This story out of Ottawa. Paul Martin fired a fellow Liberal Member of Parliament for her controversial, televised anti-Bush demonstration.

Yahoo! Canada News story found here... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041118/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_col&e=2

This story out of Ottawa. Paul Martin fired a fellow Liberal Member of Parliament for her controversial, televised anti-Bush demonstration.

Yahoo! Canada News story found here...



Another "lap dog" prime minister I presume?

Another "lap dog" prime minister I presume?


Naturally.

One thing not said here is that Parrish was quoted as saying she didn't care if her leader lost the next election, or non confidence vote.
That was the main reason for her dismissal since in a minority situation 'party discipline is very in portant since failure to vote with the party could lead to the government falling.  If Parrish has an issue with the leader it's better dealt with out of the public eye.
Parrish while I agree with her views concerning Bush (as do about 65% of the country) uses methods that have lead to her being kicked out of the party and thereby denying her constituents the representation they would have with a government member.

About time she was sacked!

I wonder if anybody caught the program last night on Anti-Americanism?

It was quite fascinating.  And some of the things they brought up really opened my eyes.

It seems that over half of Canadians think America is a force of evil in the world, and that the French and Germans agree with them.  And that there is a large number of people on both CBC and BBC claiming that 9/11 is a hoax.

I tell ya, things like that make me relook our "open border".  If the majority of our neighbors think we are a force of evil, maybe it is time to close that border and restrict who comes over it.

And we can also cut off our imports.  Last I heard, we are the major importer of Canadian products.  We can also stop importing goods from France and Germany and other countries who think we are "evil".

Now before anybody takes that last post to serously, that was made in satire.

But don't think that there are NOT a lot of people thinking that way now.

One thing people have to remember is that things have consequences.  When the CBC allows airtime to somebody who thinks that 9/11 was a plot conducted by the Bush administration, people start to believe it.  When the press goes on and on about how Evil we are, people start to believe it.

So do not be surprised when people stop sending their money North either.  Don't bitch when tourists stay away, and go to more "American friendly" places.  France already saw that, with a large drop in American tourism.

Myself, I am proud that we share the worlds largest unpatrolled border.  But there are people looking North now, and feeling uneasy at what they see.

I don't think that America is evil, it's just that I don't totally agree with what's Bush is doing, at the same time, Carolyn Parrish did alot to possibly destroy whatever relationship Canada has or may have with the States, my biggest fear is she was longer for longer and got Canada into more with the USA (or other counties), something major like closing borders could happen or perhaps even worse.

She also This Hour Has 48 Minutes (the Canadian version of The Daily Show) and was shown stepping on a George Bush doll with her foot.

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3dab2c67-d8aa-45d3-ba4d-a72901cf4a19

It's easy to blame CBC and BBC for foreign distaste for Americans, much easier than just admitting that we got ourselves into it due to our actions. Why should CBC deny airtime to someone simply because his views are unorthodox? CBC is not a puppet network for the government like some others I could name.

I wonder if anybody caught the program last night on Anti-Americanism?



I wanted to say something about it, but I doubted anybody else saw it.  John Gibson and Fox News NAILED it, it was such a case about what the BBC, CBC, and Al-Jazeera are saying.  You would never see that hard-hitting kind of stuff from CNN.  They showed the anti-American hate when Clinton was president as well, trust me, Bush is nothing but a scape goat for the hate that is going on now.

I'm getting the book now:  Hating America: The New World Sport by John Gibson.

I wanted to say something about it, but I doubted anybody else saw it.  John Gibson and Fox News NAILED it, it was such a case about what the BBC, CBC, and Al-Jazeera are saying.  You would never see that hard-hitting kind of stuff from CNN.  They showed the anti-American hate when Clinton was president as well, trust me, Bush is nothing but a scape goat for the hate that is going on now.

I'm getting the book now:  Hating America: The New World Sport by John Gibson.


Well, I knew it couldn't be PBS that was airing it....

Well, I knew it couldn't be PBS that was airing it....


Ahhh, so once again, the claim that since it was on Fox News, it was not real.

I suggest you check it out if you get a chance.  In it, John Gibson gave probably the first hard interview Barrie Zwicker ever experienced.

For those that do not know, Barrie Zwicker is the founder of 911inquiry.org, and one of the leading America haters in Canada.  He claims that 9/11 is a Bush plot, carried out by the CIA.  He also claims that Al-Queda is a paid stooge of the CIA.

When asked for facts, he could give NONE.  That's right, he has no facts.  His response is always "America has lied before, so it is lying now".  Some debate skill, right?  So while he appears regularly on CBC TV (and has his own show on CBC Radio), he collects money through donations and speaking these "facts" to the Canadian public.  But he can't give a single fact, just strings of inuendo.

Another person interviewed is Thierry Meyssan.  He is a French citizen, who wrote the book "9/11: The Big Lie".  His claim?  That 9/11 never happened!  He claims that there WAS no airplane to strike the Pentagon!  That's right, the US detonated a bomb, and nobody was killed.  The twin towers were destroyed the same way, and that the film of planes striking it were fraud!

John Gibson even asked Mr. Meyssan if he had read the 9/11 Comission Report, and he replied he had not.  But it does not matter, he continues to claim that 9/11 is yet another Reichstag fire, created by Bush in order to justify attacking Afganistan and Iraq.

Of course, Mr. Meyssan enjoyed the #1 best seller in France for 6 weeks, and is a regular guest on TV there and throughout Europe.  And a poll shows that a large number of them believe him!

But of course, it was reported on Fox News, so it could not be true, right?

YOu know, I do find one thing amazing.  I do not discount somthing because of it's source.  Yet, from the "Enlightened" people, I see that all the time.  Kinda makes you wonder.

I don't know why you guys are quoting the BBC as propounding the view that 9/11 was a hoax: I'm a regular BBC News, Newsnight (like the news, but more in-depth) and radio news viewer/listener and I've *NEVER* heard even a suggestion from them that this was the case.


Ahhh, so once again, the claim that since it was on Fox News, it was not real.
...
Of course, Mr. Meyssan enjoyed the #1 best seller in France for 6 weeks, and is a regular guest on TV there and throughout Europe. And a poll shows that a large number of them believe him!

But of course, it was reported on Fox News, so it could not be true, right?

YOu know, I do find one thing amazing. I do not discount somthing because of it's source. Yet, from the "Enlightened" people, I see that all the time. Kinda makes you wonder.

Problem is, that when a news source has put out as much biased crap as Fox undisputably has, when there really IS a wolf...

But millions of people out there believe Fox implicitly even when it is spouting stuff that is provablly untrue - which isn't all that different to people believing Meyssan because he's saying something they want to believe.

Another person interviewed is Thierry Meyssan.  He is a French citizen, who wrote the book "9/11: The Big Lie".  His claim?  That 9/11 never happened!  He claims that there WAS no airplane to strike the Pentagon!  That's right, the US detonated a bomb, and nobody was killed.  The twin towers were destroyed the same way, and that the film of planes striking it were fraud!




Have any of you seen this web page about the Pentagon plane strike?  this has footage from security cameras and things which does not show a large plane hitting the Pentagon.  Also, apparently, no wreckage was found.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

How can you expect anybody to believe anything Faux News puts out, even if it is true? They have tarnished their own reputation, I didn't do it. I think you would also do well to "consider the source" as they say, because it does matter. I don't think you'd be very likely to believe something that a known liar says. If Hitler told me that he actually did like Jews, I'm not exactly inclined to believe him. You defend Faux News constantly, when they themselves have some very unorthodox guests AND anchors. But at the same time you belittle CBC for allowing someone with some pretty unorthodox views to have some of their airtime. That's sort of hypocritical. Do you really think that the CBC takes the position that 911 was plotted by Bush? Do you really think that the French networks which allowed that author to speak take the position that 911 never happened? Or are they maybe, just maybe, trying to get everyone's side of the story, and not just the side that the government or the general consensus approves of? I know this is something very new and foreign to the world of American journalism, this 'objective reporting' business, but I think they have something going there.

Do I care that a lot of French people hate our administration? Not really, I hate it way more than they do because they are in my neck of the woods. If people are beginning to hate us it's our own fault for being arrogant jerks at every turn. We think the whole world is supposed to kiss our ass just because we are Americans... and when we find out that they actually don't like us we get whiney, and instead of looking at what might be wrong with us, all we want to do is beat them up.

Here's a newsreport for everyone... We didn't do $h!t to help the Europeans... our grandfathers did, we didn't. We're just here leeching off of wht they built for us, just like the Europeans leech off of what our grandfathers helped them to rebuild. We're all in the same boat, and equal players in the Western world. So stop acting like the world owes you something because your great-granddad fought in Normandy. This is the reason people don't like Americans, and it's a pretty unerstandable one. It's ego-check time. You're just as worthless as any Pole, Spainiard, German, or Dutchman.

How can you expect anybody to believe anything Faux News puts out, even if it is true? They have tarnished their own reputation, I didn't do it. I think you would also do well to "consider the source" as they say, because it does matter. I don't think you'd be very likely to believe something that a known liar says. If Hitler told me that he actually did like Jews, I'm not exactly inclined to believe him. You defend Faux News constantly, when they themselves have some very unorthodox guests AND anchors. But at the same time you belittle CBC for allowing someone with some pretty unorthodox views to have some of their airtime. That's sort of hypocritical. Do you really think that the CBC takes the position that 911 was plotted by Bush? Do you really think that the French networks which allowed that author to speak take the position that 911 never happened? Or are they maybe, just maybe, trying to get everyone's side of the story, and not just the side that the government or the general consensus approves of? I know this is something very new and foreign to the world of American journalism, this 'objective reporting' business, but I think they have something going there.

Do I care that a lot of French people hate our administration? Not really, I hate it way more than they do because they are in my neck of the woods. If people are beginning to hate us it's our own fault for being arrogant jerks at every turn. We think the whole world is supposed to kiss our a** just because we are Americans... and when we find out that they actually don't like us we get whiney, and instead of looking at what might be wrong with us, all we want to do is beat them up.

Here's a newsreport for everyone... We didn't do $h!t to help the Europeans... our grandfathers did, we didn't. We're just here leeching off of wht they built for us, just like the Europeans leech off of what our grandfathers helped them to rebuild. We're all in the same boat, and equal players in the Western world. So stop acting like the world owes you something because your great-granddad fought in Normandy. This is the reason people don't like Americans, and it's a pretty unerstandable one. It's ego-check time. You're just as worthless as any Pole, Spainiard, German, or Dutchman.


Here a newsflash for you: EUROPE HAS HATED AMERICA SINCE THE WALL FELL.  They hated us before that, but they knew America was the only ones saving their sorry as*es.

God will you please move?  If you hate America, leave.  Quit staying here.  I am so sick of the ''blame America first and for everything'' type of liberal that infest this country.  Next time old Kofi wants more money for AIDs in Africa, he sure as hell ain't going to turn to Europe.

Have any of you seen this web page about the Pentagon plane strike?  this has footage from security cameras and things which does not show a large plane hitting the Pentagon.  Also, apparently, no wreckage was found.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main


I'm not even going to bother.

Have any of you seen this web page about the Pentagon plane strike?  this has footage from security cameras and things which does not show a large plane hitting the Pentagon.  Also, apparently, no wreckage was found.


That site is nothing but a joke.  And there are 2 simple ways to refute it.

We have all seen video of the 2 planes that hit the WTC.  Both of those appeared to "eat the plane", just like the Pentagon.  In fact, other then the engines, there was almost nothing found of either plane.  And there are hundreds of different recordings of the 2nd plane, from many different angles.

And if the Pentagon was NOT struck by a 757, then where are the people?  Do you mean that the US Government somehow kidnapped a plane full of people, then killed them, just to cover it up?  Then turned around and crashed a military jet or commuter plane into the Pentagon?

That site is nothing but a joke.  And there are 2 simple ways to refute it.

We have all seen video of the 2 planes that hit the WTC.  Both of those appeared to "eat the plane", just like the Pentagon.  In fact, other then the engines, there was almost nothing found of either plane.  And there are hundreds of different recordings of the 2nd plane, from many different angles.

And if the Pentagon was NOT struck by a 757, then where are the people?  Do you mean that the US Government somehow kidnapped a plane full of people, then killed them, just to cover it up?  Then turned around and crashed a military jet or commuter plane into the Pentagon?


Don't you see?  The people who saw the planes hit the pentagon and the trade centers were all holograms.  And Bush is an evil genius, and dumb.

McDonald, Fox News is replaying the ''Hating America'' thing this Saturday or Sunday (can't remember which) at 9:00 PM eastern and again at 12:00 AM eastern, why not watch it?  Otherwise, don't comment on it.

And Bush is an evil genius, and dumb.

I don't remember anyone suggesting that Bush is an evil genius.  Dumb, yes... evil - has been said on occasion, but I don't go with that kind of language myself, but "genius"?  No, not Bush.

I don't fully understand why pictures of the bits of plane wreckage that must have been somewhere in the Pentagon haven't been released to quell these conspiracy theories, though.  Having said that, anybody who is capable of believing that two airliners flying into the twin towers was in some way a conspiracy with the US government is also quite capable of looking straight through any evidence of such produced.  Photos from the outside showing no 'plane is not, IMO, proof there was no plane there.


And if the Pentagon was NOT struck by a 757, then where are the people?

The plane must have crashed into the Bermuda triangle ;)

Ahhh, so once again, the claim that since it was on Fox News, it was not real.

I suggest you check it out if you get a chance.  In it, John Gibson gave probably the first hard interview Barrie Zwicker ever experienced.

For those that do not know, Barrie Zwicker is the founder of 911inquiry.org, and one of the leading America haters in Canada.  He claims that 9/11 is a Bush plot, carried out by the CIA.  He also claims that Al-Queda is a paid stooge of the CIA.

When asked for facts, he could give NONE.  That's right, he has no facts.  His response is always "America has lied before, so it is lying now".  Some debate skill, right?  So while he appears regularly on CBC TV (and has his own show on CBC Radio), he collects money through donations and speaking these "facts" to the Canadian public.  But he can't give a single fact, just strings of inuendo.

..


Check your facts Barry Zwicker does not have a CBC Radio show, a search of the CBC radio web site comes up with his name as a media critic and he commented on some mergers of large media companies.
Where do you get this stuff Fox?
Sure the guy may be an idiot on cetain subjects but how does his commentory on mergers reflect on 911 and the CBC?
Bill O' Rielly may be considered an idiot by many but he could be qualified to comment on how to do a successful television program whether you agree on his politics or not.

Alright, luckily Scopes, the myth buster, did something about the crap that a missile hit the pentagon instead of an airplane.  So for any people here wearing tinfoil hats, here we go:

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: FALSE

Example: (collected from the internet in 2002):  As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing! 

Origins: The 
notion that the Pentagon was not  damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."

Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:

1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:

"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pentagon.jpg

2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:

The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:

The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

View the photographs from CNN at the following link: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

Next question:

3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/trucks.jpg

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg

6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:


When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.


7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.

In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.

By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/obscure.jpg
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/obscure2.jpg

Link to the above article: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Other links:
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sperna/omgkool.swf
http://www.nixtro.com/pentagon121.swf
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

Where do you get this stuff Fox?



They don't.  I watched it and I don't remember Fox News saying that.  I think Mushroom himself wrote it, that or he maybe misheard something.

They don't.  I watched it and I don't remember Fox News saying that.  I think Mushroom himself wrote it, that or he maybe misheard something.


Thanks, I would really like to see that program, hopefully CBC will be picking it up on their Newsworld service soon.

They do a great weekly documentary show with programs from all sources which tries to give all points of view without commentary.

Check your facts Barry Zwicker does not have a CBC Radio show, a search of the CBC radio web site comes up with his name as a media critic and he commented on some mergers of large media companies.
Where do you get this stuff Fox?


http://911inquiry.org/

OK, I misspoke, he does not have his own show.  But he is on often enough, that he might as well have his own show.  And CUIT 89.5fm Toronto is a prominant sponsor of that same "9/11 Inquiry" website.

He also recieves a large amount of money, speaking about the "hoax".  The site even begs for "donations".  And notice that while he lists a lot of interviews proudly right on his website, the interview he gave to Fox was not listed at all.  Hmmm, maybe because it was the first one where he was asked hard questions, and challenged to provide proof?

http://911inquiry.org/

OK, I misspoke, he does not have his own show.  But he is on often enough, that he might as well have his own show.  And CUIT 89.5fm Toronto is a prominant sponsor of that same "9/11 Inquiry" website.

He also recieves a large amount of money, speaking about the "hoax".  The site even begs for "donations".  And notice that while he lists a lot of interviews proudly right on his website, the interview he gave to Fox was not listed at all.  Hmmm, maybe because it was the first one where he was asked hard questions, and challenged to provide proof?


Again it says right on the page quoted above CUIT is the university station NOT the CBC.
the universtiy stsaions all over N. America are famous for their disenting and sometimes 'crazed' viewpoints on certain topics but part of the mandate of those stations at least in Canada is to allow various viewpoints as long as they don't preach hatered.
Anyway if you read his references on the page they are along the lines of he was interviewed by.....and those poeple were most likely saying 'look at this idiot'.
Anyway I've wasted enough time on this except to say check your facts and quit claiming the CBC is supprting this kind of 911 denial.  They are first and foremost a news gathering service.

Have any of you seen this web page about the Pentagon plane strike?  this has footage from security cameras and things which does not show a large plane hitting the Pentagon.  Also, apparently, no wreckage was found.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main


Okay, so if the footage of the plane hitting was fake, how do you explain the countless witnesses?  Were there minds all controlled by the government to make them say and think they saw a plane on September 11th?

Here is a website you might REALLY enjoy, Karen: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

Here a newsflash for you: EUROPE HAS HATED AMERICA SINCE THE WALL FELL.  They hated us before that, but they knew America was the only ones saving their sorry as*es.

God will you please move?  If you hate America, leave.  Quit staying here.  I am so sick of the ''blame America first and for everything'' type of liberal that infest this country.  Next time old Kofi wants more money for AIDs in Africa, he sure as hell ain't going to turn to Europe.

McDonald is a keenly intelligent young man and I've never seen anything in what he has posted to suggest he hates America.  I assume he, like me, hates what the right-wing is doing in the name of America, and hates the vision the neocons have for America.    I know American citizens who are designing plans to leave America, some in my immediate family.  I have no intention of leaving because this is MY country, and it's not up to you to tell me I hate it. 
The object among my ilk has never been "blame America first," but rather to insist America take responsibility for its actions toward other nations, and make foreign policy choices that will not alienate our allies. 
If there is one thing America needs less than France, it's the f**king Bush Administration!!!

Ahhh, so once again, the claim that since it was on Fox News, it was not real.

I suggest you check it out if you get a chance.  In it, John Gibson gave probably the first hard interview Barrie Zwicker ever experienced.

For those that do not know, Barrie Zwicker is the founder of 911inquiry.org, and one of the leading America haters in Canada.  He claims that 9/11 is a Bush plot, carried out by the CIA.  He also claims that Al-Queda is a paid stooge of the CIA.

When asked for facts, he could give NONE.  That's right, he has no facts.  His response is always "America has lied before, so it is lying now".  Some debate skill, right?  So while he appears regularly on CBC TV (and has his own show on CBC Radio), he collects money through donations and speaking these "facts" to the Canadian public.  But he can't give a single fact, just strings of inuendo.


Whoa, whoa, whoa... did this programme actually suggest that the CBC(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is a forum for anti-US propaganda? That is completely laughable. I have watched evening newscasts on the CBC many times in the three years since 9/11, and I can assure you that I have never seen anything that could even remotely be described as US-bashing. In fact, the CBC's coverage of events has been impeccable.

I've never heard of this Barrie Zwicker(he must only be an occasional commentator on CBC tv and radio), but just because there's one nut from Canada who maintains some extremist positions, it doesn't mean the Canadian populace as a whole holds those views as well. That's like someone taking a look at Pat Robertson and coming to the conclusion that everyone in the United States is a raving, lunatic, religious fanatic.

And so what if the CBC occasionally has a commentator on that other people might find to be a bit of a goofball? Pat Buchanan, someone who has been known to spout anti-Semitic comments in the past, is a regular weekly guest on The McLaughlin Group on PBS; does that mean that PBS shares his extreme right wing views? And what about all the stations around the US who broadcast Pat Robertson's tv show? Are the people at those stations, like him, fundamentalist religious zealots?

If this is the kind of programming that appears on Faux News, then all I can I can say is, you can keep it!

Whoa, whoa, whoa... did this programme actually suggest that the CBC(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is a forum for anti-US propaganda? That is completely laughable. I have watched evening newscasts on the CBC many times in the three years since 9/11, and I can assure you that I have never seen anything that could even remotely be described as US-bashing. In fact, the CBC's coverage of events has been impeccable.


Yeah, but you're talking about what Don Rumsfeld might call "old news."  In "new news" ala FOX News, if you're not genuflecting to Dubya and singing The Star-Spangled Banana, You are a flag-burning terrorist lover!

There, Fox News is re-playing the 'Hating America' thing right now.  And they will re-play it again at 12:00 AM (in about 2 hours and 55 minutes) eastern.  Watch it, and tell me which part you believe to be BS.

And if you want to see how ''fair'' the BBC is, try: www.bbcwatch.com

And if you want to see how ''fair'' the BBC is, try: www.bbcwatch.com

I've just wasted twenty minutes of my life reading through some of this stuff, and come up with the conclusion that if this is the worst they can find on the BBC, then it's as fair and impartial as it's possible for a news agency to be: in effect, you have an admittedly partial pair of observers doing their best to trawl up as much proof of BBC bias as they can, and they're down to complaining about things done by Israeli troops as being described as being done by Israeli troops.

There is one occasion in recent memory where the BBC overstepped the mark and said something that while nearly true made implications which went beyond what was reasonable: the result, the journalist in question got the push, so did his editor... and so did the Director-General.  A bit OTT, IMO, but it does show that the BBC tries very hard to be scrupulously accurate.

Now, please try and make the same defence of Fox News - a source which REGULARLY broadcasts blatant lies.  There is no comparison, not even close.

McDonald is a keenly intelligent young man and I've never seen anything in what he has posted to suggest he hates America.  I assume he, like me, hates what the right-wing is doing in the name of America, and hates the vision the neocons have for America.    I know American citizens who are designing plans to leave America, some in my immediate family.  I have no intention of leaving because this is MY country, and it's not up to you to tell me I hate it. 
The object among my ilk has never been "blame America first," but rather to insist America take responsibility for its actions toward other nations, and make foreign policy choices that will not alienate our allies. 
If there is one thing America needs less than France, it's the f**king Bush Administration!!!


Why thank you Maxwell, you're a swell fella yourself.  ;)

It doesn't matter how hard the BBC or the CBC try to be impartial... the neocons will always call them biased liars because they report something that doesn't agree with the neocon worldview... a little something called the truth.

And only because I just thought of it, and I know it's a little late, but Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. And I seriously hope you were able to find something, at least one thing, to be thankful for.

It doesn't matter how hard the BBC or the CBC try to be impartial... the neocons will always call them biased liars because they report something that doesn't agree with the neocon worldview... a little something called the truth.

I know what you mean - I reckon that just because the Tory party over here have someone pretty much full-time analysing what the BBC says to check for bias means that they're so close to down the middle as it's not worth spending time quibbling over the difference.

But this point does need to be stressed in a world where millions of people choose to take the viewpoint of a Murdoch-owned rag and then assert that it has the same credibility as the real bastions of news reportage.