Where the hell can I get accurate figures of Military related Deaths? In the Order of Transparency, should there not be a credible News channel attributed just to this?


I think it comes down to how to share Global resources and what are they? Oil or alternative source. Oil is so Corrupted, so Fiendish any association tied to this apex of Mobster Gangstery should be involved in a public judgement, ridiculed and sentenced.


Its total double think. The loyal Henchmen are now being framed as Patsies and the henchmen probably dont know why. That is how compartmentalized they have us.
Its a perfect set up!
They have knowledge of the Dialectic so much that our search for the Truth has to pass their GateKeeper.



I disagree, the rothchild Brand is old school, going openly since they Massacred all those mine workers and lobbied for a new makeover in 1913? Has there been anymore killing in any other century then around those times. Civil war?
Either way the top of the pyramid of lies morphs into another, how many prepared, Global Conglomerates that are all chasing for the Upgrade in Pyrimidical control?


They have been like Plastic surgeons in this respect. Gutting out the inside and leaving just enough outside to give an Appearance. Everything has or is on its way to Centralization, singularization of the Civil social system. We are literally a push of the button away from total restructuring, but thats the gun to our heads, while they inch up their way closer....


You would think they would be inviting this type of Scrutiny, or maybe getting their side of the story out is Taxing enough? They have no time for such questions?

You should know better than to limit the possibilities to either A or B. There are many other explanations, including the one I think most likely, which is that even journalists are subject to the brainwashing that we are all exposed to constantly. No one has the perfect discernment to recognize the truth from the lies in our current environment of incomplete and faulty information.


Hopefully now you can see that your conclusion is faulty because your premise is faulty.


That's ridiculous logic. In a world of propaganda, how can anyone know which numbers are accurate?

Really UncleZook! I can hardy believe that someone with your obverse superior discernment can bear to be among us mere mortals!

I will be addressing your complete post when time allows, but before I can treat anything you post here with any credibility I believe you should respond to an earlier post of mine, "To wit":

OK, decided to have a quick look at UncleZook's post!

This is what UncleZook wrote:


This is what Robert Fisk said:



To be continued...

I do know better ... which is why I only address the probabilistic possibilities, not the improbable ones. Let me illustrate the four basic possibilities:

1. idiot with idiocy (natural state)
2. idiot with prescience (exceptional case)
3. prescient with idiocy (exceptional case)
4. prescient with prescience (natural state)

Your claim of brainwashed journalist - in our case a highly respected MSM journalist - falls under category 3. Yet you think this is a highly probable case when the reality of prescient with idiocy is very low. Your claim is even more absurd because 9/11/2001 is directly linked, indeed, the root cause of Fisk's employment in Iraq. If someone is investigating the War on Iraq with any degree of credibility, he is expected to understand all the dynamics leading to the war ... that is ... unless he is a gatekeeper working for a preconditioned narrative.



Hopefully you now see the vacuity in your assumption of brainwashed esteemed journalist being a probable one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties
beginExcerpt

The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).

The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).
end

The Lancet journal quotes a range between 390,000 and 940,000 excess deaths (in the 40-month period immediately after invasion). This corresponds to 175,500 minimum and 423,000 maximum. The mean of this range is 299,250 or approx. 300,000.

What is ridiculous, Chico ... is your prevarication about this point when it is understood that only rough numbers are available. In the rough numbers scenario, it is Fisk's word against the Lancet journal's research. Fisk estimates a very low number of approximately 150,000 excessive deaths (and leaves a bit of wiggleroom - in case his gatekeeping is exposed - by suggesting that the numbers are much larger) ... 150,000 for the most intense period of casualties (e.g. in the immediacy of the invasion)?? If anything, the front end of the contrived war, e.g. when Saddam was still alive, would have absorbed a bigger chunk of the 390,000 to 940,000 range than the back end. As it is, Lancet estimates 175,500 as the minimum number in the narrative of a constant death rate.

Fisk made his comments in 2010, so he must've been aware of the Lancet report ... the other option for him, of course, is to deny knowledge of it. After all, denying knowledge of 9/11/2001 appears to have garnered him support amongst those who want to believe in fairy tales, not least the tall tale of a Hamilton-Byrne cult allegedly independent genius hacker who had received access to a turnip truckload of documents which he proceeded to release them into the public domain on the turtle express. Documents whose releases were time-stamped to fit the agenda of the Rothschild brand. Indeed, a quick qui bono on the released documents further entrenches the argument of a Rothschild brand alphabet soup scam. It just happens to be America's turn to be brought down now ... and the power pyramid is preparing Americans by revealing corruption at the top of the American political machine, so that the Americans will buy into the takedown in advance of the global new order centuries in the making (if one counts the founding fathers/schemers of a bankster empire bearing the pet name Zion).

Zion, not for Jews ... but for a handful of gangster bankers and their minions appropriating the Jewish identity for themselves and using it as an ethnic shield ... then adding on other ethnic identities as time marched on. Today, the Kingdom of Zion is at home in Saudi Arabia as it is in Russia or India or Japan ... or in music of Ethiopia (where by the Rivers of Babylon they sat down) ... and for sure in Israel, the virtual estate built of the Rothschild brand, by the Rothschild brand, for the Rothschild brand. And you can easy become a member of this brand, by doing their bidding ... as Assange has done ... as Fisk has done ... as Pilger has done ... as our own resident bugger and buggering banana is trying to do. Zionism belongs to all races and creeds today ... for all races and creeds have the burden of their own bankster mindsets to bear. Zion is the big syndicate tent under which thieves from sundry lands gather ... and honor themselves.

ps: Sorry for that slight detour onto another topic, Chico ... but the full narrative required it.

Well, that explains it then!

You are my friend, Zook. I think it would be cruel to deconstruct this argument, so I'm not going there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties
begin Excerpt

The Lancet surveys have triggered criticism and disbelief from some journalists, governments, the Iraq Body Count project, some epidemiologists and statisticians and others, but have also been supported by some journalists, governments, epidemiologists and statisticians.
end Excerpt

I seem to recall that you have been a vocal critic of Wikipedia, an alleged Rothschild instrument of misinformation and propaganda, and yet you don't hesitate to use it as an authority when it suits your purpose. This is puzzling.

As you can see from the highlighted section that you did not quote, the Lancet survey has triggered criticism and even disbelief across a broad spectrum of organizations. And yet you think these quoted numbers seal your argument that Fisk is a deliberate gatekeeper for the PTB?

Can you not see how weak your argument is?

I guess I'm not going to get any "response for UncleZook", of the civil kind that is anyhoo, no big deal, although I am tiring of his constant mendacity and it's probably time anyway to write him off as a _____________________ (will leave it up to the individual to fill in the blank here and I'm sure readers here who know me even a little can figure out what I would put there)

So, for anybody out there still interested at trying to find the bottom of this muddy hole:

Never let friendship get in the way of a logical argument between equals, my friend. Extend charity only if you believe you are arguing with an inferior and see the wisdom of leaving the candy with the baby.

Myself? I consider you an equal so please don't deprive me of the opportunity of punting you through the logical uprights from 50 yards out ... 60 yards in mile high air.


FWIW, I was giving you the basic model. The comprehensive model includes the class of average men alongside the classes of idiotic men and prescient men ... and the rule of the mean over the outlying exceptions of idiocy and prescience. In which case, the journalist in question (Fisk) should be considered for the extra option of being average. However, since the average man/journalist can see through the neoArabian tall tale of Osama bin Baba and Nineteen Saudi Sheiks armed with boxcutters and a bottled genie who, at the desired time, would be uncorked to grant three wishes, one for each building that would fall into its own footprint at free fall speed ... the point being, had Fisk just been an average INVESTIGATIVE journalist, he would've stumbled on the hard truths of 9/11/2001 as many average men and women have done in the ten years since, and especially in the four to six years since the release of Loose Change.

So, as a friend, Chico ... I implore you to cease your prevarication and apologism on behalf of a scoundrel journalist before it diminishes your own credibility. I say scoundrel journalist because I concede that Fisk is above normal intelligence, indeed, that he belongs to the prescient category. In short, I modified the comprehensive model to the basic model without loss of meaning. A prescient ignoramus is an oxymoron, you will agree ... yet that is exactly what Fisk would have us all believe.



Only puzzling if one desires to fall off the turnip truck before it finds a pothole. Maybe you should audition for the Flying Wallendas, my friend ... there's little money in the circus, granted ... but the female acrobats make up for the difference. FWIW, the Lancet Journal is independent of Wiki and remains independent even if Wiki alludes to it. To wit, an idiot can point to a library without getting the benefit of its knowledge.

I merely cited Wiki because it was one of the first sites to pop up ... and genuine truthseekers should not waste too much energy on pursuits that have little benefit to the human race. Fisk is a minion in the Rothschild brand ... but there are millions of minions. Should we waste energy on all the minions? You're a computer guy. Brute force algorithms are the least efficient, wot?




I see Fisk in preponderance. His support for Wikileaks and Assange is another part of the preponderance. His comments on 9/11/2001 and "imaginary conspiracy"remark is yet another part. His great acclaim in MSM circles is further circumstantial evidence of his prejudices ... ye shall know them by the friends they keep, that sorta thing. See how the evidence builds into a crescendo of conviction?

ps: Gatekeeper Andy brings your integrity down (by association), Chico. I'd like to think that my association - among others - helps bring it up again. We don't belong in a vacuum. We are all interconnected. The wisdom is in choosing our voluntary connections wisely.

ps2: Which is why Gatekeeper Andy seeks me out even as I choose to ignore him ... oh, I will interact with him from time to time, all right ... but on my leisure. You see, I reject Andy's association because of the reason I just mentioned ... I don't want to lower my own integrity by chatting it up with a banana in the bankster's duty.

My credibility is judged by my own behavior, which is mostly under my control. I'm not worried about my association with the ideas of other humans, including those you have judged to be "scoundrel journalists". An open mind entertains all ideas, regardless of the source.


That's not the point. The point is that the information presented by the Lancet Journal is highly questionable, to say the least. Your argument relies on that highly questionable information, which makes your argument highly questionable.


Everyone that uses money can be considered a minion of the Rothschild brand. Your condemnation of one journalist or one forum member for such flimsy reasons condemns yourself and your entire species.


More like the crash of a mental breakdown. Your argument centered around "the company you keep" is full of broad exceptions. It's not some immutable law, as you like to infer. That's why your argument has such weak legs and continually falls down.


Even here you contradict yourself blatantly. "We are all interconnected." So we are all associated. Yet you claim my integrity is dependent on my associations. Hogwash.


Yes, I do see. Do you? Your integrity is dependent on your behavior, and that behavior is becoming more and more transparent, I'm sorry to say. But people can improve.

John Pilger defends WikiLeaks & Julian Assange




Wikileaks Is A Rothschild Operation: Rothschilds Use Wikileaks To Wound Rival Bank, Julian Assange’s Bail Posted By Rothschilds’ Sister-in-law, Many Other Links

Wikileaks' leader Julian Assange accepts a CD from Rudolph Elmer which reveals tax evation by wealthy clients of Swiss Bank Julius Baer, a rival of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland.

After being made famous, Julian Assange’s first task is to wound a rival bank of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland. The rival is Bank Julius Baer, the top Swiss bank for centuries: the competing Rothschild Bank AG opened in Switzerland in 1968.

On January 17, 2011, Assange held a press conference at The Frontline Club where Rudolf Elmer, a former employee of Bank Julius Baer, gave Assange private files from the bank’s Cayman Islands’ operation. Elmer said he wanted to expose mass tax evasion before he flies back to Switzerland to stand trial for stealing information from a bank. Although Elmer has not named the tax evaders, he claims the CD files contain information about 40 politicians, many business people, multinational conglomerates and “people who have made their living in the arts.” [read more...]