CNN, MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, NYT all pushing another Genocide via Propaganda
Dig:
Looks like the extermination of 2 million arabs is not enough for the mockingbird media.
They have not had their fill.
They pray for more blood, more dead babies, more raped grandmothers.
They love it, look at them salivating over Egypt.
Watch them give 24/7 coverage praising the CIA's Muslim Brotherhood.
Watch them greasing the wheels of genocide in our faces 24/7.
They need more conflict, they pray for it.
Look at all of the late night hosts helping the CIA's assets in pushing for chaos and turmoil. Look at them repeating every single spin the CIA/MI6's Muslim Brotherhood is pushing.
Watch when a new false flag occurs and how they will apologize to us again for creating more CIA/MI6 patsy regimes in the middle east/north africa.
Watch them again say "we did not know, we are sorry we pushed for Al-Qaeda to take over Egypt. We never thought they would be patsies for a new false flag. We never thougfht they would shut down the suez and drive gas to $10 a gallon like it is in Europe. please forgive us and buy more of our sponsors' NWO poisonous crap."
They are doing the run up to the iraq war all over again, it is the same spins, the same emotional tear jerkers to shock and awe us out of waking up to the theft of $30 trillion and full speed ahead to the cybernetics end game.
And look at all the NWO zionists like Haim Saban over at Qatar's Brookings Institute and Mitt Romney signing the new "TRANSFER AGREEMENT" to allow more zionist control over israel just when they were starting to lose their grip.
Hasn't the mockingbird media had enough blood on their hands?
Aren't millions of dead arab children and women enough?
Wasn't abu graib enough?
Isn't gitmo enough?
Aren't the coverups of 9/11 enough?
Wasn't the banksters bailout where the people were 99.9% against it enough?
Isn't nazi deathcare eugenics enough?
How much more blood do you need to satisfy you, you all know what is going to happen. Bloomberg blew the fricking whistle...the goal is control over suez to shut it down.
How come in venezuela gas is less than $.05 a gallon and in the US it is nearing $4.00 a gallon. It is almost 100x a greater price.
THE ONLY F*CKING WAY THAT IS POSSIBLE IS WITH THE TOTAL BULLSHIT CIA PSYOPS GUERRILLA WARFARE AND YOU KNOW IT, AND WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IT, AND YOU KNOW THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IT!
ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT THESE TOTALLY FRICKING SEDITIOUS ACTIONS
Whatever the elite have told you is bullshit, all of the plans will backfire as they have over the past 10 false flags. Global humanity is waking up and you no longer can deceive us with WaPo, Twitter, 3-D HDTV, Kinect, Facebook, or any of your other In-Q-tel's weapons of mass deception.
50 years ago a now dead president delivered this standing order to the entire National Press Club. Don't you think it is about f-ing time you followed it!
50 Year old message to CIA's Operation Mockingbird from a Dead President
Quote from: Dig on April 13, 2010, 07:07:28 AM
The President and the Press:
Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel - New York City, April 27, 1961
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1710662559138481080
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that...
no war ever posed a greater threat to our security.
If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that
the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
[...]
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program.
For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition.
And both are necessary.
I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people.
For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--
and no republic can survive.
That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be:
free and independent.
CheneysWorstNightmare:
You just KNOW the Muslim Brotherhood will be involved in a false flag.
Dig:
Hey look...
--Brookings Institute
--Saban Center
--CIA Officer for 20 years
--He is the one who created the Obama policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan
And look at him spreading the propaganda for Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt.
SABAN CENTER AT BROOKINGS INSTITUTE SPECIAL REPORT
Egypt's Uprising:
The End of the Mubarak Era
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-29/egypts-uprising-the-end-of-the-mubarak-era/
by Bruce Riedel January 29, 2011 | 8:15pm
Bruce Riedel, a former long-time CIA officer, is a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. At Obama’s request, he chaired the strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009. He is author of the new book Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad and The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology and Future.
Early in 1982, then-Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon tasked the Israel Defense Forces' special Devil's Advocate intelligence branch to do an intelligence estimate for him and Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The Devil's Advocate, a unique unit that does sensitive out-of-the box analysis only, was asked how Egypt would react if Israel invaded its northern neighbor Lebanon to destroy Yasir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization and install a Christian warlord as the new ruler of Lebanon. The Devil's team concluded that Egypt's new ruler, Hosni Mubarak, who had just come to power in a hail of bullets as his predecessor Anwar Sadat was assassinated on October 6, 1981, would do little or nothing. The IDF knew Mubarak well. He had been trained as a bomber pilot in Russia and risen to command of the Egyptian Air Force before the 1973 October war. His manner was always cautious and conservative; he preferred stability to change. He never sent the Air Force to do bold and risky missions. The IDF estimate said he would at most withdraw the Egyptian ambassador to Tel Aviv in protest but not break diplomatic ties and certainly not tear up the peace treaty Sadat had signed with Begin only a couple of years before. As a footnote, the Devil's team said Sadat would have been far more unpredictable and prone to drastic action. He would have been terribly humiliated by an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. But he was gone and Mubarak would be quiet. Sharon invaded Lebanon that summer. Mubarak whined but did nothing. For 30 years, decision makers in Jerusalem, Washington, Amman and other capitals have counted on Mubarak to bring stability and predictability to Egypt. The Devil's Advocate judgment has passed the test of time well. After 30 years of tumult in Egypt, first under Gamal Abdel Nasser and then Anwar Sadat, Cairo became a known quantity. Egypt would keep its peace with Israel, albeit cold as ice, and its alliance with America. It might be critical of Israeli or American policies, even harsh in private, but not shake its alliances. Mubarak would be careful, even plodding, never a risk-taker. Now that is over. Egypt is back in the game. Even if Mubarak or his new Vice President Omar Suleiman, the longtime spymaster of Egypt, survive in power somehow, the old predictability of Egypt's position in the region is gone. If Mubarak and Suleiman are swept from power and a new more representative government is established that includes members of the opposition including the Muslim Brotherhood, it will be even more of a sea change in the regional geopolitics.
The genie is out of the box in Egypt now. History has moved beyond Mubarak even if he tries to resist it. Mubarak has relied for decades on his secret police chief, Suleiman, 74, to keep order and maintain control. Suleiman is a ruthless counterterrorist fighter well known in Western capitals and highly respected by intelligence services around the world. He has often been Mubarak's go-to political operative handling delicate negotiations—such as dealing with Hamas in Gaza. Mubarak credits him (rightly) with saving his life in Ethiopia in 1995 when Islamic Jihad almost killed him; Suleiman had insisted on taking a heavily armored car, which saved Mubarak. At best he may be an interim figure for a transition to a different Egypt, however, as the genie is out of the box in Egypt now. History has moved beyond Mubarak even if he tries to resist it. A more representative government drawn from the diversity of Egypt's political opposition will be much more inclined to criticize American and Israeli policies. The Egyptian street may accept the strategic logic of peace with Israel and alliance with America, but it bristles at the humiliation of being a de facto silent partner in the siege of Gaza, Israel's wars against Hamas and Hezbollah and America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which rely on transit via the Suez canal and Egyptian airspace). No conceivable Egyptian government will lightly rip up the peace treaty Sadat signed with Begin. The memory of the costs, both human and material, of Egypt's four wars with Israel remains vivid for Egyptians. But in the event of another Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon — both very possible scenarios—a more democratic Egyptian government will have to listen to the voices of the street, both the left and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Look how this CIA Officer and senior officer at the Saban Center is spreading psychological programming about Mubarak not being radical enough and how Egypt needs a more radical islamic leader. What is the Saban Center? Are they an Islamic operation? Are they funded by the Bin Laden family? Are they an Iranian radical group? They are in Qatar, maybe they are pushing islam to take over the world.
Not exactly...Bruce Reidel and the Saban Center are the most psychopathic neocons around. THEY NO LONGER HAVE AN ENEMY AND THEY NEED TO CREATE ONE! THEY HAVE LOST ALL POWER AND THEY NEED A NEW THREAT!
Just take a look:
Quote from: Tsul777 on May 08, 2010, 02:23:28 AM
Bruce Reidel - Brookings/Soetoro Neo-Con in the White House
I've been watching CPAC for the last hour and these f**ks are bashing the almighty Karzai and how he gets along with Sotero. Bruce Riegel is a fucking Warpig! "It costs a half a million dollars to put a soldier on the ground"
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
"Alqueda is the first global terrorist organization" - Bruce R.
I just puked again.
Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
A former CIA officer, Bruce Riedel focuses on political transition, terrorism and conflict resolution. He was a senior advisor to three U.S. presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues. At the request of President Obama he chaired an interagency review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan for the White House that was completed in March 2009.
THEY WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL - Bruce Riedel
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?act=view3&dsp=template&lang=e&template_id=1073
Watch right now. This shit is sickening...
Not enough? How about this odd warning about a spontaneous coup in Pakistan that is earily similar to the one in Egypt. I think Pakistan was their first choice but they failed so they moved to Egypt...check it out...
Quote from: Dig on November 13, 2010, 08:07:50 AM
EXPOSED: Council on Foreign Relations plans a Coup D'etat in Pakistan!
Coup in Pakistan 'A Real Possibility'
Interview with Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings Institute Senior Propagandist Bruce Riedel
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,728806,00.html
11/12/2010
Western countries would like to negotiate with the Taliban, but Pakistan would rather they didn't. US terrorism expert Bruce Riedel spoke with SPIEGEL ONLINE about just how explosive the situation currently is in Pakistan and how much influence al-Qaida still has.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Riedel, there is increasing talk of trying to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a political settlement. How can this be achieved?
Bruce Riedel: We are all war weary, we are all looking for a way out, we would all like a political solution. The question is: Is the Taliban capable of the kind of process of compromise and negotiation that we want? And can it be separated from al-Qaida? There is every reason to test those propositions, and we have nothing to lose by testing them. But we also have to be honest with ourselves. The odds are good that the answer is no and that the ties between the two are too strong at the operational and ideological level. In the US last year, we had an attempted attack on the Metro system in New York City which was al-Qaida sponsored but in which the terrorists had been given to al-Qaida by the Afghan Taliban. So in this sense they were involved in recruiting for a terrorist attack on America. That suggests it is going to be very, very hard to break up this connection.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Officially ,the Afghan Taliban regularly insist that they are not interested in international terrorism and would instead like to establish good neighborly relations with Afghanistan's neighbors. Does this mean the Afghan Taliban is not as monolithic as it claims to be?
Riedel: The Afghan Taliban is composed of several networks and it is not clear how monolithic even these networks are within themselves. But there is a broader phenomenon going on inside all the militant groups based in Pakistan, which is a radicalization. The idea of global Jihad is becoming more and more popular at the grassroots level. Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, who traditionally had a domestic agenda, are increasingly buying into the idea of globalized terrorism.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: One possible negotiating partner within the Afghan Taliban would be Mullah Baradar, who made it known he was ready to discuss the idea of holding talks. But he was arrested by Pakistan. Was this an attempt by Pakistan to stop negotiations altogether?
Riedel: That is in fact another dimension of this complicated problem. Pakistan does not want direct negotiations between the Afghan Taliban and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai or between the Afghan Taliban and the West. It wants to control the process so as to ensure it gets its preferred outcome, which is a satellite state next to Pakistan. When Mullah Baradar started to talk about talks, the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) had him arrested. He is, from what I understand, under some sort of friendly house arrest now. But he is being used by the ISI as a signal to the other Taliban to prevent them from taking independent action.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan may very well be legitimate, but they become less important when Pakistan itself is becoming instable...
Riedel: Pakistan today is already in the midst of a small scale civil war. Last year 25,000 Pakistanis were killed or wounded in terrorism-related violence, and that's just civilians. That's three times the number of civilians killed or wounded in Afghanistan in the same year. It is a very fragile, very volatile and very combustible country right now. In many ways it is the strategic prize in this whole equation. What happens in Afghanistan will have huge ramifications for what happens in Pakistan. A jihadist victory in Afghanistan would have enormous reverberations and could even signal a take over by jihadist forces in Pakistan.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Some people believe a jihadist takeover is already more likely in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.
Riedel: I don't think it is imminent or inevitable. It is probably not even the most likely outcome. But for the first time, it is a real possibility. It could come in one of two ways. The Pakistani Taliban insurgence could grow and grow and grow, or, more likely, you could have a coup from inside the military by jihadist sympathizers. There is a lot of unrest in the Pakistani army because of their ongoing operations against militants. We could wake up one morning and have another Zia ul-Haqq in power in Pakistan, a committed jihadist, only this time without the Soviet Union as his enemy.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: It is interesting to note that al-Qaida not only has relations with the Afghan Taliban but also with the Pakistani Taliban, which almost seems to be acting as a kind of al-Qaida proxy.
Riedel: The reason is that al-Qaida learned an important lesson in Iraq: If you put foreigners in the front line, they will eventually turn the population against them. So in Pakistan, the front line is the Pakistani Taliban, Lashkar-e Toiba, all these Pakistani faces. Witness for example the rise of Ilyas Kashmiri, a long time Pakistani terrorist fighting in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Now he is the face of jihad in Pakistan. The same is true for Afghanistan. Al-Qaida doesn't lead the fight in Afghanistan. They let the Taliban lead it. But behind the scenes they provide support.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Given the complexity of the problem, what should be the international community's first priority?
Riedel: We have to make sure this is an Afghan-led process. Secondly, we need to send a clear message to Pakistan that it can be part of the process, but it cannot be the dominant power. Afghanistan cannot be a satellite state of Pakistan.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is the relevance of the al-Qaida leadership in all this? What would happen, for example, were Osama Bin Laden to be killed by a US drone?
Riedel: It would have a tremendous symbolism. He would become an instant martyr for militant Jihad. And it would have consequences on the ground, too. We shouldn't think of bin Laden as living in a cave. He is actively engaged in controlling a global terrorist organization. I don't mean that he runs everything. But he provides strategic direction. The truth is, we don't have a clue where he is. We haven't had eyes on High Value Target Number One since 2002. We believe he is in Pakistan, it is a pretty good bet. But the largest manhunt in human history has so far produced no shred of evidence as to where he is.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about recent reports, attributed at the time to an anonymous NATO official, allegedly saying that bin Laden lives in a comfortable house in North Waziristan?
Riedel: I think that's a reasonable guess, but that's all it is.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are rumors on Jihadist websites and elsewhere that al-Qaida is already transferring cadres to Yemen, assuming that they can't hide in North Waziristan much longer given the US drones and the prospect of a military invasion there.
Riedel: Judging from the history of al-Qaida, they will prepare and plan ahead. I am sure they are putting key cadres in places like Yemen and Somalia, but also moving them around in Pakistan, where you can hide easily -- even in slums adjacent to the big cities, especially Karachi.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Al-Qaida has proven to be rather resilient.
Riedel: Yes, al-Qaida has indeed proven to be very agile and resilient and it is a learning organization. It adapts to new circumstances and learns from mistakes. They are also very patient. They have invested years in planning their more spectacular operations. They can wait. So on the whole, this is far from over. Al-Qaida today remains a very dangerous foe and must not be underestimated.
Interview conducted by Yassin Musharbash
Still not enough? How about some words from multi billionaire Mr. Saban (an Egyptian Zionist Jew--I shit you not) himself:
Quote from: Dig on February 02, 2011, 01:37:22 PM
Why is AL JAZEERA using Brookings Institute expert opinion??
http://ampal.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-is-al-jazeera-using-brookings.html
Sharif Hamid, "Expert" - Supposedly one of the experts taking about 10 our of every 60 minutes on AJE. They mention the Doha Brookings Institute. The Saban Center (created by Israeli media mogul HAIM SABAN) I dont know if I can trust Al Jazeera when their research center experts are run by the likes of Martin Idyk and Bruce Katz...
A ‘one-issue guy’, Saban funded Brookings as his personal power ranger
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/a-one-issue-guy-saban-funded-brookings-as-his-personal-power-ranger.html
by Philip Weiss on May 4, 2010
Key excerpts from Connie Bruck's profile of Democratic moneybags Haim Saban in the New Yorker. I do wonder (not having read the piece; this is social media; a trusted friend sent me the excerpt) whether Bruck slighted the Israel lobby angle, as she did in her profile of Saban's Republican doppelganger Sheldon Adelson. Remember that Bruck is herself married to a stalwart in the lobby, former California congressman Mel Levine who as I recall was courting Saban for Obama 2 years back.
At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party.
That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times.
In targeting media properties, Saban frankly acknowledges his political agenda. He has tried repeatedly to buy the Los Angeles Times, because, he said, “I thought it was time that it turn from a pro-Palestinian paper into a balanced paper.” He went on, “During the period of the second intifada, Jews were being killed every day over there, and this paper was publishing images of a Palestinian woman sitting with her dead child, and, on the Israeli side, a destroyed house. I got sick of it.” Saban said he tried to buy the paper in 2007 but lost to Sam Zell, who purchased the Tribune Company, including the L.A. Times. In early 2008, he says that he tried to buy the paper from Zell but that Zell wanted more than he was willing to pay. After the Tribune Company went into bankruptcy, in 2009, Saban said he informed the creditors of his interest. “They’re not going to do anything until they get out of bankruptcy. So am I still interested in the L.A. Times? I am, yeah, I am,” he said. Saban also said that he asked the New York investor Steven Rattner to let the Sulzbergers know that he would like to buy the New York Times, but Rattner told him they weren’t interested. “What’s it worth now, the whole thing—a billion dollars?” Saban said dismissively. “But it’s a family legacy or something, I don’t know.” If the Sulzbergers were to change their minds, he said, “I would be jumping all over it.”
As Saban has said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” [OMG, what the f are they planning in the Sinai penninsula?]
For example, Saban continued, “Obama was asked the same question Hillary was asked—‘If Iran nukes Israel, what would be your reaction?’ Hillary said, ‘We will obliterate them.’ We . . . will . . . obliterate . . . them. Four words, it’s simple to understand. Obama said only three words. He would ‘take appropriate action.’ I don’t know what that means. A rogue state that is supporting killing our men and women in Iraq; that is a supporter of Hezbollah, which killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization; that is a supporter of Hamas, which shot twelve thousand rockets at Israel—that rogue state nukes a member of the United Nations, and we’re going to ‘take appropriate action’! ” His voice grew louder. “I need to understand what that means. So I had a list of questions like that. And Chicago”—Obama campaign headquarters—“could not organize that meeting. ‘Schedule, heavy schedule.’ I was ready and willing to be helpful, but ‘helpful’ is not to write a check for two thousand three hundred dollars. It’s to raise millions, which I am fully capable of doing. But Chicago wasn’t able to deliver the meeting, so I couldn’t get on board.”
Quote from: Dig on February 02, 2011, 01:46:39 PM
HE IS EGYPTIAN, NEOCON, WARMONGERER, ISRAEL FIRST!
Then why is he supporting the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow of Mubarak? Maybe because he needs a new threat as the neocons lose power in Israel?
Egypt-born Jew looks to buy 50% of Al-Jazeera
Haim Saban first showed a reported interest in the Doha -based network after a visit in 2004.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/egypt-born-jew-looks-to-buy-50-of-al-jazeera-1.6471
Published 04:15 08.10.09 By Nimrod Halpern
Egyptian-born Jewish businessman Haim Saban is negotiating with Qatar's emir the purchase of 50 percent of the Al Jazeera television network, the independent Egyptian newspaper Al-Mesryoon reported earlier this week. Saban was first reported to be negotiating the purchase of half the Doha -based network in 2004, after visiting the emirate with former U.S. President Bill Clinton. The media mogul, estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, brought the Power Rangers franchise to the Arab world and made a fortune out of developing and selling the Fox Family cable network together with News Corp. In Israel, Saban owns a controlling stake in Bezeq. Last month Saban blasted calls to boycott Israel for the occupation of the West Bank. He called those who support boycotting the Toronto film festival's decision to showcase Tel Aviv "anti-Semites" and "Jew haters." "The world always had anti-Semites," the Hollywood financier told the Los Angeles Times in an e-mail exchange last month. "It has now and always will, but the people of Israel always have, and always will live and prosper. Sorry Jew haters. You lose." Among the artists who signed the petition calling for a boycott of the festival's Tel Aviv Week in August were Ken Loach, Julie Christie, Danny Glover, David Byrne and Jane Fonda ¬ though Fonda later retracted her decision. Meanwhile, a number of Hollywood Jews, including Jerry Seinfeld, Sacha Baron Cohen and Natalie Portman, issued a counter-statement in defense of the festival's decision.
citizenx:
And absolutely no mention of the NAZI OR CIA contacts with the Muslim Bros. in the MSM.
The Nazi connection is well-established history.
The fourth reich is only exploiting well-maintained connections.
Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and Operation Paperclip.
All people have to do is look it up in their NSA-approved Wikipedia or Google search-engine.
No brainer.
John_Back_From_The_Club_O:
...And after the Super Bowl the block buster movie 'Planet of the Arabs' will be seen 10PM Eastern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page