Are we as a society being kept from discussing the big issues?

[MindYourHead]

We knew they had some chemical weapons because the US sold those to them. this has been declassified: http://www.storyleak.com/cia-files-us-aided-saddam-chemical-attacks/

The pretext used to scare the public was that the iraqis could launch wmd's against europe in 45 minutes. Not only would the small amount of chemicals that were found (which everyone knew were there before the war) that are mentioned in the article you posted a link to be ineffective but also the iraqis lacked the missile capability to send a chemical payload to europe

It was all lies and it was revealed to be lies

We knew he had some gas that he used against the kurds and the iranians but these were not a threat to the west

The UN is very clear. it says you cannot wage war on a country unless it attacks you first

Iraq did not attack the USA. The USA claimed it had 'WMD's' which is a vague term designed to scare the public

The UN weapons inspectors did not find anything that would be a threat to the west

This did not stop the US from waging war though

Once the US had invaded they did not find any weaponry that would have been a threat to the west and much of the revolutionary guards weaponry had been trashed in the first iraq war

When the first Gulf war ended, most people just knew we would be going back to take Saddam Hussein out.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz drew up plans for it.
Once they got their boy GW Bush in the presidency it was just a matter of time.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

The military uses specific definitions for its classifications and it does so for a reason.

A weapon that involved a chemical reaction is not automatically a chemical weapon. Nearly all weapons used by the military involve a chemical reaction. If you're going to say that white phosphorous counts as a chemical weapon because a reaction takes place to ignite it, then you must also say that regular ammunition are chemical weapons, rockets are chemical weapons, and may even go so far as to say that the fuel in a tank makes it a chemical weapon.

A chemical weapon is specifically defined in conventions as a weapon which delivers a chemical to a target with the direct intent of poisoning it with that chemical. This IS the thing that separates a chemical weapon from every other weapon that relies on a chemical precursor to make it effective.

WMDs on the other hand are defined as weapons which are chemical, biological, radioactive, or nuclear in nature with the intent of causing massive indiscriminate casualties using these reactions directly.

Edit:
I'm also not arguing that phosphorus was not used on civilians, nor am I arguing that DU rounds are not dirty and lethal long after the fact. I'm just saying to call things what they are and not spread misinformation.

Edit edit:
Also what a WMD is does not depend on how the weapon is used, despite your intuition. A WMD is always a WMD, but small bullets do not become WMDs if you manage to pile enough of them into a city to destroy it - if it did then every weapon of significance is a WMD, defeating the purpose of having any distinctions.

 

[sprinkles]

Also white phosphorous is different from chemical weapons in another way - if you don't get hit by the shrapnel, or caught in the resulting fire, it won't have a direct effect on you even if you're there, unlike chemicals which are meant to disperse and linger to get as much contact as possible.

Getting hit with white phosphorous is like getting hit with a lot of shotgun pellets that are on fire and keep burning. Each piece of it is what digs in and burns like hot metal that doesn't go out.

 

[sprinkles]

And to make a third point, a WMD is a WMD before it is used, not after.

This is an important distinction in disarmament treaties, manufacturing, and disposal. If a WMD could become a WMD after it is used then nations would stockpile them in their not-yet-WMD precursor form, and say "Look, we have no WMDs (yet)"

 

[muir]

@muir

The military uses specific definitions for its classifications and it does so for a reason.

A weapon that involved a chemical reaction is not automatically a chemical weapon. Nearly all weapons used by the military involve a chemical reaction. If you're going to say that white phosphorous counts as a chemical weapon because a reaction takes place to ignite it, then you must also say that regular ammunition are chemical weapons, rockets are chemical weapons, and may even go so far as to say that the fuel in a tank makes it a chemical weapon.

A chemical weapon is specifically defined in conventions as a weapon which delivers a chemical to a target with the direct intent of poisoning it with that chemical. This IS the thing that separates a chemical weapon from every other weapon that relies on a chemical precursor to make it effective.

WMDs on the other hand are defined as weapons which are chemical, biological, radioactive, or nuclear in nature with the intent of causing massive indiscriminate casualties using these reactions directly.

Edit:
I'm also not arguing that phosphorus was not used on civilians, nor am I arguing that DU rounds are not dirty and lethal long after the fact. I'm just saying to call things what they are and not spread misinformation.

Its NOT missinformation. You just said yourself that WMD's are radioactive!

DU IS radioactive and does kill masses of people indescriminately

And phospohorous can poison people. Try inhaling it and see what happens

Edit edit:
Also what a WMD is does not depend on how the weapon is used, despite your intuition. A WMD is always a WMD, but small bullets do not become WMDs if you manage to pile enough of them into a city to destroy it - if it did then every weapon of significance is a WMD, defeating the purpose of having any distinctions.

Look at the article i posted and it will show you that the guys trying to make a 'moral' case for war have used wmd's and various chemical and dirty weapons

 

[muir]

And to make a third point, a WMD is a WMD before it is used, not after.

This is an important distinction in disarmament treaties, manufacturing, and disposal. If a WMD could become a WMD after it is used then nations would stockpile them in their not-yet-WMD precursor form, and say "Look, we have no WMDs (yet)"

I'm not sure what that point has to do with anything i've said?

 

[muir]

Also white phosphorous is different from chemical weapons in another way - if you don't get hit by the shrapnel, or caught in the resulting fire, it won't have a direct effect on you even if you're there, unlike chemicals which are meant to disperse and linger to get as much contact as possible.

Getting hit with white phosphorous is like getting hit with a lot of shotgun pellets that are on fire and keep burning. Each piece of it is what digs in and burns like hot metal that doesn't go out.

Thats not true it can kill three ways one of which is through the smoke. the following is from wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Effects on people

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.
Burning


Injuries from white phosphorus.[SUP][87][/SUP][SUP][88][/SUP]


Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[SUP][89][/SUP] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.
Smoke inhalation

Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.[SUP][90][/SUP]
Oral ingestion

The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[SUP][91][/SUP] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[SUP][89][/SUP] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[SUP][91][/SUP] Its extreme toxicity is due to the generation of free radicals, especially in the liver, where they accumulate and are not easily metabolized.

 

[muir]

When the first Gulf war ended, most people just knew we would be going back to take Saddam Hussein out.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz drew up plans for it.
Once they got their boy GW Bush in the presidency it was just a matter of time.

Yeah it was the same group of neocons that were in both regimes of both bush presidents

The neocons are heavily influenced by the work of the philosopher strauss

Strauss said that to bind a nation together you need to bind people around a flag, an anthem, an identity and you need to have an external bogeyman to define yourself against

The US did this against the nazis (they were more than a bogeyman though), the USSR (with the whole 'red scare' cold war paranoia) and now they are doing it with extremsit islam (most of which they fund and arm themselves!)

They want a bogeyman because then the public get all scared and they run to their government and say ''please protect us from the horrible bogeyman who is out to get us'' and they fail to see that the only monster is their own government or rather the people behind the government

So the neocons have created a 'war on terror'. How can you wage war on terror? Terror is an emotion....you can't wage war against an emotion!!

The term is deliberately vague so that they can define anyone they want as a 'terrorist'....this will ensure they always have a bogeyman and can always keep the USA in a state of war

The people spreading the most terror around the world are the cabal who are controlling the USA....they ARE the global terrorists and when they are not directly carrying out the violence they have the CIA working behind the scenes to create and stoke the violence to keep all the conflict and fear going

The enemy is within the gates!

 

[sprinkles]

Its NOT missinformation. You just said yourself that WMD's are radioactive!

DU IS radioactive and does kill masses of people indescriminately

And phospohorous can poison people. Try inhaling it and see what happens



Look at the article i posted and it will show you that the guys trying to make a 'moral' case for war have used wmd's and various chemical and dirty weapons

Bananas are also radioactive.

I'm not sure what that point has to do with anything i've said?

It's impossible to police anything without proper definitions, which is the entire reason that these terms were coined.

Your want to classify everything as anything would make enforcement impossible, and the terms completely useless except for drumming up outrage. I'm looking at what the terms are used for in real practice, and why they are used that way.

Thats not true it can kill three ways one of which is through the smoke. the following is from wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Effects on people

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.
Burning


Injuries from white phosphorus.[SUP][87][/SUP][SUP][88][/SUP]


Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[SUP][89][/SUP] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.
Smoke inhalation

Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.[SUP][90][/SUP]
Oral ingestion

The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[SUP][91][/SUP] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[SUP][89][/SUP] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[SUP][91][/SUP] Its extreme toxicity is due to the generation of free radicals, especially in the liver, where they accumulate and are not easily metabolized.

I know all this. Pretty much all smoke is toxic. Lead is also toxic. Exhaust fumes are toxic chemicals. If WP were extremely toxic in munition form then it would not be used for smoke. Breathing it can kill you but so can sucking on the tail pipe of a running car.

Again this is a problem of being too general and wanting everything to be an issue, which is impossible to deal with or enforce when you use such broad criteria.

 

[muir]

Bananas are also radioactive.

Bananas won't kill you though, white phosphorous will burn your eyes and throat out of existence

It's impossible to police anything without proper definitions, which is the entire reason that these terms were coined.

It is international law that white phospohorus should NOT be used against civilians. Israel and the US have both used it against civilians and now these two countries are trying to point the finger at Assad when unlike their own crimes there isn't even any proof assad has used chemical weapons

Your want to classify everything as anything would make enforcement impossible, and the terms completely useless except for drumming up outrage. I'm looking at what the terms are used for in real practice, and why they are used that way.

Look into the illegality of using white phospohorus against civilians and then ask yourself if the USA and Israeli governments are being hypocritical in their claims against Assad

I know all this. Pretty much all smoke is toxic. Lead is also toxic. Exhaust fumes are toxic chemicals. If WP were extremely toxic in munition form then it would not be used for smoke. Breathing it can kill you but so can sucking on the tail pipe of a running car.

You need to wise up.....the guys who make this stuff and authorise its use by troops DO NOT HANDLE IT THEMSELVES

We spoke about depleted uranium before. This has been implicated by some to be behind the 'gulf war syndrome' suffered by many US and UK troops

I'm not sure how much of it was the DU though and how much of it was the vaccine shots they gave the troops because the French troops were not given the shots and they did not suffer gulf war syndrome, but then maybe they handled less DU

The military in the US and UK have also both tested things on their own troops and many US military personel were fatally exposed to radiation during the testing of the nuclear bombs

The point being: THE CABAL DO NOT CARE IF US MARINE JOE BLOGGS GETS POISONED AS WELL AS THE ENEMY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES

Here is what cabal member Kissinger had to say about soldiers:
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

Again this is a problem of being too general and wanting everything to be an issue, which is impossible to deal with or enforce when you use such broad criteria.

There is nothing general about lethality

 

[muir]

[video=youtube;Wr1puxzJ-Os]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr1puxzJ-Os[/video]

 

[sprinkles]

Bananas won't kill you though, white phosphorous will burn your eyes and throat out of existence

I'd wager that enough bananas can kill you horribly. In fact I'd wager that one banana and a sufficiently creative mind can kill you horribly.

Once again the issue is that just about everything can be used for destruction, but we pragmatically cannot chase everything.

It is international law that white phospohorus should NOT be used against civilians. Israel and the US have both used it against civilians and now these two countries are trying to point the finger at Assad when unlike their own crimes there isn't even any proof assad has used chemical weapons

I haven't said otherwise.

Look into the illegality of using white phospohorus against civilians and then ask yourself if the USA and Israeli governments are being hypocritical in their claims against Assad

I haven't said otherwise - I know they are hypocritical. I'm specifically referring to correct terms only. I'm not having the same argument that you seem to think I am.

You need to wise up.....the guys who make this stuff and authorise its use by troops DO NOT HANDLE IT THEMSELVES

We spoke about depleted uranium before. This has been implicated by some to be behind the 'gulf war syndrome' suffered by many US and UK troops

I'm not sure how much of it was the DU though and how much of it was the vaccine shots they gave the troops because the French troops were not given the shots and they did not suffer gulf war syndrome

The military i the |US and UK have also both tested things on their own troops and many US military personale were fatally exposed to radiation during the testing of the nuclear bombs

The point being: THE CABAL DO NOT CARE IF US MARINE JOE BLOGGS GETS POISONED AS WELL AS THE ENEMY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES

Here i what cabal member Kissinger had to say about soldiers:
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

I'm not arguing about this, only terms.

There is nothing general about lethality

Yes there is because as I pointed out with bananas, all things can be made lethal. The issue is what's worth spending the resources to prevent and what is pragmatic to interdict. All things are in motion, exploded bombs are not bombs anymore, they are holes in the ground, and materials in the mines are not bombs yet, they are materials in the mines. You must draw lines somewhere to be practical, or nothing will get done about any of this.

 

[sprinkles]

Also humans are capable of the most horrible things without resorting to radioactives or chemicals to begin with.

The RUF would play a game with machetes and rocks. They'd take defenseless people and line them up at gunpoint, and one RUF would say "Whoever this rock hits will have their arms cut off. Everyone else will die."

 

[muir]

I'd wager that enough bananas can kill you horribly. In fact I'd wager that one banana and a sufficiently creative mind can kill you horribly.

Once again the issue is that just about everything can be used for destruction, but we pragmatically cannot chase everything.

I think most people can discearn the difference in levels of lethality between a banana and white phospohorus

If on the other hand i fire white phosphorus into your room right now the situation will end in much the same way as if i fired mustard gas into the room....you'd be dead

If on the other hand i fired a load of bananas into your room.....you would probably just slip around the floor a lot

I haven't said otherwise.

You are not understanding that the issue is about whether or not the US and Israel have a moral case or whether they are some of the worst offenders when it comes to using dirty weapons

I haven't said otherwise - I know they are hypocritical. I'm specifically referring to correct terms only. I'm not having the same argument that you seem to think I am.

No you are falling into the trap that this thread is all about avoiding which is focussing on non issues instead of what is important

I'm not arguing about this, only terms.

I said the US and israel have used WMD's and got away with it and they have

You then tried to say the following about white phosphorous:

Also white phosphorous is different from chemical weapons in another way - if you don't get hit by the shrapnel, or caught in the resulting fire, it won't have a direct effect on you even if you're there

But this is incorrect as it does kill indescriminately

Now please listen carefully to what i am about to say.

The US intelligence agencies clasify white phosphorus as a 'chemical weapon'. here is a mainstream news article about it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ite-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

Yes there is because as I pointed out with bananas, all things can be made lethal.

If you want to take this into the realms of relativism as a way to avoid admiting to yourself that you are trying to squirm away from the central issue then fine...you go there....i am not going to follow you

I and every other human being knows the distinction between bananas and white phosphorus regarding their potential lethality

The issue is what's worth spending the resources to prevent and what is pragmatic to interdict. All things are in motion, exploded bombs are not bombs anymore, they are holes in the ground, and materials in the mines are not bombs yet, they are materials in the mines. You must draw lines somewhere to be practical, or nothing will get done about any of this.

People know what is legal and illegal

They know that the US and Israel have acted illegally

They know that there is no proof that assad has acted illegally

They know that the US and Israel have NO MORAL CASE

 

[muir]

Also humans are capable of the most horrible things without resorting to radioactives or chemicals to begin with.

The RUF would play a game with machetes and rocks. They'd take defenseless people and line them up at gunpoint, and one RUF would say "Whoever this rock hits will have their arms cut off. Everyone else will die."

That is psychological warfare which the US and Israel have also engaged in

The atrocities being committed by the syrian mercenaries are being doen because they have been handed psychological warefare manuals which the CIA first gave to mercenary death squads that they created in central america which were set up to terrorise the civilian population and to kill doctors and nurses so that the healthcare system would collapse

I posted info about this programme in the syrian thread

 

[sprinkles]

I think most people can discearn the difference in levels of lethality between a banana and white phospohorus

Now you're talking about levels which is asking for more bureaucracy.

Do you know why the US and Israel got away with using WP? By fiddling with the standards for lethality, and what constitutes a combatant.

The US claimed they were using it on insurgents which were entrenched, which is technically an allowable use.

Israel claimed that they were using mostly smoke markers, which is the other purpose of WP - it makes very good smoke which even masks IR and is not manufactured with lethality in mind. Problem is that it still sets things on fire.

What I'm saying is that the government has legitimate uses on the books for WP and DU also, which create loopholes that allow them to squeak around the international laws. Yelling about chemical weapons does no good because they always have a story which will either say that they didn't use a chemical weapon, or that they didn't use it illegally.

Don't limit your outrage to the chemical and radioactive, because according to them they will find a way to make you wrong on the books. These terms will only be used against you to mire you down just like I'm already doing, because that is what politicians excel at.

Find another way to show what they do which does not play directly into their hand. As for the rest of your posts, sorry for ignoring them, but it will just end up being more reiteration and we can imagine how it goes.

 

[muir]

I would just like to caution fellow forum members against giving too much credibility to the 'MoveOn.org' group...they are a front group for the cabal funded by on one the cabals key front men George Soros

It exists to create your perception of reality to see things the way the cabal want you to see it but does so in a nice soft way to appeal to 'liberals'

Here's a bit of info from wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org

"The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee."[SUP][20][/SUP]

 

[Gul Dukat]

I would just like to caution fellow forum members against giving too much credibility to the 'MoveOn.org' group...they are a front group for the cabal funded by on one the cabals key front men George Soros

And yet right-wing Christian sites, infowars and Natural News are perfectly okay and agenda-free.

Here's part of the Wikipedia article for Natural News, muir's favorite site (my favorite parts in bold):

Among its most outspoken critics are David Gorski of ScienceBlogs,[9] who has called it "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet",[10] as well as Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,[11] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes.[12] Steven Novella has called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable. If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it — whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site.".[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

Yep, sounds like there are some pretty upstanding and non-biased news reports coming out of that place.

 

[muir]

Now you're talking about levels which is asking for more bureaucracy.

How so? I think you are tying yourself up in knots over this thing

Do you know why the US and Israel got away with using WP?

yes i do and here's why

The US and Israel do not care about international law. What they eblieve in is 'might is right'. They will bully people simply because they can. Both are nuclear nations which huge fianncial clout due to their links with banking not to mention the dollars current but declining status as the worlds reserve currency

They got away with it because no one externally could stop them. The only people who can hold them to account are their own citizens, but for that to happen their citizens will first need to realise that their governments have been feeding them a pack of lies

By fiddling with the standards for lethality, and what constitutes a combatant.

These guys twist things however they like to suit their own aims....they are ammoral

The US claimed they were using it on insurgents which were entrenched, which is technically an allowable use.

The US claimed there were WMD's in iraq.....the US lies

Israel claimed that they were using mostly smoke markers, which is the other purpose of WP - it makes very good smoke which even masks IR and is not manufactured with lethality in mind. Problem is that it still sets things on fire.

You obviously haven't seen footage of the incidents then becuase if you had you would clearly see them being dropped on civilians

What I'm saying is that the government has legitimate uses on the books for WP and DU also, which create loopholes that allow them to squeak around the international laws. Yelling about chemical weapons does no good because they always have a story which will either say that they didn't use a chemical weapon, or that they didn't use it illegally.

Yeah they will lie, so what needs to happen is for 'we the people' to wake upto their lies and withdraw our democratic consent for their wars

Don't limit your outrage to the chemical and radioactive, because according to them they will find a way to make you wrong on the books. These terms will only be used against you to mire you down just like I'm already doing, because that is what politicians excel at.

I have not created any limitations. The chemical weapons issue is key at the moment because it is the lie they are using to sell the war to the US public

Find another way to show what they do which does not play directly into their hand. As for the rest of your posts, sorry for ignoring them, but it will just end up being more reiteration and we can imagine how it goes.

Unless of course you find you agree with them

 

[muir]

And yet right-wing Christian sites, infowars and Natural News are perfectly okay and agenda-free.

Here's the Wikipedia description of Natural News, muir's favorite site

No it is not my favourite site....stop behaving in such a dishonest way. Go and watch the NLP clips i posted at the start of this thread to see how you are behaving in a manipulative way

(my favorite parts in bold):

Among its most outspoken critics are David Gorski of ScienceBlogs,[9] who has called it "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet",[10] as well as Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,[11] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes.[12] Steven Novella has called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable. If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site.".[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

Yep, sounds like there are some pretty upstanding and non-biased news reports coming out of that place.

Sites like natural news are not trying to hide their agenda....they are very open and honest about what they are about

You will understand pretty quickly when you read their stuff what they are about

Move On pretends to be something it is not.....but what it is really doing is acting as a liberal gate keeper to make dupes of people by gently ushering wellmeaning liberal types towards behaving the way the cabal wants them to behave

It is not honest about its true agenda which is to help the cabal