Our Canadian heroes - policemen
It was the first time I saw Canadian police meeting demonstrators with barking dogs. I naively thought that police had attack dogs to take down armed and dangerous criminals, not unarmed ordinary citizens. There were reports of at least 4 people bitten by dogs. I foresee, police defenders would say that the dog bites were accidental. Well, do not bring dogs, then there would be no accidents. Sec. 12 of the Charter reads: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment". Do you think being bitten by a dog is somewhat unusual?
Last time I saw ordinary people and police with barking dogs, it was US
police "greeting" Martin Luther King, and many years earlier, Nazis
were using dogs to round up Jews. You are in a great company, my Canadian
heroes - policemen
Stalin must be smiling in his grave
On several occasions, I have posed a question: suppose, you got Osama and you need to bring him to court, are you going to claim that the evidence against him is confidential? Recently, Bush gave his answer to the world: if Osama is caught, he would be tried by military tribunal. Here are some details of this tribunal: accused is not entitled to see the evidence against him, proof does not have to be beyond reasonable doubt, no jury of your peers, there is no longer need for unanimity among judges, there is no appeal, and the punishment is either life in jail or death penalty.
Here is a situation for you: tribunal of 9 judges has decided that an accused is guilty by 6 votes against 3, meaning that 3 judges decided that the accused was not guilty. Such accused can still be killed, and this judgment is without appeal. Now, you might say: we know he is guilty. Well, if this is so, do not play the comedy of a court trial. Any court trial makes sense, when the accused is presumed innocent; otherwise it is called kangaroo court.
This is exactly what Stalin had introduced in the Soviet Union. All US
media considered it as a major breach of human rights. When several
Americans were convicted abroad by military tribunals as terrorists, US media
again blasted these governments for abuse of human rights. Stalin is not
just smiling, he is laughing.
Nelson Mandela - great humanitarian
Mandela was recently quoted as approving all Bush's actions. Let us recall for a second, that he, Mandela, was the head of the military wing of ANC, he was the mastermind of the terrorist actions in South Africa. He was tried in a public trial, he could see all evidence against him, the proof of his guilt was to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and he was even allowed to pronounce political speeches during his trial. I guess it was so long ago, that he just forgot about it.
When I just came to Canada and learned about Halloween, it looked to me sick and demented to make fun of horror, and it still looks to me that way. I was wondering for quite a while, why don’t people here understand it. My conclusion was, that people here never really experienced any horror, and this is why they do not see, how sick their behavior is. Indeed, after events of September 11, they had become so sensitive, that even the picture of old WTC is no longer allowed, not to remind of tragedy.
Several students were suspended, because they dressed as KKK or as a black guy and staged a mock lynching. It is sick indeed, but is not it equally sick to have a mask of a bloody head with an axe stuck into it?
I foresee several idiots writing sarcastically that I am sick and demented, because I killed 4 people. Don't waste your time: I killed 4 members of a gang, which was murdering me. Either tell me what would you have done in my case, or shut up.
About the "Container boy"
Some time ago, a Canadian citizen of Egyptian origin was arrested in Italy. He was found in a container, equipped with a bed, a toilet, a lot of food, several cellular phones, one-way air ticket from Montreal to Egypt, several badges, which would allow him to penetrate the secure areas of several airports plus the maps of several Canadian airports. He also had several uniforms of airport (or airline) employees. It looked like the guy was up to something not good. He was charged with terrorism. All this was played very loud in the media.
Recently, it was announced, very quietly, that he was released, no charges, he was a Christian, was persecuted in Egypt, and this is why he had to run in a container. Does this make any sense to you? He is a Canadian citizen, why the hell did he go back to Egypt in the first place? OK, presume that he had urgent business there, ran into problems. Well, get to the airport, take a plane and get back to Montreal. I am sure, it is much more difficult for a persecuted guy to get a well-equipped container, than to go to an airport and leave legally. Again, if he is persecuted in Egypt, why did he buy a one-way ticket FROM Montreal to Egypt? Why did he have in his possession the airport badges, and why did he need maps of Canadian airports? No response to any of these questions.
Here is my understanding of what really happened. Hitler used this recipe many times: he found a fall guy to start fire in Reichstag, in order to have an excuse to eliminate communists; several years later, he staged Polish attack on a German radio-station to justify his attack on Poland. Well, Canadian Government has learned Hitler lessons quite well. They needed popular support for their participation in US actions and for the antiterrorist legislation. In order to get this support, they need to scare the population, and since no terrorist is threatening Canada, they had to create one.
There is no doubt that the "container boy" works for CSIS. They sent him to Egypt and arranged with Egypt authorities a comfortable container for him, plus all the "suspicious" things: badges, maps, etc. They also tipped Italian authorities and had him arrested, with a big hoopla. Everyone in Canada got scared - total success. Now they can tell Italian authorities, that it was "our guy", let him go, and Italians are happy to oblige. Any other explanation?
Murder - Canadian style
This is a short account of how Canadian Government is trying to have me dead for 3 1/2 years by now (so far, unsuccessfully) by denying me medical care. They are doing it in a cowardly and reptitious manner. The reason will be clear, if you read any of my postings on political subjects.
On May 6, 1998, while in Donnacona jail, I started feeling chest pain, and I asked to be transported to a hospital. Jail doctor Verrette refused, though he knew, that I had a history of cardiac problems. On May 7, I repeated my request again, and was again refused. On May 8, I had a full-blown heart attack. Jailers waited for several hours, before delivering me to an emergency. Obviously these cowards hoped that I would die in the meantime. I did not.
Cardiologist Couture inserted in me several IV needles and started pumping into me several medications, which did not do me any good. I repeatedly demanded to be transferred to a hospital, which would be equipped for angiography and angioplasty. (Angiography is a test, which produces a picture of coronary arteries, and angioplasty is a procedure of inserting a balloon in a blocked coronary artery in order to open it up). Couture refused. So, I told him to remove all his IV needles, as protest.
He had no choice, but to remove them, but he called in a psychiatrist to attest, whether I was competent to make medical decisions for myself. Of course, I refused to speak to the psychiatrist. This is the only way to fight the corrupt psychiatrists: if you speak to them, no matter what you say, they can always distort it and declare you insane, but if you do not talk to them at all - they have nothing to distort. (And you think only Soviets used psychiatrists against political prisoners!).
Having failed in his attempt to treat me by force against my will, Couture had no choice, but to arrange an angiography and angioplasty for me in Laval Hospital. On May 15, 1998, I was brought there. Cardiologist Barbeau did angiography, but refused to do angioplasty, saying that it was "too complicated". The results were pretty bad: I had 4 major coronary arteries blocked: Circumflex 70%, Left Anterior Descending (LAD) - 90%, Diagonal - 95% and Marginal 100%. These data is from 1998; now, 3 1/2 years later, the numbers are certainly greater.
I was offered to do bypass surgery the first next working day - May 19, 1998. It looked to me suspicious: I did not feel like I was to die in the next couple of days, they certainly have a waiting list, and I am just a lousy convicted murderer, so I doubted that they would take care of me prior to taking care of law-abiding citizens. I refused and decided to get several "second opinions". First, I contacted several specialists in Montreal. All were of opinion, that I need bypass surgery, though none could explain why angioplasty was not possible.
The problem with these recommendations was that these people were not surgeons, they did not do surgery. I asked to see a surgeon. I saw C. Pelletier at Montreal Heart Institute, and he did NOT recommend by-pass surgery, writing that Circumflex and Marginal were not operable. Then my film was shown to another cardiac surgeon Teijiera (Sherbrooke), he also did NOT recommend by-pass surgery, but with totally opposite reasons: he considered Circumflex and Marginal operable, but the other two non-operable.
The jail doctor Corbin (I was by that time in Cowansville jail) did not bother to notice this contradiction, and even when I pointed it out to him, his response was: the conclusion was the same, so everything was fine. One thing was clear: I was right when I refused the bypass surgery. Bypass surgery is a very serious operation, and one should not do it if a simple angioplasty is available.
So, we have about 15 cardiologists, who are NOT surgeons, recommending by-pass surgery, 2 surgeons, who are not recommending, but for totally opposite reasons. Do all these Quebec doctors know what they are talking about? I asked my wife to send my film of angiography to US under her name and to ask whether angioplasty was possible, and the top specialists at Harvard University Medical School, New York University and Columbia University all responded that angioplasty was possible indeed, and that they were prepared to do it. She also found a doctor in B.C., who was prepared to do angioplasty.
According to Canadian law, every prisoner has exactly the same right to get medical care as any law-abiding citizen. This right includes choice of medical procedure, choice of doctor, etc. Correctional Service is obliged to pay for the medical care. In the case, where jail doctor does not feel that a particular procedure is necessary, jailers have the discretion to refuse to pay for the medical care, but they are still obliged to deliver a prisoner to the doctor, provided that the prisoner is paying all the expenses. You might feel, that criminals do not deserve all this, then change the law, in the meantime, the Law should be respected. The reality in this country of hypocrites is opposite: the law is not respected at all levels, including judges. Here are the facts.
I have requested that jailers brought me to B.C. for treatment, since none was available in Quebec. I also indicated, that should jail doctor decide that I did not need angioplasty, some of my colleagues outside Canada would be prepared to contribute money to pay all relevant expenses. I was refused. The official reason: I have all the treatment I need right here in Quebec; I have refused bypass surgery, none of Quebec doctors recommended angioplasty.
This was a half-truth, which is worse, than a lie. The full truth was: the only treatment I had in Quebec was 4 kinds of pills, which did not do any good; I had good reason to refuse bypass surgery, since I had not one, but 2 opinions of cardiac surgeons, who did NOT recommend bypass, while people, who did recommend bypass, were not surgeons. The fact that Quebec doctors did not recommend angioplasty was countered by opinions of the top US doctors, who did. Now, who would you believe, the top Professor from Harvard or ordinary Quebec doctor? And after all, according to the law, it is I, who decides what procedure I wish to undergo. Jailers have only one thing to decide: to pay or not to pay.
In order to see whether Canadian judges have any respect for the law, I have tried several legal procedures. In 1998, my motion was dismissed by Rolland, J.S.C., who decided that he had no jurisdiction and that I had to apply to Federal Court. His decision was wrong: my motion was based on Sec. 7 of the Charter (right to life), and the Superior Court is the court of proper jurisdiction when a breach of the Charter is alleged (I alleged that my life was in danger). I filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was rejected, without giving any valid reason.
Next step, application to the Federal Court. Not only my motion was denied by corrupt judge Lutfy, without giving any reason, but also another corrupt judge McGillis declared me vexatious pleader, again, with no reason given in the judgment. This means, that I can not file any motion in Federal Court, without prior permission to do so. I felt that my heart was deteriorating, so I filed yet another motion in Superior Court, which was dismissed by yet another corrupt judge Arsenault. Both Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal. And these people are accusing ME of having no regard for human life! I killed 4 people, who were threatening my life; these corrupt judges were helping government to murder me, and I did no harm to any of them.
The next step: I filed a lawsuit against jail doctor Corbin, accusing him of deliberate denial of medical care, which resulted in deterioration of my heart. Legal Aid paid all the expenses. Why? Very simple: they understood, that Quebec doctors are like Mafia - if I sue one of theirs, they are not going to treat me, and this is what government needed. My action was dismissed without hearing by yet another corrupt judge Belliveau in 2000, in addition, the same judge Rolland has declared me vexatious pleader, so now I had effectively been banned from the Superior Court.
The next step, I filed complaints against jail doctor Corbin and Head Nurse Boissonnault with the Disciplinary Committees of their respective professional orders. My complaint against Corbin was adjudicated in January of 2001, my complaint was vexatious, had no merit. My heart continues to deteriorate, several trips to the emergency rooms. I am transferred, against my will, to Archambault jail. Here, denial of medical care continued, I filed 2 disciplinary complaints against jail doctors Leduc and McFadden.
Jail doctors do not like it: they are helping government to kill me, and government does nothing to protect them from harassment of my complaints. It is not enough for them that I lose adjudication of my complaints – they want to forbid me even to file those complaints. Government is happy to oblige: in June of 2001, Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Solicitor General of Canada files a motion for injunction, and corrupt judge Durand immediately issues an order, stopping adjudication of existing complaints and forbidding me to file any new complaints with Discipline Committees of doctors, nurses and lawyers. Their reason: my complaints paralyze Correctional Service to the point that they can not provide medical care to other prisoners.
Judge Durand does not give a damn about the law. Sec 757 of the Code of civil procedure states it clearly, that no injunction can be issued to restrain legal proceedings (adjudication of my complaints is a legal proceeding) or to dictate a public or private corporation, how to do their business (Durand ordered Discipline Committees of doctors, nurses and lawyers not to accept any of my complaints). The title of Durand's order reads: "Order to protect the rights of the parties" I just wonder, how does it protect my rights? I filed an appeal, which was rejected as frivolous and vexatious.
New test in July of this year revealed that ischemia is now spread practically all over the left ventricle. Two more months passes, and after my repeated multiple requests, a Quebec doctor finally puts it in writing, that my angina is severe and that my life is "probably in danger". Jailers are in difficult situation: now a Quebec doctor says that I need angioplasty, and that my life is "possibly in danger". Now they are telling me, that there is nothing they can do, they are waiting for a decision "from above". For any other prisoner, jail doctor and the warden can decide any question of medical treatment, including transportation to another province, but not for me.
I was trying to clarify, who exactly makes the decision about my life and death, and jailers indicated to me that it was quite high, without being more specific. I have received a copy of a letter about me signed by Solicitor General MacAulay, which I shall post later, but I would not be surprised if the matter went above him. There is no doubt, that Chretien did not like me calling him a crook. Finally, on November 22, jailers told me, that I will be transferred to B.C. for medical care, without though giving the date for such transfer. Jailers are hoping that I shall die any day, but I am still alive.
Solicitor General is now in a stupid situation: he asked court to forbid me filing vexatious complaints, but since now he admits, that I need to be transferred, and all my complaints were on this subject, how can he claim, that my complaints are vexatious. This evident thing was not evident to corrupt judge Durand: not only he refused to dismiss the motion, but on the contrary, he said that his order forbidding me to file complaints is still in effect, and he postponed the adjudication indefinitely. He said sarcastically, that the motion will be continued, when I come back, if, I “ever come back". Clearly, he hopes that I will die there, which is possible: 3 1/2 years of malicious delay could have deteriorated my heart beyond repair.
Whatever happens, I shall never beg for my life, I shall die standing tall,
and my last words will be: "Hey, crook Chretien, read my lips: 'Kiss my
Cheney about military tribunals
I saw Cheney saying that the terrorists do not deserve the same safeguards which any other suspect has. Well, if he is 100% sure that the person is guilty, what is the need for any court trial, military or civil? The main principle of any system of justice - presumption of innocence, and if Cheney is not capable to understand this, he should find himself another job (Bush too).
Which crime is more repugnant?
Crime 1: a pedophile, who kidnaps, rapes and kills a little girl for a personal pleasure;
Crime 2: a rapist, who breaks into houses of lonely women, rapes, beats and kills them;
Crime 3: terrorist, who kills many people, sacrificing his own life in the name of what he perceived as justice for his people.
I foresee a sarcastic idiot responding that I am the most repugnant criminal. Don’t waste your time.
New discovery at Discovery channel
A university professor was answering question: it is known, that food metabolism creates heat, so why the cold-blooded animals stay cold, while the warm-blooded stay warm? His response was: the heat is created by movement, the warm-blooded animals move much more than the cold-blooded, and this is why they stay warm. Why is he wrong?
Hint: lie on a couch for 24 hours without movement and see if your blood
would become cold.
Some gymnastics for your brain
There is a notion that the primordial water was the result of a lightning striking at hydrogen and making it burn in an atmosphere of oxygen. What is wrong in this "theory"?
Resurrection of foreign Taliban fighters
It was reported, that about a thousand foreign Taliban fighters first
surrendered, and then, after being brought to another city, started fight with
their guards. All of them were killed. Do you sincerely believe in this
nonsense? What really happened, they were just slaughtered, and the
insurrection was invented to justify the atrocity. There is no doubt,
that the Taliban tried to fight back, when the slaughter started, but I do not
believe for a second, that they started. US doing it again: siding with
one bunch of scoundrels to kill another bunch of scoundrels. Tell me, who
is your friend, and I shall tell you, who you are.
How did the CIA agent die?
One thing is obvious: government does not want to go into any details as to how he died. Why? The guy is a hero, his death must have been heroic, why not to publicize it? During the war with Germany, many Soviet soldiers placed grenades around their bodies and then thrown themselves under German tanks; others had thrown their bodies on the openings in German fortifications, from where machine-guns were firing, thus shielding other soldiers and allowing them to conquer German Positions. All this was publicized, of course.
Why not to publicize the heroic death of the CIA agent? We saw recently on virtually all channels in US and Canada the process of interrogation of American Taliban guy Walker by this CIA agent. We see about 50 prisoners tied up in a pretty tortuous manner. They are taken one by one for interrogation. We see Walker being taken, his face is not blacken yet, and he is walking on his own. Walker refuses to speak to CIA agent and returned back, still tied up. Then we are told, that several hours later, an uprising started and CIA agent was killed. No details. None of the reporters asked Walker what happened, how did his face become black, why he can not walk, what happened to him, etc. Yellow media is yellow media.
Here are some thoughts about what I saw. First, each tape like this always has a timer running - no timer on this tape. Someone erased it. Why? Second, we hear CIA agent telling Walker point blank, that he would be killed, unless he talks. Excuse me, what happened to Geneva Convention? Third, all this stuff was taped in little detail, probably by several cameras (We see Walker taken at one place, then we see him interrogated, then his face in zoom, etc.), clearly, the uprising itself was filmed, at least the beginning of it. Why don't they show it to us? All we saw of that "uprising", was an Alliance soldier coming to a wall and shooting down, without looking where he was shooting, that's it. It looked like a spectacle for the media, because there was no evidence that someone was shooting at him.
Fourth, if you tell every prisoner, that he would be killed, don't you think that you are inviting a revolt? These people have surrendered, because they were promised life. Fifth, many killed prisoners were found with their hands still tied, how could you revolt with hands tied up? I saw a number of bodies, and I did not see any weapon near them. There were reports that prisoners managed to "smuggle" weapons into jail. Do you believe this nonsense? Weapon is not something you can put in your mouth. I also saw these prisoners being searched upon surrender.
I think, government has a very good reason not to tell us, how exactly CIA
agent died. I suggest compiling a "Top Ten" list of reasons why
CIA and government do not want us to know the details of CIA agent's death.
Here is my contribution: he was caught sodomizing a prisoner, which for any
Muslim is a deadly sin, and killed by a Northern Alliance soldier. Any other
About democratically elected governments
You have heard on numerous occasions: "We are democratically elected government, you should trust us". Let us recall some lessons of History.
Lesson 1. Mussolini was democratically elected in 1922. He "democratically" convinced Parliament to give him special powers. Then in 1926 there was an attempt to kill him (or he arranged it), he declared "Homeland" in danger, all who were not with him, were against him (sounds familiar?) and should be "brought to Justice" (sounds familiar?), meaning - jailed. And if you think, he did it against the will of Italian people, think again: he was very popular, he had as much popular support as Bush. He declared himself Duce, and he was seen like Duce by majority of Italians. Had he been as smart, as Franco, and stayed neutral, he would have been ruling Italy until his death.
Lesson 2. Hitler was democratically elected in 1932 (I am not sure about exact date). In 1933, he orchestrated fire in Reichstag, declared the Homeland in danger, and did more or less exactly as Mussolini did. Fuehrer in German means the same as Duce in Italian. He was loved and supported by majority of Germans. He promised them prosperity and security, and he delivered. Majority decided that if he had to "step on some toes" to achieve it, it was OK.
The Jews had to be rounded up and sent to concentration camp, it was quite profitable, their property was confiscated, their golden teeth were melted enriching Homeland, and even their bodies were useful: a good soap was made. Germans were quite happy. They decided that it was fair, because Jews were nothing, but cancer on the Homeland, and you get rid of cancer by cutting it out.
I am aware of numerous patriotic responses to my postings, where people sincerely claim that they are living in a FREE country and want to keep it that way, and if Bush has to "step on some toes", it is OK. Guess what! German people under Hitler felt exactly the same way, and it was a SINCERE feeling. I was born and lived for 39 years in the USSR, and I assure you, that Soviet people (99% of it) sincerely loved Stalin, and one of the most popular songs had words: "I do not know any other country, where a human would be breathing more free than in the USSR", they SINCERELY thought, that Stalin had to step on some toes in order to guarantee their security, and I assure you, that they had better reasons to believe. Imagine that you are the only capitalist country in the world, and you are surrounded by hostile Communist countries. How would you react?
Patriotism was Hitler's weapon, patriotism was used by Mussolini, patriotism is being used by Bush. You may say that Bush is not Hitler. Yes, but he is pretty close to Mussolini. He put about 2000 innocent people in jails and is keeping them there, without laying any charges.
Patriotism is the best weapon of all scoundrels.
How many people really died - follow-up
It was reported that a Christmas tree was lighted at Ground Zero, with the lightbulbs equal to the number of people killed, each lightbulb carrying one name of the victim. The reporter did not mention though what the number was. This is not an empty question: ABC declared the number of killed at 3329, and CNN quoted the same number as 3075. And 2 weeks ago, it was about 3900. Nobody addresses in any meaningful way, why does this number change all the time for almost 3 months by now?
I have already made a posting on this subject, and many responses made me totally speechless and amazed. People see nothing unusual in it: according to them, there was some duplication, some people called 5 institutions with the same name, so the name was entered 5 times. I do not buy any of this. Here are my reasons.
This is what a normal person would do in a similar situation (and I am sure, our hero Giuliani did exactly that): you take the list of organizations housed at WTC, you call each organization and you ask them to give you all the data, related to their employees presumed perished. You get the list from them, and you enter it in your database. The computer immediately gives you a warning, if there is any duplication.
You check this duplication manually (for example, if the name is the same, you check the birthday, home address, etc.) If everything is the same, it is a duplication, and you delete it. It does not take long. This has been done by one of the media, and their result was below 2800. And if you think that you have to write all this information manually, you are wrong. Every organization these days has a database of their own, with all employees listed. So, they just click the name and write it on a diskette and send this diskette to the City Hall. This diskette is read in City Hall database, no human errors in the meantime.
The next step is to assess the number of visitors. This can only be done on the basis of the information from the relatives of those presumed perished. Again, the procedure is the same: you get the full name, date of birth, home address, etc. You include this information in your database, and you immediately get a warning, if there is any duplication. Again, if several relatives call to declare the same person as missing, you will immediately catch duplication.
Yet another possible explanation: deliberately false declaration of death. People might do it for one reason only: to collect life insurance. To the best of my knowledge, only one couple in Minnesota was charged with this offense. So, how to account for about 3500 "false victims"? Here is my explanation.
Bush needed popular support for his "war on terrorism". In order to get continuing support, he needed to keep people angry, and nothing keeps people angry better, than hearing every couple of days that the number of victims keeps climbing. When his purpose was achieved, he started slowly decreasing the number. If you recall, the initial estimation was about 3000 victims.
Goebbels was right when he allegedly said: "We are so lucky that the population
does not think!"
About "Bush doctrine"
Bush's "If you are not with us, you are against us" is now called the Bush doctrine. Give me a break! This thing existed from the beginning of time and was widely used in any intolerant society. Just in the last century, it was used by Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.
Bush is in a pretty good company!
How to get perfect 10 in gymnastics
When I saw it, I could not believe my eyes. Professional gymnastics competition. Miller comes out wrapped in American flag and performs her exercise, accompanied by a song about US flag. Now, if you do not give her perfect 10, you are not patriotic enough, so she got perfect score all 10! Smart?
She was not alone. Macready came after her and waved the flag. The result - predictable - all 10. Then one Roelhlisberger wears flag on his head and plays Bush's speech - boom! Another perfect score. Poor Nemov, he is just the world champion, he could not get even close.
Congratulations! You have overshot the Soviet Union. Even they
did not sink as low, as waving flag or playing Brezhnev's speeches during any
kind of sport events. They did use patriotic tricks to get unfair
advantage, but this was in social sciences, popular music.
Which kind of terrorism is more repugnant?
Imagine that you live under foreign occupation for all your life. Your wife is pregnant, she is in labor. You need to deliver her to a hospital, but your car is stopped by occupying army; your wife is screaming of pain, but the soldier is laughing at her suffering. You have to go back. Your son is born in the car and dies soon thereafter. You are lucky; your wife is alive.
Your 5 children went to school in the morning, but did not come back: a booby-trap placed by occupying army has exploded killing all. You get explosives, wrap them around your body, go to nearby city, where the citizens of occupiers live and blow yourself up trying to kill as many of them, as you can.
You are a soldier of the occupying army. You see children, who are taunting you and throwing stones at you. Your life is in no danger, but you do not like them. You take a gun and shoot one of the children dead, hoping that you can terrorize them enough, so that they would not come back, but the next day there are even more of them than yesterday, so you kill 2 children this time.
You are a pilot of a military plane. Your assignment is to kill people on the ground, some of them are terrorists and some are innocent civilians and children. You are doing this in full safety; you are in no danger. You hope to terrorize people on the ground, so that they would stop coming to your cities and blow themselves up, but they do come, and the more you bomb, the more they come.
Now, which of these terrorists is more repugnant?
About Dan Rather
I saw our "hero reporter" Dan Rather, with tears in his eyes declaring that he is prepared to go any place and do anything President Bush might require of him. Replace the words "President Bush" by "Comrade Stalin", and you will hear exactly the phrase Soviet reporter might have said. Well, Soviet reporters never claimed to be independent. They were officially there to promote ideas of Stalin (after his death - ideas of the Communist Party). Dan Rather claims to be a member of the so-called free press.
The forefathers of USA have included the freedom of press in US Constitution, because they knew that any government without proper checks becomes corrupt, and free press was supposed to be the watchdog insuring government's integrity. Rather declared his partiality, which is top of unprofessional behavior. Suppose, he learns about some impropriety committed by government. With his devotion to Bush, can you trust that he would inform us about it?
There is certain group of people, who ex-officio are not allowed to make this kind of statements. Can you imagine our Auditor General declaring that she loves Chretien so much, that she would be prepared to do anything he might ask? Can you imagine any judge saying this?
If Dan Rather is so eager to help Bush fighting the war against terrorists, he should resign and enlist into the army. The job of reporter is to tell the truth, all truth, nothing but the truth, and if this truth would hurt his beloved Bush, tough.
Fellow Americans, you are so mentally sick, that you are not capable to
understand just how sick you are. Sad, sad, sad.
Fifth Estate about police and Jaggy Singh
There was a show recently on this subject. The show correctly pointed out several things. First, police spent enormous amount of time spying on Jaggy, while terrorist Ressam slipped unnoticed. Second, it was shown that police twice had kidnapped Jaggy, while he never did any violent act. But being a government paid institution, CBC could not possibly tell the whole truth. The worst lie: statement that police did nothing illegal. Excuse me, since when kidnapping of citizens became a legal procedure?
There was an interview with the police spokesman. The reporter never had the guts to ask him proper questions. The reporter never asked, why kidnapping was either legal or necessary. During the interview, police spokesman said that plastic bullets were used only when the life of policeman was in danger. At this point, an honest reporter should have shown a clip of such shooting, where policemen were in no danger, and should have asked where was the danger. This never happened.
There was also an interview with an Anarchist, who said that they wanted to
overthrow government and to install Communism, and that they would use
violence. Reporter never asked the police spokesman, why they did not watch the
Anarchists, why none of them was kidnapped. I can tell you the answer.
Anarchists are police creations and police informants. Ask yourself, what does
government need to discredit a legal dissent? Anarchists, advocating
violence. Recall the pictures, when the wall was broken. Police was just
standing by, doing nothing. They wanted the wall to be broken, so that
they would have an excuse to get out and to assault people, and they did. The
Anarchists were doing what police told them to do. This is a police trick as
old as life, and yellow reporter has no guts to unmask it.
Why did the towers collapse - follow-up
I respond to some of the remarks. One individual pointed out that Pentagon did not collapse, because its walls were reinforced and fire-proofed, while WTC was not. This is exactly what I am saying: a high-rise needs to be built much stronger, than any 5-storey building.
I love the other "explanation": one individual wrote that WTC was built to collapse inside in order not to damage surrounding buildings. Wow! My little brain thought that buildings are built to withstand adversities, rather than to collapse. I suggest that the individual in question enlighten us, as to the source of his information. Any high-rise is built to withstand an earthquake, a tornado and a fire.
In the case of WTC, not only it collapsed, but also covered with its debris a significant area around plus causing a collapse of several smaller buildings, which were also shabbily constructed. No normally built building should collapse, just because a building nearby has. This is a criminal negligence causing death.
One has to understand, that a high-rise building has a frame made of thick
steel beams, which are welded together. The quality of welding should be such,
that the frame had the strength of a monolith. The picture of collapse is
obvious: the welding joints gave in, the walls were made of dust and the whole
thing collapsed as a house of cards. Shame!
Once again, I feel ashamed of being Jewish. This time, 5 Palestinian children killed by a booby-trap placed by Israeli army in a residential area. First, Israeli government lied that it was an accident due to unexploded tank shell, then it lied that it was a Palestinian bomb, and only later, under pressure of evidence it has admitted placing a booby-trap. No apology, no offer of compensation, no punishment for the criminals who did it. If you want Arafat arresting his terrorists, you should start arresting yours.
Place yourself in the shoes of Palestinian parents, whose children went to school and never came back. Does this explain to you September 11? I am not justifying it, I am explaining it. If you do not want repetition, eliminate the roots of terrorism. These roots are not in Afghanistan, they are in Palestine, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Crimes against humanity there create crimes against humanity in US; it is as simple as that.
Step one in the fight against terrorism: extradite the terrorist number one
- Sharon to The Hague, place him in the cell next to Milosevic and let him
stand trial for crimes against humanity. He is up to his nostrils in
blood of innocent people slaughtered in Sabra and Shatila.
How Israel fights terrorism
In "60 Minutes - 2" there was an episode where reporter Simon described, how Israel was fighting terrorism after massacre of the sportsmen at the Munich Olympic Games, with implication that US should follow that example. Simon said that Israel decided to kill the terrorists one by one. He tells us, how one embassy translator was killed, without any explanation as to who he really was and what was his participation in the massacre.
Then we learn that an Arab waiter was killed in front of his pregnant wife, and oops, they killed a wrong man. Why do we know it? Because the Israeli agents this time were caught by the police. How many more oops like this happened, we shall never know. Simon also told us, how Israeli agents killed one of Arafat’s lieutenants. They claimed him to be the mastermind of all terrorist attacks.
I doubt it: he was killed by a bomb, which was detonated, when his car was passing by, which means that his car was not blast-proof. I suspect that if he had really been the mastermind, he surely knew that his people were killed around the world, and it does not take great brain to understand that he might be next. In this situation, one should not be travelling in an ordinary car, and since he did, there is a great chance, that he was not the one Israel thought he was. In any case, with his murder nothing really changed.
Simon also claimed that Israel had no choice, but to kill in a clandestine manner. Really? If they had a proof, that certain guy was one of the murderers, nothing prevented them to present this evidence to the government of, say, Norway (where they killed an innocent man) and demand an extradition or to try the murderer in Norway. No civilized government would refuse such a request.
Ask your conscience, is a killing of one innocent man in front of his PREGNANT wife justified by killing of 10 guilty? In order to simplify your search for an answer, imagine, that the innocent one is you.
At the end of the show, Simon concluded, that Israel has eliminated all the
terrorist network. Really? At the moment of this writing, 3 bombs have
exploded in the heart of Jerusalem, and less than 12 hours after that - yet
another bomb in Haifa. And the day before that, two gunmen were shooting people
in another Israel city. Now, who is doing all this, if the terrorist network
has been eliminated?
Charlotte Church about September 11
It was reported in London Times, that Charlotte Church in the interview said exactly the same thing I was saying: New York firefighters are no heroes, and the importance of the whole event was largely overblown - all is true. It is sad though, that she did not have the guts to stand by her beliefs: she got scared and made a statement that the Times reporter distorted what she said. Sad.
It is especially sad, because, unlike majority of "dumb blondes",
she is also very intelligent. Just one example: during her concert, she
dedicated the song "Imagine" to the victims of September 11: this is
exactly the song, which was forbidden to be played in New York. This was a
Some arithmetic for your brain
It was reported that average man in Canada has sex 106 times per year, while the same number for an average woman is 98. Assuming that the numbers are correct and that "sex" means something transpiring between 2 individuals, how do you explain the mathematical meaning of the difference 106-98 = 8? Let us make a "Top 10" list of the most funny answers. Here are my suggestions:
a) Homosexuals are more sexually active, than lesbians;
b) Some women do not bother to wake up.
N.B. Since prisoners did not participate in the survey, "jail jokes"
are not acceptable.
Who are the most dangerous terrorists?
By definition, terrorist is the one who terrorizes people. Here is my suggestion of who should be included in this category. (I foresee some sarcastic idiots writing that Fabrikant should be included - don't waste your time).
1. Drunk drivers: they kill every year 5 times more innocent people, than all the Arab terrorists taken together. Do not tell me that they did not mean to kill - when they get drunk and sit at the wheel, they do mean to kill, and if they sincerely do not understand it - they are criminally insane, and they should be locked up in an asylum until they do. There is one more thing: unlike Arab terrorists, they usually stay alive. Second astounding thing: in Canada, drunkenness is considered as a defense almost excuse for a murder. As a comparison, in the old USSR drunkenness has always been considered as an aggravating circumstance.
2. Army of God and similar "pro-life" groups. They are terrorizing both medical doctors and pregnant women, sometimes killing the doctors. Here is a very simple way to show that these people are not really pro-life: the women should tell them, that they would not undergo an abortion, but rather give the newborn to the "pro-lifers". Over 1 million abortions are performed each year in US. Make "pro-lifers" take care of all these children, year after year, they will stop their nonsense activities.
3. Bullies at schools. They are terrorizing people most precious to us - our children. They are also the most repugnant of all terrorists, because unlike other terrorists, who are ready to die defending certain idea, bullies are terrorizing the most vulnerable and defenseless, and they are doing it out of sadistic pleasure: they just love making innocent people suffer. You may say, that these bullies do not kill anyone. Wrong. Many children have committed suicide, being unable to endure the torment. This is a murder, and a murder more repugnant than an ordinary murder, because the murderer(s) would never be prosecuted and would never be punished.
Recently, several teenagers were arrested in Bedford MA for allegedly conspiring to kill several people at school and then to commit suicide. Can you imagine the intensity of torment, a person should go through to contemplate his own demise? The people, who should be arrested, are the bullies who caused the whole thing. You will never stop violence at schools, unless you address the roots – bullies.
The media has vilified the 2 boys, who did shooting at Columbine School. In reality, they were the victims as well. The real villains, who should be held responsible for Columbine, were the bullies, who have driven the boys into the murder-suicide.
So, instead of killing innocent people in Afghanistan, start exterminating
your home grown terrorists, who are much more dangerous. As far as Arab
terrorists is concerned, here is my prediction: "victory" in
Afghanistan would do nothing to eliminate Arab terrorism. Peace in Palestine
would do the trick.
Purple Heart for American heroes
The 5 American soldiers, who were wounded by "friendly fire", were awarded Purple Heart. If I recall correctly, Purple Heart is given for the utmost bravery in the military action against the enemy. In this case, there was no bravery (they just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time), there was no military action (they were not on the front lines), there was no enemy (their own planes injured them).
I just wonder, how other recipients of similar awards feel. They were
in the real combat, risked their lives, etc. I would have understood if
the Army offered its apology, offered, say, a million dollars as compensation,
but to award Purple Heart - is not this a sacrilege?
The real American hero
About 6 years ago, Fuerstein (did I spell his name correct?) had surprised the whole country: his textile mill has burned, but he decided to continue paying full salary to all his employees. He continued paying, while rebuilding his factory. He rebuilt and re-opened his mill. Now he is about to declare bankruptcy.
Americans print on their money: "In God we trust". Why do they do it? Because money is the only god they really trust. I call Fuerstein a real hero, because he seems to be the only one in the whole country, who defied this "god" in favor of MAN. Compare him to the airline companies, who wave flags in patriotic fervour, and then get BILLIONS from the government, and after that fire about 100,000 Americans. Now, who is a real patriot and a real hero?
Here is my suggestion. Fuerstein needs about $100 million, which is
less than one-tenth of the funds collected for the victims of September
11. Give him these $100 million, there is not a single person in the
whole US, who deserves it more than he - REAL AMERICAN HERO.
Does Canada need to spend more money on security?
The short answer is NO.
First, nobody threatens Canada. The recent announcement, that Ressam was planning bombing Jewish street in Montreal, is nothing Goebbels type propaganda. Just ask a simple question: if he really wanted to do it, why did not he? What really might have happened, is the following: Ressam was passing along Van Horne, saw all the orthodox Jews and might have said to his companion: "I would love to bomb them!" This does not mean, that he really planned to do so. Yet another Goebbels type propaganda was the “container boy" described in another posting of mine.
Second, we know that enormous police resource is spent to spy on innocent Canadian citizens. One such example, extensive surveillance files oh Jaggy Singh. I have read in my jail file, that Vancouver police has informed jailers, that my son had posted my account of Concordia events in B.C. discussion group. Now imagine, there are policemen in Vancouver, who are paid to oversee, what my son is posting on the Internet! This happened exactly at the time, when Ressam was in B.C. undetected. If they have policemen watching over my son, can you imagine how many policemen are watching my family in Montreal?
OK, I am a political unreliable, I was this way in the USSR, I am still political unreliable here, but is not it too much to have police surveillance of my family? It is well known that FBI had extensive surveillance of Martin Luther King, but I think, they left his family alone (or did they?)
In any case, whenever police asks for more money, just tell them to
re-allocate their resources, stop spying on innocent people and start targeting
“Container Boy” number 2
Here is what was reported at the moment of writing. UK citizen Reid was caught trying to ignite the explosives in his shoes during AA flight from Paris to US. When he was asked by a flight attendant what he was doing, he responded: “I am wired”. A fight ensued, Reid was restrained by passengers, plane diverted to Boston. FBI claims that his shoes contained a quite sophisticated device and had enough explosives to blow up the plane. Reid could not possibly have made the device himself. He was charged with “interference with the crew”(??!!!)
I call this “container boy” story, because it looks as ridiculous as the first one (see my previous posting). Yet another analogy - yellow media does not ask proper questions. Indeed, if you want to blow up a plane, wouldn’t you rather go to the bathroom and do the ignition part there? Would you respond to a flight attendant that you were repairing a shoe, rather than telling her that you were “wired”? Clearly, the guy wanted to be caught. He did not want to blow up the plane. If this is so, then – why the whole spectacle?
One Moussaoui was charged with terrorism and is facing death penalty. Compare him to Reid. Moussaoui did not do anything criminal. Whether he planned to commit a crime is yet to be seen. Reid, on the other hand, was caught trying to ignite an explosive device capable to blow up the plane. Which one looks more guilty? Why isn’t Reid charged with terrorism and attempted murder? Nobody in the media asks these questions. Why?
In the past month, Reid has visited Israel, Belgium and Amsterdam. Media claims that terrorists were using Reid to make trial flights. This makes little sense since he deliberately acted to be caught. His behaviour would make sense if we presume he did do trial flights for FBI. (Scotland Yard) FBI is very interested to see how the crew and passengers would react in case of a terrorist ready to explode a device; it was a very realistic drill. This presumption explains why he had a one-way ticket and no luggage: FBI wanted to see whether airline security would notice him. Now we understand why he was charged with “interference with the crew” rather than terrorism and attempted murder. You may ask: why would he agree to do the job? He is a thief, he was in jail, he is a “James Bond-wannabe”. Scotland Yard agent comes to see him and makes him an offer: he gets out of jail if Reid agrees to work for them. For Reid, this is a dream come true, he agrees. His job was to infiltrate Islamic terrorists. This is why he pretended to convert to Islam. I would not be surprised if the whole spectacle was in order to have Reid to testify against Moussaoui, because the case against Moussaoui is very flimsy. Reid is a long-term stool pigeon.
When I made my first posting about container boy, one individual
sarcastically responded that September 11 attack was made by FBI in order to
blame Arabs. No, not at all. Nobody can ever claim that any suicide attack was
either made by FBI or CIA for a very simple reason: none of their agents would
agree to give his life for his country. I would not be surprised though if at
some point, it would be revealed that FBI knew about the attack and did nothing
to stop it. After all, September 11 is the best thing that could happen to
Bush: he was transformed from a dumbhead to the most admired man. On the other
hand, if you think that a democratically elected government cannot kill its own
citizens in order to blame somebody else, here is an example. Around 1980, an
explosion at Bologna railway station killed about 80 people. Italian police
deliberately left traces to lead falsely to Palestinians as perpetrators. Only
much later, it was discovered that the right-wing group P-2 committed the
crime. High government officials were members of the group. How many more cases
like this had happened of which we would never know?
Osama also did not expect the towers to crumble
If you watched the tape where Osama confirmed his knowledge of September 11
attack, he says there that he expected the floors above the airplane hit to
collapse. He never expected the whole tower to crumble. This is exactly what I
was writing back in October 2001. The towers collapsed because they were built
of inferior material and in an extremely shabby manner.
Question of the year
At the end of each year, Time magazine declares its choice of the person of the year which, according Time’s definition does not have to be a good person, but rather a person who most affected the news. As the proof of its honesty and independence, Time proudly reminded that in past, it has courage to name Hitler and Stalin persons of the year. I was born in the USSR and I had great difficulty understanding the utility of naming people like Hitler and Stalin as “person”: to me they have always been “non-person”, “non-human”, but I could not help admire Time’s independence and courage (or what I thought to be independent and courage)
This time, Time has selected Giuliani as person of the year. What exactly did he do? If he is a hero, then how would you call a mayor who would estimate the number of victims with an accuracy of 1000 people? A super-hero? Clearly Time’s selection of Stalin or Hitler was neither an indication of their independence nor courage: Stalin and Hitler just did not “hit home”. Thousands of people cancelled their subscription when Time has chosen Homeyni, this time it would have been much worse. Almighty dollar beats courage and independence always.
Editor dismissed Osama because Osama was “too small”. Here is my question of
the year: suppose Osama killed not 3,000, but 3,000,000 or 30,000,000
Americans, do you think Time would have chosen him person of the year?
The most admired man
I laughed long and hard when I heard that Bush is the most admired man. The man allowed deadly attack on his citizens. He is presiding over the worst recession with over 1.8 million people lost jobs during 2001. Are you better off because thousands of people are killed in Afghanistan?
Goebbels was right to say that governments are lucky; majority of people just does not think. Would it surprise you to know that Stalin was the most admired man in the USSR? I mean, he was sincerely admired by at least 80% of the population. Bush’s numbers are significantly less. Strange thing: the more people are mistreated, the more they admire their leader.
When I just arrived to Canada, I remember watching a show where some participants denounced extermination of Jews by Hitler, while others were saying that Holocaust never happened or Jews got exactly what they deserved. I am Jewish, majority of my relatives perished during the war, so pro-Hitler opinions were quite repugnant to me.
On the other hand, I understood that freedom of speech means freedom of repugnant speech, and I admired what I thought to be freedom and independence of the media. The main difference between free media and propaganda is that free media presents all opposing points of view, while propaganda only presents one point of view. Latest events proved that US media could be “free” only on the subjects which did not hit home hard enough. Just look at coverage of September 11 attack and the aftermath.
Did you see a single show where one of the parties would say that it was okay to kill 3000 people? It is outrageous and repugnant to justify killing of 3000 people, you might say. While, no more repugnant than to justify or deny killing of 6 million Jews.
Presentation of repugnant views is a small price to pay for free and
independent media because the opposite is propaganda. It is the propaganda
which made Mussolini the most admired man in Italy, Nazi propaganda made Hitler
the most admired man in Germany, American propaganda made Bush the most admired
man in US. Propaganda by American media is more dangerous because they claim to
be free and independent.
What to do with Walker?
I saw several shows about an American, Walker, who was captured among other Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. It was sad and appalling to see American media presenting Soviet style propaganda. Normal media is supposed to present opposite points of view. Propaganda only presents one point of view. In the society which calls itself free and democratic, the public should be able to hear opposite points of view and to make up its mind which one is right.
I saw 4 different analysts expressing the same opinion: Walker is guilty. Prosecutor said that Walker should get death penalty, Senator said that Walker should cooperate in order mitigate his sentence, defense lawyer said that Walker should ask for trial by military tribunal (total non-sense). One expects a defense lawyer to say that his client is not guilty, not this lawyer. The impression was that the show was made not for public, but for Walker in order to intimidate him.
Was it possible to argue here that Walker is not guilty of any crime against US? Of course. Here is an example of such argument. The fact that Walker was a member of Al-Qaeda, is not a crime by itself, at least it is not a crime in Canada. Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker actually DID something criminal against US, like killing US soldier or shooting US plane down. Walker did none of the above. During the Nuremberg trial of top Nazis officials, prosecution presented the proof of specific actions of the accused. The mere fact of being top Nazis was not enough for a conviction. If I recall correctly, one of the accused was acquitted. If it was appropriate to apply these rules to a top Nazi, it is appropriate to apply them to Walker. One should also remember that at the time when Walker joined Taliban, there was no hostility between US and Afghanistan.
Well, read the above and ask yourself a question: should Americans be
informed of opposite opinion.
Who was the very first Mafioso?
Here is what someone said: “Each man is to pay me a price for his life”. Another quote: “This tax will be the payment for their lives, and I will remember to protect them”.
Does this sound like a Mafia racket? If it does, then the first Mafioso was
God (see Exodus 30.12-16). The main difference though, when real Mafia promises
protection, it usually keeps its promise.
What happened to freedom of speech?
About 30 years ago, the following anecdote was popular in the USSR. An American and a Soviet discuss the issue of freedom of speech. American guy says: “We have an absolute freedom of speech: I can go to the Central Square in Washington and shout that Nixon is a crook.” The Soviet responds: “Well, I can also go to the Red Square in Moscow and shout that Nixon is a crook”.
The latest events showed that American freedom of speech existed as long as
the subject of speech didn’t hit home. Two families were arrested in New York;
FBI overheard them on the phone celebrating September 11 attack. One man was
arrested in Texas because he said that Osama was a role model. Now how weak and
fragile your democracy must be if it cannot tolerate someone saying repugnant
words? Is not the tolerance of opposing opinions what US have always claimed to
be proud of?
Osama and Moses
Was Moses a role model? If you look at Heston in the movie, then yes. But read the bible Exodus 32.27-29. When Moses returned with the Commandments and learned that people made a golden calf and worships it (this is big crime!), he ordered Levites to “go through the camp from this gate to the other and kill your brothers, your friends and you neighbors”. Levites obeyed and killed about 3000 men that day. Pay attention: Moses didn’t tell them to kill those who were guilty of idolatry, but rather to kill brothers and friends. Why? First, he wanted to test his thugs’ loyalty, whether they were ready to kill their brothers on his order. Second, he wanted to terrorize the Jews into submission by demonstrating to them that he had thugs so loyal, that they would not spare their brothers. Read the bible, Moses killed many more later on. By the way, Moses didn’t kill his own brother, though his brother was more guilty than anyone else: he was the one who made the golden calf in the first place.
Was Moses a terrorist? You bet! Compared with Moses, Osama is just a little
amateur. This is what Moses said after murdering 3000 innocent people: “Today
you have consecrated yourselves in the service of the Lord by killing your Sons
and Brothers, so the Lord has given you his blessing”. Compare this with
Osama’s “blessed terror”. I am not aware whether Osama ordered anyone to kill
his son or brother just to test his loyalty.
Idiots in Government
It was reported that Government wants to reduce the number of suicides in Canada by ordering car manufacturers to modify their car tail pipes, so that car exhausts gas could no longer be used to commit suicide. These idiots do not seem to understand that when someone decides to kill himself, he will do it, car or no car.
If you want to reduce the number of suicides, you have to address the
reasons why people decide to kill themselves. Here is my advice. Take the
money, which were to be to be spent on car tail-pipe modification and give this
money to the suicidal individuals. If the amount of money is significant, I am
sure many would change their minds and stay alive.
Does the media lie to the public?
You bet they do lie whenever the issue is “sensitive”. The lie of Soviet media was less dangerous because they have always admitted to be serving the Party. The lie of capitalist media is much more dangerous because they claim to be free and independent. The media lied a lot in my case, and I have written about it extensively.
One individual asked me sarcastically: “Did the media lie that you killed 4 people?”, implying that the rest is not important. Is it? Would your perception of a person who kills in self-defense be the same as that of a person who gets pleasure out of killing people? The media lied that I killed because I wanted to attract attention to my quarrel with the university; the media lied that I killed because I was a bad teacher, was a false scientist, was about to be exposed as a fraud and therefore decided to kill innocent people. Does all this make any sense? The media has never mentioned the contempt of court accusation, which were at the root of shooting at Concordia University. Don’t you think the media was obliged to present to the public my versions of events?
The media has lied to us since day one on many issues related to September 11 attack. They lied that Air Force One was a target of terrorist attack, which they knew to be a lie, because it made no sense. The purpose: to justify shameful coward behavior of President Bush, who was jumping from one base to another, hiding underground in between. This is how Giuliani has become a hero: though he did nothing heroic, he at least was there, he was not hiding.
The media lied to us month after month about number of people killed on September 11. The initial estimation was close to 3000, then it started climbing to 4000, then 5000, then 6000, topping at 6700 somewhere in November. The Soviet-style propaganda, the purpose of which was to get people angry, so that they would support Bush’s war. When the goal was achieved, the number started crawling down. Now, the media lies to us that the number 6700 was the initial estimation, but back in September. They take the public for stupid. Anyone can go to the library and look at the old papers.
You watched a show on TV about heroism of Army Reserves people who saved a life on September 11. There was a person in desperate need of organ transplant, and there was a matching organ in other city, but it was not delivered because the special airplane was not allowed to fly. When our heroes at Army Reserves learned about the problem, they volunteered their plane and delivered the organ. Bravo! There is though one question: wouldn’t be much easier just to allow the special plane to fly? It would have been faster and no hoorays would be needed. When roads are blocked, emergency vehicles have always right of passage. The same should have been applied when airspaces shut down. The media didn’t tell us how many people were killed by Bush’s stupid closure of airspace, because their organs were not delivered on time.
ABC played part of the tape from the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. We heard the noise of the struggle during hijacking. What was not played is the part where the passengers decided to attack hijackers. That would have been a proud part to play. The media never bothered to explain why this proud part was not played. Could it be that the passengers attack was invented just to make us feel good, while the plane was shot down by American missile? It was reported that some media demanded release of the tape and FBI refused. Why?
Majority of reports from Afghanistan contain either lie or half-truths, or one has to just read between the lines. Here are examples. There were numerous cases where Afghanis claim significant civilian casualties. Usually the reporter says that the military denied the claim and that there is no way to perform an independent verification. Really? At the time of Taliban rule, there was Al-Jazeera, which is very independent; and now nobody prevents them to go and to verify it.
Remember how the media lied about the prisoners rebellion in Mazar-E-Sharif? First they reported that there was a rebellion, which was quashed in several hours. When it became clear that the timing looks more like slaughter than a rebellion, so several days later they reported that a rebellion lasted 3 days. Several weeks later, it was announced that the rebellion lasted a week. If you watched the interview with Walker about rebellion, his account made no sense, was self-contradictory. Obviously, guy is so scared that he is ready to say whatever is requested.
Here is yet another manner of false reporting: the reporter said that a group of prisoners were delivered to US Army for interrogation, some still suffering wounds received in battles, like broken bones. Excuse me, bullet wounds are acquired in battle, broken bones are result of severe beatings after having surrendered.
They are still taking us for stupid.
Freedom of speech test
Anyone who still believes in freedom of speech, do the following experiment: go to the Time’s Square and start shouting that Giuliani did nothing heroic and that Bush is a coward. If you look like an Arab, you will end up in jail and might get some beatings too. If you are perfectly white European, you will end up with several kicks in the butt. If you add to the above that policemen are not heroes, but rather criminals who sell confiscated drugs and raped Louima with a broom-stick, I am to scared to be close to you. If you survive, tell me what happened to you.
Anyone actually wants to perform the above experiments?
Read the Bible!
I have discovered a very peculiar thing: majority of believers never actually read Bible in full or at least several books of the Bible. They know about religion from their parents who never read Bible themselves, from their priest and from TV preachers, who take any little part of the Bible to prove that God loves them, helps, forgives, saves and gives eternal life.
If you want to know the truth, read the Bible yourself and read it attentively, you will see that the contents of one chapter contradicts the contents of another one, God comes as extremely cruel, capable of killing thousands of innocent people, sick for adoration, ready to commit any atrocity just to get worshiped (If you do not worship him, he will kill you. If you worship another God, he will kill you.) He sees nothing wrong with punishing descendents up to the tenth generation for sins of their ancestors.
Just look at the nonsense in Genesis 1. During the first day, God separated light from darkness, “Evening passed and morning came”. Have in mind, the sun is not created yet, how did he manage to have an evening and the morning?
On the second day, God created a dome to separate water above from water below, and called this dome “sky”. Clearly God had no idea where the rain comes from, that there is no need for dome named “sky” to separate water above from water below. The rest of creation is similarly ridiculous. For example: “For all the wild animals and for all the birds, I have provided grass and leafy plants for food”. Excuse me, I did not see any lion eating grass, did you? What about birds eating fish?
Then in Genesis 2, we read that God has made animals and birds, after he made Adam, while in Genesis 1, birds were made before humans on day five. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.
Now, let us move to Exodus. God comes to Moses and tells him to go to Egypt to get Jews out of slavery. At first, Moses refuses, but after God’s insistence, he agrees and starts his journey. What do you think God does next? He meets Moses on his way to Egypt and tries to kill him! If this is not an insane behaviour, what is? The situation becomes even more bizarre: he was saved by his wife, who cut off the foreskin from the penis of their son and touched Moses’ feet with it. “And so Lord spared Moses’ life”. God is not just insane, but also perverted: who in his right mind would make an agreement, and demand as proof of agreement that every male cut off his foreskin?
Now we come to 10 plagues of Egypt. Being almighty, God could have just made Pharaoh let Jews go, and that would be the end of the story, but God decided differently: he deliberately made Pharaoh stubborn, so that God would have an excuse to punish innocent Egyptians. What is the purpose of this sadistic perversion? God wanted to impress Jews how powerful he was, and he decided that the best way to do it was to go to each Egyptian house and to kill every first-born child there. If this does not create in you revulsion towards God, something is wrong with you.
Read the Bible, read it attentively. This is the easiest way to become an
The most stupid/funny passages from Bible
I suggest compiling a “Top Ten” list of Bible bloopers. Here is my contribution.
a) If two men are having a fight and wife of one tries to help her husband be grabbing hold of the other man’s genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand. (Dt.25.11)
b) In Exodus 20.26, God tells Moses: “Do not build an altar for me with
steps leading up to it; if you do, you will expose yourselves as you go up the
steps”. God in his wisdom did not foresee that a man might wear pants.
How would a fundamentalist Jewish or Christian state look like?
It has been reported a lot about Taliban atrocities and it was implied that Taliban has perverted Islam. I looked in the Bible, and I assure you, that if a fundamentalist Jew wants to establish a rule in a country, based on a Bible, you will see everything Taliban did plus you will have slavery as well. Here are some of God’s laws, as they were given by Moses.
From Exodus 22.18-20:
“Put to death any women who practices magic”.
“Put to death any man who has sexual relations with an animal”.
“Condemn to death anyone who offers sacrifices to any god, except to me, the Lord”.
So much for religious tolerance.
From Leviticus 20.9-13, 20.17
“Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death”. Nobody can argue that it is good to have respectful relationship between children and parents, but this law certainly goes overboard. I love my children, no matter what they do, and I would give my life in order to protect them.
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of a fellow Israelite, both he and
the woman shall be put to death”.
“If a man has sexual relations with another man, both shall be put to death”.
“If a man marries his sister or half-sister, they should be publicly disgraced and driven out of the community”. Oops! Our forefather Abraham did exactly that, so we are all kind of illegitimate.
If you curse God, you would be stoned to death (Lv.24.15), the same will happen if someone sees you working on Saturday (Nu.15.32). How did merciful God treat disabled people? Very simple: they were unholy and could not approach his altar (Lv.21.17-23)
Though Bible does not require women to cover their faces, the Bible just does not count women among human beings. When God told Moses to make a census, he specifically instructed him to count men only. If a woman happened to be not a virgin prior to marriage, she was stoned to death.
Remember Taliban destroying statues of Buddha? Well, they did exactly what God ordered. He told Moses not to make any treaties with other countries. “Instead, tear down their altars, destroy their sacred pillars...” (Ex.34.12-13)
If you want to see the slaves price list, see Lv.27.1-7. As expected, female slaves are cheaper, and their conditions are worse than that of male slaves. “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to be free, as male slaves are”. (Ex.20.7)
There exists a commandment that one should not kill, and then we read (Dt.25.17-19): “...be sure to kill all the Amalekites, so that no one will remember them any longer. Do not forget!” And you thought that Hitler was first to advocate extermination of whole nations. So, if one decides to introduce a rule, according to Bible, Taliban would look like free society.
Thank God, we are not following God’s will!