Australian Broadcasting Corporation, biased? Yes; not to the left - but to buggery!

This so far small, specially constructed blog documents some of the comments that I've submitted to AusBC forums, mainly 'unleashed' - comments that sadly have *not* appeared, i.e. 'publication denied.'

The main topic for censorship is neither bad language nor abuse of other commenters - the 'normal' grounds for moderating an internet discussion. This is totally clear, because I just don't 'do' bad language or ad-homs. On occasion, I may choose to attack, aka criticize *comments* (i.e. the content) of rogue-regime apologists.

Whatever; my main gripe is the criminality and lies of the rogue regimes of the US & IL, and my posts do not shy from criticising these entities, their crimes & lies - as one can see from the material included in this blog.

I try at all times to be factual and am always prepared to 'substantiate' any statement; I describe the 'Israel project' as being driven by invading alien Zionists (shortened to 'Zs,') and their prey as 'erstwhile legal owner/occupants' aka ELO/Os, mainly hapless Palestinians. IMHO this description is not just totally justified but wholly truthful, and should not, in any properly functioning democracy, attract 'publication denied' by the AusBC.

To be censored for expressing such sentiments is un- and anti-democratic, as well as tyrannical - all the while, this rogue AusBC is paid using some of the taxes extracted from my hard-earned income.

Q: Where is my freedom of speech?

A: Denied by the AusBC.

censored input to 'Israel is not above the law'

 
[This post may evolve; update 1, 2.]

-=*=-

'Target comment' by Haha : @ 25May'10,6:59pm

"If you believe Israel is in breach of the law, then how do you reconcile the fact that:

1. Israel always has at least an arguable legal case for the issues you mention,

2. The International Court has made no binding resolutions on such issues, and

3. No successful legal case has been brought against Israel on such issues, in the sixty years since its creation?

Two possibilities there. The first is that Israel somehow controls the entire UN and the entire international justice system.

The second possibility is that your opinion on those issues might be wrong."

Reply Alert moderator

My response, posted 26May'10,12:51am

«The absence of a criminal record does not imply the innocence of the accused - this is a fallacy of the non sequitur type.

Proof: *ALL* perpetrators start out with no record.

Further, a 62+ year record of 'no conviction entered' may well be due to serious corruption of the justice system.

Proof: *These* perpetrators live in half of a duplex, 'gifted' to them by the so-called applicable 'justice system.'

(One could argue that that 'system' had no right to do such gifting; I do so argue, as slightly more strenuously, do the ELO/Os - erstwhile legal owner/occupiers - mostly hapless Palestinians.)

Further, the very same perpetrators illegally occupy most of the other half of the duplex.

Proof: Most if not all 3rd party countries, including the perpetrators very own 'protectors' acknowledge the illegality of the occupation.

Further, the perpetrators claim to 'own' their protectors' Congress. A parliament amenable to being 'owned' is also corrupt.

Please consider:
"The Federal Government is expelling an Israeli diplomat after it found Israel faked Australian passports that were used in a hit on a top Hamas leader in Dubai."
[abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907598.htm]

Repeat: "... Israel faked Australian passports ..."»

Above did not appear; my retry, posted 26May'10,3:51pm

«The absence of a criminal record does not imply the innocence of the accused - this is a fallacy of the non sequitur type.

Proof: *ALL* perpetrators start out with no record.

Further, a 62+ year record of 'no conviction entered' may well be due to serious corruption of the so-called justice system.

Proof: The absence of convictions does *not* imply an absence of offences.

Please refer to the prior discussions re: alien invaders vs. erstwhile legal owner/occupiers.

Please refer to the prior discussions re: abuse of occupation.

Proof: Most if not all 3rd party countries, including the perpetrators very own 'protectors' acknowledge the illegality of the occupation 'settlements.'

Further, the alleged perpetrators claim to 'own' their protectors' Congress. A parliament amenable to being 'purchased' is also corrupt.

Both the abuse of the occupation and the act of corrupting are usually considered to be criminal acts.

Please consider:
"The Federal Government is expelling an Israeli diplomat after it found Israel faked Australian passports that were used in a hit on a top Hamas leader in Dubai."
[abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907598.htm]

Repeat: "... Israel faked Australian passports ..."»

waiting...

-=*=-
 
Update 1; 11:45. AusBC comment clock now 6:19:13pm; well past my 2nd try time; assume censored.

[«back»]

-=*=-
 
Update 2; 27May'10,7:47. Next submit @ 26May'10,11:03pm also failed to appear; assume censored:

«JohnnoH @ 25May'10,8:14pm

"Israel has the God given right to exist ..."

Um.

Could we see the evidence, please?


JohnnoH @ 25May'10,8:07pm

"You mean it was a criminal act for the Jews to regain their homeland in 1947?"

Um.

Could we see the pre-'47 title deeds, please?

Then let the people - honestly, openly & fully informed - decide.»

What to do? Lost my democratic voice to AusBC censorship.

[«back»]

The next censored input, 'Haha’s logic'

The resubmit of "Care to point those lies out?" was published, then the following @ 11May'10,5:12pm so far *not* [start of submit]:

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom, Haha @ 11May'10,11:51am, as a public forum, we can leave the readership to judge any explications. Further, I presume nothing - other than the expectation of getting a "Fair go!"

Haha: "The only mistaken argument here is that you presume to be an arbiter ..."

Me: Noting "only," I could say 'thanks' - for accepting my logic.

Haha: "you do not have the capacity or authority ..."

Me: Hmmm, interesting. May we learn what qualifies *you* to make such judgments?

As to "plain English," I'd use Sanskrit if I thought it'd suit my purpose - but which bits did you not understand?

My arguments are logical statements of the form if X then Y, where X is a cause of Y; the veracity of such statements cannot simply be collectively dismissed as "fallacious" - especially in the light of Haha's earlier statement implying *acceptance* of my logic. More work required?

The initial X in my statements/logic chains are posited, unspecified but substantiable lies of which there are myriad. The 'best' (of course the worst) lie is Saddam's non-existent WMDs. The list is looong - and nefarious.

I can then reformulate: IF lies THEN deceit; IF deceit THEN unjust, IF unjust THEN all such wars are to be resisted with all energy available. It's the *duty* of every citizen to so resist. [end of submit]

Comment: I'll modify it & resubmit, as per yesterday.

Q: Is it a rogue gatekeeper, or AusBC policy? Perhaps we'll be able to tell, as the censorship picture develops.

compare one allowed vs. one censored

Allowed:

Voice of reason and realism :
10 May 2010 6:17:41pm
  «The pacifist strand in here is extraordinary.
It is ridiculous to compare WW2 and Vietnam, or to the present struggles.
...
Appeasement was a failure.
...
Soft hearted sentiment is soft minded. we're back on the path of appeasement now, hoping if we give the Mohammedan fascists respect, they'll stop demanding more. They won't.
Remember the 30s. Remember the whole of human history. We're still humans. Wake up and smell the napalm.» 
[AusBC/unleashed, "Vietnam War Moratorium"]

Comment 1: Having said "ridiculous to compare," VoRR goes on to do exactly that, and *tries* to equate Islam-O-fascism (anyway an invalid construction/concept) to the WW2 fascist 'axis.'

Comment 2: Shrieking "Appeasement!" is always good - for the r-whingers, but I recall that 'the West' encouraged the Nazis in the early days, as a 'containable' counter to communism. Shrieking "Communism!" or "Socialism!" is another 'always' for erring ideologist r-whingers with totally irrational allergies against anything even slightly to 'the left' of Ayn Rand - say.

Comment 3: Since WW2 ended with a double BANG! - the dual war crime A-bombings killing about a ¼mio predominantly civilian Japanese, an act not so much to end WW2 (the Japs were pleading for surrender) as to initiate WW3, aka the so-called 'cold war' against Russia&Co, just about every war the US has initiated involved 100% aggressive invasion following a desire to push US hegemony, and usually with some pecuniary interest - like oil in Iraq, say.

Comment 4: Not 'just' the US, but its illegal Z-sprog continued/extended its alien invasion and immoral, illegal occupation of land not theirs, aka that (still!) belonging to the mostly Palestinian ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers), an obscene crime now 62+ bloody years old and no end in sight.

Now, to the disallowed:

Posted 10 May 2010 5:50pm [start of submit]

Re: Anon @ 09May'10,1:52pm
 Care to point those lies out?

Re: Haha @ 09May'10,2:07pm
 -And wanting your country to lose a war is traitorous.

Re: Haha @ 10May'10,11:19am
 Thank the peace protestors ... they forced their governments to lose.

Oooh-Kayee:

Look at 4 entities A, B, C & D.

Look at 4 wars (alpha-order) V (headline) then X, Y & Z.

Look at the assertion: "We are starting this war because ..."

Look at 4 'reasons' (time-order):

1) Some g*d promised it to us!

2) Gulf of Tonkin!

3) Al Qaeda did 9/11!

4) Saddam has WMDs!

IF anyone uses a lie as part of an argument, THEN that argument is fallacious.

IF anyone uses a lie to 'convince' a voter, THEN that voter is deceived.

IF any voter is asked Q: "War?" THEN s/he may answer "Y/n."

Q: How many (uncorrupted) voters were asked, when?

IF alternative ruling parties 'offer' the same (non!)choice, THEN that's called bipartisanship = unrepresentative = non- and anti-democratic.

IF a casus belli is 'contaminated' by lies, and the true purpose (theft) is 'concealed' behind lies THEN that war is both illegal and immoral.

IF a war is started by an aggressive alien invasion, THEN that is a Nuremberg-scale war crime.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. [POD]

deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [ibid.]

fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument. fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[end of submit]

You, dear reader, may ponder the 'wisdom' of the AusBC censors.

-=*end*=-

PS: And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." Alice's Restaurant, by Arlo Guthrie.