Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
45
-
33
-
23
-
12
-
10
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
This was not a COURT case. She was a witness anyway. In a court case the prosecutor would have grilled Thomas (after Anita Hill had informed the prosecutor and they thought they had a case). And Anita Hill would have been grilled too IN COURT - not that SHE has to prove anything. - (The FBI did an investigation within a week or so - and there were no witnesses etc. so ...)
Here the threshold was different. It was obvious that it would be hard to prove or disprove he claims(the FBI did not produce anything in a short investigation - as was to be expected)
She did not come forward in order to have him prosectued or sued in a civil lawsuit a) not gonna happen w/o evidence and b) she might not even have wanted that WITH better evidence - BUT she also had strong reservations to let that man be a Supreme Court Justice
So this was about her being consistent, and the impression the Senators would FORM DUrING the investigation. As opposed to asking her in a way that showed they would not believe her anyway.
I think some of these men may have acted inappropriately towards females. But even if not: sexual harrassment and violence makes people deeply uncomfortable, especially when the accused is a person of power and status. They would much rather NOT believe her. Especially since she has much less power and influence. Even WITH evidence one can watch the apologists doing overtime. (did she provoque him, what was before, he slipped, he was drunk so it does not count, ...)
It is not necessary to openly display your disbelief WHILE you ask her. - Her doing this for revenge was a small !! possibility. But a person would have to be very petty, disturbed, mentally ill or vindictive, or attention seeking to pull off such a stunt.
Context matters: the Senators could hear her testimony for hours - did she ever sound deranged, an attention seeker, a sociopath that would not care to destroy the reputation of a good man ?
Did anything indicate that she had extreme political views that could lead to an outrageous lie ??? (the FBI looked into the case !). Did her professional life indicated pettyness or being mean or having a sociopathic tendency ?
Making that up would not only be vile, even sociopathic in that very public setting - it would also be reckles (for herself).
6
-
4 of 4 Austin Powers not James Bond - MI5 and MI6 are also acting rogue in Britain and completely messed up the handling and later abduction of an "asset", a Libyan and his pregnant wife. The man was in quick succession an asset, a target, an asset, then kidnapped and handed over for torture ….)
It was not only criminal and unethical, it was unprofessional, inconsistent, an abuse of power and foolish. Annie Mechelon tells on camera that some agents are quite "cavalier". - Would the spook agencies attract intelligent psychopathhs, wo enjoy to test the limits of their power ...
The Britis used the Libyan Islamists - likely to commit acts of terrorism, then they went after him - allegedly - for being a terrorist.
Never mind: how did they think THAT would help them with recruiting double agents and people to infiltrate such networks, especially at the higher ranks, people that are informed !
One day you work as mule or mercenary for the Brits, next thing they have you abducted and subjected to torture.
It had nothing to do with improving the security for the U.K.CITIZENS. They wanted to meddle with Libya.
Sick games of power being played w/o any accounability and financed by the taxpayers.
The abducted man DID have ties to terrorism - MI5 / MI6 used them for regime change - and he successfully sued the British government, anyway, and I think got a major financial compensation.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
2
-
John Kerry: Sep. 2016 UN assembly * New York: We wanted ISIS to become stronger in Syria, that would weaken Assad (and they would stay there and only terrorize Syrian civilians and all other religious and ethnic groups. The U.S. let them have the oil revenue in the occupied areas, it was sold to Turkey mainly, when the Russian airforce showed up in Syria, they ended that cozy scheme that was gladly tolerated by the U.S. / NATO.
It is not like Syria has a lot of territory (desert) and of course the jihadists and extreme jihadists like ISIS would spread from there and use the oil revenue for global recruiting and to expand into other countries in the region).
* in a meeting with the inofficial Syrian opposition and unnamed diplomats. (for -some details see New York Times article this was around Sep, 21 2020.
CNN and NYT got the curated "leak" (I do not think the audio of the meeting was made w/o Kerry knowing it) and the audio and of course knew what was expected from them - not to embarrass the Obama admin and by proxy candidate Clinton (a few weeks before the election).
So they did not mention the most remarkable things from that 38 minute audio. And at that point everyone expected Clinton to win, and she would likely escalate the covert regime change efforts in Syria. Only problem: the government would likely have retaken all of Aleppo before she would be inaugurated, and Obama and his cabinet was for the most part not interested.
Kerry mentions that in the 38 minutes audio - he and only a few others in the Obama admin would help the "opposition" more, but the majority did not want to.
But CNN had posted that audio on their website (underpaid intern ??) and someone of course downloaded it, they removed the audio later, but it is out there. (search for John Kerry We wanted ISIS to grow ...)
The story given out by the legacy media washow regretable it was that the Obama admin did not assist the "opposition" (read: jihadists and that includes the likes of Al Qaeda and even groups associated with ISIS). Which were loosing. It was clear that the government would retake the occupied part of Aleppo soon.
We were treated to "upcoming genocide in Aleppo" messages summer and fall 2016. "Last hospital in Aleppo" (and then another last one etc.)
No one mentioned this was EAST Aleppo the part that was occupied by several groups of very loosely cooperating jihadists (summer 2012 - Dec. 2016, it was officially taken over Dec. 22, 2016 so just before Christmas). And not even an expected Clinton admin could reverse that advantage.
Many groups explains why the civilians could not get out. Even if they had the money to bribe one group that got them only to the next roadblock where the next gang controlled their turf. The "rebels" could leave and get supplies in etc.
There were hospitals that could take in patients all the time in the OTHER part of Aleppo that was controlled by the government (and always had been).
Aleppo is the second largest city in Syria (after capital Damascus) has a lot of industry. It is also one of the oldest cities in the region. Lots of historic sites were destroyed.
But the civilians were not allowed to leave. The rebels would rather amputate than letting an injured person (a civilian not talkig about fighters) be transported into the area with hospitals. Difficult birth ? No leaving either.
(remember the intense propganda around the White Helmets ?? there is a reason THEY got so much money so fast by the Western governments. Even from some neutral countries, not only NATO member states. Let's not forget that Sweden, Switzerland are major ! weapons exporter
White Helmets were founded by a former British spook.
Sure the "rebel" held areas needed ambulance services and first responders and all of that, but they could have transported at least the bad cases outside of the area controlled by the jihadists if the government run hospitals functioned better (a humanitarian agreement could have been found. Or the Red Crescent / Red Cross, the UN or the Syrian gov. Rescue org getting such emergencies out. But that would have required safe passage for the ambulances and that was not possible - or intended.
It did not happen, of course not, the population was held hostage.
The government run services were not allowed and they would not have been safe. At all.
Indeed there were reports that those that existed in parts of the country were taken over if the jihadists got control in a territory. They seized buildings and equipment and in some cases the persons were brutally murdered. Then his became "White Helmet" ground (with all the ISIS insignia on the walls, there is footage from Aleppo. The White helmets stations were very frienldy towards the jihadists. Well everyone else would be executed, wouldn't they ?)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The military told Morales to get lost, which is a threat and a coup. And now it is confirmed (by the 2020 election that went the same way in the same regions) that the election result was perfectly plausible. The "protesters" were people that stood to gain from an UNDEMOCRATIC regime change, maybe the oligarchs hired someone, and it is highly likely that the U.S. played a part. The eager participation of the courtiers of the government (the "free" press) suggest that.
If you do not know anything about Morales you would have thought he is a brutal dictator (like in the many real dictatorships that the U.S. defends also against the oppressed population).
The "protesters" killed his Morales' dog, they burnt down houses, these were not low invome people acting out of economic discontent. Actually the lower class people had seen massive improvement and they could more or less stick to that because there was not the price drop like for oil (see Venezuela, Brazil).
The new government was brutal, far right, and incompetent.
They attacked (arrested, assaulted) his supporters and ONLY the ongoing (deadly) protests, and a longer general strike and shutting down the cities (for longer time) forced the government (formed by a party that had gotten less than5 % of the vote last time) to finally hold an election.
Which they lost - of course they did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 of 4 The occasional terrorist attack is not going to affect politicians or the members of the agencies. Even among the civilians who have no special protection and information: the number of deaths pale in comparsion to other deaths (car accidents, no healthcare, drug overdose, opiod crisis, gun violence).
The rare SPECTACULAR terror attack draws a lot of attention. The media likes to hype them up because it improves their ratings (much more than the common BORING causes of death) that are a realistic threat to citizens.
Terror attacks gives the state the pretext to funnel insane amounts of money into the agencies and even more so TO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS (surveillance). It is an excellent pretext to UNDERMINE the constitution and get the people used to accepting mass surveillance, warrantless searches, "terrorists" have to right to DUE PROCESS.
Will the government abuse these powers ... absolutely. Every group of people that has so much clandestine unaccountable power will. It is interesting that the ex agent talks about accountability. In the CIA - are you kidding me ???
In the end the critical citizen, grassroots are a threat to the establishment, Big Biz, politicians, the war machine. THE CITIZENS are a threat to power not the odd terrorists. The chances to be harmed by a terror attack are slim, and even smaller for well protected politicians.
But the chances that some nosy citizens expose corrupt politicians, military,..... There is real danger and it is a good thing to have excellent clandestine contacts to organized crime and thugs (under the pretext of gathering "intelligence"). It is excellent to not be restricted by the justice system, transparency, due process. Citizens will fall in line and occasionally someone has a "weird" accident, that is covered up. Most whistleblowers and activists will fall in line.
Massive spying gives leverage to blackmail politicians and activists. (On a sidenote: the FBI wiretapping Dr. King - he was a danger to power no doubt, and certainly completely law abiding and well within his constitutional rights. Criminals, the mafia, KKK, domestic terrorism ... forget about it they are no danger for the ruling class. On the contrary the powers that be will COLLUDE with them occasionally.
50 - 60 % of the CIA could likely be fired. The rest could be doing what the are supposed to do: provide "intelligence" for politicians to assess situations in other countries.
So: WHAT is going on in a country. But not: meedling in the affairs of other counties. No collusion with their most criminal elements. No entrapping of politicians in order to blackmail them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1