(Part 2) Best products from r/WikiLeaks

[Glenn Greenwald] (http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-ebook/dp/B00603PI3U/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370695247&sr=1-1&keywords=glen+greenwald) doesn't agree with you

This reminds me a lot of this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Novel-Adam-Fawer/dp/006073678X

Part of the idea is you cannot be certain of your reality, because you could be bipolar or something and therefore not know you're crazy, because you're crazy.

>The article provides no evidence, and little reason to suspect that this was the case... The article provides no evidence of this claim either.

But it does refer you to a book on Amazon with a Breitbart affiliate link[1] generating them referral fees for anything you buy after following the link.

Hmmmmm.

-----

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084?tag=breitbart035-20 , in case they change it.

This isn't by chance and it's not just the CF. Sadly this is the way the rich have stolen everything from the poor countries and even bankrupted them while helping them.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1526955599&sr=8-2&keywords=confessions+of+an+economic+hitman

Time to read a book.

Lets also not forget when Hillary was caught saying how Saudi Arabia and Qatar covertly support ISIS, courtesy of wikileaks.

>“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”
---

Your first source literally says that they are fighting each other but both focusing on smaller groups, which isnt surprising considering the sectarian nature of the war.

Would you like to explain why ISIS and Assad forces have been fighting over Palmyra for over a year now?


Your second source is a Saudi owned hit piece. As already established, Saudi Arabia has deep invested interests in the region, has supported salafi-Wahabbi extremists in the past, and is a country who even Americas top politicans know support these groups, but STILL give them massive arm deals!


Do you bother to follow the war closely? There is a massive amount of propaganda floating around, and you fell for it.

Democracy does need stability and education, but you should know that the UN mission was brought in to Haiti as a response to the rebellion that occurred after the twice democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide (elected in 1990 and 2000, here's the electoral data) was removed in a coup d'état (by rebels who carried US arms and had links to certain figures among the Haitian elite, linked to the Duvalierists) in 2004, and flown to the Central African Republic on an unmarked US airplane; the CAR has no diplomatic ties with Haiti, and Aristide's release was negotiated after a few tense days by Randall Robinson (he documents the negotiation in this book), US congresswoman Maxine Waters, and others. Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! went with them (see Democracy Now archives for coverage). When Aristide returned to the Carribean, the US state department threated any nation that accepted him with sanctions. As a result, he spent 7 years in South Africa in exile, and returned just a few weeks ago.

The thing is, the UN mission has not only brought cholera to Haiti, but was also used to carry out political assassinations (NSFL) in the uprising following the coup in 2004. This article also goes into the political assassination aspect a little as well.

It's a very very complex situation with a lot of messy history. Weirdly, the US is very close to Haiti, but there seems to be almost no coverage in US media of the culture, the issues, the history of US-Haiti relations.

So I actually encourage you to look a little more deeply into your assumptions about what the international community is doing in Haiti, and look into the history a little more.

There are books explaining how to handle a confrontational media. The one I read was "How to Sell Yourself" by Arch Lustberg. It had a chapter on dealing with the media. One of piece of advice I remember most is how to take a loaded question, and instead of answering it, answer the question you would have preferred instead. Here are some examples from the book:

>• "Why are you killing and maiming?"
>
>Becomes: “Tell me about your company's safety record.”
>
>• "Why are you ripping off the customer?"
>
>Becomes: "Tell me about your pricing policy."
>
>• "Why are you cheating our kids out of a decent
education?"
>
>Becomes: "Tell me about the progress the schools are
making."
>
>• "Why are you promoting a risky tax scheme?"
>
>Becomes: "What does your tax plan do for me?"


Here's a good example of how the media tries to get you to say something so it can be used in a headline the next day or twisted to look worse in a particular context.

>6. Agenda
>
>This can really be called “Persistence with a specific goal.” Instead of “let’s see where this will take us,” the agenda says “let’s get there at any cost.” The reporter is working to get you to make a specific statement. Your comments will help make the story “correct” from the reporter’s standpoint, give the story the right slant. In this case, the reporter’s need and goal is to get you to say it. This relieves the reporter of having to say it—you already did.
>
>Examples of “agenda”
>
>A reporter told me that her first Washington, D.C. assignment for a major television network was to interview a high-level government official who had just announced that he was resigning his post in the Nixon administration. The assignment editor told her, “Get him to say he’s leaving because of Watergate.” She described the interview to me and it went something like this:
>
>Q: Isn’t it true that you’re resigning because of Watergate?
>
>A: I’ve been working 16-hour days. I haven’t had any time for my wife and three young children. I decided that the time had come to be a real husband and father.
>
>Q: Well, but Watergate helped you reach that conclusion didn’t it?
>
>A: I was motivated by a need to keep my marriage together and to get to know my kids.
>
>Q: There’s a lot of talk that it was really Watergate. Didn’t it influence you in the slightest?
>
>A: My wife needs me. My kids need me. They’re the real reason I’m leaving.
>

>The reporter felt defeated. She had failed. She went back with her videotape and cried. She couldn’t force her editor’s agenda on the subject. The interview didn’t make it on the air. But consider this: Had the interviewee reacted in anger and said, “I’m not resigning because of Watergate,” the segment would have aired with the anchor saying, “Nixon aide denies resigning over Watergate,” then during the interview we’d have heard:
>
>Q: Isn’t it true that you’re resigning over Watergate?
>
>A: I am not resigning over Watergate.
>
>We’d have heard “resigning over Watergate” three times and that’s the weed the audience would be left with. Score one more for the press

http://www.amazon.com/How-Sell-Yourself-Techniques-Ideas-Your/dp/1564145859