Tuesday, November 8, 2011

nov. 8: evening bit....

What you won't see in the TandT on Nov. 9.

The US used napalm on a wide scale to bomb civilians during the Iraq war. This is a sticky substance that burns people alive, sometimes slowly. It also takes so much oxygen out of the air that people die of suffocation.

The use of it was learned recently when the British government apologized for telling the House of Commons it wasn't used.  It seems the American government had lied to Britain. The Pentagon has since admitted it used Napalm.

Watch the video - if you have a strong stomach. Google Iternational Clearing House for Nov. 8.

The other story is hard to confirm. Though many journalists have told i, no news medium has reported it. Obama and Sarkozy of France were holdiing a news conference. They then left the room but forgot to turn off their lapel microphones.

"That Netanyahu is a liar." said Sarkozy.  "Tell me about it," said Obama. "I have to deal with him every day."

Every word came through to the loudspeakers in the press room, where  reporters were still sitting around. But it has not appeared in any major news source in North America.

Incidentally, the Iraq war was covered by hordes of reporters. Mass napalm attacks are quite spectacular, and hard to mistake for conventional bombing. As well, the charred flesh, some on still-living bodies, is quite distinct. How come it was never reported?

Never trust war correspondents. It was Canada's most distinguished war reporter of World War Two who told me that as we chatted one day in Ottawa. He was right.


  1. I'd really like to see references when factual claims are made. The Netanyahu remark, for example, appears nowhere else on the web. Which would mean you were the only person in the world to know about it - somehow, from half a world away.

    Similarly, while I have some evidence, from 2005, that the U.S. lied to Britain about the use of Napalm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9175.htm I see no evidence online That "the British government apologized for telling the House of Commons it wasn't used" - and, given the previous news reports, reason to believe that such an apology would not have been forthcoming.

    It doesn't help anyone if the criticisms of our horrible newspaper are less credible than the newspaper itself. The Times & Transcript sets the bar really low - but it is up to its critics to stay above that bar.

  2. Well, check Iraq napalm. You will find at least tens of thousands of sites dealing with the use of napalm in Iraq. And, again, there appears to be a shortage of reporters who admit they saw it.
    Why do you search so hard for sources when you know that most of them lie?
    As to the comment about Netanyahu, I stated quite clearly, I think. that I had not found a source for it. I was passing on a story I have heard from journalists.
    However, your comment intrigued me. So I googled Sarkazy netanyahu liar. I got millions of sites - and many of them highly credible news sources - including The Guardian and the Jerusalem Post. So, I'm not the only one in the world who knows. I didn't check all the millions - but a cursory glance showed no North American news sources. And that was my point.
    Don't be afraid to use google.

  3. What is REALLY bad is when the critic who criticizes another critic fails to get his or her facts straight. Ummm...if you can't find any reference to the Obama comment ANYWHERE....here's a hint.......go purchase the Globe and Mail. Or maybe use the search engine on your computer. Or perhaps turn on CNN...or or or.........But please get your facts straight before you launch verbal grenades at Graeme.

  4. Downes, you need new spectacles. The Obama-Sarkozy exchange about Netanyahu has been well published. The problem in Moncton is the Times&Transcript sets the bar too low. The staff is far too busy honing their skills of making grammatical errors to devote proper time to national and world news.

  5. On the first item - yes the U.S. use of Napalm has been documented for years - but what I didn't find was a specific reference to an apology, as stated in the original post.

    As for the second, I've seen coverage of the remarks - as has everyone else - but I found zero references to the exact quote cited in the post.

    Either way - you have to include references. You can just post something with no links and then claim your readers are deficient if they don't automatically assume that what you post is the truth.

  6. Look. this blog takes up half my day as it is. I don't have a staff.
    If you don't like this site, then go away. I shall, somehow, cope.