Damage Done..Shit Sturred Up

NEWSWEEK has to be staffed by Bush Admin Puppets or complete idiots..how NEWSWEEK knowing the consequences of what the story might cause plus without %100 assurance that there 'sources' information was credible release a story like this http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/ and only issue a roughly 10 word statement and retraction after all that has been spun up.. that in lehmans terms basically read "oops my bad..i assumed it to be true..but it isnt..oh well"

My question is what do they fuckin think about???..Anything for a story right??One of these news organizations whether it be US..UK..Iraqi..Afghan..3rd World etc is gonna directly or indirectly cause the END instead using basic discretion on shit like this..

or maybe the reporter in quetion, who is btw, a very good journalist in most cases, was reporting the truth...maybe his higher-ups are being puppeted by the bush administration??? maybe.

^indeed.

i noticed that in the "retraction,"

they say that their highly reliable governement source cannot guarantee

that the info about the koran flush was released "in that report"

which led me to wonder whether it is solely an issue of where that guy originally heard that info, and NOT whether the info is true or not.

i read the article before retraction and i wasn't surprised at all.

let's face it, it's a tactic i could EASILY picture them using.

one of the female interrogators wiped red on a guy's face and said it was her period blood.

after all the human rights violations, it seems that would only be the tip of the iceberg

..and that this sounds like the work of bush admin puppets doesn't make any sense to me..at this point, no one in that admin wants any more backlash from the middle east

and they aren't buying a retraction either

Yes Symbols your right it doesnt necessarily make since but i also said OR Complete Idiots..i think ill go with the latter...

Originally posted by symbols@May 18 2005, 09:51 AM

^indeed.

 

i noticed that in the "retraction,"

they say that their highly reliable governement source cannot guarantee

that the info about the koran flush was released "in that report"

 

which led me to wonder whether it is solely an issue of where that guy originally heard that info, and NOT whether the info is true or not.

 

i read the article before retraction and i wasn't surprised at all.

let's face it, it's a tactic i could EASILY picture them using.

one of the female interrogators wiped red on a guy's face and said it was her period blood.

after all the human rights violations, it seems that would only be the tip of the iceberg

 

..and that this sounds like the work of bush admin puppets doesn't make any sense to me..at this point, no one in that admin wants any more backlash from the middle east

and they aren't buying a retraction either

Quoted post

true, true. but there are many things we, as average citizens, don't understand about psych ops.

i read that a general and a military offical responsible for press type shit read over the first story to make corrections, etc. and said nothing about the koran blurb. now, those same two military guys are saying they missed that shit? wtf ever. a couple of others were asked to comment on such things (as koran flushing) and had no comment. this was before the first story was published. keep that in mind.

symbols: if you want to read about some real human rights violations, i mean some down adn dirty fucked shit, check up on camp x-ray. a

funny thing is the basics have already been reported and corroborated

by numerous other sources and newspapers. are they all wrong too?

it's funny how far the bush administration will go and the media kinda tucks their tales and hides, or they become little lap dogs.

bush and his cabinet are ready to bring this new world order thing into play. no doubt in my mind.

^a perfect example was the rathergate scandal at cbs.

that was pretty bizarre, mindblowing bullshit. and very convenient for

the bush gang. instead of focusing on the holed minutes of bush's official

statements regarding his service, which was wide open at the time, the

climate was geared towards a focus on the fuck up at cbs, thereby avoiding

further scrutiny of bush's service and making the issue untouchable.

it creates a mind state the argentines apparently called 'knowing/not knowing'.

indeed. the best way to enslave someone is to make it seem like they are free.

the same happened to howard dean. remember that? he brought up some important issues, suddenly he's caught on tape being excited at a rally (like most politicians. i'm 28 and i've seen it on tv every four years. politicians rally and get excited and yell) but the media suddenly turned on him and started calling him a lunatic.

what about that thing that was brought up in 'outfoxed' where the media caught on to this catch phrase 'flip flopping' whenever they mentioned john kerry.? was that the most fucked up thing ever?

yea they ran the 'flip flopping' thing to death.but in that case it really didnt matter..Kerry could have mailed everyone in the US a $100 bill and the election was still already decided way before November..

What cracks me up is all the news orgs run the exact same story only its on a there corresponding website or printed media but in most cases its word for word so what i want to know is does the WH deliberately release bullshit information in the presence of certain unnamed "government" officials with the intention of them blabbing to there favorite news outlet which in turn is recipricated in print..on the web.. in smoke signals..sign language..etc to throw you off of the trail of other deep down dastardly dan type of shit happening right in front of our eyes?? such as this current issue circulating in the press its all we talk about..like what im doing right now...

i see where you're going....i think talking about it, being aware of certain issues, helps. all in all, i think being awake to the reality is good. getting too sucked in is bad.

i'm thinking of that episode of southpark where stans mom is watching the news 24/7. just sitting on the couch watching the news during the whole beginning of the war in iraq (number 2). how they made fun of that. i knew people who did that. haha.

i think there is a smokescreen effect in alot of instances. sometimes i even think it's set up to get rid of certain people who aren't cooperating. who knows?

there's a fine line between knowing and succumbing to media hype or conspiracy theory hype. you've gotta watch your step. sometimes the lines are really blurry.

edit: wrong word

NEW YORK -- New documents released by the FBI include previously undisclosed interviews in which prisoners at Guantánamo complain that guards have mistreated the Qur'an, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. In one 2002 summary, an FBI interrogator notes a prisoner’s allegation that guards flushed a Qur'an down the toilet.

The disclosure comes on the heels of controversy over a Newsweek report saying that government investigators had corroborated an almost identical incident. Newsweek ultimately retracted its story because a confidential government source could not be confirmed.

"The United States government continues to turn a blind eye to mounting evidence of widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "If we are to truly repair America's standing in the world, the Bush Administration must hold accountable high-ranking officials who allow the continuing abuse and torture of detainees."

According to the FBI documents, a detainee interviewed in August 2002 said that guards had flushed the Qur'an in the toilet. Others reported the Qur'an being kicked, withheld as punishment, and thrown on the floor, and said they were mocked during prayers.

The release of the FBI interviews follows the disclosure last week of Defense Department documents regarding other cases in which military personnel mistreated the Qur'an and used a religious symbol to taunt detainees.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=18320&c=206

it happened

I have a copy of the Qur'an.

Used to keep it in my backpack while I was reading some of it

but I decided to take it out last time I had to go through an airport.

Sad that's the case.

Just imagine how outraged the bible belt would be if someone desecrated the bible.

Despite mountains of evidence from a wide variety of sources, Dick Cheney still denies human rights violations.

Here is a report on his denial of the Amnesty International charge.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breakin...93523-7000r.htm

Our credibility is really going down the tubes.

Being held without a charge seems like a human rights violation.

Human rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Human rights are the standards of behavior as accepted within legal systems concerning 1) what is essential to human survival, 2) integrity and autonomy of the person, and 3) fulfillment of the human potential in society. These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, the prohibition of genocide, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life. These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments (see below).

Originally posted by casekonly@May 18 2005, 07:51 AM

indeed. the best way to enslave someone is to make it seem like they are free.

Quoted post

The pieces I read from this book are awesome...written before Bush and about Nazi Germany...

They Thought They Were Free

by Milton Mayer

What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after1933,between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the universe was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was "expected to" participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one's energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. "One had no time to think. There was so much going on." "Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your "little men", your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about - we were decent people - and kept us so busy with continuous changes and "crises" and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the "national enemies", without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice - "Resist the beginnings" and "consider the end." But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn't, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your "little men," your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing: and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something - but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, "everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to – to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked – if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in "43" had come immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in "33". But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying "Jew swine," collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in – your nation, your people – is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done ( for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or "adjust" your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn't an anti-Nazi. He was just – a judge. In "42" or "43", early "43", I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an "Aryan" woman. This was "race injury", something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case a bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a "nonracial" offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party "processing" which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the "nonracial" charge, in the judge's opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.

"

"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience – a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That's how I heard about it.) After the "44" Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don't know."

I said nothing.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was "defeatism." You assumed that there were lists of those who would be "dealt with" later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a "victory orgy" to "take care of" those who thought that their "treasonable attitude" had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything "necessary" to win it; so it was with the "final solution" of the Jewish problem, which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its "necessities" gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany's losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."

Good story...

I found this on rense:

Holocaust Survivor

Leaving US - Sees

What's Coming

By Joey Picador

Justice For None.com

5-27-5

 

 

One of our neighbors is moving. I've been in this neighborhood for about six years now, but didn't really know them very well at all - just waves and nods, mostly.

 

So I heard the moving van pull up this morning. When I got home this evening I happened to spy my neighbor (he's like 85 years old - I don't know exactly, but he's old, talks and moves very slowly) standing on the sidewalk next to the van. I walked over and shook his hand, and we started talking. I asked him where he was moving, and he said, "Back to Germany."

 

I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.

 

"No," he answered me. "I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).

 

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

 

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, "I will pray for your family and your country." He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

 

I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he's seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them.

 

http://www.justicefornone.com