In the next couple of weeks you are going to be hearing a lot from me about this film. It is called Breakdown and it is, quite simply, stunning.
For those of you (including myself) who think they know what is going on in the Middle East and why we are there...well...you might change your mind after watching this film. It will expand your scope and vision.
This clip from Breakdown has an extremly disturbing image about 35 seconds into it so please don't watch this if scenes of graphic violence disturbs you.
For more information about Breakdown visit:
http://www.breakdownfilm.tv/Breakdown%20Film/Breakdown.html
and stay tuned here for a review of the film, why every American should own a copy, and an exclusive interview with the director herself!!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
BreakDown: Breaking The War on Terror Facade
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
What a load of shit. The director of this is a FOOL (Friend Of Osama) just like you are, markadelphia. Don't you realize that's what he wants? Those pictures you put up do his work for him. So what if we killed some civilians? Blowback happens in great struggles. Deal with it.
I won't be watching this film because I already know all I need to about the struggle that we face. We have a choice: kill our enemy or face Muslim rule. Those are the stakes and these stupid debates are pointless. PL, you say you are a conservative but you write so much drivel that you sound like a freakin' liberal. You'd never make it in the army.
There is a difference between murdering and killing, as they Bible says, and we are not murdering in the Middle East. Our war is justified because it is killing in the name of self defense. Jesus said bring a sword to your battle (in Matthew) and that's just what we are doing.
Sarge,
I undoubtedly would not make it in the army....for more reasons than just my endless spouting of drivel. Although, in my defense, I do have a healthy dose of respect for authority, respect for this country, and appreciation of being an American, none of which is contradicted by my drivel, and all of which I would presume are vital to being successful in the military. (I encourage you to correct me if I'm wrong.)
Acknowledgement of the fact that I'd never make it in the military is part of why I have such great respect and admiration for those who do serve so admirably - they do things that I simply cannot do. I have to settle for doing what I can to help. I like to think that my ongoing donations of blood, donations to veterans groups, care pacakges to the troops, etc., count as more than drivel, but I'm sure you'll judge that however you see fit.
Hello Sarge
Kill our enemy or face muslim rule. Our enemy.. where? In their countries and homelands? Muslim rule, where? In Muslim majority lands and nations?
So, now it's our job to go there and kill them in their homes and neighbourhoods, with our weapons and gunships or tanks, secure longterm cheap access to their oil, because they're our enemy. Even though they are our number one global importer of homegrown foods and we are their number one global importer of Energy. Even though we share a million more things in common including economic political cultural and people to people educational ties, than we have setting us apart. Even though we worship the same God, the one God of all creation and humanity (to those who believe) and they revere Jesus Moses Abraham Isaac and the long list of prohets that we do. The holy books are much more similar than they are different. But we have to kill them or face their rule. Even though we kill them without the need for justification, or being ruled by anyone but ourselves. We are the richest most powerful nation on earth, nobody is threatening us or our values, yet you fear them. You seem them as a threat and you see them everywhere. Which is why we must fight them everywhere.
When they retalliate against our military in their lands, we call them terrorists. When we finance and arm a military occupying their peoples, we call it self-defense. When the United States spans the globe with a network of several hundred military bases around the world encircling nations that we don't approve of and cut off diplomatically economically and politically, we call their fears irrational. And when they fight back or take a stand, we never call it self-defense. But that's what we're doing, according to the Rev, we are defending ourselves, not killing in cold blood. If they kill us or our allies occupying their lands and imposing brutal undemocratic regimes or dictatorships on them, we call it murder and terrorism.
George Washington would have been hanged by the British and probably drawn and quartered too, to be exhibited as the world's enemy number one arch terrorist, for writing what the British deemed a terrorist document, the Declaration of Independence, in opposing their economic political and military rule.
I'm not changing anyone's views that are already set, i know that, and i don't want to. Keep your views. I'm just using the evidence to challenge the way of thinking that to the majority of people across the world and to at least half the population in the United States, is completely illogical.
It's not "their" oil. It's Gods oil!
Well said HF. If it's God's oil (& i agree with you there) and they've always lived there, then equally, all natural resources in the US or Russia or anywhere, belong to God & not national governments to control or divert. But we don't have a problem with our country controlling and diverting our national resources along with everyone else's. Jerusalem also belongs to God. So does the Promised Land. And I seem to remember God lays out very strict conditions regarding his people remaining on it.
Forgot to mention, that this Administration (as previous Administrations before it, but this one very specifically in post 9/11 power) are not only FOOLS (Friends of Ossama) but Married to the Mob, for not capturing the two perpetrators of 9/11, Ossama & Ayman (now THAT would be self-defense...) and no mentions of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed please, because Western Intelligence and the Middle East laugh at this low-level manager's post-torture confession to everything... Our Administration needs guys like Ossama to stay in business. Which actually works out to be a little more shit to the men and women in uniform than this film any day of the week.
What the hell are you talking about? When has this administration ever been friends with Osama bin Laden? Or Ayman Zawahari for that matter?
Good lord you are warped if you think we "need" Osama to stay in business. That's just plain bullshit.
Hmm, let's see, the CIA testified in 2004 that in the two years leading up to 9/11 (meaning Clinton AND Bush) there were numerous times, more than half a dozen, when they presented concrete intelligence through human assets about the pinpoint locations of the Head of Al-Q and his Deputy and recommended that these gentlemen MR O or MR A, be liquidated in a 'surgical' strike, this recommendation was turned down on every presented occasion (by the Executive.)
Who do you think funds Al-Q, brave Sarge? Where do you think Mr O or Mr A get their money from to survive? Every single Western expert in the field has already dismissed the charge that he is a multi-billionaire who just taps into his Zurich account. He certainly has access to some personal funds, but the vast majority of funding for Al-Q operations comes from around a dozen ideologically in tune of the approximately 5 thousand Princes of Saudi Arabia, who receive half the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia in eternal personal income and benefits, these elites are best friends of this Administration, not only are there no restrictions on their movement of wealth or persons to the US or anywhere in the world (and here i speak of a number of the elite NOT ORDINARY Saudis, who would very much like to change their government, but are not allowed to by us - meaning this Administration....)but we, again meaning this Administration, does business with them daily. Including the King's National Security Advisor who Mr Cheney fondly calls the Sultan, he is very close to this Admin.
On July 10th 2001 the Director of the CIA briefed this Administration, a briefing at which the Pres's Nat Sec Advisor Dr Rice was present, about an impending and large-scale multiple simultaneous target attack on the United States in which there would be disastrous human casulaties. NOTHING was done. No red alert, no orange alert, no any colour alert or extra co-ordination between Intel Agencies. It was completely ignored. It was completely ignored when presented to the Pres in his daily briefing a couple of weeks later. Even though it was coming from NSA interception intelligence. And even though Malaysian and Thai intelligence had already briefed the FBI, earlier in the summer of 2001, about the movements of two of the 9/11 hijackers who they told US Intelligence, were Al-Q agents and had entered the US through Los Angeles and were now living in the United States. Al of this was known by the Pres and his closest Advisors. In ANY PRESIDENCY, direction comes from the top, and this Administration did nothing, directed no one to save Americans. Why? Possibly because your kids, or someone else's kids you know, would have better instincts & intuition at protecting the lives of Americans. ALTERNATIVELY they needed an enemy. And here was one, coming to find us, and give the Administration the hugest boost and expansion of executive privilege and power, this country has ever seen, exceeding Nixon's at the height of Executive megalomania in the 70s.
There was NO Al-Q in Iraq before we invaded it Sarge. Not a single Al-Q cell. We couldn't find one, to present as evidence, before the invasion and we would have really loved to find one. Now, they're killing ordinary Iraqis on a sickening scale, something that doesn't bother the public morality of some, who dont associate it with morality, i know that. But that's what i might call bs. Our invasion BROUGHT Al-Q to Iraq, the irony being they were never there before. Only a pathetic dictator, who would have easily been overthrown in 1991 allowing for peaceful transition to a democracy, when the Kurds and the Shia rose up in 1991 after Pres Bush Senior asked them to on the airwaves, and our 500 thousand US troops in Iraq were strictly forbidden from intervening when Saddam's crappy Russian and French helicopters machine gunned them down (the unarmed uprisers) by the hundreds. Why did we allow him (Hussein) to stay in power? Because we didn't want a Shia Iraq (next to Shia Iran) which is why we put him in power in the 1st place, as he persecuted the Shia during his long 'rule.' The Shia make up 60% of the Iraqi population, Kurds make up 20% (they too are Sunni muslims, they too hated Saddam bercause he murdered them with our expressly shipped chemical weapons.)
There are many more reasons why we consider Terror and an enemy like Mr O, a good one alive, but i'll leave that for you to watch the movie... :))) (the smiley face, is because i know you won't do that.)
Ah, facts. So hard to get around. Maybe if we pretended that they weren't real...
Ah, facts. So easy to pick and choose to fit your argument. Maybe if we pretended that refutations weren't real...
To the director...are you implying that Bush had something to do with the 9-11 attacks or that U.S. dollars are going towards funding terrorist acts in Iraq? This is just for my clarification.
PL, you seem to feel that pertinent facts are being ignored, perhaps you would care to share those in an effort to even out the picture.
I enjoy playing the devil's advocate because I find that it gets me to think about the other side of an argument. Let's assume (hypothetically of course) for a moment that the war in Iraq was concocted before 9-11 and that the administration cherry-picked certain pieces of intelligence for presentation to the U.N., the American public and the world to justify invasion. Keep in mind that the idea of a pre-emptive war or doctrine would probably not fly for the American people. It has never really worked that way for Americans (except maybe at the very beginning) and so there has have to have been things like the sinking of the Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin, or Pearl Harbor to get our nation involved in a war.
What arguments/facts would be considered reasonable for the exposition of such a policy or course of action? Who should one believe, what evidence or facts are strong enough to allow for a reasonable, fact-based argument that would stand up in a court of law?
This, of course assumes that you care how and why the U.S. does the things that it does. If you are one of the folks that sees no need to question the workings of politicians, then the argument is moot and all is well in your world.
“Quick, quick, there’s an impending and large-scale multiple simultaneous target attack on the United States in which there will be disastrous human casualties…do something; DO SOMETHING!!”
“Um, like what? Tell everyone to run home and hide? Perhaps if you give me a bit more about the coming attack?..”
“It may have to do with airplanes…Maybe.”
Nothing more specific, eh? Hmmm, ok, well let’s shut down the air traffic system until we know for sure.”
“You’re just being sarcastic now. You have to act!”
“Against who? You want us to arrest random Muslim men? I think the ACLU might not like us anymore…”
“Well, do something.”
“OK, we’ll investigate. Let’s try and connect the dots, shall we? Let’s see…what does the FBI have to say on the matter? What do you mean there’s a wall that prevents us from sharing information between offices? That’s just stupid! Ok…what else do we have? Wiretaps from those people mysteriously calling to Kabul every other day? That should pan out. What do you mean some judge from Jerkwater USA said we can’t listen in? OK, ok, well maybe the financial networks will reveal something? What? The NY Times exposed that and now they’re using other means? Jiminy Cricket, what the heck dots are we going to connect if they keep taking them away?”…
...OK that's just plain silly…but stupid remarks require stupid rebuttals.
PL, what facts is the director cherry picking exactly?
John, interesting that you brought up 9-11. Here is what I want to know and maybe as a military man Dave can help us out. PL, interested as always in your take as well
Consider the story of Payne Stewart's plane. On Oct. 25, 1999, his Learjet
strayed off course from its intended path at about 9:30 a.m. By 9:38, an
air-traffic controller called for military interception. At 9:54, an F-16
reached his jet to perform a visual inspection - just more than 15 minutes
after being radioed to do so. A series of military planes provided an
emergency escort to the stricken Lear until it crashed in a field in South
Dakota.
On 9-11,
Flight 11 took off at 7:59 a.m., followed by Flight 175 at 8:14 and Flight
77 at 8:21. At 8:20, Flight 11, destined for Los Angeles, made a sharp
U-turn and headed for New York. Then the plane's transponder - which
identifies the plane to the controller - was shut off. Shortly afterward,
United Flight 175 made a similar U-turn. These deviations from the flight
plans made it clear something was wrong. The FAA states that if an
air-traffic controller is "in doubt that a situation constitutes an
emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
So the ominous U-turn Flight 11 performed should have sent up a red flag to
controllers, and military aircraft should have scrambled immediately. But
Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD), said U.S. fighter jets were called to intercept
only after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:40. A few days later, the
official story changed and government and U.S. Air Force officials claimed
two F-15s had indeed been called to intercept from Otis Air National Guard
Base in Cape Cod, Mass. The officials, however, said the planes left the
base at 8:52. That means after Flight 11 made its U-turn, 32 minutes passed
before fighter jets were called in to intercept.
So military aircraft were called for and met up with Stewart's jet in a
total time of about 30 minutes, yet it took 32 minutes before jets were even
called to intercept any of the hijacked flights. Why?
In addition, within minutes of Flight 11's U-turn at 8:20, the FAA became
aware of the unusual situation. But President Bush, who was reading to a
class at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., wasn't notified of the
situation until shortly after 9 a.m. And he didn't tell them he had to leave
but instead kept on reading.
In a national emergency, procedure dictates the president hold an emergency
meeting with members of his staff to assess the situation and plan a course
of action. But it wasn't until 9:30 a.m. that Bush finally came on the air
to tell America what already was obvious - we were under attack.By this
time, both planes had already disintegrated while Flight 93 was heading for
the Capitol and Flight 77 was making a beeline for its intended target, the
Pentagon. Any steps taken after this point in time were in vain. So even if
we are to entertain the idea that controllers failed to follow standard
operating procedure and get military aircraft in the air, it still doesn't
explain why Bush didn't immediately act when he was told our nation was
under attack.
Woah boys,
My comments were not about the origins of the September 11 attacks...that is an assumption on both Just Dave and Markadelphia's. I simply asked what type of proof would be required to demonstrate that the war in Iraq was orchestrated prior to 9-11 and that it was sold to the American public with intelligence that was known to be bad. That's it.
Interesting timeline for the flights, but as PL will undoubtedly point out correlation (or lack thereof)is not equal to causation.
It is quite clear that nobody could have stopped the 9-11 attacks on the day in which they commenced unless the planes were shot out of the sky by our military, which they weren't. Some will take this to mean that the government either planned the attacks or knew of them in detail and did nothing. It is clear that they had vague warnings and did nothing which is just ineptness (the rest of the nation has gotten used to that from this administration). If it went deeper than that, why, the foundations of some of the people who write on this blog might be shaken.
Why don't we quit blowing smoke and figure out what it would take to really prove something one way or the other.
Nice skit though Just Dave, I have come to enjoy your sarcasm and only wish that I could match it with my own rapier wit.
'what type of proof would be required to demonstrate that the war in Iraq was orchestrated prior to 9-11 and that it was sold to the American public with intelligence that was known to be bad.'
The proof has been presented countless times, but under a Republican Congress at the time of the 9/11 Hearings in '04 and the Goss-Graham (both Administration Yes men) Hearings before the April '04 9/11 Hearing, there was no will to do more than air the evidence and bury it in hundreds of pages and footnotes. No connections, no accountability, no person responsible for gross negligence misconduct and unconstitutional behaviour held to account, infact they were promoted to University Chairs and the World Bank Presidency (Douglas Feith: head of ultra-secretive politically appointed Office of Special Plans giving non-existent evidence to present as proof at the UN, Steven Hadley, now NatSecAdvisor, obtained falsified/forged uranium docs in Italy used as smoking gun led to the whole Jo Wilson-Valeria Plame saga, Scooter Libby and Elliot Abrams, co-ordinating the completely fake and CIA payroll Iraqi agent 'curveball' to feed false info about an Iraqi WMD weapons program etc. etc. etc.) The invasion and break-up of Iraq is outlined in several documents beginning with early 90's New Middle East policy paper written by Cheney, continuing with 1996 Clean Break Document and 1998 PNAC manifesto for US power projection in the Mideast. Wolfowitz also wrote about it in Foreign Affairs in '97. The intelligence was bad because there was NO intelligence about a continuing or post-2000 existing WMD program or WMD capabiltiies, according to every single insider involved in the lead-up to war, including UN Weapons Inspectors Blix and Baradei, who testified that there was NO evidence at the UN Security Council prior to the war on more on than one occasion, there was zero evidence of an Al-Q connection, yet the entire Administration lied about that -- and basically those two reasons were the ONLY reasons given for going to war BEFORE the War. Only afterwards, when it became obvious that those two were completely untenable, were other reasons presented post the War fact. It's in the film, and it's 4am where i am, so i just wanted to briefly note some thoughts to the interesting conversations above.
The ONLY type of proof that could be presented is to have a completely INDEPENDENT and non-partisan brand new committee set up, to Review the EXISTING evidence, about evidence and arguments made for going to War.
Offer to the Sarge, hey Sarge, i can send you the film for free (you just have to pay i think it's $5.13 shipping & handling cost that's out of my hands..) and if you still don't like it at all and aren't persuaded by anything in it, great, but the perspective is different / wider. FYI, the You Tube clip isn't like the film, i mean it has content from the film, but it's more cut up and edited content in the YT clip for effect, and the music is different in the movie. Nitey all. Keep up the great exchanges!
'To the director...are you implying that Bush had something to do with the 9-11 attacks or that U.S. dollars are going towards funding terrorist acts in Iraq? This is just for my clarification.'
Hi John, forgot to answer this one... No, i'm not implying that Bush had something to do with the 9-11 attacks, at least not directly, could he have done a LOT more to alert his own Intelligence Agencies' co-ordination efforts and the American public of something the Administration knew about in advance, and thanks Dave, yes they knew about it, because the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing was entitled: 'Ossama bin Laden Determined to attack the United States' -- oh im sorry, he should have given them an itinerary, or cell-phoned the Administration from the Florida flight school where foreign people were just learning take-off, and said 'hey Guys, you know the Pentagon War games scenarion from '99 about airplanes being used as missiles to fly into tall buildings of cultural or economic significance..?? Well, you were right! And that's what i'm gonna do, in NY, on the 11th of September... Take care, bye' Yeah Dave, he should have given them specific information, right? Because the NSA intercepts of Al-Q chatter, the July 10th Cia warning, the global intelligence warnings, the FBI tracking some of these men but not sharing that info with the CIA and the $40 billion dollars we spend on intelligence a year, aren't enough to figure stuff out for ourselves, not to mention a Presidential Briefing, CALLED : Ossama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda determined to attack multiple & simultaneous targets in the United States.
And in answer to your 2nd question John, do i think 'U.S. dollars are going towards funding terrorist acts in Iraq?' Yeah. definitely. Flash back US-trained & payrolled death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua, when we (under Reagan and oh, his name pops up again! Elliot Abrams, chief central america covert ops co-ordinator in the 80s and Mideast Policy maker under Dr Rice in 2007...) were fighting 'communism in central america.' Do i have specific evidence of the US (& NO -- i do not mean the MILITARY -- i'm talking about something under the radar...) training and backing death squads in Iraq? No I do not. The point i was making ABOVE though, in answer to the Sarge, was there is very specific evidence and knowledge of the fact that Al-Q funders are the Administration's best friends and strongest allies in the Mideast. Buone notte e buon sabato sera.
btw, and this really is final because im now knackered, p u h l e a z e all watch (if you can.. but it's expensive!! My film is a comparative bargain :) compared to pbs prices, their vhs is cheaper than the dvd...) you have to watch 'Watergate Plus 30: Shadow of History' if you can, just re-watched a week ago... i think it will answer John Waxey's question above... and it Soooo about today, only 30 years ago :) i think you can get it from www.shoppbs.org
Thank you Director for your answers and details. It's enough for me, but all of the long-timers on this blog and its predecessor know that I have been against this war from the beginning and Bush in general since before he was "elected" the first time.
I have just always wondered why rational honest people can see two very different things in a person or set of situations and what it would take to get everyone on the same page.
director,
I don't need to see your commie movie. I see the lies you people put out everyday that are going to destroy our great nation. At least some of us are standing on the wall and defending ourselves.
I think I'll be skipping the blog if we are going to see al jazeera spawned hate fests like we see in this clip. You people complain about Fox News all the time...Al Jazeera is the Fox News of the Arab World.
i like that :) 'what it would take to get everyone on the same page' that's poetic. we're all on the same page now! :)
i think keeping an open mind is the thing, the open mind that people who hold different views and make excellent points that one couldn't see before because a person didn't have that information (from their media or their circle) to input and compute. None of us know everything, most 'experts' are really only expert in one field & exceptionally indepthly knowledgeable in two, but if we're really interested, we can seek and find information, cross-checking and referencing the facts and sources.
Someone might be right about one or more things i didn't fully understand and i might be wrong or vice versa, it's not about being personally right or wrong either, it's about having accurate information and being able to analyse that from a non-political perspective.
That might be too much to ask though, because our leaders put it in terms of our lives and national security being at stake if we question their judgement, when our lives and public or personal security might be at stake if we don't. I am not just talking about the States here, this applies to any country's citizens, anywhere. Patriotism, and by that i understand loyalty to your country, your homeland, your fellow citizens including loved ones, is universal and deeply admirable, but patriotism should never be based on fear or narrow horizons that engender more needless hate and more fear. It's not free or self-protection to build a wall around the mind or society. I don't see that here though, everyone here seems open-minded, willing to talk or meet, curious, thirsty for info. that's always hopeful! :)
Just read the sarge and chucky after posting the above, sarge, fine np, chucky, i don't who 'You people' are, it's kinda vague, you didn't specify but i get the drift, i don't belong to an organisation, if you mean you thinkers and doers, fine. As for Al Jazeera being the Fox News of the Arab World, yes and no. I watch both a lot. So, to be fair, sometimes yes, and equally sometimes no, they are very different.
btw sarge and i know you'll automatically think this is more whatever, because you don't want to review your opinions, fine, but newsflash, it's this country's leaders unconstitutional King Charles styled illegal behaviour that is going to destroy this great nation, because this great nation is HISTORY CONSTITUTION LAWS not replaceable people in power, and citizens who individually and collectively speak freely, speak the truth and act for peace not against it and for not against freedom, will save this great nation.
Sarge and Chucky,
Guys...and I use that term loosely...I think you need to face the uncomfortable fact that the director raises some good points. The US has been pretty rotten these last few decades. Markadelphia is correct in saying the shit really started after Kennedy was killed.
Ah yes. The ol conspiracy gem. Wondered ehen that one was gonna come out. Oswald was the only shooter. Deal with it.
Post a Comment