Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Spare a thought for Bradley Manning this Christmas!

December 19, 2010, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

20 December 2010 | Permalink | comments: 6

and for each unharmful gentle soul misplaced inside a jail
...we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing
- Bob Dylan


As we go to air, the Wikileaks controversy continues to dominate the news, and we turn now to look at broader issues around the leaked material.

With the focus entirely on the personality and legal debacle of Julian Assange, the embattled whistle blower and arguably greater victim in all of this is PFC Bradley Manning, who has been locked in an isolation cell for the past seven months under extremely restrictive conditions which amount to torture. He is prevented from exercising in his cell and has been forcibly medicated with anti-depressants.

Bradley Manning is accused of being the source for the leaked Baghdad "Collateral Murder" video which thrust Wikileaks into the international spotlight in April 2010.

Meanwhile, there are ongoing questions regarding the integrity of Julian Assange because of his sweeping dismissal of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here are his exact words as transcribed by Matthew Bell of the Belfast Telegraph on 19 July 2010: "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.".

Michel Chossudovsky has probed into the origins of Wikileaks and observes the following:


Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to America's elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change" and fostering "color revolutions" in different parts of the World.
- source

Today we welcome to the show veteran broadcaster and media professional Anthony Lawson to discuss these matters and more. Anthony recently posted a video on youtube highly critical of Assange, suggesting that "if Julian Assange did not already exist then the CIA and Mossad would need to invent him". This viewpoint, which is shared by a variety of independent researchers, stems from the observation that the bulk of material leaked seems to prop up US foreign policy objectives while leaving Israel completely untouched.

Anthony pulls no punches in this interview, so fasten your seat belts folks!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TheJPboU4c

It is our opinion nonetheless that the case of PFC Manning is a clear instance of a genuine whistle blower risking his career for the sake of transparency, justice and freedom.

Wishing you the very best of Christmases from the crew at TNRA, may we suggest you also visit the Bradley Manning support network where you can leave a donation for this brave young man.

Related Links:

Comments

[...] View original post here: Truth News Radio Australia » Spare a thought for Bradley Manning … [...]

By Truth News Radio Australia » Spare a thought for on 2010 12 21 - 02:14:42

This is bold text

By Hereward Fenton on 2010 12 29 - 00:09:35

Well, I have to say that what Anthony was saying about Julian not touching 911 does sound a bit suss to me too. I would really hope not but this does seem more and more like another hoax, swindle, a distraction to our real issues.

Could this be another bull shit distraction like global warming? Who knows. I really hope not.

Great show, keep it up.

By Shaun on 2011 01 04 - 23:27:53

The other half of this story is that Bradley Manning is a homosexual gay activist. Who broke up with his boyfriend and had huge chip against the US Army policy of Don’t ask don’t tell (D.A.D.T.) and thus leaked the data base out of contempt. He is not the gentile soul and freedom warrior he is made out to be in the general media. He was without doubt depressed as shown in his blogs, and thus was put on medications and minimum bedding due to been on suicide watch. see Wikileaks Leaker an Angry and Confused Soldierhttp://www.pittsreport.com/2010/11/wikileaks-leaker-an-angry-and-confused-soldier-what-one-homo-has-already-done-to-the-us-military/
I believe this story has political motives from the US government as well.

By Blackregiment on 2011 01 05 - 01:46:47

Have a wonderful holidays and a great year coming in.
Warmest Wishes!!!


Winter boots Women

By Justin Bibier on 2011 01 15 - 18:32:07

They did invent Assange, MK cult child.
Research his family.

At least he exists.  Bradley Manning is fictitious.
http://wellaware1.com/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-busted/

Joyce Riley, “The Power Hour” has interviews.
http://thepowerhour.com/past_shows.htm

By Gregor on 2011 09 13 - 06:24:10

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.

By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 04:26:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?

I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.

If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.

As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 22:40:05
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

another good example of free speech being stifled was something that you touched upon in this episode, and that was the example of julian blanc being refused entry into the country.

this guy, mr blanc, posted some pretty stupid stuff on facebook, however im unsure as to whether he did anything that really justified him being refused entry into the country. apparently he advocated violence against women by posting a graph on fb that showed how abusive men control women and he had some gambit he was running that involved putting your hands around a womans throat. im not quite sure what that was all about, but the idea that you would be able to just romp around choking women without getting your ass kicked by white knights is pretty stupid. if the man was an abuser, then how did he get a visa? it doesn’t take much to get put on an assault charge, especially against a woman

ironically, some of his students where assaulted by feminazis in the protest against him

regarding islam, only one religion has a figurehead who was without doubt, a warlord. Most non mulslims who defend islam dont know anything about the religion.

Do you have any idea about the military conquests of the first muslims? Do you know about the verses in the koran that directly call for violence? Do you know how many men where decapitated by mohammeds army? do you know how many surrendered men or non combatants where decapitated by mohammeds army? how many women where raped? how many people enslaved or forced to live as second class citizens by the first muslims?

when you do an episode on this, please directly answer these questions

also, the charlie hebdo cover says, ‘massacre in egypt, the koran is shit’ it doesnt stop bullets’. it doesnt just say the koran is shit

 

By rattus rattus on 2015 01 27 - 21:51:15
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think “raising important concerns” about Islam implies that I or anyone think that 1.6 billion Muslims are flawed or evil, but I certainly think there is evidence enough to demonstrate (by our standards at least) that their religion is definitely flawed and evil. I suggest you read the Koran and tell me how this medieval mind muck is of benefit to mankind in the age of quantum physics. One need only look at how most Islamic countries are governed, which, to my understanding of the word, are evil and backward. I think Muslims have a different understanding of the concept : “evil”...For example, the penalty for apostasy (changing religion or opting out of “the religion of peace” is death; the penalty for homosexuality is often death (beheading) torture, mutilation and or imprisonment; Women are often stoned or killed by their parents - usually father - for not wearing the veil; women are second class citizens; children as young as 6 can be married ( but its not OK to have sex with them until they are 9 ); women are stoned to death for adultery; thieves have their hands cut off, and any criticism of the Prophet is usually punished by intimidation, death or mass murder…and its all there in the Koran, page after page. Then we have the wholesale slaughter of villages in Africa, and terrorist attacks happening almost everyday in many Muslim and non-Muslim countries.Meanwhile, in WA, some self proclaimed Sydney cleric wants to build an “army”  And if ordinary Australians express their concern when it starts to happen over here, they are branded as racists and homophobes. I don’t think so.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-cz9RN35k&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 27 - 21:18:41
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

When you say “raising concerns” it sounds harmless enough, but you are implying that a whole class of people who make up 1.6 billion on this earth are somehow flawed or evil due to their religion. This is the epitome of intolerance. Many Muslims are intolerant also, agreed. Is the answer to then become intolerant of all Muslims?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 14:55:44
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I think free speech implies that you have something to say, calling someone names isn’t free speech. Free speech is being free to question the dominant narrative. And we are certainly not free to do that. Anyone who questions the religion of climate change, or the six million Jews died in concentration camps argument are called a “deniers” and anyone who raises important concerns about Islam is called “Islamophobic, although their phobia (fear) may be justified. There are many other examples which are too obvious to mention. But you get the picture.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 26 - 19:30:22
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

the lies are OBVIOUS!
http://www.sandyhookjustice.com/
fenton is a moron.

By yuhguy on 2015 01 26 - 10:25:22
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

fenton lies about the obvious, and thinks he is being clever??
nothing wrong with sandy hook, nothing wrong with the pentagon, and nothing wrong with chemtrails.

you need to retitle your pathetic blog you pathetic liar.

By jklm on 2015 01 26 - 10:22:57
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

Link to freeze point table is broken by comment formatting. Paste the whole next line to browser:

dimitrxe.pp.fi/pub/pol/chem/pages/Persistent Contrail.html

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 06:11:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett wrote:

“You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them.”

Are you saying you have not checked the references I provided?


“Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point”

Again you are ignoring saturation with respect to ice which is not the same as saturation with respect to water. You want to look at the frost point, not the dew point.

Supersaturation with respect to ice can be reached at RH levels of 70 percent and less. Have a look at this table - are you saying it’s wrong?


“The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time”

You are leaving the ground of school-grade chemistry. I have already provided you twice with the chemical equation for kerosene combustion in a jet engine.

For the third time:

2 * C12H26 + 37 * O2—-> 24 * CO2 + 26 * H2O

By the way, here is the benzene combustion in your car - every time the engine runs it creates water:

2 * C6H6 + 15 * O2—-> 12 * CO2 + 6 * H2O

In case you did not notice, the H2O molecules are water. Which is newly created by the combustion.
Again, not my invention, it’s basic chemistry. If you’re saying these equations are wrong, then where are your’s?


“If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist”

That’s not what you have claimed. You described a contrail at around 10 degrees above the horizon and said you determined the altitude to be 10000 feet - with your bare eyes. You did not mention any plane.

Here is what you wrote:

“[...] I took 4 [photographs] today at midday showing two distinct chemtrails at about 10,000 feet near our home at Enoggera near Brisbane, which were about 2,000 feet above some scattered fair weather cumulus cloud”

I had provided a reference to a scientific study that determined the maximum distance for stereo viewing at 160 meters. I won’t quote it again, it’s all on the previous page.

Bottom line is that you have not shown how you could determine the altitude of these contrails as 10000 ft with your bare eyes. Do you know of any other pilot who would believe you?

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 05:32:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories