Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Lies and Deception (The Truth)


How do you define a lie? If a lie is just a lie, why do so many people believe in them? Can't they think for themselves? Why do people become so reliant on liars to justify their own existence? If it is a matter of misinformation or being not well-informed, one could excuse himself for being wrong. But what if he knew it all along and he just can't accept it? If it was the blinding luxury that comes with the lies, one would understand the position of the liars, but what about their believers? What's in it for them? The satisfaction of being proved to be on the right side of the gutter?

We can evaluate things around us objectively, regardless of experience and knowledge, prejudice aside of course.. Watch the people involved in the real world drama of good versus evil. Their behaviours, hesitations and wrath would be good indicators of who they really are. And hopefully, in the end of the day, we would see the true person in the mirror, staring deeply into our own eyes.



  1. A question: Do you beleive these posts are tuth or example of lies?

  2. They are the truth of a thousand truths. But these truths are irrelevant to a majority of the people of the world. Most are too afraid of their own shadows. Some indulged themselves in complacency. Life is definitely short, so most have chosen the way of playing it safe. It's not happening to me. I don't have to get involved. We can't change the world; we have better things to do. Some set higher standard for themselves to shield themselves from the truth and setting rules and regulations to confirm their status (to avoid being proved as otherwise is more likely), but it is understandable. Without the lies n hate, they are nothing.

  3. Sorry, I think I was unclear. I should have said "links", I meant do you beleive the things you linked to are true?

  4. The Invasion of Gaza: "Operation Cast Lead", Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda
    by Michel Chossudovsky
    The Zionists are so clever that they are convinced, so convinced that the important groups manipulated by them will never acknowledge and discover their true faces. They were dead wrong.

  5. More recent,

    The Political Economy of Israel’s Occupation: Repression Beyond Exploitation
    Review of Shir Hever's Book
    by Alex Snowdon


  6. Breaking the silence,

    Breaking the Silence: Israeli soldiers 'used human shields' in GazaSheera Frenkel in Jerusalem

    Israeli Women Soldiers Break the Silence
    by Ira Chernus

  7. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

    "Breaking the Silence:" Testimonies of Israeli Soldiers
    by Stephen Lendman

  8. For all Americans out there,


  9. Yes, Foolster41, unless you have links that can prove otherwise, unbiased of course.

  10. How would you define Unbiased? I have a feeling anything I present you will call "biased". How can you show that these links aren't in themselves biased? None of these are any mainstream news source.


    Despite what a naiton does, to say it has no right to exist is disgusting. I suppose by your own logic then Iran has no right to exist? Palastine? They are doing far worse to non-beleivers and promote genocide against Jews. HAMAS has been targeting civilains and hiding behind civilians, and so when Isreal fights back, to prevent more of their cvivilians dying from a regime that has stated they wish to comit genoicde against Jews they are made out to be the bad guys.

    Of course, they should go to the UN right? That's what you suggsted before. Even if they have shown to not care to help them. "What's the rush?" (You own words), right Szri? Their only jews after all.
    Blech. Sick.

  11. Sample of unbiasedness.

  12. He doesn't hardly hit hard enough on her, and even defends her towards the end Also he wrote an article even defending her, and I don't see anyone giving a opposing view. How in the world is this "unbiased"?

    He never answers some of the untruths of hers, such as the '67 borders being the only real line (Isreal didn't attack first, and so has every right to have that land), on the Jews' right Jeruselum (it was being inhabited by Jews for centuries), or the implication that Isreal is "occupying" Palastine, when Hamas is the one attacking Isreal (with intentions to kill all Jews) and Isreal is defending herself. How is allowing lies to pass unbiased?

    "Reconized by truman at 3 in the morning when the Zionist went knocking." In defending herself against a charge of anti-semetism, she makes another anti-semetic statement! You'll notice when asked whether Isreal has no right to exist, she says America actknowledged Isreal, but she never does get around to answering the question. Again, the host if he was "unbiased" journalist should have pushed her until he got a "yes" or "no", but let her go easy.

    Helen Thomas was rightly retired when she made a anti-semetic statement that Jews have no right to their homeland. It was never about people claiming she was saying Jews should go to death camps, as she tries to make it sound like she was misinterpited as saying. It wsa about the obvious implication of Jews getting out of the reigon (which they have a historical right to). It was perfectly clear in the words she said, she wasn't "misinterpited".

    She claims she was "ambushed" but not once does the interviewrer point out that ambushed or not is no excuse for making rascist statements. And simply asking a question is not an "ambush". Instead, the interviewer allows her to paint herself the victem.

    This though seems to go with your worldview where Isreal has no right to defend herself ("What's the rush" you say as Jewish citizins die) at the hands of genoicidal terrorists who want to wipe Isreal off the map. (Who you praise).

    You've exprssed aproval for and downplayed the effects of Islamic Supremism (such as blasphamy laws), you've shown support for terrorist, genocidal and islamofascist regimes (Iran, Hamas) as "very good", and have shown you'd rather pretend my sources don't exist instead of ansnwering them. I don't see how we can contenue discourse when our ideas of good and evil are so different.

    You claim to be for truth, but in reality any source presented from someone who disagrees with you, you knock down as "biased" so you can declare yourself the victor. This is dishonest and hypocritical of someone who claims to be against lies.


Do comment with your open heart n mind.