categoryid=103

http://www.monthlyreview.org/090622lang.php

Holy cow another!
http://www.realnews247.com/neturei_karta%20_orthodox_jews_united_against_zionism.htm


http://www.realnews247.com/jews_zionism_cause_of_world_instability.htm

Seems to me debunkers tag anti-Zionism to 9/11 truthers in an attempt to make them look racist.
So the argument goes, if you criticize Zionism or the state of Israel then by G-d you are criticizing a racial group, the Jews.

Of course the numerous links above prove that line of character attacks as completely bunk.


So in your idiot minds, is a Jew racist if he criticizes Israel?
I think the sites above answer that question.

ROFLMAO!

 
At 22 January, 2010 05:27, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'http://www.monthlyreview.org'

A far left publication which features genocide denial from Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and the like.

'neturei_karta'

Participants in the Holocaust Deniers conference in Tehran in December 2006.

These are your 'anti-Zionist Jews'. I can't see much in them to admire.

 
At 22 January, 2010 05:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sword of Truth said...
What makes Israel so special?
It's a modern western liberal democracy. Its neighbors and enemies aren't.

We support democracy by supporting democracies.


You don't even know the definition of democracy. We are a republic not a democracy. They aren't the same but then again I don't suspect ignorance would realize that.

infotardfanclub-And notice when a mainstream media outlet covers the Israeli organ harvesting operation, what does the paper get called by Israel-anti-Semtic! LOL

Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent
* Ian Black, Middle East editor
* The Guardian, Monday 21 December 2009

Israel has admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend.

The admission, by the former head of the country's forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called "antisemitic".

Israel's health ministry said all harvesting was now done with permission. "The guidelines at that time were not clear," it said in a statement to Channel 2. "For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law."

Finally, why isn't criticism of the U.S. called anti-Caucasian? Keep up the bad work.

 
At 22 January, 2010 06:26, Anonymous New Yorker said...

It takes a certain level of obtuseness and historical illiteracy to pretend that the railing against "zionism" by our pal Payday Monsanto is codespeak for virulent Jew-hatred. Fortunately, the "truth" movement is overloading with obtuse people with no grasp of history. Babbling about Jewish criticism of Israel is a nice job of grasping at straws, but it doesn't change things.

Ask Jon Gold why Payday Monsanto isn't on the bill for the event anymore, why don't you?

 
At 22 January, 2010 06:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

why i ask, does this website keep insulting americas proud service men and women by insisting that they're incompetent, lazy, liars who were incapable of defending america in hour of need?

 
At 22 January, 2010 06:40, Anonymous Boris Epstein's Mom said...

"you are criticizing a racial group, the Jews."

"don't know the difference between a political movement and a racial group"


You don't even know the definition of a race. They are a religion not a rae. They aren't the same but then again I don't suspect ignorance would realize that.

 
At 22 January, 2010 08:28, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Only an extremely addled cultist like the buffoon Sackwurst-upon-Rye could type out this comment without a hint of irony:"...One million dead and 5 million refugees"!!!! Sir Cement-Head you are worse than propagandized,you have become incapable of seeing straight! Sorry to inform you Bobo,but the US and NATO have been in cahoots with major league heroin producers and traffickers for decades now.Are you actually saying this isn't true? Afghanistan has real estate to move oil/gas through to a warm water port.Pretending you are unaware of that proves you are less than a weasel! Since the US invaded and took over Afghanistan has the heroin trade grown exponentially or has it slowed considerably? I know it's probably just another weird coincidence that it has skyrocketed,but....by the way,all your boys' efforts leads directly to your local addicts,who may or may not be climbing into your chicken shed to steal your food stamps and tall brown bottles.While you sit online for hous cheerleading the biggest scumbags on the Planet Earth! Up and at 'em Sackie!!

 
At 22 January, 2010 08:31, Anonymous Jeeves said...

"why i ask, does this website keep insulting americas proud service men and women by insisting that they're incompetent, lazy, liars who were incapable of defending america in hour of need?"

You mean that pussy poser spacebarboy?

Because he's a clueless piece of shit.

Anything else I can help you with?

 
At 22 January, 2010 08:31, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

why i ask, does this website keep insulting americas proud service men and women by insisting that they're incompetent, lazy, liars who were incapable of defending america in hour of need?

Can you be any more disingenuous? Saying some might not have done their job as well as we might have hoped is merely an admission that they aren't perfect. You scumbags on the other hand accuse them of being eager and willing participants in mass murder of their own citizens on not a single shred of evidence. Which is worse?

 
At 22 January, 2010 08:34, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

And we have Walt telling us how evil the US is but doing nothing about it but supporting it on a daily basis.

What a fucktard!

 
At 22 January, 2010 09:52, Anonymous New Yorker said...

why i ask, does this website keep insulting americas proud service men and women by insisting that they're incompetent, lazy, liars who were incapable of defending america in hour of need?

This is the BEST you idiots can do? I'm not blaming the military for what happened on 9/11. I'm blaming, um, Osama bin Laden. What happened on 9/11 was a brilliant exploitation of weakness in defense, not because of incompetence on the part of the US military.

 
At 22 January, 2010 10:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

NY, we have the best military in the world.

You could argue it's the greatest army in all of history.

 
At 22 January, 2010 11:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boris Epstein's Mom said...

"you are criticizing a racial group, the Jews."

"don't know the difference between a political movement and a racial group"
You don't even know the definition of a race. They are a religion not a rae. They aren't the same but then again I don't suspect ignorance would realize that.


Apparently they haven't banned stupidity here at Blogger. Your a poster child for a failed education system.

Lets enlighten your mind from dictionary.com:

1. one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite. Ethnic Group!
2. a person whose religion is Judaism. Religious Group!
3. a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.Extinct political group.

Lets see its a racial/ethnic group, a religious group, and an expired political group. It seems to me your true ignorance is shining through. No wonder your a debunker because you don't know shit.

 
At 22 January, 2010 11:14, Anonymous Chet Ripley said...

"Lets enlighten your mind from dictionary.com:

1. one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite. Ethnic Group!
2. a person whose religion is Judaism. Religious Group!
3. a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.Extinct political group."

That's great news. So what you are saying is I can convert to Native American and get my children free rides to college?

Hebrew is an ethic group/race - thanks for sharing the obvious Brian. Jewish is a religion, one that a person of ANY race may convert to.

Brian, why is it you know so little about so many things. Just enough to be dangerous in fact

 
At 22 January, 2010 11:18, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Israel has admitted pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families – a practice it said ended in the 1990s – it emerged at the weekend.'

The 'others' included Israeli citizens (including serving members of the IDF). For some reason, those facts don't get acknowledged by 'anti-Zionists':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

'Only an extremely addled cultist like the buffoon Sackwurst-upon-Rye could type out this comment without a hint of irony:"...One million dead and 5 million refugees"!!!! Sir Cement-Head you are worse than propagandized,you have become incapable of seeing straight!'

So the Russians didn't intervene in Afghanistan in December 1979, wage war against insurgents and the local population, kill large numbers of Afghans in a 'scorched earth' campaign (described by the anthropologist and Afghan specialist Louis Dupree as 'migratory genocide') which also led to a mass exodus of refugees into Pakistan. WHO did not count 1m maimed as a result of the Soviet invasion and occupation (1979-1989), and the UNHCR didn't register 5m Afghans as refugees.

Amongst mongs and window-lickers, you are truly special.

'to inform you Bobo,but the US and NATO have been in cahoots with major league heroin producers and traffickers for decades now.Are you actually saying this isn't true?'

Evidence would be nice. And if you check the stats the heroin flooding the world's market comes from Taliban-controlled areas of Southern Afghanistan. And we're at war with them, in case you haven't noticed.

'Afghanistan has real estate to move oil/gas through to a warm water port.'

(Sound of goalposts screeching loudly).

'Since the US invaded and took over Afghanistan has the heroin trade grown exponentially or has it slowed considerably?'

The Taliban dealt in heroin throughout the 1990s. Their 'ban' in 2000 was cosmetic, and had no material effect on trafficking in the region. And they are the main pushers now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/10/afghanistan-drug-trafficking-obama
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6210.pdf

Go back to school, boy.

 
At 22 January, 2010 12:41, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Hey Sackariah,did you hear the one about the ceiling? Ah,that'd be way over your head!! Golly,you are dimmer than I thought!

 
At 22 January, 2010 13:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saa: "Western countries disengaged themselves from Afghanistan and took no further interest in the country until after 9/11."

That's not true at all. In 1997 Unocal paid $900,000 to set up a training facility in Afghanistan for teachers and pipeline builders. Taliban came to Texas to meet with Unocal to discuss the pipeline deal. It's claimed that they also met with ENRON.

In summer of 2001 there was the famous Berlin meeting where Taliban was told they could have a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs, and warned that if they rejected the pipeline deal there would be war before the snows fell.

LL: "we have the best military in the world"

Then why couldn't it defend its own HQ from a plot that had been known for five years and about which they got warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA?

 
At 22 January, 2010 13:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Saa: "Western countries disengaged themselves from Afghanistan and took no further interest in the country until after 9/11."

That's not true at all."

That's as far as I got.

You are truly a mindless, unthinking moron, boron.

 
At 22 January, 2010 13:31, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Then why couldn't it defend its own HQ from a plot that had been known for five years and about which they got warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA?"

Because they didn't, you fucking retarded marmoset.

Now get back to cleaning the deep fryers.

 
At 22 January, 2010 13:32, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

And boron, you never answered the question I asked earlier.

When you were a child playing in the sandbox, did the cat try to cover you up?

 
At 22 January, 2010 14:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deny and lie, tactics of cynical losers.

 
At 22 January, 2010 15:13, Anonymous New Yorker said...

That's not true at all. In 1997 Unocal paid $900,000 to set up a training facility in Afghanistan for teachers and pipeline builders. Taliban came to Texas to meet with Unocal to discuss the pipeline deal. It's claimed that they also met with ENRON.

Nobody cares, Petgoat. Also, Enron does not exist anymore, so they can't be building pipelines. You'd know this if you learned to google.

In summer of 2001 there was the famous Berlin meeting where Taliban was told they could have a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs, and warned that if they rejected the pipeline deal there would be war before the snows fell.

This sounds like a line from a bad sci-fi/fantasy movie.

Then why couldn't it defend its own HQ from a plot that had been known for five years and about which they got warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA?

Because it's not invincible or infallible, and al-Qaeda had a brilliant plan to exploit its weaknesses. You're not very bright, are you?

Deny and lie, tactics of cynical losers.

Nobody is lying or denying. Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

 
At 22 January, 2010 15:35, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

Why are they still talking about the nonexistent pipeline that's never going to be built because there's no gas to put into it? The gas is going to China through a pipeline that actually exists. Why would we want to send central Asian natural gas to the Indian Ocean anyway? The real pipeline drama is going on in Turkey, where the Nabucco pipeline would/will connect central Asian and Middle Eastern gas fields directly to Europe.
Also, you still owe me an explanation as to how banks benefit from money laundering.

 
At 22 January, 2010 16:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY: "al-Qaeda had a brilliant plan"

A brilliant plan! LOL! Let's see, give NORAD an hour's notice of hijackings, 51 minutes' notice of planes-into-buildings, have NORAD ignore discussion of flight 77 done on the FAA-DoD phone bridge, have the president sit on his ass in a schoolroom instead of order fighter cover over DC, scramble F-16s and fly them out to sea. That's a brilliant plan all right! Those fiendishly clever Mooslims!

pp, moneylaundering is good for banks because they need the liquidity (cash). When they have cash in reserve, that means they can lend more money -- and make more money. If they have $1 billion in cash, they can make $10 billion in loans. Pretty neat, huh?








You're not very bright, are you?

Deny and lie, tactics of cynical losers.

Nobody is lying or denying. Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

22 January, 2010 15:13
Anonymous piedpipeline said...

Why are they still talking about the nonexistent pipeline that's never going to be built because there's no gas to put into it? The gas is going to China through a pipeline that actually exists. Why would we want to send central Asian natural gas to the Indian Ocean anyway? The real pipeline drama is going on in Turkey, where the Nabucco pipeline would/will connect central Asian and Middle Eastern gas fields directly to Europe.
Also, you still owe me an explanation as to how banks benefit from money laundering.

 
At 22 January, 2010 16:21, Anonymous New Yorker said...

A brilliant plan! LOL! Let's see, give NORAD an hour's notice of hijackings, 51 minutes' notice of planes-into-buildings, have NORAD ignore discussion of flight 77 done on the FAA-DoD phone bridge, have the president sit on his ass in a schoolroom instead of order fighter cover over DC, scramble F-16s and fly them out to sea. That's a brilliant plan all right! Those fiendishly clever Mooslims!

Nice racism there in that last sentence. I know, how could towel-heads in caves do something like this?

For those of us living on planet earth, the confused early reaction would seem normal when reacting to a sudden, unexpected event. Life is not a Michael Bay movie, Brian.

pp, moneylaundering is good for banks because they need the liquidity (cash). When they have cash in reserve, that means they can lend more money -- and make more money. If they have $1 billion in cash, they can make $10 billion in loans. Pretty neat, huh?

Um, if you don't know what the term "money laundering" means, it's best not to babble ignorantly about it.

 
At 22 January, 2010 16:26, Blogger Billman said...

Deny and lie, tactics of cynical losers.

If there was just one thing that proved 9/11 was an inside job, most of us would be there in the troof movement with you... except WE'D actually get something accomplished.

 
At 22 January, 2010 17:54, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

Yes, fractional-reserve banking is very neat, as it is the basis for modern economics and the most successful societies ever to exist. However, it does not require drug money to function. Isn't the Federal Reserve at the center of most conspiracy theories? Is that why Truthers love Ron Paul so much?

 
At 22 January, 2010 18:00, Anonymous Chet Ripley said...

Brian you don't want to play anymore?

 
At 22 January, 2010 20:04, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

"pp, moneylaundering is good for banks because they need the liquidity (cash). When they have cash in reserve, that means they can lend more money -- and make more money. If they have $1 billion in cash, they can make $10 billion in loans. Pretty neat, huh?"

You're actually being serious - right?

 
At 22 January, 2010 20:47, Anonymous Troofers R Us said...

Fucking Brian Good...an ATM once told him he was overdrawn and now he is an expert on FRB Regulations...

 
At 23 January, 2010 10:36, Blogger Billman said...

Fucking Brian Good...an ATM once told him he was overdrawn and now he is an expert on FRB Regulations...

...just like how he once had a campfire and now he's an expert on steel high rise fires.

 
At 23 January, 2010 11:01, Anonymous New Yorker said...

...just like how he once had a campfire and now he's an expert on steel high rise fires.

He's also an expert on the construction of high-rise buildings because he once worked across the street from a construction site.

Seriously, he's actually made that claim.

 
At 23 January, 2010 11:11, Anonymous Cooper Harris said...

"He's also an expert on the construction of high-rise buildings because he once worked across the street from a construction site"

I've seen this street urchin's picture. The only thing he is an expert at is cleaning car windows at intersections.

 
At 23 January, 2010 11:55, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian also made the claim he was an expert on failure mode, No, not because of his personal life, but because as a kid he build a chair that failed when he sat in it. Probably hit his head in the process. That is why he is so impressed by Richard Gages's silly box drop.

 
At 23 January, 2010 12:19, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'"Western countries disengaged themselves from Afghanistan and took no further interest in the country until after 9/11."

That's not true at all. In 1997 Unocal paid $900,000 to set up a training facility in Afghanistan for teachers and pipeline builders.'

One Western firm. And UNOCAL's deal (which one of its executives, Marty Miller, called 'the moon shot') fell through by the following year (see Rashid, “Taliban”, pp.157-182).

'Taliban came to Texas to meet with Unocal to discuss the pipeline deal. It's claimed that they also met with ENRON.'

Evidence of the ENRON link would be nice.

'In summer of 2001 there was the famous Berlin meeting where Taliban was told they could have a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs, and warned that if they rejected the pipeline deal there would be war before the snows fell.'

Yet again, another Brian Good lie. This has been rebutted before - not that he has dared to admit it.

The 'Berlin meeting' (which involved retired diplomats) had NO Taliban representatives present. The source for the 'war or pot of gold' claim came from a retired Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik. No one can confirm that he had the conversation he claimed to have had with (retired) US officials at that meeting. Brian also has to explain what happened to the 17,000 Russian troops Naik claimed were on hand to invade Afghanistan in October 2001:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/

Brian Good fails again.

 
At 23 January, 2010 13:42, Blogger Billman said...

Pat.. seriously, what is wrong with troofers? You're interested in this thing as a sociological phenomenon... any ideas on why this thing breeds so many crazy people?

 
At 23 January, 2010 17:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, I didn't say anything about towel-heads, you did.

9/11 was NOT an unexpected event. The system was blinking red. Condi was warned on 5/30 and 7/10 that an attack was coming in a few weeks. Warned again on 8/6. 13 countries warned. Pentagon brass canceled travel plans. And Project Bojinka had been know since 1995.

Billman, your demand for proof is premature. How can we have proof when officials lie blatantly, investigators don't ask the right questions, and congress has no spine?

pp, Ruppert says the int'l banks could not function without the liquidity from the drug cash. Is there some reason I should not believe this?

Saa, your pedantry is just an attempt to obscure the fact that your claim that there was no western interest in Afghanistan was a lie. I showed the $900,000 Unocal school, the Taliban tour of Texas and the USA, and the Berlin meeting as evidence of great interest in Afghanistan. The "carpet of bombs" statement is not denied. And five of those who were at the meeting refuse to discuss it.

 
At 23 January, 2010 18:38, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

Ruppert says the int'l banks could not function without the liquidity from the drug cash. Is there some reason I should not believe this?
If you believe Ruppert's unsubstantiated claims just because he says so, there's nothing I can do to help you. I'd challenge you to find actual evidence for this assertion and not just to take his word for it. He is an ex cop with an axe to grind, he knows NOTHING about finance except for the propaganda he regurgitates. The volume of transactions that take place between the major international banks in one day is in the tens if not hundreds of billions. Drug money is a pittance compared to this. The value of bank assets (not counting derivatives)is in the tens of TRILLIONS of dollars, yes, with a T.
Furthermore, if banks are really strapped, the central bank can provide extra cash by printing it. That's a whole other series of issues but the point is that banks have other sources of liquidity in desperate times and don't need drug money.
How would you explain the liquidity crisis in fall 2008? Was there just not enough drug money around? Did the world stop buying drugs and that's what really caused the crisis? (I'll give you a hint, housing prices fell by 30%)
I'm not going to deny that there are bad banks and money launderers, there certainly are. I'll even accept the possibility that clandestine state services have dabbled in the black market.
To say, however, that the entire banking system RELIES upon drug money is a wild fantasy devoid of any sound economic reasoning.

 
At 23 January, 2010 19:17, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

"pp, Ruppert says the int'l banks could not function without the liquidity from the drug cash. Is there some reason I should not believe this?"

We don't give a fuck what you believe little man.

What makes Ruppert an expert on international banking urchinboy?

 
At 23 January, 2010 19:20, Anonymous Troofers R Us said...

Brian - what are yours and Ruppert's assessment of this:

http://www.adb.org/documents/Others/OGC-Toolkits/Anti-Money-Laundering/documents/money_laundering_neg_effects.pdf

 
At 23 January, 2010 20:24, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, your demand for proof is premature.

So then, 8 and a half years is NOT enough time for you guys to have collected proof?

How can we have proof when officials lie blatantly, investigators don't ask the right questions, and congress has no spine?

How can you automatically assume an inside job or cover-up or other intenionally nefarious act without some kind of "proof", then?

Your logic makes no sense: "It's too early to ask for proof, but there's obviously an inside job thing going on because officials are lying blantantly and investigators aren't asking the "right" questions. Oh, I don't have any proof of that officials are lying or that investigators aren't asking the right questions because it's too premature to have proof."

Whatever, man... call me a girl.

 
At 23 January, 2010 21:04, Anonymous New Yorker said...

9/11 was NOT an unexpected event. The system was blinking red. Condi was warned on 5/30 and 7/10 that an attack was coming in a few weeks. Warned again on 8/6. 13 countries warned. Pentagon brass canceled travel plans. And Project Bojinka had been know since 1995.

Unexpected, Brian.

Billman, your demand for proof is premature. How can we have proof when officials lie blatantly, investigators don't ask the right questions, and congress has no spine?

Everything has already been proven, Brian.

pp, Ruppert says the int'l banks could not function without the liquidity from the drug cash. Is there some reason I should not believe this?

You should not believe it because it's wrong, just like 9/11 "truth".

Saa, your pedantry is just an attempt to obscure the fact that your claim that there was no western interest in Afghanistan was a lie. I showed the $900,000 Unocal school, the Taliban tour of Texas and the USA, and the Berlin meeting as evidence of great interest in Afghanistan. The "carpet of bombs" statement is not denied. And five of those who were at the meeting refuse to discuss it.

Nobody cares, Brian.

 
At 24 January, 2010 06:37, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Saa, your pedantry is just an attempt to obscure the fact that your claim that there was no western interest in Afghanistan was a lie. I showed the $900,000 Unocal school, the Taliban tour of Texas and the USA, and the Berlin meeting as evidence of great interest in Afghanistan.'

'Great interest' in Afghanistan does not mean one minor energy firm seeking a contract in the country between 1997-1999, and a meeting between a retired Pakistani diplomat and his American counterparts in Germany in July 2001 (or, for that matter, repeated attempts by US diplomats between 1998-2001 to get the Taliban to hand over bin Laden). Your definition of 'great' requires correction.

'The "carpet of bombs" statement is not denied. And five of those who were at the meeting refuse to discuss it.'

Really. Let's turn back to the 'Salon' source, shall we?

'That part of the story, at least, turned out not to be true. I tracked down the American participants in the July Berlin meeting, as well as Naik himself, and asked them what went on. All were eager to talk ...

The Americans who attended the July meeting dispute Naik's account. Though [Jean-Charles] Brisard and [Guillaume] Dasquie chose not to look for them, all were easy to track down. They're all retired, often at home, and keen to talk. Stanford University passed on an e-mail address for [Tom] Simons, who taught there last year. George Washington University's directory held the contact information for [Karl] Inderfurth. [Lee] Coldren is listed in the phone book.

They all insist no military threat was issued to the Taliban. And then they go on to qualify that, a little. They note that the U.S. had long maintained that a military response was likely if bin Laden was found to have masterminded the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole -- but there was no escalation of that existing threat. "The military threat, as I recall it, was absolutely confined to statements by people on our side that the U.S. government was still examining evidence with regard to the Cole and that if the government satisfied itself that Osama bin Laden was responsible, you could predict a military response almost with certainty," Simons says. "Nothing more was said in the meetings, and I was in all the meetings."'

All three (not five) US officials present were also ex-Clinton administration, and had no ties with the Bush administration. So they weren't in any position to convey threats.

Following your claim that the Taliban were offered an alternative between war or collaboration with the (long-dead) UNOCAL proposal), Naik himself admits that the pipeline (your smoking gun) wasn't even discussed at the meeting:

'But all the participants in the meetings that I was able to reach, including Naik, insist the long-discussed Afghanistan oil pipeline project had nothing to do with their agenda. Yes, throughout much of the 1990s Unocal had worked with various Afghan governments and officials to try to build a pipeline. And yes, former Unocal consultants and oil experts were party to the U.N. meetings. All of them insist, however, that the pipeline project was dead when their U.N. discussions began -- Unocal had abandoned it when the U.S. began making its case that the Taliban was harboring bin Laden after the August 1998 embassy bombings -- and never came up there.'

You also haven't explained what happened to the 17,000 Russian troops Naik claimed were supposedly on hand to invade Afghanistan in October 2001, nor have you backed up your claim about Enron. What a surprise.

 
At 24 January, 2010 15:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pp, if you would spend 1/10 the energy on research that you spend on indignance, you wouldn't be so whacked.

If you don't believe Ruppert, how about Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, who said $352 billion in drug money, "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse, kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

Billman, 8 and a half years is NOT enough time to have collected proof when we have little money, no subpoena power, and no access to vital documents such as the 6000 photos and 6000 videos NIST has of the twin towers.

I didn't say it was an inside job. It's obvious there's a cover up when there are huge holes in the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST report. I have proof that officials are lying and that investigators asked the wrong questions.

 
At 24 January, 2010 15:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saa, your Salon piece clearly says that the people who deny the military threats are talking only about what happened in the meeting. The carpet of bombs threat was outside of the meeting, and the one to whom it was attributed, Tom Simons, DID NOT, as I said, deny it.

He said: "It's possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can't resist the temptation to be mischievous."

You really are a hack. Are you a friend of Condi Rice or Phil Zelikow?

 
At 24 January, 2010 16:22, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

If you don't believe Ruppert, how about Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, who said $352 billion in drug money, "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse, kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.
I should have anticipated that you'd bring up that UN report. What Costa said was that during the liquidity crisis, drug money became the only available source of capital. This is in contrast to Ruppert, who claims that the banking system always requires drug money to function. Ruppert is claiming that drug money is intrinsic to the financial system. Costas is claiming that during the worst financial crisis since 1929, dirty money found its way into banks. There is a HUGE difference.
Ruppert alleges that there is a constant ongoing conspiracy between drug-lords and the banks; Costas is saying that drug-lords took advantage of banks' weakness to get them to do something they otherwise would not want to do, launder their money.
My indignation is 100% justified. I'm sick and tired of know-nothings attacking the financial system that has given rise to the richest societies in human history.
Besides, I thought I was being polite. The other guys here really seem to hate you. What did you do to piss them off so much?

 
At 24 January, 2010 16:28, Anonymous New Yorker said...

If you don't believe Ruppert, how about Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, who said $352 billion in drug money, "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse, kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with who was responsible for 9/11.....

Billman, 8 and a half years is NOT enough time to have collected proof when we have little money, no subpoena power, and no access to vital documents such as the 6000 photos and 6000 videos NIST has of the twin towers.

No amount of time will be enough, since you can't collect evidence that does not exist. Sorry to have to tell you this, Brian.

I didn't say it was an inside
job.


Stop lying, Brian.

It's obvious there's a cover up when there are huge holes in the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST report.

False.

I have proof that officials are lying and that investigators asked the wrong questions.

Well, present the "proof".

Saa, your Salon piece clearly says that the people who deny the military threats are talking only about what happened in the meeting. The carpet of bombs threat was outside of the meeting, and the one to whom it was attributed, Tom Simons, DID NOT, as I said, deny it.

Nobody cares, Brian.

You really are a hack. Are you a friend of Condi Rice or Phil Zelikow?

Please see a psychiatrist, Brian.

 
At 24 January, 2010 17:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Pp, first you indignantly claim Banks have other sources of liquidity in desperate times and don't need drug money. How would you explain the liquidity crisis in fall 2008? Was there just not enough drug money around? Did the world stop buying drugs and that's what really caused the crisis?

And then you say I should have anticipated that you'd bring up that UN report , so you're claiming you already knew about the report that directly contradicted your bogus claims above.

You are a dishonest hack just like Saa. Are you a friend of Condi and Philip's too? An ideologue that makes up your facts?

 
At 24 January, 2010 18:05, Anonymous New Yorker said...

You can keep babbling about Rice and Zelikow and how people "make up their own facts", but it doesn't change the fact that nobody cares about a word you say, Brian.

 
At 24 January, 2010 18:11, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

Yes I knew about the Costas report, but since it was irrelevant, I didn't mention it. I have explained to you why it is irrelevant but I'll repeat myself.
If drug money was the PRIMARY source of liquidity, which is what Ruppert claims, then it wouldn't be only in the midst of the worst financial crisis since 1929 that the banks absorb massive amounts of it. It is not the primary source of liquidity. Ruppert is full of shit.
The crisis in late 2008 was without precedent in history, if you knew ANYTHING about financial economics you would understand this.
Costas claims that drug money (around $350bil) may have saved some banks. What saved the entire financial system was when the ECB, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of China, and the Federal Reserve coordinated action to pump trillions of dollars into the system. And it did take trillions of dollars, compared to which the drug money is insignificant.
To summarize, Costas claims that drug dealers took advantage of the liquidity crisis to launder their money, in the process some individual banks were saved that might have otherwise gone under. This did not stop the crisis, intervention by world central banks did. I expect you to memorize these key points as there will be a test on this material on Monday.
Also, I'm not dishonest and I don't make up facts, which is more than can be said for Ruppert or any of the other bullshit sources you trust (see: crippled epistemology).
And yes, you figured me out. Condi and I go shopping the third Saturday of every month, during which time we plot to subvert democracy world wide and oppress working people. I haven't spoke to Philips since he left me with a $200 bar tab, that bastard!

 
At 24 January, 2010 22:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pp, you're hilarious. First you ridicule the notion that banks needed drug money in 2008, then you claim that you already knew about the article that proves exactly that. And then you write a dissertation to try to show that the need for drug cash liquidity in 2008 was irrelevant to the issue of a general need for liquidity. Hey Einstein -- tight money means high rates, means drug money (low rates) is very profitable.

Your screed rests on the claim that Ruppert said drug money was the primary source of liquidity. I doubt he said that. Ruppert's work is conscientiously sourced, while yours is not.

 
At 24 January, 2010 22:58, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

You clearly don't understand the difference between "banks" and "the financial system." Costas said that "banks" may have been saved by drug money. Ruppert says the financial system relies on drug money. He was claiming this long before the financial crisis. If you can't see the difference between these two things, then there is nothing I can do to help you.
I saw that Costas article almost a year ago and knew that know-nothings like Ruppert (and clearly yourself) would take it as evidence that banks are all evil.
Hey Einstein -- tight money means high rates, means drug money (low rates) is very profitable.

Stop pretending that you understand anything about finance. Cash doesn't pay any kind of "rate." Banks pay 0% on their borrowed money right now and lend at more than that. The financial industry does not need drug money.

Your screed rests on the claim that Ruppert said drug money was the primary source of liquidity. I doubt he said that.
I've been following him for years and listened to many of his lectures (I really shouldn't admit that). I know exactly what he claims, and I know that he's wrong.
Ruppert's work is conscientiously sourced, while yours is not.
I'm not going to provide sources for things that are common knowledge among anyone who knows what they're talking about. Also, I'd hardly call my posts on a blog my "work."
I'd love to see Ruppert's so-called sources. I know you'll find all of them for me.
Pp, you're hilarious.
I'm glad I entertain you! I never had any illusions that I'd change the mind of someone in the faith-based community like yourself. I find you thoroughly entertaining as well!

 
At 25 January, 2010 00:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PP, you lie about what Costas said in your first sentence.

Here's the lede to the article in the Guardian:

"Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

 
At 25 January, 2010 06:39, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Once again, Brian's random walk has gotten us to a point where he is babbling incoherently about drug money in the banking system in order to prove....what?

Again, Brian, this is why you're so entertaining. Your inability to ever concede error and your inability to ever let anyone else have the last word takes us into the high comedy that is your furious babbling about topics that aren't even remotely related to 9/11.

 
At 25 January, 2010 11:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Saa, your Salon piece clearly says that the people who deny the military threats are talking only about what happened in the meeting. The carpet of bombs threat was outside ... bladiblahdiblah'

Look Brian, admit it. You made a claim, the evidence doesn't back it up. You specifically said that in July 2001 officials from the US government sat down with Taliban representatives and told them to approve the UNOCAL pipeline or else; that if they played ball they'd be rich and if they didn't, they'd be bombed. I've shown you that your claims are false, so stop blustering and admit you fucked up.

Just like you did over the mythical SAMs at the Pentagon.
Just like you did over KSM's admission of responsibility prior to 9/11.
Just like you did over the Taliban and Enron (still no proof, BTW).
Just like you did with your claim that it would have been a piece of piss to ship troops into Tora Bora, and it could have been done in no time at all.
Just like you have repeatedly done every time you have posted here.

 
At 25 January, 2010 11:11, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

"Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year."
Read the rest of the article jackass.

 
At 25 January, 2010 11:27, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lender_of_last_resort
Then read that. Then read the rest of the finance pages there. Then pull your head out of your ass. Then get back to me with all those rock solid sources of Rupperts.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh did poor little pp get mad because he flip-flop-flips?

Not my fault, really. In your own ref, the guy accused of making the "carpet of bombs" threat does not deny it. And five of the attendees wouldn't talk to the writer.

I don't care if the invasion of Afghanistan was for the pipeline or not. The issue only came up because Saa and some other clown were claiming the western powers showed no interest in Afghanistan and no oil people were interested. Those claims were shown to be ignorant and unsustainable.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:19, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The Debunker Cult attempts to wipe away established fact at least 8 times a day.It gets in the way of their insane logistical superiority! As if drug money doesn't make the world go 'round.Gosh,what idiots in this Cult.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:36, Anonymous piedpipeline said...

Have you found those Ruppert sources yet? Or learned anything about basic finance?
I didn't think so.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:57, Anonymous KrazeesBiggestFan said...

"logistical superiority" Krazee? Do you know the difference between "logic" and "logistics"? It's a good thing you're here to make petgoat look smart by comparison.

 
At 25 January, 2010 17:06, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Awww,ain't he special! One minute they're whining about "sock puppets",the next day they're bingeing on the damn things.Typical segue AWAY from the point from the Purple Dot victim.Yea,we know,you dropped the shit and then drove up into the mountains.You've never been the same since.Hang in there,at least you have fellow members of a wonderfully supportive Cult! Hell,they're so desperate for converts that they'll let you drop your kid on their head and then screech loudly that the whole thing was a police conspiracy!

 
At 25 January, 2010 17:28, Anonymous KrazeesBiggestFan said...

Krazee, you're being "illogistical" hahah... moron

 
At 25 January, 2010 20:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I don't care if the invasion of Afghanistan was for the pipeline or not. The issue only came up because Saa and some other clown were claiming the western powers showed no interest in Afghanistan and no oil people were interested. Those claims were shown to be ignorant and unsustainable.

Nobody cares, Brian.

 
At 25 January, 2010 20:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody cares 'cause everybody knows y'all lie and make stuff up.

 
At 25 January, 2010 21:29, Anonymous NotBrian said...

Stop being "illogistical" Brian.

 
At 26 January, 2010 08:34, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Let it always be remembered that Sack of Saggybollocks used this lovely metaphor:"a piece of piss".Soldier Sad Sack,you are in deep doo-doo.

 
At 26 January, 2010 10:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Would like a piss of my hot pee?

 
At 26 January, 2010 10:11, Blogger Triterope said...

That was supposed to be a Fjorg van der Ploeg gag. Damn my spotty internet connection.

 
At 26 January, 2010 12:50, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

File this dummy under "arcana".

 
At 26 January, 2010 13:21, Blogger Triterope said...

File this dummy under "arcana".

Whatever you say, vigorous defender of ProjectCensored.com.

 
At 27 January, 2010 09:00, Blogger Garry said...

'I don't care if the invasion of Afghanistan was for the pipeline or not. The issue only came up because Saa and some other clown were claiming the western powers showed no interest in Afghanistan and no oil people were interested. Those claims were shown to be ignorant and unsustainable.'

Twat. Learn to fucking read. And it was you that raised the red herring about UNOCAL, and made a cock-up in your account about the Berlin conference. Don't try to back-track now, Brian.

Incidentally, here's another poser for you. On the one hand, you're saying the Bush administration wanted a pretext for war so they could build their Afghan pipeline. Then you're telling us that (at Tora Bora) they deliberately missed the chance to nip al-Qaeda in the bud (thereby ensuring that there'd be an ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan that would - er - not exactly be conducive to the construction of a major pipeline project). Would you care to explain this inconsistency in your rants?

'Let it always be remembered that Sack of Saggybollocks used this lovely metaphor:"a piece of piss".Soldier Sad Sack,you are in deep doo-doo.'

Why's that Walt? Is that because you're going to hunt me down with those special forces ninja skills you learnt during your 36 months on OIF.

 
At 27 January, 2010 10:19, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Thanks Trite 'n Dopey! You made the job that much easier with your abject and insane offering that Project Censored stories are unsupported and unverifiable.A brief familiarization with the facts would have prevented you from falling face first into the pachysandra.And get a load of Sir Pimm's Cup,still cocksure that this commenter posed as a war veteran!! Oh well,if you say so,dumbass! Here's some help Bozo,Michael Meacher has spoken on tape many times about 9/11.He addresses the money transfer.Go get 'em Tiger! Why is it that the Debunker Cult just isn't aware of the actual evidence that they purport to debunk? Oh yea,Philip Zelikow and Pom Pom Girl have explained it all for them.

 
At 27 January, 2010 13:39, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The Friedpiper sure is a freaking moron.If you had a copy of Ruppert's book you could check the sources yourself,jackoff!

 
At 27 January, 2010 14:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're the only one who wastes money on woo-woo books, Krazee.

 
At 27 January, 2010 14:39, Blogger Triterope said...

You made the job that much easier with your abject and insane offering that Project Censored stories are unsupported and unverifiable.

That wasn't even on this thread, you dumbass. I brought it up here to make a point about... oh, forget it, you're too fucking stupid to understand it anyway.

 
At 27 January, 2010 18:07, Blogger dgdgdf said...

Black Lace-Up Boots black fold-over boots black leather knee-high boots peep-toe bootie Christian Louboutin Astraqueen shoe boots platform lace-up bootie Christian Louboutin Suede Black Ankle boots supra fifre 120 thigh-high boots Christian Louboutin Alta Ariella Talon Leopard Boots Christian Louboutin OTK PlatformAfrica grey suede Boot Christian Louboutin Alta Ariella Talon Leopard Ankle Boots Christian Louboutin black leather ankle boots Christian Louboutin dark red leather ankle boots Manolo Blahnik Something Blue Satin Pump

 
At 27 January, 2010 18:07, Blogger dgdgdf said...

Miss Suede Black Arielle A Talon ankle Boots Ariella Clou Silver Studded Boots Alta Arielle A Talon Python Short Boots Robot 120 ankle boots Gold babel shoe boots Brown Trottinette 140 ankle boots Brown Trottinette 140 ankle boots Mouse suede Forever Tina boots Purple fringed suede C'est Moi boots Black C'est Moi boots Pink Charme 100 suede ankle boots Leopard suede boots Christian Louboutin Tuba Tall Boot Fifre Suede Ankle Boot black lace ankle boots

 
At 27 January, 2010 18:08, Blogger dgdgdf said...

http://www.bootboots.com
http://www.salelouboutin.com
http://www.buylouboutin.com
http://www.bestlouisvuitton.com
http://www.sale-mbt.com
http://www.discount-christianlouboutin.com
Velours Scrunch Boots Miss Clichy 140 boots Robot 120 ankle boots Black Suede/ Leather Lace Up Ankle boots Tina Suede Black Platform Boots Circus Cutout Suede Ankle Boots Deva 120 suede fringed Boots Sigourney Metallc Ankle Boots Miss Dark Brown

 
At 28 January, 2010 01:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Garry: It was you that raised the red herring about UNOCAL

Only in response to the claim that the west had no interest in Afghanistan between the wars.

Would you care to explain this inconsistency in your rants?

Your perceived inconsistency depends on the assumption that the patriotic defense of Afghanistan, Taliban, and al Qaeda were all the same thing. That's not a credible claim.

 
At 28 January, 2010 04:38, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Brian, you are clearly not very bright, so I'll make this clear. One minor US energy firm trying to secure a pipeline deal between 1997-1999 does not equal systematic engagement and intervention in Afghan politics by the USA and other Western governments. And as you refuse to acknowledge, the UNOCAL bid was dead and buried by 2001.

Incidentally, talking of Afghan 'patriotism', how do you account for the fact that the Taliban's most dedicated fighters came from Brigade 055 (namely, the AQ volunteers), or the fact that Afghans were (and are) fighting against the Taliban.

You still can't explain the inconsistency between waging a war to build a pipeline, and the Bush administration's failure to crush AQ (and for that matter, the Taliban itself) in 2001-2002. Anymore than Arseholie can explain why the US and British governments connived in the assassination of a dependable ally (Bhutto), or justify his BS about the FBI confirming that the ISI directly funded Mohamed Atta.

 
At 28 January, 2010 12:42, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

"Dependable ally"? Where do you get this stuff? Are you feeling anxious? Have you Googled all the Michael Meacher stuff so's you can catch up Matey? Why was Ahmed cashiered when he was? Do you know that he was in Washington,D.C. on 9/11?

 
At 28 January, 2010 16:21, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

As usual,Sad Sack the Soldier steers clear of the black bags full of cash and junk that draws the CIA and all the other parasitic Westerners to places like Afghanistan,in his analysis of the issue.Sorry DogBoy,but there's no getting around it:that's the way The Company plays the game.I trust when you've located the evidence (as per procedure.Ha.)regarding the ISI involvement in 9/11 you'll post it for us,Hey?

 
At 29 January, 2010 07:00, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Have you Googled all the Michael Meacher stuff so's you can catch up Matey?'

Michael fucking Meacher? Are you trying to tell me that your entire theory rests on this fuckwit? Speaks volumes for your supposed ability as a 'researcher', Walt.

And yes, Benazir Bhutto was backed by the US and British governments as a successor to Musharraf, because she was pro-Western, wanted to cut links with the Afghan Taliban entirely, and also was determined to crack down on jihadi groups in Pakistan. But then if your head wasn't wedged up your arse, you'd realise this, and recognise that there's only one group of people in Pakistan who'd benefit from her assassination:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FK03Df03.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3116090.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1573967/Benazir-Bhutto-the-final-interview.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/world/asia/20Pakistan.html

'Why was Ahmed cashiered when he was?'

Because he was pro-Taliban. Old news, Walt.

'Do you know that he was in Washington,D.C. on 9/11?'

Old news, Walt. What's your point?

'Sad Sack the Soldier steers clear of the black bags full of cash and junk that draws the CIA and all the other parasitic Westerners to places like Afghanistan,in his analysis of the issue.'

Evidence would be nice, Walt. And how do you account for the fact that most of Afghanistan's heroin is produced in the provices of the South and East - where the Taliban are most active?:

http://csis.org/files/publication/091112_afghan_narcotics_full.pdf

Another epic fail, Walt.

 
At 29 January, 2010 08:28, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Soldier Sad Sack is right.It's just another pesky coincidence that Hamid Karzai's brother was recently revealed to be the biggest heroin dealer on the Planet Earth.Of course that's old news.I guess he's in cahoots with the Taliban,hey Sackstar? Of course it was also a coincidence that Bhutto said that Sheikh assassinated bin Laden and she ends up dead a week later as her security is pulled in Rawalpindi.The fact that notorious drug running,blood soaked warlords like Rashid Dolstum are members of the US led puppet government is merely another coincidence.Gullible ain't even the word for you Bozo.

 
At 30 January, 2010 05:31, Blogger payday monsanto said...

Hey, you OBSEQUIOUS MISCREANTS who can't differentiate POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES from RELIGIONS and ETHNICITY, this is payday monsanto and I'd just like to extend my condolences for your small, servile minds.

I LOVE NORM FINKELSTEIN !!!

 
At 04 January, 2011 14:54, Blogger Spikegenius said...

Can't understand how anyone could be as closed minded as this blog creator... you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 
At 04 January, 2011 14:55, Blogger Spikegenius said...

Can't understand how anyone could be as closed minded as this blog creator... you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 
At 04 January, 2011 14:56, Blogger Spikegenius said...

Omg... you even screen your comments... what cowards of the truth.

 
At 14 May, 2011 11:05, Blogger noah_peel2 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home