Sunday, January 13, 2008

ANTI-WAR SOROS FUNDED IRAQ STUDY

January 13, 2008
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal.
Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. (Emphasis mine)

Typical strategy of the far left; control the conversation and if the facts don't support your argument, then manufacture facts that do. The sad truth is that, even today, that 650,000 figure is still bantered about and taken gospel by a good number of people and when it's refuted, the fall back position is that the refutation itself is an attempt to suppress the truth.

Facts and truth seem to hold decreasing value in an environment where whatever shallow beliefs people still hold can be backed up on fringe websites that produce "theories" on everything from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 based completely on fantasized "facts" designed specifically to support the so-called theories. If one tries to interject the voice of reason, they are shouted down as "tools" or "fools" because of their acceptance of the obvious and their rejection of the ever-complex web being woven by the paranoid conspiracy "theorists".

As for Soros, he understands all of this and plays these poor, ignorant souls as a puppet master would marionettes. He well understands that the lie will stay out there forever and no matter how many times it is proven false, it gains currency because people believe it and as long as that is the case, in some perverse way, it becomes "truth".

Soros like to use his personal story as a Hungarian refugee from Nazi oppression to lend credence to his obsession with left-wing causes. In practice though, he seems to have learned well from his former masters - Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

4 comments:

suicidehelpdesk said...

Hey Dale,
Are you the pussy who was talking shit about me over at LGF?
If so, come to my site. We'll have a good time.
Oh, and bring those friends of yours who don't believe in freedom of speech.
Fucking moron, you'll stand for a country who doesn't believe in your God given rights.

Dale said...

Ever the witty conversationalist aren't you?

Why did you not respond to me at LGF? Perhaps you're just not ready for conversation with the grown-ups and got banned.

As for your freedom of speech, you have every right to say what you will...on your blog. Having been there once, it can only be described as verbal vomit, spewing forth whatever muddled thoughts that come across your rather limited intellect. The one thing of value there was the posthumous post from the soldier killed in Iraq, and i will commend you for posting that. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

As for LGF, it's his site and he can ban whomever he sees fit to ban. Since you are such a constitutional scholar, surely you know that the 1st Ammendment applies to government infringement on speech, not private.

As for revisiting your site, it is a gracious offer, but no thanks.

Oh, I'll be glad to leave your comment here. At my site, I'll grant you the right to be an ignorant ass....as long as you don't abuse it.

Besides, the contrast in writing styles is rather becoming, don't you think?

suicidehelpdesk said...

Okay, that was uncalled for on my part, and you have my humble apologies.

One thing, and you can check the LGF comments to verify it. I NEVER EVER attacked anyone over at LGF, even though I was viciously attacked first.
I held back. Your comment invited my attack, but that was a misjudgement on my part.

Now, the post was about Israel attacking their own citizens rights, but the LGF readers chose instead to make me a scapegoat as opposed to looking at Israel. What? They can do no wrong? I don't think so.
Let's talk about that, shall we?
Oh, and judging me by my website...
Bad move. You have no idea of my history.

Once again, you have my apologies. Accept them if you will, or not. The choice would be yours.

Dale said...
This comment has been removed by the author.