Someone posted a racist comment about Dr. Martin Luther King. My reply is below.
Steve in Vista said...
Noor, please let us be serious. The truth movement is forever being inundated by Zionist-racists and other racists who hate black people. To have this nonsense rigged up on King the night before he was assassinated and then have Dr. Abernathy supposedly cited as a source for this is absurd. We would have to see an interview with Dr. Abernathy on film where he backed this up before there could possibly be ANY credence to any of this. I am certain that will never happen. Another thing, Dr. Abernathy and Dr. King always were and remained staunchly pro-life. It was Jesse "which way is the wind blowing" Jackson who betrayed the Black pro-life movement. Furthermore, black abortion is part of the overall genocide that is abortion world wide and black abortion is also eugenocide - directing genocide against a particular group. The abortion murder industry is inundated from the beginning (Guttmacher and on) with Talmudic Jewry. What the genocidal Zionists are doing to the Palestinians is another eugenocide. It is obvious to me when there is definitely a whole host of virulent lies concocted in one to besmirch someone, who is at work there. Personally I don't see any difference between the Stern Gang and the IRA, either. They are both terrorists and trust me, the Palestinian cause and any other worthwhile cause, doesn't need either. Neither do ANY of us who desire truth.
Noor, please let us be serious. The truth movement is forever being inundated by Zionist-racists and other racists who hate black people. To have this nonsense rigged up on King the night before he was assassinated and then have Dr. Abernathy supposedly cited as a source for this is absurd. We would have to see an interview with Dr. Abernathy on film where he backed this up before there could possibly be ANY credence to any of this. I am certain that will never happen. Another thing, Dr. Abernathy and Dr. King always were and remained staunchly pro-life. It was Jesse "which way is the wind blowing" Jackson who betrayed the Black pro-life movement. Furthermore, black abortion is part of the overall genocide that is abortion world wide and black abortion is also eugenocide - directing genocide against a particular group. The abortion murder industry is inundated from the beginning (Guttmacher and on) with Talmudic Jewry. What the genocidal Zionists are doing to the Palestinians is another eugenocide. It is obvious to me when there is definitely a whole host of virulent lies concocted in one to besmirch someone, who is at work there. Personally I don't see any difference between the Stern Gang and the IRA, either. They are both terrorists and trust me, the Palestinian cause and any other worthwhile cause, doesn't need either. Neither do ANY of us who desire truth.
Steve in Vista said...The Justice of God: Christopher Bollyn: The following video explains the current situation in Syria and provides insights into how the protest movement may have been exploited to create an armed conflict, bringing the nation to the verge of a civil war:
It is the elites that censor things that reveal the truth. Let us who are of the day continue to go on uncensored.
The Justice of God: Christopher Bollyn: The following video explains the current situation in Syria and provides insights into how the protest movement may have been exploited to create an armed conflict, bringing the nation to the verge of a civil war:
It is the elites that censor things that reveal the truth. Let us who are of the day continue to go on uncensored.
Noor al Haqiqa said...
I don't think Newsweek could get away with saying such a thing if there was not something to it. Slander is an easy thing to take to court. Surely that would have happened by now.
Steve in Vista said...
Noor, be serious, they get away with all kinds of nonsense all the time - the first amendment is always in the system held to protect the mainstream media no what they say.
Also, it says "reportedly." That means someone (unidentified) claimed without any evidence to support it, that the supposed bugs that are claimed to be there picked up something that the agency to whom they are claiming was involved was not even ever quoted in answering any question about the veracity of what is claimed to have happened. That is unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay that there is not even any verification that the agency this unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay claims to be involved the way it is claimed - is even involved - at all, much less any evidence that any of that was ever said or happened.
All of that is if Newsweek even ever said what some internet site claimed it said. Hearsay about supposed and unsubstantiated hearsay is even worse.
If there had ever actually been something like that in the mainstream media, it would have skyrocketed all over the place. Anyone old enough to remember Dr. King from that time would have heard it already and remembered it without even thinking about it. The
Go watch the Paul Newman movie from some time ago called Absence of Malice; great example. Absence of Malice is a legal term. If someone can't prove "legal malice" there isn't anything that a public figure can do about hearsay.
Noor, be serious, they get away with all kinds of nonsense all the time - the first amendment is always in the system held to protect the mainstream media no what they say.
Also, it says "reportedly." That means someone (unidentified) claimed without any evidence to support it, that the supposed bugs that are claimed to be there picked up something that the agency to whom they are claiming was involved was not even ever quoted in answering any question about the veracity of what is claimed to have happened. That is unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay that there is not even any verification that the agency this unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay claims to be involved the way it is claimed - is even involved - at all, much less any evidence that any of that was ever said or happened.
All of that is if Newsweek even ever said what some internet site claimed it said. Hearsay about supposed and unsubstantiated hearsay is even worse.
If there had ever actually been something like that in the mainstream media, it would have skyrocketed all over the place. Anyone old enough to remember Dr. King from that time would have heard it already and remembered it without even thinking about it. The
Go watch the Paul Newman movie from some time ago called Absence of Malice; great example. Absence of Malice is a legal term. If someone can't prove "legal malice" there isn't anything that a public figure can do about hearsay.
Steve in Vista said...Noor, be serious, they get away with all kinds of nonsense all the time - the first amendment is always in the system held to protect the mainstream media no what they say.
Also, it says "reportedly." That means someone (unidentified) claimed without any evidence to support it, that the supposed bugs that are claimed to be there picked up something that the agency to whom they are claiming was involved was not even ever quoted in answering any question about the veracity of what is claimed to have happened. That is unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay that there is not even any verification that the agency this unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay claims to be involved the way it is claimed - is even involved - at all, much less any evidence that any of that was ever said or happened.
All of that is if Newsweek even ever said what some internet site claimed it said. Hearsay about supposed and unsubstantiated hearsay is even worse.
If there had ever actually been something like that in the mainstream media, it would have skyrocketed all over the place. Anyone old enough to remember Dr. King from that time would have heard it already and remembered it without even thinking about it. The Black Church and leadership of the Civil Rights movement (and the Black Civil Rights movement came out of the Black Churches) would have excoriated Dr. King if any such thing had ever been proven and they would have gone after it to see if it was true.
Go watch the Paul Newman movie from some time ago called Absence of Malice; great example. Absence of Malice is a legal term. If someone can't prove "legal malice" there isn't anything that a public figure can do about hearsay.
______________________________
The Justice of God: Christopher Bollyn: The following video explains the current situation in Syria and provides insights into how the protest movement may have been exploited to create an armed conflict, bringing the nation to the verge of a civil war:
It is the elites that censor things that reveal the truth, unless it fits their agenda. Let us who are of the day continue to go on uncensored.
Noor, be serious, they get away with all kinds of nonsense all the time - the first amendment is always in the system held to protect the mainstream media no what they say.
Also, it says "reportedly." That means someone (unidentified) claimed without any evidence to support it, that the supposed bugs that are claimed to be there picked up something that the agency to whom they are claiming was involved was not even ever quoted in answering any question about the veracity of what is claimed to have happened. That is unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay that there is not even any verification that the agency this unsubstantiated unidentified hearsay claims to be involved the way it is claimed - is even involved - at all, much less any evidence that any of that was ever said or happened.
All of that is if Newsweek even ever said what some internet site claimed it said. Hearsay about supposed and unsubstantiated hearsay is even worse.
If there had ever actually been something like that in the mainstream media, it would have skyrocketed all over the place. Anyone old enough to remember Dr. King from that time would have heard it already and remembered it without even thinking about it. The Black Church and leadership of the Civil Rights movement (and the Black Civil Rights movement came out of the Black Churches) would have excoriated Dr. King if any such thing had ever been proven and they would have gone after it to see if it was true.
Go watch the Paul Newman movie from some time ago called Absence of Malice; great example. Absence of Malice is a legal term. If someone can't prove "legal malice" there isn't anything that a public figure can do about hearsay.
______________________________
The Justice of God: Christopher Bollyn: The following video explains the current situation in Syria and provides insights into how the protest movement may have been exploited to create an armed conflict, bringing the nation to the verge of a civil war:
It is the elites that censor things that reveal the truth, unless it fits their agenda. Let us who are of the day continue to go on uncensored.
No comments:
Post a Comment