Are you going to miss any of these corporations?
Are you an American tired of FOX News’ propaganda?
Are you tired of the war in Iraq?
Are you a Ron Paul sympathist miles across the world?
Do you despise U.S. military intervention in your country?
Are you angry?
Then it’s time to sell Newscorp [NWS].
News Corporation has excluded the most widely acclaimed presidential candidate in the world, Ron Paul, from the next debate.
Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
UPDATE: NYSE has been on the downturn, but it is rebounding, while Newscorp is, for whatever reason, not moving in parallel.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
January 3rd, 2008
Posted by
eaglescout |
War (Psychology), Ron Paul, Iran, Extreme Spin, Intellectual Dishonesty, World, Politics, Journalism, Terrorism, Strategy, 2008 Election, Blowback, Iraq War |
no comments
We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
IX.XI attacker profiles
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
According to a report by the strategic foresight group.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
January 1st, 2008
Posted by
eaglescout |
World, Ron Paul, Psychology, Intellectual Dishonesty, Analysis, 2008 Election, Terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Strategy, Truth |
2 comments
Or just intelligent and very well-informed? Look at his comments on terrorism in 2001.
Ron Paul on Terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
Looks like he was right about everything. The Austrian Economists even predicted the housing bubble recession back in 2004:
Thornton says that it ‘is difficult to predict how long bubbles will last,’ but the geoclassical half of the geo-Austrian theory does provide an indication. Historically, the real-estate cycle has had a duration of 18 years, aside from the interruption of World War II. That puts the next real estate bottom around 2008 [link mine]. If past patterns continue, and so far they are right on schedule, we can expect the next recession to take place towards the end of this decade.
Fighting terrorism the way Bush wants to fight it is stupid. IF you want to fight terrorism, the best way to start is to stop creating terrorists, and furthermore, to stop giving them reasons to attack us.
If you don’t think about why they attack us in the first place, regardless of whether it has to do with us or not, YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
December 19th, 2007
Posted by
eaglescout |
World, War (Psychology), Analysis, 2008 Election, Strategy, Terrorism |
no comments
The short answer according to Pat Buchanan: “Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby: Cheney and Lieberman”. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a strategic and hypocritical excuse. Sensational intelligence is irrelevant. If we go to war, it will be based on Cheney’s whim.
Pat Buchanan puts it beautifully,
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday, and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.
If you recall from a previous article on Irrelevant Intelligence, a war with Iran requires no basis in intelligence. According to Gabriel Kolko:
The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century.
We have made the strategic decision to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq”. This gives the illusion of a just war, since we are “technically” (read: semantically) at war with all terrorist organizations. Such are the wonders of a vague war on terrorism - a vague noun, incidentally.
But there is no good reason to go to war with Iran. If you recall the recent capture of British soldiers at the edge of Iranian waters, it seems that Iranian forces had more legitimacy in that area than the British soldiers did. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. If Iran was patrolling the border of American waters, you can be sure we’d capture and question the offending soldiers. Better yet (and I mean this in all sarcasm) we’d place them in a tripled Guantanamo and tested ‘enhanced interrogation’.
While there is no excuse for Iran’s actions, it is hypocritical to be outraged by them. And equally hypocritical is our use of Iran’s little proxy war - allegedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - as they are trying to protect their sphere of influence. According to Pat Buchanan, we did the same when we aided France during the Pastry War in 1846.
It’s only natural to want to maintain the status quo or influence in your neighborhood. This is not an good excuse to go to war with Iran.
Don’t pay attention to new sensational intelligence; it won’t make a difference in the long run. Cheney has incessantly pushed for a war with Iran, and any future problems we have with Iran can be solved by (1) ceasing our needless intervention and (2) looking for other options. If the law of averages - the tendency for a variable to remain stable in the long term - is any indicator, there is no need to be afraid of Iran. Only Cheney and Lieberman’s trigger-happy mindset.
August 28th, 2007
Posted by
eaglescout |
World, Commentary, Intelligence (Military), War (Psychology), Iran, Politics, Analysis, Iraq War, Terrorism, Evil Elements, Strategy, Truth |
no comments
Ron Paul is currently winning both the Drudge Report Iowa post-debate poll and the ABC News polls. However, a simple projection shows that Sam Brownback spammers will lead the race at the Drudge Report site, if Drudge Report doesn’t reset the poll soon.
In other news, ABC News reset their own poll while Ron Paul was dominating. However, after the reset, Ron Paul still dominates that poll.
It’s disappointing that the lamestream media’s* efforts to hold back Ron Paul have been fruitless on the internet. Here is a hint for you oldstream mediums: instead of resetting your polls, close the poll at an opportune moment, for example, when it is clear that Ron Paul’s rate of change will increase relative to that of other candidates; or keep it open if Sam Brownback is catching up.
UPDATE I: Sam Brownback about to pass Ron Paul
UPDATE II: Ron Paul continues to lead, but poll mysteriously disappears from drudgereport.com circa 4pm Pacific Time
UPDATE III (AUG 6): It appears we are wrong about ABC. They have two debate polls - one was run before and during the debate. The other was run afterward. Our sincere apologies to ABC News. See the first comment below.
UPDATE IV (AUG 7): According to Drudge Archives, Ron Paul won the debate.
*Also known as oldstream, or old media.
August 5th, 2007
Posted by
eaglescout |
No Spin At All, Analysis, Politics, 2008 Election, Strategy, Technology, Evil Elements, Terrorism |
10 comments
I know! Let’s piss off more innocent civilians so that they teach their children to hate the United States. Then they can aspire to be like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad to avenge their dead little brothers and sisters.
Then when the government stabilizes, and someone questionable arises to power, we can arrange a coup d’etat. When the coup d’etat fails, and our spies and special forces are captured we can claim they have taken our “civilians” hostage without justification.
After imposing sanctions and destroying a poor nation economically, and when our spies are returned, we can send weapons of mass destructions to neighboring allies, say like Israel (hypothetical… it’s not like we’d ever let a country intimidate another with nuclear weapons or anything).
After 50 years of no diplomatic relations, and when some natural disaster like an earthquake hits California, we can say this rogue nation detonated a nuclear weapon into the earth’s core to set off the San Andreas fault as a terrorist attack.
We’ll cry and cry about how the world has changed, because never before has a nuclear weapon been used in this destructive way before. And we’ll launch a preemptive strike against this rogue nation. When it turns out this country has no weapons at all (not even sling-shots) we’ll change our story and say we were there to overthrow a nasty dictatorship and bring democracy. We’ll find the nasty dictator throwing darts at a globe in his presidential suite and claim he was found in underground caves plotting the destruction of the United States with intercontinental ballistic missile prototypes.
Then, when civilians think we have overstayed our visa and they start killing our soldiers, we can call them “terrorists” (It’s a new word I invented - it means anything that moves).
Anyway… I don’t know what to do after that… but I do know we must win. Because not winning means failure. And it also means defeat. We cannot accept defeat. Because we must finish the job. If we don’t finish the job, we can’t win. It’s that simple. We can’t let terrorists win. Because then we’d lose.
And nobody wants to lose. Because, losing, is not winning, at all.
June 7th, 2007
Posted by
eaglescout |
Strategy, Technology, Terrorism, Truth |
one comment
This is an ingenious plan to get Ron Paul elected.
“This is my plan to help Ron Paul take the primaries. This is something all Ron Paul supporters need to unite behind. If he doesn’t win the primaries, it’s game over.”
read more | digg story
June 6th, 2007
Posted by
VoiceOfReason |
2008 Election, Strategy, Truth |
no comments
The media tries to be objective, right?
You are in for a surprise you might just enjoy!
Watch the following (brief and interesting):
A Fox, a Wolf, and a lot of Bull.
A Fox, a Wolf, and a lot of Bull - Part 2.
For more neutral reporting watch The Daily Show tonight @ 11 and the Colbert Report next week (Wednesday, June 13th) Ron Paul will be a special guest, courtesy of Digg.com.
June 4th, 2007
Posted by
VoiceOfReason |
Strategy, 2008 Election, No Spin At All, Cute, Evil Elements, Iraq War, Terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Truth |
one comment
(1) Send more troops (maybe 50,000 more) purely for peacekeeping and to protect the troops already there.
(2) Train 25,000 of those soldiers (special forces, actually) *ONLY* on the local Arabic language, Iraqi customs and Iraqi culture. Their task is to establish rapport with the locals and soften the effect of our presence.
(3) Stop building schools, etc… That’s not the job of the military.
(4) Open up dialog with every nation in the Middle East. Find out what each entity wants and use that as leverage.
(5) Have the Bush Administration issue a formal or informal apology to the nations involved and interfered with. Stop protecting any U.S. businesses and corporations that are there - These corporations can buy their own private protection or leave.
(6) Aim to leave in 3 years. The special forces are to soften the effect of leaving and soften the effect of our presence. If this is successful, we may not need to leave.
(7) Leave religion out of the equation and stop talking about democracy. It’s not our place to determine what is best for them, or to shove it down their throats even if we were right. Nevertheless, the special forces can use psychological tactics to encourage the spread of democracy (but more importantly to reduce friction between factions and enable an atmosphere of peace).
(8) Find a compromise between the different factions involved. This should be enabled by the special forces aforementioned and encouraged, not forced onto.
It took me a few minutes to write this up. Surely our leaders can do better.
April 17th, 2007
Posted by
VoiceOfReason |
Strategy, Iraq War, Truth |
no comments
