Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 29, 2015

Open Thread 2015-45

News & views ...

Posted by b on November 29, 2015 at 17:38 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page | next page »

Good grief! Are you guys still debating 911? Seriously, you'd have to be thicker than two short planks of wood If you haven't figured it out by this time.

Posted by: DM | Nov 30 2015 12:22 utc | 101

Yes, this thread has surprised me too. Discussing 9/11 has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Posted by: Laker | Nov 30 2015 12:48 utc | 102

About the only doubt I had about 9/11 was the near free fall of WTC7. This has now been cleared up by a BBC documentary https://youtu.be/vZbMfTtHkYM . It pretty much completely debunks the theory that the building was brought down by explosives. The main towers were brought down by the evil Mohamed Atta and his men as anyone watching the sequence of events in those days, would agree.

Posted by: Ivan | Nov 30 2015 13:11 utc | 103

Flight 11
8:46:30 North Tower

Flight 175
9:03:02 South Tower

Big planes, those Boeings (767).
They took a very unexpected way.
But did you ever see photographs or videos of one of those planes on his route to the WTC?

Posted by: From The Hague | Nov 30 2015 14:01 utc | 104

I said that I'd go back to reading, not posting, in one of my deleted replies. However, it's frustrating that I can't talk back to anyone who called me a troll, so I'll try again. I hope I'll be allowed to post. I'm really sorry if I've derailed this open thread into 9/11 talk (although like Laker, I'm shocked to discover that many here still believe the establishment narrative). I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to "undermine the blog's purpose or mission".

This site is great. I hope that "b" continues posting his analysis of world events forever. Most of the websites and blogs I read have a similar world view, such as Zerohedge, the Saker's blog, Jim Willie (goldenjackass.com), etc. Like Penelope, I also read globalresearch.ca sometimes. I read many more websites + the world MSM (including RT), but that was a brief overview of the people who have done the most to shape my thinking.

The other world view that I brought up is held by a tiny minority of the sites I visit, and I'm not convinced that it's correct. It's been troubling me, so I was hoping for input from people smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. Please, don't let me or anyone else bog you down in endless discussions about unsolvable riddles. What I do is store away the new perspective in the back of my mind, so that I can either expand upon it, or discard it, if/when more data becomes available.

I mentioned the blog by name because I preferred to give credit to the person who got me thinking about these things, rather present his ideas as my own. It's in no way competition for this site, as the subject matter is at best complementary. There isn't even a comments function for readers.

Just to be clear:
EVEN IF PUTIN TURNS OUT TO BE A GLOBALIST TOOL, NONE OF THE WORK DONE BY "B" OR ANYBODY ELSE WOULD BE INVALIDATED.

Maybe the idea is a load of horseshit, but if not, just like high school physics, it's necessary to teach an incorrect paradigm to the first year students. You can't skip over Newtonian physics unless you want a lot of blank staring faces. By the same token, you can't skip over the first step of exposing the more mundane crimes of empire, or the lies of the mainstream media; Most people can't even get that far, nevermind accept 9/11 as big lie, or worse still, conceive of a truly international conspiracy.

We are all on the same side here. It's just that some people believe that the ladder towards perceiving a more accurate version of reality ends at rung number two (crimes of empire + MSM lies), and that's fine. Personally, I hope that's true.

For those who are throwing around the "conspiracy theory" slur: everything on this website is "conspiracy theory" to the average person, even in this relatively enlightened age of the internet.

P.S. Any 9/11 "truth movement" that has appeared many times in the MSN, including an uncritical reception on C-SPAN, is probably not a threat to the people who arranged the whole shebang. I don't know exactly who did 9/11, or how/why it happened, and I think it would be intellectually dishonest for me to say anything else. I think the "conventional demolition" theory is clearly nonsense, as is the "jet fuel/office fires" theory. I think that there's clear evidence of complicity on the part of the so-called deep state. That's as far as I'm prepared to go, although again, I keep various theories on the back-burner.

Posted by: Victori-ana | Nov 30 2015 14:58 utc | 105

I'm not going to wade too deeply into the 9/11 debate here because I feel like we're at the point where you either understand what it's about, you're not ready to accept what it's about, or your survival depends on preventing a broader understanding of what it's about.

Either way, it's nice of Ivan to go on record so we know where he stands. While I'm calling 'em as I see 'em, I'd also like to throw both Plenue and Laguerre into the camp of dishonest actors. While more subtle than some of the weaker and more ham-fisted trolls we suffer [see: Wayoutwest], their insidious agenda is nevertheless obvious to anyone who's paying attention. rufus magister never says anything that matters or enhances the conversation as far as I can tell, so I just skip his posts. If he is a disinformation agent he's really bad at his job, so I suspect he's just a dullard who bores people in person as well as online. Unfortunately for Penelope, she just says too much and I'm finding myself skipping her posts, as well.

With that being said, I do feel there are several posters here who understand the situation we're in and are genuinely attempting to unravel and explain the same. Unfortunately for all of us, we live in a world where speaking the truth is itself a revolutionary act because lies are the glue holding this whole charade together.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Nov 30 2015 15:03 utc | 106

Hope I am not off topic. :) Just reviewing who Obama fired.

US ex-intelligence chief on ISIS rise: It was 'a willful Washington decision'
Published time: 10 Aug, 2015

The US didn’t interfere with the rise of anti-government jihadist groups in Syria that finally degenerated into Islamic State, claims the former head of America’s Defense Intelligence Agency, backing a secret 2012 memo predicting their rise.
Trends
Islamic State

An interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging as opposition in Syria.

Flynn believes the US government didn’t listen to his agency on purpose. snip

The document recently declassified through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), analyses the situation in Syria in the summer of 2012 and predicts: “If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The report warns of “dire consequences” of this scenario, because it would allow Al-Qaeda to regain its positions in Iraq and unify the jihadist Sunni forces in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against all other Muslim minorities they consider dissenters.

“ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory,” the DIA report correctly predicted at the time.
Those groups eventually emerged as Islamic State (IS formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, an Islamic group loyal to Al-Qaeda.snip

With the Al-Qaeda’s notorious founder killed in Pakistan in 2011, the former DIA head admitting the US sponsored Al-Qaeda-associated groups a year later in Syria should come as a shock to American media outlets, such as the Daily Beast, which criticized the DIA memo as unworthy.

https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

Instead we got James Clapper editing reports ala, Cheney.

Posted by: shadyl | Nov 30 2015 15:09 utc | 107

HARPER: GEN. FLYNN LAYS INTEL SCANDAL ON OBAMA'S DOORSTEP

The Pentagon’s Inspector General is investigating charges by analysts at the Central Command that higher-ups in the Tampa headquarters “cooked” their intelligence analyses to satisfy White House demands for “good news” reporting on the war against the Islamic State. That investigation has moved into an advanced phase, and there are now also probes underway by Senate and House oversight committees.
Snip

While the complaints by the analysts focus ostensibly on Maj. Gen. Steven Grove, Centcom’s intelligence chief, and his civilian deputy Gregory Ryckman, there are clear indications from sources within the Pentagon that the real scandal goes up to the Oval Office, via Gen. James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. In what some describe as a rerun of Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous personal visits to CIA headquarters to discipline analysts who disputed the “Saddam WMD” fairy-tale, and his and Donald Rumsfeld’s creation of the Office of Special Plans, a SecDef intelligence unit staffed with neocons that created tailored intelligence to justify the March 2003 Iraq invasion, Clapper reportedly put pressure on Gen. Grove and others in Tampa, to suppress contrary intelligence estimates about the success of the US military actions against ISIS. Part of the IG investigation now focuses on whether some emails and staff reports were deleted to hide evidence of the intelligence tampering.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Somethings never change. Do Cheney and Clapper know each other?

Posted by: shadyl | Nov 30 2015 15:12 utc | 108

@harry law@87

To me, conspiracy theorists are so annoying, not that some may not be true, rather there is so much real hypocrisy and double dealing going on, which can be proved with irrefutable evidence that needs to be concentrated on. It is playing into the hands of the powers that be, when all they need to say to the general public is "Oh they are nutcases who espouse any lunatic theory, take no notice of them" to ordinary members of the general public that works.

The fundamental problem with conspiracy theories, they are a slippery slop. Once you start going that way, there is no end in sight. Debating conspiracy theories is a legit exercise, knowing where to stop is a good measure of sanity.

The other problem (for me), is the context. Nowadays, if people want to debate anything under heaven, the internet provides the fora for each and every possible subject. You name it, there is one. Those who are so attracted to conspiracy theories are welcomed to move on to those sites, in my understanding MoA wasn't conceived with that purpose in mind.

Otherwise, we will end up debating UFOs, ETs., Sasquatch, et al, and whether Gorbachev had the mark of the beast on his forehead, and Putin is the Antichrist. MoA gets targeted by multiple trolls from different angles, some sophisticated, most plainly stupid and grotesque, e.g. WoW. However, the latest avalanche of conspiracy theorist concerns me, IMHO they carry an agenda (am I starting another conspiracy theory?), and that is to subtract attention from the main topic, and to sidetrack the thread toward truly stupid, irrelevant issues, such as whether the Russian plane bombed over Sinai left any marks on the desert, pretending to do sleuth/forensic work from internet pictures. Laughable and ridiculous.

At a point where humanity is facing a potential conflict of gigantic proportions, focusing on the variables and examining the trends that could lead to such conflagration is a matter of survival. For that reason, examining whether a terrorist operation was a false/black-flag is a legit exercise, but extrapolating that to a conspiracy theory, is a dangerous push into what could be a hidden agenda coming from obscure forces.

Nothing would the empire and its alphabet intel soup like more, than creating the perception MoA is a place for weirdos of all kind, leftists, anarchists, Marxists, socialists, and, (can you believe that?) conspiracy theorist. As DM@94 interjected,

"Good grief! Are you guys still debating 911? Seriously, you'd have to be thicker than two short planks of wood If you haven't figured it out by this time.

the conspiracy theories debate, this late into the game, make no sense at all, but now the plot thickens, our in-house conspiracy theorist has found a pal, and it seems there will be no end in sight.

[...] Yes, Victori-ana, we are trying to resolve the same things, but we haven't enough data-- too much unknown [...]

[...] I'll take a look at redefininggod.com blog. I know Corbett Report has definitely decided that the Russian & Chinese oligarchs are in it, too. I'm undecided. In a way it doesn't matter, as far as our actions are concerned; we still have to fight it, either way.
Mostly, I just continue to gather data; [...]

[...] I still don't know whether the ruling class in China & Russia are opposed to the global oligarchy. I know things aren't even close to how we perceive them. All I can do is keep adding nuggets of truth to the puzzle.
If you feel like it, drop me a line at powellpenelope. I'm on yahoo. I seldom get to talk w anyone who is wrestling w this issue.

Yeah, too many unknown unknowns, better turn them into a conspiracy theory. I certainly hope they restrict their yahoo interaction to yahoo.com.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 30 2015 15:16 utc | 109

Syrian army source: rebels make heavy use of TOW missiles

"Through the course of the battles it became apparent that the terrorists have a bigger quantity of American anti-armor TOW weapons. They started using this weapon intensively," said the source. The Syrian government describes all the insurgents fighting it as terrorists.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-arms-idUSKBN0TE1KJ20151125#0pObfmk7Uy6pOQvF.97

Hope I am not hogging thread.

Posted by: shadyl | Nov 30 2015 15:16 utc | 110

"…$18T with a T…"

Yeah, we would all be so much richer and better off if that number was smaller…or even zero. All dollars in existence would be private debt. What could go wrong?

Posted by: paulmeli | Nov 30 2015 15:19 utc | 111

shadyl: Not 'hogging' at all. You make a great contribution.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 30 2015 15:47 utc | 112

b, whatever happened to the numbering? I quoted DM@94 and now he's at 101. What gives?

---------------------------------

Going back to serious issues.

11:02 GMT

Russian President Vladimir Putin will not be meeting his Turkish counterpart, Tayyip Erdogan, at the summit, according to Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

The spokesman did, however, state that Putin is likely to talk to US President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the summit.

That's all I needed to know about the Paris conference, the rest is circus.

Obama talks to Putin in Paris, expresses regret over downed Su-24 jet in Syria - Kremlin

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 30 2015 16:52 utc | 113

At the very least,9-11 was a conspiracy,its just not clear who drove it,funded it and the fact that the MSM absolutely passed on investigating it,and gave a pass to the 9-11 commission composed of the idiots who provided the political atmosphere in which it was formed,and carried out.
Dancing Israelis are not being discussed at all in the MSM,they being Mossad agents documenting the event,a most smoking gun to the clear eyed,and declarations of the event being good for Israel,eclipsed by images of celebrating foreign Muslims.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 30 2015 16:58 utc | 114

Has any western politician denounced, the cutting off of electricity to Crimea by Ukraine terrorists? Andoheb at 21.

No. (afaik, very sure.) And it looks like Crimea won’t complain, it is part of Russia now and the official complainant would have to be Russia against Kiev Ukraine, or ‘terrorists’ in Urk. etc. Those who denounced would appear to be pro-Russia. This is just another sign that nobody will seriously, ever, contest the rejoining or ‘annexation’ of Crimea.

jfl at 24. I tend to agree, as the US president has tremendous powers, and he could potentially, according to ‘paper’, have implemented all you mention, which one would wish he had done or even at this late date start on. But what was his latitude for independent action?

Personally, I think it was possible, even if that would be a risk for him and might ‘blow up the system’. ( > First you make nice and smarmily kow-tow and agree and then when you have the power, boom. This can sometimes be managed by the courageous…) OB is a committee man (would have made an excellent secretary to the Dean) and in his first bid went as far as he could with declarations and subsequently steps that went in the direction of a ‘unity Gvmt’ - both sides of the aisle and so on, while treading carefully not to lose the Dem. vote. These positions guaranteed his election - he was not knocked down, away, vilified. The whole system is effed up, beyond the ridiculous OB figure.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 30 2015 17:04 utc | 115

@ dahoit | 114 and what about the Israeli IM company that warned people not to go to work? That article was in Haartz.

Posted by: shadyl | Nov 30 2015 17:55 utc | 116

Thank you for allowing a previous post to appear :)

The thing that spurred me on to say something was reading Penelope's theory about inter-factional strife within the Western elites. Of course, she's not alone in suggesting that kind of thing, and not just relating to the Western side.

The Saker, who I'm guessing most people here would consider to be a well-respected analyst; he divides the Russian elites into "Eurasian sovereigntists" and "Atlantic integrationists". When it comes down to it, he explains away any apparently self-defeating actions taken by the Russian side as being all down to the "bad Medvedev", definitely not the "good Putin".

Perhaps that's true. I don't know enough about Russia's internal politics to draw solid conclusions of my own, so I'd prefer to trust the Saker. That scenario paints a rather different picture of the Russian power structure to the one I'd imagined: one in which Putin's faction is not able to exert control over many areas of Russian policy.

I'm kind of repeating what Penelope already said about monetary sovereignty and a "fifth column" inside Russia. I just want to point out that if any of the people who are outright ridiculing these ideas consider the Saker to be a good source of information, you may have already accepted the concept of high level collusion between East and West. At least to the extent that you may believe in this Medvedev faction that apparently has enough power to stop Putin from nationalising the currency, but not enough power to stop him trying to destroy the unipolar world order, via his foreign policy decisions.

It could be that there's a good explanation for all of the apparent inconsistencies that puzzle people like me. Maybe there's a good reason why Putin doesn't expose 9/11. I already mentioned a few possible reasons why. These things should be addressed though, because a given model of international relations clearly isn't good enough, if certain inconsistencies have to be ignored in order to make it work.

Posted by: Victori-ana | Nov 30 2015 18:19 utc | 117

@ 113 Lone Wolf

Exactly.

So Obama is forced to admit.
The world must thank Putin for his genius judo/chess play.
And more than play; it is knowledge, self-control, civilization, and so on.

Posted by: From The Hague | Nov 30 2015 18:24 utc | 118

Vicori-ana:

I'm not a big fan of the 911 conspiracies, even if there is a lot to question. Whether the conspiracies are true or not, it is clear that the event was used to further an agenda. IMO 911 conspiracies are used to discredit those who oppose that agenda.

But, assuming that Putin has the same info that the 911 truth people claim, what benefit would Putin's support bring to that effort? Putin's supporting such claims might well be counterproductive to the 911 truth-ers as well as to Russia-US relations.

Also recall that, until around 2012, Putin was trying to forge better relations with US and the West. Obama was promising a 'reset' with Russia.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 30 2015 19:38 utc | 119

@grieved - Turkeys geopolitical role will be thrown back into the spotlight when the Laussane agreement re. access to the bosphorous expires in 2023. Not so far away and a potentially massive issue for Russia. Hence the importance of the Crimea, of course.

Posted by: AtaBrit | Nov 30 2015 20:35 utc | 120

Thouht this might interest some of you guys. A newly released British film on 9/11 made by Tony Rooke who was prosecuted for not having a TV license. He was found not guilty after presenting his evidence of BBC collusion with propagandising terrorism and deceit. When he asked the judge at the end of his trial if he was now required to by a license the judge left the room without issuing an instruction.
https://youtu.be/y5UyynjxAyw

Posted by: Trog51 | Nov 30 2015 21:09 utc | 121

@ Ivan 103
That would be the BBC documentary that quoted the initial NIST report before they accepted freefall of WTC7 but failed to address the implications.
The BBC have never corrected their the discrepancy.

Posted by: Trog51 | Nov 30 2015 21:25 utc | 122

Nice, I'm being censored, my posts deleted. Real commitment to free-speech in here I see.

@99

Lack of debris? Complete nonsense. A huge amount of it was pulverized and turned into dust that blanketed Manhattan (millions of tons of building collapsing on itself generates tremendous forces, big surprise), the rest went underground when it collapsed into what had been the parking lot. Regardless, all of it was collected and moved to the Fresh Kills Landfill where it was sorted through over the course of a decade in the search for human remains for identification. I'm sure all the people who helped hauled 2 million tons of rubble off to Staten Island would be surprised to hear there was a lack of debris. Wonder what they were doing all that time then? As is so often the case, there's an extensive visual record of this debris that supposedly doesn't exist.

https://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/freshkills.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/nyregion/24remains.html

http://www.nypress.com/the-remains-of-fresh-kills/

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/city_sifting_for_911_remains_a.html

Posted by: Plenue | Nov 30 2015 22:57 utc | 123

@84

I assume by 'we' he means him, me, and anyone else who doesn't feel like indulging your rabid group-think. But please, do continue, failing at reading comprehension.

@85

You mean Loose Change, the film the creators had to remake multiple times because their arguments kept being refuted?

Also "No, physics is not on my side, your side or anyone elses side. Physics IS. You either understand them or you dont. You dont."

Another comprehension failure.

@98

The planes could reach those speeds and perform those maneuvers; there's a difference between what an airframe can actually endure and what is rated to be safe. It was being flown by barely capable pilots who didn't care about the danger of ripping the wings off when turning and simply slammed the throttle to full on the final run. Much of the plane was converted into a fireball on impact, it was loaded with fuel. Most of the rest was shredded into tiny pieces. This is common in high speed crashes. Of course you can't understand that, since in your mind all plane crashes are the same. And most of the debris was left inside the building, not on the lawns. I'll give you credit for at least acknowledging it left a giant hole (nearly 100 feet across), since the 'theories' I usually see claim it left far too small a hole and thus was obviously a missile.

And explain to me where all the people are, and the aircraft, since this was so 'obviously' not the real plane. What, living in protective custody? Given new identities? Maybe they're neighbors to the Challenger survivors (we totally know they survived, haven't you seen the pictures? What, what do you mean they're pictures of their siblings and unrelated people? THAT'S JUST PART OF THE CONSPIRACY WOOOO).

Posted by: Plenue | Nov 30 2015 23:40 utc | 124

Grieved@91

I have had similar thoughts on the vulnerability of Turkey. I am remembering that Erdogan was at the opening of the new Mosque in Moscow (say that quickly without stumbling over your tongue). Also, that in Istanbul resides the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church - his status admittedly not to be envied, but nonetheless he is there. And the historic connection to Russia's own Orthodox roots is not to be downplayed, any more than it is in Syria.

It will be very difficult for Putin to immediately mend fences with Erdogan, but that is the likely scenario over the long term. Given the tendency of the West to fragment nations willy nilly, I do not think Russia will up the ante. In fact, they are already calling Turkey a 'partner', signifying to me that channels are still open, though they be narrow ones.

Posted by: juliania | Dec 1 2015 0:07 utc | 125

JR at 84 – you see everything, but understand nothing. No gloating, just mocking.

We were referenced in the plural ("they," "them"), so we responded in kind. Were thee not amused?

But of course, only you, the self-anointed arbiter of MofA folkways and undefeated master debater, and only you, are above criticism, oh Great John-Bunny.

And so, no, you're creation of an army of straw men in my name was eminently just.

jas at 83 – plenue is not my double. Much nicer and more succinct than me. So I’m still at the top of your “La-La-La-Can’t-Hear-You List", right? You might want to help BM with his.

BM at 106 – Never "enhances the conversation" sounds like doesn’t "move it to where I want it to go." Do put me at the top of your list, won't you? C'mon, man, I am way more annoying than Laguerre!

Penelope at 88 – Looks like we're not in the with The In Crowd. Exactly who is attempting to pressure Turkey into doing exactly what, and why? Turks shooting down a Russian plane seems a difficult way to pressure the Turks. Especially since they bragged about it.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 1 2015 0:26 utc | 126

Russian deserter found 10 years later.
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-deserter-found-hiding-forest-over-10-years-143436177.html

There was an interesting comment about the brutal hazing in Russian military.. also some mention of forced conscription of conscripts into the Donbass theater.. Any concrete information on this? I think its disgraceful if conscripts were thrown into battle, although it was a very dirty war from both sides

Posted by: bbbb | Dec 1 2015 2:11 utc | 127

Gareth Porter's view on the shoot down of the russian jet fighter.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/real-turkeys-shoot-down-russian-jet-1615790737

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 1 2015 7:21 utc | 128

"ISIS has a firm grip on a libyan town"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/world/middleeast/isis-grip-on-libyan-city-gives-it-a-fallback-option.html

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 1 2015 7:24 utc | 129

Trog51 @122

That free fall, does not have to be associated with controlled demolition, is made clear by the analyses presented in the same documentary. I have to agree with the demolitions expert they quoted. I have not seen a perfect free fall from a controlled demolition anywhere, since the charges have to be perfectly timed accordingly. Far more convincing is the testimony of the firemen who witnessed the fires at the basement and lower floors of WTC7. The weakening of the lower floors lead to a sudden collapse, this to me anyway is far more convincing, and explains the uniformity of the collapse.

Posted by: Ivan | Dec 1 2015 8:09 utc | 130

This is fun - Anne Applebaum is missing the USSR

Oh dear, the old enemy is gone ...

Posted by: somebody | Dec 1 2015 8:47 utc | 131

Corbyn opens door to Labour backing for British bombing of Syria


Corbyn has done everything possible to ensure a “yes” vote on Wednesday, given that Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron did not have a majority without the support of Labour MPs and had said he would proceed to a vote only if there was a “consensus.” At least 15 Tory MPs are said to be opposed to the extension of bombing to Syria on the pretext of defeating Islamic State (ISIS).

Now, a supposed “consensus” has been handed on a plate to Cameron by Corbyn. If the Labour leader had imposed a party whip, those voting for bombing would have had to do so in defiance of their party. Instead, Corbyn has given the green light for more Labour MPs—free from censure—to back Cameron’s policy. The Tories are now boasting that up to 100 Labour MPs will vote with them.


Has Corbyn a precise count of his fifth column in Labor? Will we all be surprised at the vote? Or is this Syriza redux?

Posted by: jfl | Dec 1 2015 10:52 utc | 132

Appelbaum the great expert on the Soviet Gulag, whitewashed all participation by in it by her co-ethnics. For her any assertion by native Russians of primacy in their own land, would of course be a throwback to the bad old days of the Romanovs and the White Russians. Everyone has to look at history through the Jewish eyes, otherwise they are fascists in the making.

Posted by: Ivan | Dec 1 2015 10:52 utc | 133

@Ivan 130

So you agree on the difficulty of acheiving free fall and that charges have to be perfectly timed,yet claim that random asymetrical fires could cause a symetrical collapse at almost free fall neatly into it's own footprint.This would of course require the structure to fail in perfectly timed sequence. That to me sounds like a stretch too far. Also you accept testimony from firemen who wittnessed fires at the base of the building,I wonder do you also accept the testimony of firemen who heard explosions? Anyway I doubt we will ever agree so I'll leave it there.

Posted by: Trog51 | Dec 1 2015 15:07 utc | 134

@ Lone Wolf | Nov 30, 2015 10:16:22 AM | 109

A lone voice of sanity you've got there; expresses my sentiments quite well. I've a sister who has never met a conspiracy theory she doesn't like and tell the world about e.g. illuminati, NWO, and half dozen others too obscure to recall. After a while they all start sounding the same, likely because all germinate in the same fertile BS, seeded with the lack of knowledge, watered with the lack of education grown in the full sun of lack of sense. DoG must have loved the breed, so many varieties exist - likely for doG's amusement in some odd idle eternity.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 1 2015 16:29 utc | 135

2 cases of polio confirmed in Ukraine -- half the children not vaccinated -- first cases in Europe since 2010
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/01/un_polio_outbreak_in_ukraine_is_a_state_of_emergency/

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Dec 1 2015 18:03 utc | 136

This is for Demian@107 on b's Nov. 30 thread:

In connection with the 'multipolarity' theme, but offtopic for that discussion so I am posting it here. Last night I was reading some of the works of Father Alexander Men, who influenced many involved in Russia's recent 'liberal' theological movement. An important essay of his is "Two Understandings of Christianity", which I read for the first time last night. I will quote his conclusion, but the entire essay really puts forward the strengths of multipolarity in the sense in which classical Orthodoxy relates to the world of today. It can be found at

http://alexandermen.livejournal.com

". . . And it seems to me that such pluralism, such interaction of different points of view, is an
important pre-condition for the vitality of Christianity. And perhaps it was providential
that Christianity was split into different tendencies, because without this it would
probably have been something uniform and forced. It is as if, knowing people's tendency
to intolerance, God divided them so that each person in their place, in their own
garden could bring forth their own fruit.

And the time will come when all the different fruits will come together into one stream,
in which will be preserved all the best in the spiritual culture of humanity and
of each person who is made in the image and likeness of God."

Posted by: juliania | Dec 1 2015 18:56 utc | 137

Trog51 @134, further analysis and experimentation is probably required. For what it is worth, my theory has always been that both the owners and insurers of the WTC complex have never wanted too great a focus on the state of repair of the buildings since that would open the can of worms, exposing their cost relationships. Too much scrutiny would be unwelcome

Posted by: Ivan | Dec 1 2015 19:18 utc | 138

...cosy relationship... Freudian slip.

Posted by: Ivan | Dec 1 2015 19:19 utc | 139

re applebaum. what a complete joke she is... too bad her hubby didn't get the political gig in poland.. i guess he is sinking or being pawned off on unsuspecting minds somewhere else..

Posted by: james | Dec 1 2015 20:38 utc | 140

To those who fool themselves into pretending to believe the “official story” of 9/11 and the 19 drunks with box cutters:

Deep down inside you know that the “official story” is insane. No one will snap you out of it because the implications are so corrosive to the worldview you have been marinated in over your whole lifetime.

(Yet I must at least make mention of the fact that “somebody” loaded the steel and dust criminal evidence onto cargo ships and sent it away (mostly to China) just as soon as it cooled down enough. A bit odd? Maybe the fun-loving government even planted “false shreds” of implausible evidence just to mess with investigator's heads?)

Posted by: blues | Dec 1 2015 21:27 utc | 141

jfl @ 100,

Exactly so. I think the goal was to destroy any strong civilization which might resist the global
oligarchy-- no, that WAS resisting thru having an alternate monetary system.

--
Chipnik @ 98, Thanks for the recap on the Pentagon. To me it's the clearest lie told about that day-- because it's so simple.

--
Grieved @ 91, Korybko here ----
Interesting article Andrew Korybko http://www.globalresearch.ca/whys-the-us-hanging-turkey-out-to-dry/5491411 . It links the shootdown to an incentive to get Russia to support Kurdistan EVEN WITHIN TURKEY to weaken it, possibly even regain Turkstream. I don't agree w the premise, cuz Kurdistan w/in Turkey has the potential to weaken Iran by strengthening HER Kurds. Also Russia really doesn't like chaos, expecially bordering the Caucasus.

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 1 2015 21:55 utc | 142

Yeah, Right @ 97,

No I don't see the whole world as composed of smoke & mirrors. Some people see conspiracies in those who post here. I was profoundly shocked to find that Sandy Hook & the Boston Bombing were entirely hoaxes, so now I am awake to the possibility of govts & media conspiring w others to produce add'l hoaxes. After all, we have long experienced govt & media lying. My primary loyalty is to the truth. Whatever it is, I'm not afraid of knowing it. No amount of mockery or ad hominem insults by those who ARE afraid can change that.

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 1 2015 21:56 utc | 143

Harry Law @ 94,
"To me, conspiracy theorists are so annoying, not that some may not be true, rather there is so much real hypocrisy and double dealing going on, which can be proved with irrefutable evidence that needs to be concentrated on. It is playing into the hands of the powers that be, when all they need to say to the general public is "Oh they are nutcases who espouse any lunatic theory, take no notice of them" to ordinary members of the general public that works."

Harry, I respect your opinion. Mine is that when you censor knowledge you empower evil. Think how hard it was for the first ones who pointed out the evil that our govt commits-- and if they hadn't, we could never have arrived at our present level of knowledge. Somebody always has to be first. I regard it as a virtue that I am able to retain an open mind towards them, and to pass on whatever seems to me sound.

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 1 2015 22:01 utc | 144

@ 144 Penelope

My you are quick, only 4 minutes and 17 seconds to write your second post; however are you able to give consideration for what you produce? Or is obfuscation through mass ramblings your goal?

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 1 2015 22:12 utc | 145

rufus @126 No, it's the predictable RESULTS of the shootdown which constitute pressure on Turkey. (Presupposes that US or some faction thereof encouraged him to do it) I think we should keep our eyes on Raqqa: Very different outcomes are planned there by the various players.

But then, I really believe that all this dramatic action is intended to distract us from the global warming hoax that's being entertained in Paris all this week-- or rather at the very destructive cure to a nonproblem.

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 1 2015 22:19 utc | 146

Penelope at 146 -- OK, but again, who is pressuring the Turks, to do exactly what? I think the only pressure on Erdogan is to craft a better provocation next time.

I would think a nice celebrity scandal would be sufficient distraction from COP21. But why, if it's a non-solution to a non-problem; one would want to pump up the window dressing, not undercut it. I take the opposite view -- a p.r. "solution" to the most urgent problem facing humanity.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 1 2015 23:38 utc | 147

james@140- correct, he's now teaching at Harvard:

It was laughable last week when the Harvard Centre of European Studies, financed by the Seagram businesses, engaged Radoslaw Sikorski, the ousted Polish foreign minister, to teach. “The pursuit of ‘Veritas,’ as in Harvard’s motto, is always exciting,” the university quoted Sikorski as saying.

Posted by: Nana2007 | Dec 2 2015 0:12 utc | 148

@148 nana2007.. thanks.. i am going to have to chuck hardupvard in the same category as the nyt and wapo.. institutions of ill repute!

Posted by: james | Dec 2 2015 2:46 utc | 150

@141

"Yet I must at least make mention of the fact that “somebody” loaded the steel and dust criminal evidence onto cargo ships and sent it away (mostly to China) just as soon as it cooled down enough."

...what? No, seriously, where the hell did you get this nonsense? It was all shipped to a reopened landfill on Staten Island where investigators spent years sifting through it for human remains. Now there's a project to put a big park on the site. This is all information easily acquired, if you'd bother to put even a modicum of effort into actually learning facts.

It seems to me you're the one who has a world view that hinges on the conspiracy being true. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that the Bush administration knew shortly after, or even before, about the Saudi funding of the attacks (the 28 redacted pages that two administrations now have fought to keep from public eye). But if the government was going to go to all the trouble of murdering 3,000 of its own citizens, why didn't they engineer an attack that lead to the countries they wanted to invade? A question I have never gotten any answer, even a weak one, on from a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 2 2015 3:23 utc | 151

Plenue says:

This is all information easily acquired, if you'd bother to put even a modicum of effort into actually learning facts

indeed. and your modicum of effort looks pretty much stillborn to me.

some dumptrucks took some debris to some landfill in New Jersey where it was picked over and now they're gonna make a park on top. well, that pretty much explains everything.

Dmitry Orlov summed it up nicely...

“Conspiracy theory” is strictly a term of abuse invented by the enemies of free speech and used to try to invalidate narratives that are not officially sanctioned by the Lügenpresse (the lying press). This term fails to signify anything beyond the fact that those who use it need to be taken out to the woodshed

yes, one more time,

This term fails to signify anything beyond the fact that those who use it need to be taken out to the woodshed

Posted by: john | Dec 2 2015 10:08 utc | 152

337 Dead Sei Whales Beached in Chile


Over 300 whale carcases have been found washed ashore on Chile's southern coast in between the Gulf of Penas and Puerto Natales.

Scientists discovered 337 beached sei whales in a remote inlet of Patagonia in June 2015 but only released photos and information of the findings Tuesday.

"It was an apocalyptic sight. I'd never seen anything like it," Haussermann said.

"There are still a lot of areas we haven't managed to reach, so it's likely there are more dead whales," Ms Haussermann said.

Sei whales are internationally protected after being hunted nearly to extinction during the middle of the 20th century.


I think they ought to correlate whale deaths like these with US naval fleet movements.

I feel sure that this offhand whale genocide is viewed as collateral damage of some monstrous sonar/communications activity by the US Wehrmacht, responsible for most needless deaths of blameless creatures on this planet.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 2 2015 10:13 utc | 153

Britons split over UK air raids in Syria: Poll


... about 54 percent of voters in England are in favor of the air attacks in Syria ...

Is that enough cover for the Torys and Blair-Laborites to vote for more war in Syriaq?

Posted by: jfl | Dec 2 2015 10:22 utc | 154

Guantanamo prisoner held for 13 years over mistaken identity: US


Oops. My bad.

I'm sure they've apologized, right?

Posted by: jfl | Dec 2 2015 10:25 utc | 155

Iraqi PM, Militias Reject Latest US Troop Deployments


Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s announcement of new deployments of US Special Forces into Iraq, despite coming with some talk of limiting operations inside Iraq to those done “at the invitation of” the Iraqi government, appears to have come without even mentioning it to the Iraqi government beforehand.

Prime Minister Hayder Abadi warned that Iraq, as it has insisted repeatedly before, welcomes air support against ISIS but does not need any foreign ground troops, and warned the US to respect Iraqi sovereignty in the matter.


So this will be US invasion of Iraq III, right? Or have I missed half-a-couple. Not only does the POTUS no longer consult the Iraqis, not only does the POTUS no longer consult the Congress or the American people, but now the SECDEF no longer consults the POTUS.

I guess it's the new, post-modern, Unitary Pentagon?

Posted by: jfl | Dec 2 2015 10:33 utc | 156

@152

Yes yes, I know. You're the poor persecuted holder of Truth. That you have no evidence or argument beyond "I, with my total lack of credentials or qualificactions, find this thing suspicious" has nothing whatsoever to do with you being a laughingstock. Like Creationists you attempt to poke holes in the opposition, but have no workable explanation of your own with supporting evidence.

If by "some dumptrucks" and "some debris" you mean millions of tons, the vast majority of the material in the WTC. The minority is in fact the amount of salvageble steel that was sold as scrap, which happens to disaster debris all the time and was a way for the owners of the buildings to make some money back. The idea, common among 'Truthers', that the remains of the WTC were secretly carted off away from public scrutiny is amazing, considering the bulk or it was literally just a few miles to the west and the investigation of it regularly reported on for years.

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 2 2015 12:42 utc | 157

in 152 --

Here's an irony. Stand up for freedom of speech by by hectoring someone to shut up. No debate, to the woodshed.

All of our poor suppressed truthers, so very downtrodden....

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 2 2015 13:06 utc | 158

124

"This is common in high speed crashes." Oh, really, ... like MH17?

Only for the Flight 93 fraud, another crash site with no debris, no bodies, no luggage. Maybe your Grey Aliens raptured them up to the Chosen land?

First, a fully loaded fully fueled commercial airplane cannot make a 270 degree diving spiral that exceeds altitude:density:speed. Have you ever piloted? I think not. The alleged pilots failed their flight test with a single engine plane. You would have to be a fighter pilot with multi-engine jet experience to pull the Pentagon 270 manuever without spinning out, that's why countless civilian and military pilots cried BS to the Pentagon narrative.

Look at MH17 or the RU plane wreckage. That's what a plane crash looks like, messy. Not a big hole in a 12-foot thick concrete wall designed for airplane impact, a hole with no flames, no plane, no passengers, no luggage. Those Grey Aliens, I guess.

The flight path defies the laws of physics, no yayhoo could fly a commercial airliner except on uninterruptible remote auto-pilot, and you cannot atomize an airplane into a smoking dirt crater.
To claim you can is either willful ignorance, or deliberate collaboration.

Posted by: Chipnik | Dec 2 2015 13:24 utc | 159

Apropos these comments. There seems to be confusion between freedom of speech and freedom of belief (or opinion) and a dangerous and dire confounding of the two. Respecting freedom of speech is not equivalent to or transferable to respecting beliefs or opinions held. If you insist on stating your belief or opinion, do so and shut up; do not continue their promulgation henceforth unless specifically questioned - another's statement whether supporting or disputing is NOT an address. Inflict judgment on another's belief or opinion at your own risk and do not expect automatic respect without showing respect a priori. Please refrain from becoming seen as ignorant jackasses. F.O.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 2 2015 13:27 utc | 160

Israeli settlers once again storm al-Aqsa Mosque


Israeli settlers, protected by Israeli forces, have once again stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied East al-Quds (Jerusalem).

According to reports on Wednesday, the settlers entered the holy site while escorted by a group of Israeli troops.

The development came after a large number of Israeli military forces arrested at least 23 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank during their overnight raid on a refugee camp.


The Israeli pogrom, the Final Solution to the Israelis' Palestinian Problem, continues. Settler thugs under military protection. The world, the US and EU especially, asleep on the couch, waiting for the genocide to be complete so they can dial up the professional mouners, bury the corpse of the Palestinian nation, write the history books. Never again! We'll all say this time ... and really mean it!

Posted by: jfl | Dec 2 2015 13:59 utc | 161

Germany.

Did a recruiter for Syrian Jihad work for the German interior secret service?

Posted by: somebody | Dec 2 2015 15:06 utc | 162

rufus magister

1)i haven't hectored anyone to shut up

2)back at what's now 99 i offered 4 interesting points of departure for anyone actually interested in a debate, but all i got was some obfuscatory blather about dumptrucks

3)911 truth looks to me to be controlled opposition

4)Dr. Judy Wood has compiled over 500 pages of forensic evidence, also known as facts, from the scene of the crime

now if you or your pal Plenue want to further this discussion, first read the book and then get back to me with some kind of meaningful refutation of the evidence therein presented.

Posted by: john | Dec 2 2015 15:38 utc | 163

@Blues 141
Thank you for a little sanity. I always ask myself if I was on a plane being taken over by some not very big guys armed with box cutters, would I, and I'm no athlete,

a) Sit trembling in my seat and accept my fate?

b) Risk a nasty cut with a box cutter and attempt to save my life and the lives of my fellow passengers (no doubt with a lot of help from my fellow passengers)?

We all know the answer, it's not like Mohamed Attah and his buddies were even big fellas.

They were piss head coke snorting tossers.

Don't add up.


Posted by: Trog51 | Dec 2 2015 15:59 utc | 164

@158

My favorite thing about Alex Jones is that he's now hawking a testosterone booster to combat the evil conspiracy to sap our virile male essence (and perhaps our precious bodily fluids as well?) The video is breathtaking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPZbfwTU93A

@159

"Only for the Flight 93 fraud, another crash site with no debris, no bodies, no luggage."

https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+93+debris&biw=1334&bih=659&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij5ZydmL7JAhXHKB4KHWFABcwQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=hGWJoeW7apaD6M%3A

Funny, I can find plenty of pictures of the debris. And of similar crashes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=germanwings+flight+9525&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh7_esmb7JAhUHlR4KHVUACXUQ_AUICCgC&biw=1334&bih=659

@162
@164

A handful of assholes is your evidence? Yes, I'm sure Mossad, having helped conduct this super-conspiracy, failed to keep some over exuberant agents in check. Makes total sense.

@165

Judy Wood is a joke even among a majority of 'Truthers'. Her explanation is that the towers were disintegrated by a giant space laser, for there is zero evidence of even the existence of. The closest thing was the YAL-1 prototype (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1), which was the dessicated husk of the Star Wars ICBM defense program, which was finally put out of its misery in 2011. Her 'evidence' consists of the claim that there wasn't enough material left over from the towers (a lie) and that jumpers losing their clothes as they fell wasn't due to wind shear, but because they were getting too hot from the space laser (laughable beyond belief).

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 2 2015 22:27 utc | 165

inre 165 –

Well, I wouldn't have made much of your threat of corporal punishment, but you did repeat it in bold. Such braggadocio doesn't sound like you're encouraging honest debate to me.

Demanding that I take a big swig from Dr. Wood’s Fountain of Woo is equally respectful. Some secret vaporizing energy weapon, that she feels under no obligation to define or identify the users thereof, zapping the towers into oblivion sure seems like totally plausible.... Too bad she never collected the millions she sued for.

Fortunately for us all, someone with way better scientific credentials than your humble humanities interlocutor has looked at Wood’s magnum opus. Howard Univ. physicist GS Jenkins has a direct response to Wood. Here’s also a transcript and analysis of his talk with Dr. Wood on this subject.

Unfair, perhaps? Well, even other “truthers” don’t believe her “truth” and find her litigiousness tiring. And she apparently befriended and then creeped out James Fetzer, the dean of "truther" studies. Does she really sabotage opponents' websites, or is that just her minions?

The Skeptics Society has a nice discussion, I think the cons outweigh the pros. I found this particular post interesting.

It is a classic case of dumping a large volume of unsupported speculation and then demanding that someone "debunk" the unsupported speculations. "Evidence" abounds; in order to "debunk" any given conclusion, we'd have to analyze every piece of evidence using strict scientific methods and pristine collections protocols, something which Judy Wood, PhD has not done herself....

As it stands, what she has is a hypothesis based primarily on her personal incredulity....

I found Plenue’s post at 164 quite clear and on point. Scrap steel got salvaged (it’s a big export item), other debris sifted for remains, and the remaining rubbish carted off to a landfill.

MBM at 168 --

I almost had to work to find this.

Here it’s suggested that saying “our purpose was to document the event” is in itself somehow suspicious, that it indicates foreknowledge. Why? We’ve no idea. Every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 9/11 did so because they wanted to “document the event”. The phrase indicates precisely nothing at all.

It provides a complete transcript of the TV interview as well. Videos of talking heads are so tedious. But not Talking Heads videos.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 3 2015 3:27 utc | 166

@169

Wood's book is a textbook (so to speak) case of Gish Gallop: just drown the enemy in sheer volume of nonsense and gloat when they can't disprove each and every point in a short amount of time/space. Although you don't really have to appeal to experts to dismiss her position that it was basically a GDI Ion Cannon strike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rheHLnQGusg. It's self-evidently retarded.

@159

Good thing there was no 270 degree turn, it was a 330 degree one.

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 3 2015 3:57 utc | 167

plenue at 169 --

I did not know there was a name for this very common technique, thanks.

What can I say, I tend to be thorough and I like the sport. I always get something out of the search -- Jenkins' chat with Wood was priceless, and the Fetzer piece is serious overkill, even by my standards. And I had not heard of "Dr. Judy Death-Star," she seems quite a character.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 3 2015 5:39 utc | 168

169

'taking someone to the woodshed' like 'dressing somebody down' like 'setting someone straight' implies a verbal(free speech?) reprimand, not a 'threat of corporal punishment'. but enough of your picayunish twerpishness...

...

And I had not heard of "Dr. Judy Death-Star," she seems quite a character

clearly neither you or your sidekick Plenue have read Dr. Wood's book. gratuitous dissing is far easier. and since i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, i'll leave it there. i have noticed that the Dr. Wood dissers luv that NSA fanboi, Greg Jenkins. so be it.

i've also noticed that since Dr. Wood released her findings in 2006 the tenor of her critics has abated considerably. i'm pretty sure that in another 5 or 10 years her evidence will be discussed with considerably more seriousness.

though it'll probably be even longer before you two dimwits catch up.

Posted by: john | Dec 3 2015 11:08 utc | 169

in re 172

You are free to hector. You freely picked the a metaphor of beating an unruly child, and not "dressing down," "taking down a peg," or "setting straight." And repeated it in bold for extra punch.

Fetzer's critique is from earlier this year, and his opinion has worsened considerably since 2008. Having read Jenkins' article, my dissing was considered, not gratuitous.

I clearly stated I had not read the doctor's fantasy fiction and had absolutely no intention of doing so. You are free to read what you will. You are not free to coerce me into wasting my time.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 3 2015 12:56 utc | 170

173

I clearly stated I had not read the doctor's fantasy fiction and had absolutely no intention of doing so

'cause you're such a 'thorough' guy, right?

...

i'll give the last word to another 'crackpot' dr.

Posted by: john | Dec 3 2015 14:04 utc | 171

@172

Oh no, not a dimwit! Whatever will I do?

@174

A guy whose only academic qualification is on the subject of Early Christian writers and who runs a website where he wants people to give him money for 'added value content'. Awesome. I know that since you have no capacity to think for yourself you feel the constant urge to appeal to your 'betters', but it would help a lot if you first looked up what your sages actually have degrees in.

Now, Judy Wood actually does have relevant qualifications. Not that you would know it given the sheer number of fundamental, and often bizarre, errors in her book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBxUEZh4jOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUbvGq96iJo

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 3 2015 18:49 utc | 172

Jonathan Marshall:
- There were multiple opportunities for the US to end the conflict with Syria.
- Assad tried to improve the relationship with the US from about 2005/2006 onwards.
- Israel (then under premier Ehud Olmert) & Syria were open to signing a peace deal but US vice president Cheney wasn't interested and shot down the initiative.
- There was an uprising in Syria in 2011 (think: Arab Spring) and the "rebels" started to kill syrian police & soldiers. And that happened much earlier than a lot of people think.

Marshall confirms the US - Saudi deal. i.e. Saudi Arabia gave the US the green light for a deal with Iran and Saudi Arabia was given free reign in Syria & Yemen.

The links below contain A LOT OF details on the recent developments in Syria.

Sources:
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2015/10/27/102715-jonathan-marshall/
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/20/the-us-hand-in-the-syrian-mess/
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/07/22/hidden-origins-syrias-civil-war
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/23/rebuffing-peace-chances-syria
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/25/rebuffing-peace-chances-syria

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 3 2015 22:02 utc | 173

I DO hope "B" reads the links provided in post #175.

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 3 2015 22:03 utc | 174

"isis-recruitment-thrives-in-brutal-prisons-run-by-u-s-backed-egypt"

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/isis-recruitment-thrives-in-brutal-prisons-run-by-u-s-backed-egypt/

You don't say !!!

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 3 2015 22:48 utc | 175

@177

I sure hope they pay me a lot, I could always do with more money.

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 4 2015 0:49 utc | 176

John at 171

So there are two Dr. Death-Stars? Judy and Joey "Giza" Death-Star? Crackpots or cranks? Tough call.

Proposed investment of valuable time required due diligence. Thorough review showed marginal, if any, return.

Plenue at 174

To judge by titles such as The Grid of the Gods: The Aftermath of the Cosmic War and the Physics of the Pyramid Peoples and Babylon's Banksters: The Alchemy of Deep Physics, High Finance and Ancient Religion, Farrell doesn't look too good at patristics, either.

in re 172-3

Well, since the latest fashions in tin-foil haberdashery are not really my bag, I had to look up this particular style, with which I was totally unfamiliar.

As you were kind enough to provide a link and a quote, it was the least I could to provide the same. I used what I did in large part 'cause they were wayh more refined than what I was thinking -- "You gotta be freakin' shittin' me."

Would you like another opinion? You're a tendetious and scurrilous lout, a bully who mixes bad analysis with cheap potty-mouth. You seem to rely largely on the latter. Good call, since you're far better at it. Which is not to say you're very good at the potty moth, as you seem to repeat yourself.

Let's look at your "analysis." Here's I believe the source of your English translation from Der Spiegel; your editing of it might have distorted it. But that little piece of work seems to have vanished. Kinda cagey it was, to give us the German original; gave it the air of "truthiness."

The article makes clear that the Israelis wanted Washington to put them under surveillance. Mossad had no idea of their exact plan, but recommended they be watched on suspicion of plotting attacks in the States. Only 4 hijackers were on the list of 19 persons provided.

But instead DC deported the Israelis, Der Spiegel adding that "the U.S. intelligence community was not ready for cooperation, even when faced with a specific danger, and preferred to engage in infighting." This underscores the thrust of the article, which stresses the "extensive... failures of the Central Intelligence Agency" in utilizing and distributing the information it possessed. That sort of stuff happens under "C" average Ivy League "legacy" presidents.

So yeah, sure, sounds like they were totally behind it alright.... No doubt along with The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda, to cite the subtitle of one of Farrell's works.

By the way, Der Spiegel is in general against the conspiracy theory approach to September 11th; they debunk a number of them in Panolpy of the Absurd. Excellent title.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 4 2015 7:08 utc | 177

Interesting, topical German video, Hello Erdogan, A Message from Prominent German Journalist Jürgen Elsässer re Syria ... from 2012.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 4 2015 9:55 utc | 178

Followed by a more contemporary sitrep on Germany, German Media reaction to Russia, Syria and ISIS by C..

Posted by: jfl | Dec 4 2015 9:57 utc | 179

All comments by MBM deleted

Dear MBM,

you may vomit into your own bed but not into mine.

Your are not welcome here. Leave.

Posted by: b | Dec 4 2015 9:58 utc | 180

Thanks 'b'
Was going to comment:
This post shows what happens when reason abandons the field to the irrational.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 4 2015 10:44 utc | 181

177

so, let's get this straight...

Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering, with a B.S. in civil/structural engineering, an M.S. in engineering mechanics (applied physics), a Ph.D. in materials engineering science, and over 60 published papers, compiles over 500 pages of forensic evidence(a.k.a. indisputable facts) regarding the 911 crime scene in NYC, and releases them to the public...

...which for our oh so 'thorough' rufus magister, who hasn't so much as looked at a single page, constitutes fantasy fiction.

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell is a researcher of physics and alternative history, with a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, who has 15 or so published tomes to his credit...

...who, once again, our oh so 'thorough' rufus magister, who hasn't so much as looked at a single page, dismisses as a 'crackpot' or a 'crank', he can't decide which, based on...wait for it...the book covers.

yes indeed, rufus magister, anonymous and anonymously empowered by an anonymous peanut gallery, can say whatever stupid shit he wants and never be held accountable.

you're an incurious dweeb, a self-infatuated prig, an intellectual pygmy.

Posted by: john | Dec 4 2015 12:42 utc | 182

Why do you continue to demand I waste my time? I don't have to step in shit to know it stinks.

My data set is a little larger than titles and covers. You might recall, I read Jenkins article, his interview with her, discovered her ill repute in the "truther" community, and my go-to source for combatting assorted varieties of woo, Rationalwiki gives her her vewy own Wiki. Scientists say their "science" is bullshit. Why it sells is a matter of psychology; as the old saw goes, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Here's my difficulty -- both terms express essential qualities about the work of our "Death Star Doctors" (wasn't that briefly a cable-tv soap opera?). But since you're pressing for a resolution, I'll oblige.

A crank is "a person who has strange ideas or thinks too much about one thing" while a crackpot is "one given to eccentric or lunatic notions." So I'll go with "crank" for Dr. Judy, and "crackpot" for Dr. Joe. She's single-issue crazy, he has a multi-product line.

I myself hold a masters in history and was a doctoral student in Soviet History at a major research university. That would make me curious dweeb; a proud history geek, bad science never really sparked my curiosity. I may or may not be a pygmy, but I sure am far taller than you. I would prefer "know-it-all smartass" over prig, but to each their own.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 4 2015 13:37 utc | 183

183

i'm not demanding anything from you nor pressing for a resolution, but just establishing a permanent record here where anyone can come anytime and see for him/herself what a trifling and disingenuous motherfucker you are.

chow time, ciao

Posted by: john | Dec 4 2015 14:07 utc | 184

cameron
*syria, here we come* !

u just cant keep a good man down for long can u ?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37639.htm#idc-cover

Posted by: denk | Dec 4 2015 16:33 utc | 185

@182

I see you're really bought into Appeal to Authority hook, line, and sinker. Woods claims are frequently factually wrong from the start; she says things that simply aren't true, like the collapse times of the towers. Furthermore, her claims have been rebutted, point by point, by other scientists at least as equally qualified. She's a lone voice in the wilderness. So either she's a lone genius or a total nutjob, and geniuses don't usually get so many basics wrong.

As for Farrell, a "researcher in physics"? What the hell does that even mean? And "alternative history" is a warning flag for complete insanity. I can't comment on his qualifications in patristics, because it's a field I would have trouble expressing how little I care about or value. But it's completely unrelated to anything remotely connected to 9/11. And this is the best you can offer? I know you don't care, but do you even remotely comprehend how foolish you look? You're forced to resort to some random guy on the internet whose degree is in something unrelated to any subject that has any bearing on 9/11. That and Miss Orbital Ion Cannon are the best you can muster?

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 4 2015 22:43 utc | 186

in re 184

Not the first, probably not the last to draft such a document. You've left quite the self portrait as well.

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 5 2015 1:09 utc | 187

Something germane:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-find-a-link-between-low-intelligence-and-acceptance-of-pseudo-profound-bulls-a6757731.html#gallery

the substance of the link doesn't begin to cover the half of what's there.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 5 2015 9:54 utc | 188

in the land of absurd,

anti war activist kathy kelly was jailed for protesting drones killing in afpak,
war criminal obama got a nobel piss prize !
http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2014/12/putting-saints-in-jail.html

now its cheney's turn to be honoured !
http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2015/12/us-honors-its-torturers-and-war.html
why do mukkans revel in such obscenities ?
is this their way of showing their middle finger to the world ?
*we win, you lose, get over it*

Posted by: denk | Dec 5 2015 16:38 utc | 189

FTB at 188 --

Thanks for the cite, it looks to be a fabulous paper. It gives a good definition, "Bulls***, in contrast to mere nonsense, is something that implies but does not contain adequate meaning or truth." And it easily sets the record for most uses of the term in an academic paper, at 200 even. What a great line in the team's C.V.!

The psychology of this sort of belief is is an attempt for simplicity and control in a complex and uncontrollable world. Here's my favorite link on the topic, from Scientific American, Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists.

Despite their unfalsifiable nature, conspiracy theories attract significant followings. Not all theorists, it seems, hold their “truths” to the standards of conventional science.

I would argue they are mistaken on this one point -- it is because of the unfalsifiablity these theories find believers.

This point is from a study on Earhart conspiracy believers, but seems applicable to the larger set of theorists. They "had lower self-esteem, were more likely to be cynical toward politics, were less agreeable and gave themselves lower ratings of intelligence."

Of September 11th. "truthers" particularly, support is "associated with political cynicism and a general tendency toward believing in conspiracies. This latter finding supports what psychologists call a 'monological belief system,' in which any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies."

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 5 2015 16:59 utc | 190

FTB at 188 --

Thanks for the cite, it looks to be a fabulous paper. It gives a good definition, "Bulls***, in contrast to mere nonsense, is something that implies but does not contain adequate meaning or truth." And it easily sets the record for most uses of the term in an academic paper, at 200 even. What a great line in the team's C.V.!

The psychology of this sort of belief is is an attempt for simplicity and control in a complex and uncontrollable world. Here's my favorite link on the topic, from Scientific American, Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists.

Despite their unfalsifiable nature, conspiracy theories attract significant followings. Not all theorists, it seems, hold their “truths” to the standards of conventional science.

I would argue they are mistaken on this one point -- it is because of the unfalsifiablity these theories find believers.

This point is from a study on Earhart conspiracy believers, but seems applicable to the larger set of theorists. They "had lower self-esteem, were more likely to be cynical toward politics, were less agreeable and gave themselves lower ratings of intelligence."

Of September 11th. "truthers" particularly, support is "associated with political cynicism and a general tendency toward believing in conspiracies. This latter finding supports what psychologists call a 'monological belief system,' in which any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies."

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 5 2015 17:00 utc | 191

Pundit Malpractice

Today, Yves Smith at nakedcapitalism.com reposted the second of a two-part blog post by GaiusPublius that illustrates the FAILURE of today's intellectuals and pundits. IMHO the myopic perspective, goal-seeking thinking and acceptance of MSM narrative displayed in Gaius' post amounts to malpractice if not outright propaganda.

First Gaius tells us that his screed is not about any one candidate but about OUR FUTURE(!!). This is a common propaganda ploy: elevate the concern level before providing a false choice.

Next, Gaius reviews his first post (written in response to a post by David Stockman calling for USA to leave the Middle East) which acknowledged that "the Washington War Party is a bipartisan gig" and that middle east turmoil can only "end when we stop sending money and arms into the region."

Gaius then proceeds to compare speeches by Sanders and Hillary. Sanders says we should leave the fighting to the Arabs, saying: "Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them", while Hillary says USA should lead in the fight against ISIS with expanded bombing and troops.

Gaius then turns up the heat with this disingenuous appeal (my comments in bold):

I’m not suggesting to you what to want [but he is!]. If you really want to enrich billionaire arms manufacturers and their enablers in and out of office, that’s up to you. If you want to give a well-organized foreign fighting force [i.e. ISIS] yet more reason to encourage the same acts [i.e. terr0r!sm] in the U.S. as their local sympathizers perform in Europe, that’s also up to you. . . . I merely want to point out that for once, there is a choice.[only if Sanders is not obfuscating and will follow thru!]
Gaius then coyly adds that climate change is another differentiating factor:
"... just as you can choose, using these two candidates, whether to aggressively reign in carbon use or continue to serve the wealthy who serve up global warming."
With that climate change 'zinger', Gaius shows that he's not just 'merely' pointing out a difference between two candidates - he has a dog in this race.

But Gaius' bias and his sneaky advocacy aside, what makes this piece horrendously unacceptable punditry is his:

1) logical inconsistency
His advocacy of a Democratic candidate directly conflicts with his acknowledgement that the two parties are complicit in war. Sanders has made it clear that he is firmly ensconced in the pro-war duopoly, even if he personally disagrees with the worst of the policies or actions.

2) withholding crucial information

>> ISIS was created by our allies in the Middle East with our blessing. Why would they lead the fight against their own creation?

>> Obama promised much also and failed to deliver. Why should we trust that Sanders will deliver?

>> Sanders's commitment to his proposals is undermined by his refusal to consider running as an independent and his go-easy-on-Hillary campaigning: he has refused to criticize her and helped defuse her email crisis.

>> There are other alternatives to Hillary, notably the Green Party which is also pro-environment and anti-war!!

Now consider nakedcapitalism.com itself. In this re-posted post, Yves doesn't inform readers that the folks at nakedcapitalism support Sanders(!). And contrast the voracious attacks on Yaroufakis and Tsipras in the Spring - as the Greek duo faced-off against the European establishment - with nakedcapitalism's warm embrace of a pro-establishment Sanders.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 5 2015 17:30 utc | 192

@ Jackrabbit | Dec 5, 2015 12:30:37 PM | 192

Have great care about The Independent, The Guardian, BBC and most all British mainline news sources for bias and propaganda. The following story from the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-girl-five-among-civilians-killed-by-russian-air-strikes-on-rebel-held-areas-a6761056.html
has appeared in The Guardian and on BBC online with the completely unfounded accusation of the child's alleged death by Russian bombing. The Independent cites an unspecified date in October; I will leave it to your memory as to the date Russia first began their legal campaign to assist a legitimate government. With all things British produced: Caveat Emptor without an identified source, but you knew that.

Yves Smith's "Naked Capitalism" and bordello. Is that the one? Shall never leave a click at that site ever again; all ego, no substance.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 5 2015 18:05 utc | 193

My bad @ 193

The first paragraph was to: @ rufus magister | Dec 5, 2015 11:59:57 AM | 190

The second paragraph was intended: @ Jackrabbit | Dec 5, 2015 12:30:37 PM | 192

to which I would on slight reflection append: …no substance; peopled by pseudo-intellectuals intent at self pleasuring.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 5 2015 18:19 utc | 194

@ rufus magister 190/191

The term "conspiracy theory" encompasses such a broad and diverse range of ideas that is essentially meaningless; it's like the term "feminism".

You know, it's easily possible to cobble together a similar argument regarding the mindset of those who seek to undermine the authors of these so-called "conspiracy theories", by making sweeping assumptions as to their psychological state. I could start with something similar to the "evolutionary argument against naturalism", by suggesting that anti-conspiracists are incapable of perceiving the conspiracy because of evolved defence mechanisms, spawned by an environment in which conscious recognition of the conspiracy would hinder an organism's ability to reproduce successfully. We could go round and round in circles, conjuring up new and inventive, but ultimately *unfalsifiable* arguments.

I might argue that it is "because of the unfalsifiability" that these anti-conspiracist theories find believers. You know, because we don't have the ability to falsify theories of psychological states, which trace their heritage back to the theories of people like Freud and Jung, not grounded in neuroscience; a field which involves measurements of some sort.

Let's examine this particular quote by rufus magister:

"This latter finding supports what psychologists call a "monological belief system", in which any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies."

Any and all events explained by a web of interconnections, eh? So... the "laws of physics": a conspiracy theory! Yes? No?

How about we judge each theory by perceived merit, rather than lumping the views of many disparate individuals together under the "conspiracy theory" umbrella; despite the wide range of methodologies used by those individuals; despite the spectrum of evidence used to support the theories (ranging from no evidence to speak of, to a great deal of evidence - even if the theory in question may still be wrong).

And shall we take a look at this quote also?

"The psychology of this sort of belief is an attempt for simplicity and control in a complex and uncontrollable world."

Nonsense! Intellectual laziness and broad strokes bullshit!

Take the 9/11 theories for instance: do you really believe that a belief in 9/11 being an "inside job" makes an adherent feel more in control? Making sense of the 9/11 event requires a conspiracy so large that a multi-generational effort is probably necessary if we are to counteract it. Personally, my belief in 9/11 as "inside job" has robbed me of a sense that I can influence the political process in any meaningful way, via the ballot box. I question whether my efforts to alert friends and family, by introducing them to the alternative media, helps or hinders any opposition to the conspiracy.

As I mentioned previously, the organised public face of 9/11 "truth" is almost certainly a front for the conspirators, although probably only at the top level. It makes no sense for the leaders of the so-called "truth movement" to be featured on C-SPAN, unless they are purposefully leading us in the wrong direction. Much of the alternative media is likely to be controlled opposition, at least on some level. None of these thoughts are pleasant and they certainly don't give one the sense of being in control.

As for simplicity: I see little simplicity in an vast network of corporate entities, state institutions, the international banking network, think tanks, NGOs, intelligence agencies, secret societies and so on. If you think you can simplify what is often referred to as the "deep state", then be my guest. If not, I think you'll find that your theory has everything backwards, at least as far as the 9/11 theories are concerned; Belief in the theories tends to result in a person feeling less in control, and with a growing understanding of a world power structure that is so complex and intertwined, it becomes extremely difficult to visualise the whole, in one's mind.

If you think that a given theory about 9/11 is wrong, then say so and explain why; Beyond doing that, there's no sense in linking all 9/11 theories, to all UFO theories, to all Bigfoot theories, to all b's theories at MoA (including let's say, the "NATO ordered the Turkish shoot-down" theory).

I'm sure that those who seek to conceal the geopolitical forces behind the conflict in Syria would be very grateful to any useful idiots assisting in defaming so-called "conspiracy theorists" - and I'm sure they would be equally grateful to those who assist in the proliferation of purported psychological explanations for the individual beliefs of that same ill-defined, meaningless grouping of human beings, with their individual methodologies, and their individual levels of evidence put forth to support said beliefs!

*deep breath*

Sorry about the verbiage, but I simply cannot let this shit go unchallenged.

Posted by: Victori-ana | Dec 5 2015 19:24 utc | 195

@192
@193
@194

Well, I can tell at least two people here don't actually read much naked capitalism. Smith and Strether always supported Syriza's goals of ending austerity, but were rightly critical of their approach. The party, especially Varoufakis, are/were very much academics who believed they were dealing with fundamentally reasonable people in the Troika. They weren't, they were dealing with ideologues and loan-sharks. As things developed Varoufakis left the government in protest and Tsiripas condemned his country to not only more austerity, but a worse plan than even the Troika had submitted. All after making a big show of going to the voters with the result of them rejecting the initial austerity plan.

As for Sanders, the writers are anything but unequivocally supportive of him. They talk about his defects constantly. And the comments section, which is anything but a hivemind, regularly debates his merits.

And no substance? Tell that to CalPERS, which Smith has essentially single-handedly thrown into the fire and gotten both mainstream parts of the media and regulators to put under increased scrutiny.

Also, 'bordello'? Wow. You're a real class act.

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 5 2015 23:43 utc | 196

FTB at 193 --

All sources have biases, to greater or lesser degrees. I saw no especial bias in this case.

Victoriana at 135 --

I believe any number of these theories incorrect, but will not clutter things up with a list. Defense mechanism? Really?

It is simpler to believe in "they" and "their" conspiracy then to make sense of a an increasingly complex world. Yes, the intelligence services have had, since the Cold War, an undue influence on the world. No, they cannot control it.

The shared background, assumptions, and commercial interests of the capitalists account for their similarity of purpose, and ergo, appearance of coordination. At times, they quarrel significantly amongst themselves, and then we proles get a say. One has to be conscious and organized in order to recognize and utilize these opportunities.

Could make a case, might make a case. But no case about us cold rationalists.

As my knowledge of this topic is a matter of intellectual self-defense and not interest per se, I'll stick with broad strokes, if you please. Consider it lazy, if you wish, I think of it as efficient.

And to chime in on Naked Capitalism, their links are invaluable (on technology as well as economics and politics), and I like the snarky tone (suprise!). They are quite good on financial industry chicanery. And nice plant and animal photos, too; what's not to like?

Posted by: rufus magister | Dec 6 2015 1:41 utc | 197

Plenue:

Firstly, you shouldn't conflate the opinions of two different commenters (myself and Formerly T-Bear).

... rightly critical of their approach
As was I until I engaged my brain and:

a) questioned why MSM was uniformly against Tsipras and Varoufakis;

b) recognized that the Greeks were RESISTING, when MSM (and nakedcapitalism) was claiming that they were incompetent in not providing a working plan.

All criticism and pleadings with NC to have an open mind were shot down. It was a became a religious issue, much like Sanders is today. Examples of this was Yves declaring that Syriza should have capitulating to Toika demands on day 1 and that Syriza had set back the European Left by 10 years(!!). (So no resistance is possible - even when there is a clear case for it? Oh, and Portugal doesn't seem to have gotten the 10-yr setback memo.)

... the writers are anything but unequivocally supportive of him [Sanders]
The NC crew have shot down virtually all reservations and concerns. And, although their support for Sanders is nominally tentative, they shy from any meaningful criticism and defend Sanders from most criticism. The fact that Yves re-posted Gaius' pro-Sanders propaganda with no comment is all you need to know.

It seems very much like Obama redux: we found a champion so STFU. Democratic loyalists would like us to forget that we were 'Berned' in 2008 with too-good-to-be-true promises and lofty visions.

I have praised Yves for her Private Equity reporting and also have said that NC does a lot of good. There are some that take Yves word as gospel (like maybe YOU, Plenue?), but she has made mistakes. Like initially being positive on the nomination of Mary Jo White when others were critical (a BIG mistake for a blog focused on financial regulation).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 6 2015 2:13 utc | 198

@198

Yep. You don't actually read much NC. Or if you do, you have some sort of filter in your brain that means you only see what you want to see. They have consistently criticized Sanders, Strether being of the opinion that his chief function is to drag the Overton Window at least slightly to the left. As for Syriza, the issue wasn't that they resisted, it was how they did it. All of NCs criticisms have turned out to be correct, and Greece is now in a worse position than had just accepted the Troikas initial plan. And yes, their capitulation is a setback for the European Left; they ended up looking like a bunch of inept clowns. This only serves to send more desperate people to the Right.

Posted by: Plenue | Dec 6 2015 22:17 utc | 199

Plenue:

You are being a pig-headed fanboi.

That NC was 'right' about Greece is like saying that the US was right about Iraq because we ultimately we won (go team!). NC used up A LOT of good will foolishly because of Yves hard line and pro-establishment positioning.

On Sanders, they are at it again. Getting push-back because, while they SAY that they haven't endorsed anyone, it is clear that Sanders is their guy. From the comments:

Eureke Springs [Note: a long time commenter]
Overton window can and should be moved by not giving Sanders or anyone else MIC weasel room.... But Saudi just needs more skin in the game, says Sanders. Demonstrating to me he wants to stay involved/manage it somehow. Totally ignoring or lying about who IS-qaeda is. All evidence suggests looking first and foremost at USA Saudi Turk Israel.

EoinW
Given the Obama experience, I’m not so sure there is a true choice. More like the illusion of a choice.

roadrider
This post encourages support for Sanders...

Oregon Charles [Note: a long time commenter]
Just sayin’: This is a Sanders campaign pitch, something we’re not supposed to do in the comments...

SaminSC
The Sanders boosterism and Trump alarmism around here has become unbearable.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 6 2015 22:57 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.