Blind America - Self-Censorship on the Home Front

It's no wonder a portion of the American public will support their crazy foreign policy...it's results are being hidden by their mainstream media. Here is a glaring example, courtesy of MSNBC/Newsweek. Take a look at the different editions covers along the left-hand side of the page.

The cover story for the international editions shows (what I assume to be) an Afghan (Taliban) fighter, with the title 'Losing Afghanistan', while the U.S. edition focuses on a much more important issue...the life of a photographer named Annie Leibovitz.

Could media self-censorship get any more open and blatant? Un-frigging-believable!! They must be going with the 'what they don't know can't hurt them' philosophy. In this case the 'they' is the American public, while the 'them' would be the government.

Ottawa Sun Editorial - Information Without Context

An editorial that appears in the Sept. 22/06 issue of the Ottawa Sun uses polished, intentionally misleading statements to hold wavering public support of Canada's mission to Afghanistan. This isn't a surprise, however I am seeing more and more of this starting to appear in Canadian media. They must have been taking notes during the American media's campaign to build support for the Iraqi debacle, as it is the exact same types of statements being used.

Here is the full text of the editorial from today's Ottawa Sun :

No doubt many Canadians were surprised to see Prime Minister Stephen Harper appearing before the United Nations General Assembly yesterday to talk about Canada's military role in Afghanistan.

What, they might well ask, was our PM doing addressing the UN about that country?

After all, isn't Afghanistan, just like Iraq, "George Bush's war," as we've been told ad nauseam by various NDP, Bloc and Liberal politicians? And isn't Harper just following in lock-step with Bush in Afghanistan? Uh ... no and no.

Unlike Iraq, the UN has sanctioned the military mission in Afghanistan, undertaken by the 37-member NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which has about 20,000 soldiers, 2,300 from Canada.

And yes, the U.S. is also a member of ISAF.

So are -- ready? -- Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Note the presence of France and Germany.

Not in Iraq, in Afghanistan -- just like Canada.

Note the presence of Sweden and Switzerland.

Not exactly war-like nations -- just like Canada.

That said, it is time for more ISAF members to put more troops on the front lines in Kandahar, where our soldiers are fulfilling the ISAF mission of "assisting the Afghan government (which has requested this help) in extending and exercising its authority and influence across the country, creating the conditions for stabilization and reconstruction."

As Harper noted yesterday, it's hard to reconstruct a country, if, say, every time you build a school, the Taliban blow it up.

Finally, for those opposition MPs complaining that Harper cares only about our military role in Afghanistan and not humanitarian efforts, Canada is contributing almost $1 billion over 10 years in development assistance to the people of Afghanistan.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Here is my letter to the editor :

I would just like to add some context to the editorial of Sept.22/06 titled 'Force is with us', as the author couldn't do so without undermining their own argument. The first is the notion that we are "assisting the Afghan government (which has requested this help)...". This is a ludicrous statement. The US installed a puppet government run by a former big-oil man that is accepted by a minority of the population. Of course that puppet government is going to 'invite' us to stay - they need our protection! Second, the author notes that we have commited "almost $1 billion over 10 years" to help with development assistance. Wow!! This is equal to $32.26 per Afghan over 10 years, or $3.23 a year per person!! It is fantastic that we are commiting this money, however small an amount it is, but let's not congratulate ourselves for something we have yet to carry through on, and that is unlikely to make any noticable difference. I fully support our troops, and agree completely that they are the bravest among us, but buying into feel-good (and false) statements about being 'invited' and that 'we can't leave Afghanistan to the terrorists' which are designed to make us equate supporting the troops with keeping them there regardless of the circumstances is not fair to them and their willingness to sacrifice.

It likely won't be printed, however as a citizen who doesn't want to see more young Canadian soldiers killed to defend oil routes in the middle east, I feel a need to at least try to add some context and straight talk to the debate.

**update** They actually did publish the above 'letter to the editor' I sent them, on Saturday Sept. 23rd.

Mahmoud the Iranian Madman? Hardly.

"We love everyone in the world — Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians," he said. "We are against ugly acts. We are against occupation, aggression, killings and displacing people — otherwise we have no problem with ordinary people."

So said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when asked about past comments which were misinterpreted (mistakenly??) in the western media as meaning he wanted to destroy Israel.

I'd like to see how they spin this in order to make him seem like a 'madman', and get the masses to back war with Iran "to stop this 'madman' from getting a nuclear bomb". Or energy .. depending on whether you believe the Iranians who are within the NPT, or the Americans who lied their way into Iraq and are selling nuclear material to India - who is one of three confirmed nuclear powers who hasn't signed the NPT.

Oh yeah, when the west says Iran is disobeying the world community - they are lying. Iran has the support of 118 of 202 sovereign states.

To be honest, Ahmadinejad seems to be a joyful character compared to those in the Bush regime who are constantly attacking the character of their political enemies, without actually refuting the substance of their arguments.

Harper to America : We Will Lie To And Kill Our People For You

Well, it looks like Harper is taking another page from the book of Bush. According to Harper's speech to American business leaders, our troops will remain in Afghanistan regardless of what the polls say, because in his mind we are there "for absolutely the right reasons, with our international allies, with the United Nations, the world community."

According to Harper, "we will not, and nor would any responsible Canadian prime minister, ever leave this mission until we are successful in achieving its security and its development objectives".

Let's see. The Afghan mission started out as a response to the role the Taliban played in allowing the attacks of 9/11. However, as has been proven, the US planned on invading Afghanistan before 9/11. 1, 2

For those who have seen the evidence that directly refutes the official version of the events of 9/11 and are open minded enough to see it as plausible, we know that 9/11 could not have happened without at least complicity by parts of the US government aparatus. For those of you who have yet to see this very compelling evidence, start your eye-opening journey by watching 'Loose Change - 2nd Edition' (buy, view online).

Once you watched that video, hit the alternative media on the web. Here are some you should visit. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There are many more....you should be getting all your news from the alternative - or at least read it to balance the corporate-mainstream-government mouthpeice media.

Once you research the events of 9/11, and take into account all the other coincidences tied into 9/11, you have no choice to see US government complicity. Once you reach that point, you have no choice but to admit that our government, and the majority of governments and mainstream media outlets around the world are complicit in covering up the truth.

So here is my point. As of this writing, 36 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. Or, put another way, our government has lied to us in order to get our support to send troops to Afghanistan, where 36 of our soldiers have been killed. Dead based on lies. Here they are.

Some Canadian Views on Afghanistan

The Toronto Star asked its readers for their comments on whether Canada's military was on a mission impossible in Afghanistan. Here are some of the responses, with my comments on each :

We should do what the Americans did in Vietnam: Declare victory and get out quickly. Allan Eizinas, Simcoe, Ont.

Subtle sarcasm. I like it! Problem is, everyone except the Americans knows they lost in Vietnam.

Mission Impossible, no ... Stay the course, cut off their weapons supplies, burn the opium crops and cut off their income, create safe zones and build hospitals and schools, and the war is winnable, in time. Gerald L. Sedore, Keswick, Ont.

A few things....

First - If we burn the opium crop, we cut off the supply of money to the warlords who are currently supporting us. They are only supporting us because we ousted the Taliban - who had almost eradicated the opium crop - therefore restoring the warlords power. Will they still support us after we cut off their supply of money, which gets them guns, which gets and holds their power? Not likely.

Second - Our bases are barely 'safe zones', so how does this guy recommend creating them? Occupying every square foot of Afghan soil?

Third - How much Canadian blood and treasure is this guy prepared to spend in order to 'win' this war "in time"?

As I see it, we have a choice to make: Do we fight the terrorists in Afghanistan or in downtown Toronto? Bill Rhude, HRM, N.S.

No comment. This guy speaks for himself. Or wait, is he speaking for George Bush?

Parents are loosing their sons and daughters and then have to listen to the NDP and other left wing factions carry on. Shame on this country. Gary Haller, Guelph, Ont

The NDP and "other left wing factions" are carrying on? And here I thought they were simply trying to have an open debate on the reason those parents are loosing their sons and daughters. This is, after all, a democracy. Perhaps Gary Haller would enjoy living in a country where the government does what it wants without debate. Like say North Korea.

Canada should get out now. I have always thought that this is the wrong mission for Canada and is NOT making us safer, just the opposite.
Steve Lawson, Toronto

Finally some common sense!

No it is not impossible and given time they will succeed. However there is nothing more cheerful for our troops over there than a bunch of do-gooders giving comfort to the enemy by saying the mission is impossible and the Taliban will win.
Arnold Adams, Amherstview, Ont.

Another George Bush talking point repeated without actually thinking about what is said.

Of course it is. The Russians tried for years and gave up in defeat. Our original position was as peacekeepers, now it's all-out war. Stephen Harper will answer to the voters for this terrible mess.
Jackie Stockley, Orillia, Ont.

One can only hope! Those who voted for an extension on our mission should be voted out, regardless of party affiliation! Here is the breakdown of the vote.

One more that I really like :

This mission is guaranteed to fail. The only ways the politicians will pull our troops out is when their own kids are asked to signup for service.
Roy Hallagan, Oakville

Average Citizen Finally Waking Up?

I must have woken up in an alternate universe this morning. I Just came across two web polls showing very surprising results (to me anyhow). I'm really hoping it is a sign that people are starting to again think for themselves, rather than allowing government and media to spin them in the direction they want them to go.

The first is from a Toronto radio station, AM640 :

It is really nice to see a mainstream radio station in Canada's largest city first of all asking the question, and second, getting such an overwhelming response in favour of the more provable alternate theories on 9/11. Unfortunately I cannot figure out the date the poll was up, and how many votes they tallied.

The second poll that I found a little shocking was on the Canoe site :

Although it is a pretty small sample size, I find it reassuring that the majority of those who cast a vote realize that taking guns away from private citizens is not going to keep criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. We'll see how long it takes for the gun control advocates to take advantage of the latest school shooting in Montreal.

Mainstream Media 9/11 'hit-piece' on CBC's 'The National'

Tonight on the CBC National news telecast, reporter/commentator Rex Murphy used his 'Point of View' commentary segment to launch a completely fact-free and transparent smear job directed at those of us who don't believe the official government issued 9/11 conspiracy theory. You know - the one that is refuted by hard facts!



Here is the transcript posted on the CBC website.

Here is the rebuttal I sent off to national@cbc.ca :

Rex Murphy's commentary of Sept. 12 regarding so called 'conspiracy theories' and those who believe them is a poor attempt at an obvious hit piece. He mentions some of the most far-fetched, lunatic fringe 'conspiracy theories' such as aliens - and then works to link belief in alternate theories regarding 9/11 to belief in them. Then he uses the very fringe theory that it was "missiles wrapped in holograms" that hit the WTC rather than planes, ignoring other highly credible fact-based theories, in order to paint all 9/11 theories as crazy. To him, it is absurd that sitting American leaders would plot to attack and kill their own citizens. I guess Rex has never heard of Operation Northwoods. Google it. In his transparent attack piece, he has labeled many much more credible people on this subject than himself as conspiracy cooks, and judging by his tone, as terrible people for even discussing a theory other than the official, government delivered, Swiss cheese version.

What I was basically trying to say, said much better here.