Nope, your premise is indeed flawed, and fatally. You take three incidents cherry-picked over the course of more than thirty years to construct an elaborate theory, apparently, that Israel is actually an enemy of its largest benefactor, completely ignoring the many thousands of facts that would tend to negate your premise.
Concerning your absurd views of the news media, you seem to somehow expect news outlets to guess what your personal prejudices are and write stories exclusively geared towards confirming them. Journalism doesn’t work that way, and it is perfectly obvious that you know next to nothing about the journalistic process. There’s no such thing as ‘the memory hole’, and you can use that term till you are blue in the face; it will remain meaningless. Anyone who wishes to can find scads of information on on subjects such as the Liberty, the three, or five or however many guys who supposedly celebrated the falling of the WTC, or any other of the items you mentioned; hell, you found them via publicly available sources, didn’t you? The Liberty incident happened in 1967, for cryin’ out loud; how many stories from 1967 are routinely rehashed today, and why is this incident more important than any other thing that happened in 1967?
But the main reason your premise is full of shit is that you have worked backwards along the chain of inference: you have clearly begun from the notion that Jews are a secret, closed society, control the media and are trying to run the world (all arguably false assertions); then looked for facts, however tenuous, that support your prejudices, rather than starting from a neutral point and following the facts where they lead you.
Lastly, if you feel so strongly that certain items that reinforce the idea that Israel is a danger to the US are being criminally underreported by ‘the media’, instead of constantly whining about it on a message board read by at most a few thousand people, maybe you should study journalism, become an investigative reporter yourself, and thereby access a broader public.
He can’t. ZOG won’t let him. In fact, if he tried, his mortgage payments would start to mysteriously disappear, his phone would start making sounds as if it were tapped (that is, it would make more sounds, becuase it’s probably already tapped) and Razor would suddenly find that getting a good haircut would be downright impossible.
Yes, you do make a valid point, the media has, in recent years, refrained from reporting on race. There is a very good reason. That is, a good reason when reporting crime and satisfying the politics of political correctness all at the same time.
The 2002 FBI crime statistics for interracial crime list 135,369 white on black crimes, while listing 1,140,670 black on white crimes. The media has refrained from reporting on race for the simple reason that if they did, minorities would be named close to 90% of the time and would diametrically oppose the media’s, especially the entertainment media, “through the looking-glass” presentation of reality.
No, that is not the only exception. See, the media has presented church burnings in the South as the work of white racists without any evidence. That event alone has exposed the media to be an agent of an agenda rather than for it’s intended purpose of objectively reporting events.
What I find distressing is America’s supposed “free press” enlisting itself as a thought-control apparat.
Probably not, for the above named reasons. But, being that the fame of Justice Souter was the reason the assault received mainstream mention, I still contend that had Justice Thomas been attacked by a group of white young men, the media would have made mention of their race for the same purpose that the media used church burnings to create the impression of white racists running rampant persecuting minorities.
Actually, that would be more than necessary. See, if a witness in a court of law has been found to have told a lie, just one lie, that witness’ testimony can be regarded as unreliable.
I know that CNN fabricated a story about America’s military using poison gas on deserters to malign the military establishment. Is that what you are talking about concerning the “journalistic process”, or were you referring to the “church burning” hysteria?
Yeah, you can find it, thanks to the internet (Look for future legislation designed to control access to certain info, under the guise of protecting the children.) but, the establishment media is the subject of the discussion. So, “mistaken identity” aside, how often have you heard of the Israeli gunboats machine-gunning the lifeboats that the Liberty lowered into the sea? That alone is a warcrime, even if it had been a ship full of nazis.
The tale is BS. The ones who tell it are a former officer of the Liberty who was incapacitated by his wounds and a sailor whose job description puts him below decks, thus unable to see it. Nothing in the ships log, or by any of the accounts of the officers on deck say anything about lifeboats being shot up as they were put in the water.
Some of the boats were shot up before they were put in the water, but that was a different matter entirely.
Your memory hole is a paranoia bottom-feeder. You still refuse to concede that your OP was way off the mark.
Actually, you could support this “theory” by showing us the numbers from 1963-1965 when the papers changed their policies. If, indeed, the numbers were skewed in the same way at that time, you would at least be able to show that you are not simply inventing your claims. (You will not have proven your conspiracy unless you can provide the notes from editorial meetings where this conspiracy was formed and executed, but you could at least sound plausible.) Of course, if the numbers from that period do not support your contention, you will be left with the fact that you are inventing a conspiracy in 2004 and trying to apply it to a 40-year-old event.
On the other hand, the several people I know who actually were in editorial and reporter positions at the time that race was dropped from reports (several of whom are rather hostile to the civil rights movement) never seem to recall this odd belief of yours.
While we are fighting the ignorance of Razorsharp’s xenophobic response to the news article, would you mind not perpetuating yet another stereotype for the gullible to react to?
Don’t forget that East Tennessee has been a major producer of U-235. It is the home of Oakridge and folks in that area may know more than you give them credit for. This incident happened closer to the N.C. border, but Tennesseans in that part of the state are aware of their vulnerability.
The USS Liberty horse has been dead for many years and requires no further beating. Ten official US investigations and three Israeli investigations have shown the attack to be nothing more than a case of mistaken identity. Here is a listing of the pertinent investigations, you of course may wish to reach investigation if you wish.
I know this because there was no mention of it in any of the logs, formal or informal, none of the testimony by any of the crew mentioned it, then all of a sudden some sailors ‘remember’ this part of the tale over 14 years later.
Your article by Moorer is nothing but an opinion piece. Moorer had the position to find the ‘truth’ of the Liberty matter and instead produced nothing but opinion pieces. Moorer was also one of the voices behind the ‘missle vs. TWA800’ bit of nonsense. The guy was fond of padding his record too.
That’s enough on that subject. Tell us Razorsharp where are your deadly ninja terrorist Mossad agents with their deadly varnish remover and flight pamphlets? You’ve been awfully silent on this aspect of your complaint.
I take it that this means your investigation into the crime statistics 40 years ago does not support your “theory”?
The reason was very simply that they recognized that including a mention of race in every article (not just crime stories) served no purpose except to highlight the divisions within society. (Which provides another bit of evidence against your odd conspiracy beliefs: race is not merely excluded from crime stories, it is excluded from every story in which race is irrelevant. It is a good way to save ink and column space, of course.) The same thing actually happened decades earlier within the white community: the papers stopped refering to people as “Irish” or “Polish” or “Italian” because the ethnicity of the participants rarely had anything to do with the stories.
Obviously not, since the default (once they stopped identifying people as Hungarian or Swedish) was to not mention race for whites and to note it for non-whites.
This would be a lot easier if you all would just pay attention.
Knowing the Jews control all airborne package delivery companies, they are obviously going to load a truck bomb inside a cargo plane. Since all the air traffic controllers are in the employ of the Zionist Occupation Government, they’ll have clear sailing to their target…a strike at the heart of America…the Jack Daniels distillery. I don’t know about you, but the thought of 20,000 likkered-up rednecks at a Skynyrd concert screaming “Free Bird!” while clutching a Mogen-David bottle sends chills up my spine.
You are the one who needs to couch every act in terms of a massive conspiracy.
Those two gentlemen could have any number of reasons for their adherence to a particular story. They could suffer from a false memory planted during the trauma of the event that they cannot shake. They may have hyped their claims at the time and are embarrassed to back down from them, now. They could be deliberately hyping their accounts due to a (quite understandable) anger at the Israeli (not Jewish) government. Or there may be another explanation.
It is enough to note that their version of a particular incident is not corroborated by their fellow sailors to recognize that their claim is in error without going further to accuse them of bad intentions.
I don’t know where you are coming up with the idea that the practice of reporting the race of criminals ended in the mid sixties. It may have began in the mid sixties, I believe it ended more recently. But, who knows, time flies. I won’t argue that point.
However, I will agree that the reporting of the race of criminals did have a divisive effect, just the same as it would if the race of criminals were reported today. It would contradict the liberal orthodoxy’s fantasy of diversity as the beautiful mosaic that is America’s greatest strength.
As for the crime stats for 40 yrs ago, you brought it up, if you have them available, please use them to refute my “theory”. Don’t demand that I go in search of statistics that you want to use.
But, being that we are in the here and now, just use this era’s statistics. Oh, that’s right. Today’s stats don’t support the “through the looking glass” fantasy, but they so support my “theory”.
It does not surprise me that you will accept the word of two men against that of 147 other men (none of whom have reason to lie or to feel kindly toward Israel) when the two men say something that supports your hatreds.
But then, that is exactly the sort of tin-hat thinking that most of us have opposed, here.
The practice of reporting the race of people in any context when race was not germain to the story ended inthe 1960s. If you are unaware of that, perhaps you are simply making up the rest of your “theories” without data, as well?