View Full Version : Ban Ki-moon: Itís Time to Confront the Israeli Gangsters

17th February 2016, 00:09
Wow... maybe Fullford is correct afterall.


be happy


17th February 2016, 18:28
Lucidity, would you please copy and post those things in the article that you might think we'd find backs your heading? I don't go to some sights anymore, especially VT.

(A little off topic, but regarding this source I don't go to sites that do so much to download crap into my computer. Tracking my browsing. Why? I don't agree to that.

I used to, like many others, go to VT until Gordon Duff admitted that a sizable portion of his reporting was disinformation, misdirect as a means of 'keeping himself alive'. He expects others to filter thru the disinfo he deliberately puts in to 'keep himself alive'. In fact there were a series of criticisms of him in the comment section of VT that lasted for months at a time and they were generally very healthy discussions at that.

That admission by him was quite dishonest in regards to the site's stated purpose because the site has put out a fair amount of truthful, verifiable, triple check facts dealing with the socio-corporate world.
Along the same lines, VT, the Activist Post site and a few notable others make it difficult to copy and paste, having filters installed that insist you sign up on their site or go to their advertising. The age of my computer system has the advantage of watching the large amount of advertisers and tracking sites that show their true reason for being who they are, where they are and this all deeply cuts into the credibility of the information they are posting.
As an example the last time I went to activist post to look at an article listed on david icke's site I had forgotten to block all cookies, which I normally do. In less than 1 second there were 143 sites tracking my browsing! Some sites sell their souls, despite the illusion that what they post is worthy of being called insightful. It also tells me something about the subject matter at hand and it's relative value to what really is worth spending time on. If they are so disrespectful of their readers (subscribers?) privacy what, in turn, is the value of what they deliver? )

With all of that said, this is why PAF is direct and honest in it's presentation and purpose. Here it is required that the source is listed under the video. This allows us all to copy the video without visiting the site and enduring all of the b.s. that they require as the price of admission to their 'truths'.
Interesting this, maybe I should add a new thread in the tapestry of the forum to learn more from our highly skilled members.....(I do have the instructions on how to do that....Thanks to admin. and the stellar folks here like Running Dear and Paul, Bill)

Thanks Lucidity !

17th February 2016, 18:56
Event though many people have communicated the degree of false info VT posts, Lucidity continues on. Wonder what she is getting out of it. But no worries. Be happy.

A Voice from the Mountains
17th February 2016, 22:04
In this case a check of the VT article's sources shows that this article is based on a CNN article that says the same things: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/middleeast/netanyahu-united-nations-terror/

Not that CNN doesn't spin things, but this should be something that would be easy enough to verify or contradict with UN officials had CNN fabricated the story.

When it comes to disinformation, everything is not black and white. There might be a kernel of truth in an article, or the thing might be totally false, or completely true. The issue is not with the source, I think, but our own ability to trace back sources and use discernment. Anybody can lie to you. It's not healthy to have some sources that you just blindly trust and others that you dismiss out of hand. That's not an effective way to assess the data you're seeing. The sources you trust can get things wrong or lie to you, and the ones you think are total disinfo might actually post articles that are factually correct.

We have to figure out how to separate information into three categories, regardless of the sources: probably true, probably false, or "I don't know." The article above is a case in point, regardless of the source.

18th February 2016, 17:10
Thanks for the replies. It was unlikely that Ban Ki-Moon said that, especially since there is ample evidence posted by the editor of VT to dismiss a large amount of the things they put on their site. The repetition there of such a lie is a joke and they know it.

As far as counting out the wide variety of possibilities concerning the veracity of a report, or intentional lack thereof, I am comfortable with having an experiential base for rejecting some sources, especially one as long as VT's. We all do this with sources we have found that lie. What we then do is ask why do they tell the lies they tell, this being more revealing sometimes than the lie itself. (Of course some at VT find it hilarious to play pranks. I don't find it funny at all since I have had some close friends and relatives who have paid the ultimate price while some play.)

When we begin to investigate anything factually based we develop our own methods of how deep and how many cross references we may choose to consider a "fact" verifiable. Initially, my studies in a couple of fields showed some remarkable quotes being spread around that came from just one source. When we see those repetitive quotes most of us see the source and the connections.

Our experiential 'bias' is based on the facts. ( I just noticed myself writing in a very P.C. way in deference to the truth of not dismissing every source having at least something truthful, being it the most minute of truths floating in a sewage pit of darkness. I'll put that in my 'at least hitler was good for the chocolate-makers', as he was a chocoholic, file. No insult intended.That's something for me to remember.) I wouldn't ever be surprised at the rounds source material makes when those who manipulate and lie are in the mix.

Any good teacher should teach discernment when using any search method, but especially when using the internet. The added benefit to such detailed discernment is the revelation of connected economic, political or social manipulation as to why something exists, a truth, a method, a product, a positive solution, or not. In fact, we are a classroom of such great discernment here, on and in this forum.

We all learned, and some of us recalled again, this method of covert manipulation when the talking heads in congress, in the admin. and in the corporate military repeated the same talking points leading up to the extended wars in the mid-east. It was so blatant that comedians would do a weekly skit spoofing the same line being said over and over by different politicians, etc., anyone who would find profit in the lies being told.

When some on this site followed Drake, it took me just a short read of his material to stay away from his talks. What did gather my attention was how the wide group of folks here came to a well-informed consensus about the dis-info being put out. There is so much to do, even if it is spending the valuable time we have making our personal singular lives rich in love and engagement with others, that I hold close the discernment of rejecting those things proven, to me at least, to come from dishonest sources. I'm okay with my outlook here. It is subject to growth with those who share, just as you have done with me.

A Voice from the Mountains
18th February 2016, 17:59
Thanks for the replies. It was unlikely that Ban Ki-Moon said that, especially since there is ample evidence posted by the editor of VT to dismiss a large amount of the things they put on their site. The repetition there of such a lie is a joke and they know it.

That is a far conclusion to jump to when the VT article is based on a CNN article that I linked to above, where they quote Ban Ki-Moon as saying the same things.

Ban, speaking with more candor than he has be known to use, condemned Israel's "settlement enterprise" in the West Bank, calling them "provocative acts" that "rightly raise fundamental questions about Israel's commitment to a two-state solution."

The enterprise he was referring to were Israel's policies in areas of the West Bank that is home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and in particular, reports that Israel approved plans for 150 new homes in "illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank" on Tuesday and claiming another 370 acres of land last week, Ban said.

"As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism," Ban said. "So-called facts on the ground in the occupied West Bank are steadily chipping away the viability of a Palestinian state and the ability of Palestinian people to live in dignity."


There are actually footnotes and references cited in the VT article. Though of course anyone could insert a footnote to a bogus article, if you had spent a couple of seconds scrolling down and then following up on the 1st source listed, the above CNN article, you'd see that this is something acknowledged by the mainstream. If CNN were to be making this up, I'm sure the UN has something akin to a press office that could be contacted for verification directly, if the primary source document or speech of Ban Ki-Moon saying this couldn't be found itself.

18th February 2016, 18:29
The inaccuracies, misrepresentations and omissions are all CNN's/Fox/BBC/MSM.
VT's reporting is way out in front in terms of accuracy.

So, what exactly did Ban Ki-Moon say ?
Does this correlate with that Fullford is saying ?
What are the implications ?

be happy


20th February 2016, 17:50
Lucidity, You are correct. I read the thread heading "It's Time to Confront the Israeli Gangsters" and incorrectly supposed that was the direct quote from Ban Ki-Moon himself. It wasn't. No one has quoted him yet. If you start an article wouldn't it be wise to directly quote him?

BsBray, Thanks for using the quote from VT wherein they stated their interpretation of Ban Ki-Moon's statements. I get it now. It would still be better for me at least to see the entire quote from BKM.

For me the gist of the article was a long overdue criticism of the state by BKM. Those who control world affairs have allowed the comment to exist. BKM's silence to crimes of state in the past and the blatant genocide committed by the racist state tell the truth of why such a statement is now allowed to be aired. My comment was ill-informed because it seemed that the thread heading was a direct quote. (I was able to speed read some of the cnn article before getting a pop-up warning about site usage which prompted me to close the window I had it in. My computer warns me when phishing sites are phishing and I close the window when that happens.)

Connected, as I have mentioned this before on this thread, but slightly off-topic warning:

Funny thing this, when I go onto this site, PA, all I get is a common projectavalon.net cache used to let me in. Bill and the site administrators have not sold my or anyone else's information to anyone else, and on some dishonest and greedy level any site that does, even if it includes almost all sites, is whorish and dishonest. Who would have thought that such a site as PA would be so honest? I WOULD AND I DO.

I'm not going to vt again, nor cnn. which I saw spreading lies in it's heydays of the 80's. They both, amongst some others, have lost credibility long ago for many of us who have some depth of experience to judge their writing against, let alone gordon's admission of lying. Just because someone tells the truth it does not ever give them any standing to lie. There is not a balance to the truth. I am just as alarmed at someone who never lies to me, who then lies once, as I am when someone admits to lying as a matter of course, giving us a percentage, like gordon's "30% of the time". Ignoring the fact that someone has said they lie more than once should give anyone who is looking for facts a factual reason to wonder about everything they print. I don't know anyone like that or anyone in print who has admitted to the high percentage of dishonesty that gordon has admitted to in print. Just for the pure factual reality of his statements I have to dismiss it. If any info is worthy I'll find it, or it will find me. No loss for liars.

None have posted the quote, as in your questioning listed above. We here as members of PAF ask this common courtesy of you. If it is your "agreement" to go to sites that have phishing as a major action and you want to have a discussion here, then I ask in courtesy that you directly quote your source material. If not, I'm okay with you expecting me to stay out of the discussion of facts I will not access, out of some personal integrity I hold myself to.
I will take myself out of this discussion when I finish.

I went to the cnn site and was quickly faced with a notice in a pop-up window that says just being there on the site means that I have agreed to the terms of service and the privacy policy. WTF!

Do you all like being tracked so much and have given up any semblance of privacy and this is okay with you? I do not agree. In a fraction of a second the cnn site had put 48 tracking sites into my browser. Wow! Would you have "agreed" to this 10 years ago? Do you not see the correlation to phishing and dishonest, manipulative or coerced "reporting"?
When did you NOT notice that along with the information we are receiving the creep into our world, our own private comments, our site visits, our spending habits, etc., etc., etc. was proving to us in the most direct way of the real intent of those who would 'tell us any truth'? The truth of any issue is not the reason for the article being posted when the entire site exists to spy on you, even if you have nothing to hide.

I will read Fullford's articles when he actively becomes a comedy novelist and not anytime before. I know where his strengths lie and it is my opinion that he should pursue writing comedic novellas. Otherwise, without a quote from him, even without the intrusion of "being tracked" (because some directly quote him here on PA), I cannot honor, as someone who may one day consider him an erstwhile friend, my duty to hold him to a higher standard, as good friends do.

I am happy.

A Voice from the Mountains
21st February 2016, 01:11
Does anybody know of a source that has gotten everything 100% right 100% of the time?

I don't think such a source exists. Instead of trying to find a "savior" of a source to put all of our faith in, until given reason not to, I think the better solution would be to train ourselves to fact-check every individual piece of information as far as we can, and sift through all sources in this way.