Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Cynthia McKinney Interviews Gilad Atzmon

by Gilad Atzmon
Saturday, April 28th, 2012

Cynthia was filling in for Cindy Sheehan on Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox. This interview aired on March 18, 2012

http://www.gilad.co.uk/

http://allthingscynthiamckinney.posterous.com/

http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/

Share Button
Posted by on April 28, 2012. Filed under America,Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

35 Responses to Cynthia McKinney Interviews Gilad Atzmon

  1. ariadna

    April 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    This interview has been an eye opener for me. At first I was just surprised: why would Gilad go anywhere near such a low life as Cynthia McKinney (whom, as an American, I know a bit better than the rest of the world)?
    I understood that I had been a Gilad supporter and admirer heretofore only because he has charisma. I told myself it was the force of his ideas and his “humanistic” message but I see now that it was just his charisma and his music. (That sax… from now on it will be just ‘tie me to the mast so I can listen to him without endangering myself.’ )
    By showing with whom he associates, this interview has awakened me.
    Cynthia McKinney has no charisma for me and now I can see that birds of a flock fly together.

    Who is she? A rabble-rouser who never met a “cause” she did not try to make trouble about, one might say a professional instigator. A perfect example: she is a black American woman from Atlanta and she agitated on behalf of the Australian Aborigines against the mining corporations.
    Just what did the mining corporations in Australia ever do to harm her?!
    I mean personally. I could understand a grudge of the Aborigines–not all of them but perhaps many, from case to case– but McKinney’s attitude is nothing but disguised racism against whites (who happen to own the mines). That is just one small example.
    Her CV would get her hired by AlQaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran, take your pick, in a heartbeat:
    –She signed the 9/11 Truth Movement statement, calling for new investigations into unexplained aspects of the 9/11 events. [So she is stupid too]
    – She supported anti-war legislation and introduced articles of impeachment against Pres. Bush, VPCheney, and Secy of State Rice.
    –On December 30, 2008, McKinney was aboard the ship Dignity as it attempted to enter the Gaza Strip, which had its coastal area declared a “closed military zone” by Israel, while on a humanitarian mission by the Free Gaza Movement from Cyprus. [What did Israel ever do to her?]
    –On June 30, 2009, McKinney was aboard the Greek-flagged Free Gaza Movement’s ship Spirit of Humanity carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, olive trees and toys, when the Israeli Navy in international waters seized it.
    McKinney was held at the detention center in Ramle, until she was released on July 5. The Israeli government would have released McKinney and her fellow activists earlier had they signed deportation papers; however, McKinney refused to sign, claiming that she could not be sure of what the papers, written in Hebrew, said. [Does she also claim she always reads ALL the fine print of the forms when she rents a car? Hypocrisy.]
    –She made inflammatory statements about the boat seizure in this audio:
    http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/breaking-news-cynthia-mckinney-arrested-by-israeli-navy/
    –In June 2011, McKinney visited Libya and accused NATO and the United States of trying to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. She also criticized the trade embargo on the Gaddafi’s regime and accused mainstream media in the Western world of “ the largest propaganda blitz by their governments.”
    I am only surprised she never said anything–that I know of–about the Holocaust. On the other hand, she has never spoken up against the fundamental issue of the rampant anti-semitism in the US.

  2. Suzy

    May 6, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    This women seems to be friends with whomever can give her money or fame. She made me sick to the stomach when she was supporting gaddafi in the uprising, such a big liar. She like many others was only his friend because he was giving her plenty of the Libyans money. We are wise to all these sellouts now and to all the people that distort the actual news to nothing more than lies as some of the media and alternative news outlets did in the above mentioned uprising. Probably sell her granny if their was something to be had out of it!! Anyway I am more aware of the truth now than I was before so that’s something I have learnt.

    • Roy Bard

      May 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm

      “She like many others was only his friend because he was giving her plenty of the Libyans money.”

      It’s easy to claim that. But some of us are wary of unsubstantiated claims.

      “I am more aware of the truth now than I was before so that’s something I have learnt.”

      Excellent. I’d like to know the truth as well. Where do I look?

      • Suzy

        May 7, 2012 at 11:38 am

        I have very strong links with Libya for 33 years and have been many times and I have family and friends there also. All my info is from Libyans there and also the community here plus as I said I have been many times and seen gaddafi in action and being brutal with his people just becuse they wanted to see Libya free. Of course he was having none of that untill he got his just deserts!! I have found over all the time of the uprising and even now people were and are writing and giving their opinions without even knowing the Libyans, before this no one cared less about their situation under a tyrant.
        A last note is the visitors to Libya never saw the true Libya and Libyans because they had minders and the Libyans would not dare to speak the truth as their would be serious repercussions for them and their families and I know this is the facts!

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos

      May 6, 2012 at 7:28 pm

      “We are wise to all these sellouts now”
      Some are not so wise; they even consider the “rebels” sellouts. Ain’t that something?

      “..distort the actual news to nothing more than lies as some of the media and alternative news outlets”
      No, not the mainstream media, they tell it like it is. You can learn all you need from Fox News. Just those lying alternate news outlets.

      “Probably sell her granny if their was something to be had out of it!!”
      Well, she’s black, you know. Says it all, don’t it?

      • Suzy

        May 7, 2012 at 11:42 am

        As I said above Ariadna get the facts from the Libyans themselves. I am lucky I have links to Libya but that’s the only place apart from UK. When I read any news now I always have a critical eye as so much rubbish was written and shown about Libya. You want the facts you need contacts!

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos

          May 7, 2012 at 12:48 pm

          You are lucky indeed, as you say, to have friends and contacts who can explain to you what’s going on but more than that you “always have a critical eye.” It scares me to realize now that I have neither, which is why I fall back on reflexes and suspicions that are not thought through.
          For example, I hesitate to trust the opinions of people who cheer a foreign military coup/attack/intervention with the purpose of ‘regime change’ not even if, but especially if, those people are locals. I admit had that kind of reaction to Chalabi. You straightened me out.
          I will need to reexamine a lot of what I had assumed, even about countries and continents about which I had thought I knew more, like South America. Nicaragua, Chile and Venezuela come to mind, as well as several other SA countries where the famed “boys of Chicago” were so honestly trying to better their countrymen with a bit of help from caring foreign military.
          Not to defend myself but it is clear that I do not have the right friends and contacts.
          As for Cynthia McKinney I fault myself and no one else for not seeing through her before. She is, as we say in American slang, bent! There are people who can take money from Ghaddafi and still stay true to high purpose, like Sarkozy.
          You say you know that she took money from the tyrant and that’s good enough for me, I consider it a fact, but then it is even worse that she did not have Sarkozy’s integrity.
          My regards to your friends.

          • Roy Bard

            May 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm

            “You say you know that she took money from the tyrant and that’s good enough for me, I consider it a fact”

            Surely it must be the TRUTH!

            Imagine if there wasn’t consensus in Libya!! Because if everybody was against Gaddafi and for the NTC, then who exactly is now being tortured to death by the NTC?

            We should be told…..

            • Ariadna Theokopoulos

              May 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

              Glad to see you’re beginning to get it too.
              Earlier you seemed to be as naive and disoriented as I was when you said: “some of us are wary of unsubstantiated claims.”

        • Jay Knott

          May 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm

          Ironically-challenged Suzy – you can’t get ‘the facts’ from ‘the Libyans’. Some Libyans believed one thing, some another. That’s why they fought each other. You have ‘contacts’. Well, so did Cynthia McKinney.

          McKinney has faults, but being a sell-out isn’t one of them. She lost her seat in the House because of her left-wing principles. She supported colonel Gaddafi because of old-fashioned anti-imperialism – his government was being attacked by NATO.

          She’s not stupid, so I don’t know why she supports the 9/11 ‘truth’ ‘theory’. Perhaps it’s like religion; people believe it because they need to. Like religion, it is in principle unfalsifiable. Perhaps it should be called a ‘conspiracy faith’ rather than a ‘conspiracy theory’. Or maybe people who claim to believe it are actually being ironic :)

          • Suzy

            May 8, 2012 at 9:16 am

            I agree Jay Knott that their was and is Libyans that were in gaddafi’s camp but they were no doubt about it in his pockets and enjoying that privilege by getting money and aid from him. As time went on and he showed his true colours and became dictator, tyrant a lot of people fell silent. Some people went along with him to keep safe, some kept quiet and others fought him to try and get freedom for the Libyans but he always managed to hang on because everyone was scarred and they had good reason for that. So many people disappeared over the years, now many bodies are being found from the past 42+ years and present uprisings. I was there in 84 and saw what he done with those he felt a threat to him, hung in a basket ball stadium and broadcast on State TV, someone pulling on the guys legs to make him die quicker. Their is a video showing his execution and I saw it live at the time. He even assassinated Libyans living abroad just because they dared to question his rule. People in the West just haven’t a clue to how the Libyans had to live, I know because I was there at some of the bad times and it became for a while until things settled down a open air prison, lockdown!

            • Jay Knott

              May 8, 2012 at 3:19 pm

              I knew an anti-war activist who traveled to Iraq shortly after the 2003 US invasion, and he found that huge numbers of Iraqis really did welcome it, Saddam’s rule was so bad. I suspect the same is true in Libya. I don’t believe in imperialism or anti-imperialism – McKinney’s mistake is a common one – thinking “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. In the sixties, activists had illusions in North Vietnam, Algeria, China etc.. However, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, I don’t suppose many Iraqis still think the US takeover was ‘worth it’.

              • Ariadna Theokopoulos

                May 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm

                “I knew an anti-war activist who traveled to Iraq shortly after the 2003 US invasion, and he found that huge numbers of Iraqis really did welcome it, Saddam’s rule was so bad.
                …
                “However, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, I don’t suppose many Iraqis still think the US takeover was ‘worth it’.”

                So it was really not a bad idea just sort of messed up later.

                “McKinney’s mistake is a common one – thinking “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.

                I don’t see any evidence of that. I see instead that she is consistently against rapacious, criminal foreign aggression against other nations or in occupied lands about whose fate under “tyrants”/”bad leadership” we hypocritically mumble pious comiserations.

          • Roy Bard

            May 8, 2012 at 5:14 pm

            “She’s not stupid, so I don’t know why she supports the 9/11 ‘truth’ ‘theory’.”

            Is her main thrust not that the US state must have been aware of the attacks – at the very least that they had received warnings?

            I don’t see whats stupid about that…..

            • Ariadna Theokopoulos

              May 8, 2012 at 5:20 pm

              I think the sensitive point is the suggestion that the Mossad was involved or that Israel had advanced knowledge and profited from it–that’s what must be quashed before it is even uttered.

            • Jay Knott

              July 7, 2012 at 9:18 am

              Cynthia does sometimes defend the ‘weak’ version of ’9/11 truth’, which says that the US must have received warnings. In fact, in August 2001, an FBI officer contacted his superiors and said that immigration had in custody the sort of man who might ‘hijack an airplane and crash it into the World Trade Center’. THEY KNEW!

              Not quite. In the haystack of information about terrorist activities, this was a needle. There appeared to be more solid data about other kinds of attack, so the authorities concentrated on them.

              British sources claim to have heard of the planes operation, and didn’t believe it. I find this plausible – I wouldn’t have believed it either. I thought that terrorist threats were being exaggerated.

  3. Ariadna Theokopoulos

    May 7, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    “it’s like religion; people believe it because they need to. Like religion, it is in principle unfalsifiable. Perhaps it should be called a ‘conspiracy faith’ rather than a ‘conspiracy theory’. Or maybe people who claim to believe it are actually being ironic”

    I couldn’t agree with you more.
    Assuming you are referring to the official conspiracy theory.

  4. Jay Knott

    May 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Ariadna – ‘truthers’ point out ad nauseam that the official theory is a conspiracy theory. They are right – that’s why I argue one should not use the term ‘conspiracy theory’ for pseudo-science – ‘conspiracy faith’ is better.

    People with a scientific approach don’t “claim to believe it”. One doesn’t ‘believe in’ theories, one argues they are the most economical explanation of the facts presently available. This approach doesn’t call itself a “Truth Movement”.

    • Suzy

      May 8, 2012 at 9:23 am

      I think you have to dig very deep for the truth and I have found that is indeed a fact, always need to find the bigger picture but it does help if you have contacts. Trouble is how many people do so they rely on the western media, RT and alternative media but you have to be aware that a lot of them are bought. Many people just don’t have a clue and believe the lies they are fed. Tptb then say ‘job well done’ and pat themselves on their backs!

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos

        May 8, 2012 at 2:12 pm

        Got it! It’s all clear now.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos

      May 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      “One doesn’t ‘believe in’ theories, one argues they are the most economical explanation of the facts presently available.”

      The history of science to this day is one of scientists believing in one theory or another. Not everything is reproducible. Big Bang is a theory.
      If the word “believe” is what bothers you, find a synonym, no problem: uphold a theory, proponents of theory, etc.

      What you fail to see or leave out is that most of the people who do not BUY (there’s another good synonym here) the official conspiracy theory do not necessarily claim to have the complete answer so they don’t all “believe” another specific theory, although there is a “list of suspects” and there are hypotheses. T
      Primarily they just find it impossible to buy the badly concocted tale, far from being “the most economical explanation”–in fact it is the LEAST economical solution as it would shred several laws of physics and probability.

      If there is one thing that ALL “truthers” believe is that they have been lied to, shamelessly and rather ineptly too.

      If you insist the moon is made of green cheese I will not believe you even if I may not be able to tell you what it is made of exactly. I just know that based on my experience and knowledge your claim is highly unlikely.

      “This approach doesn’t call itself a “Truth Movement”.
      I think the name is very apt. It does not mean, as you seem to imply, that they claim to have the truth, but that they seek it and even DEMAND it, because it has most certainly NOT been presented officially.

  5. Jay Knott

    May 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Ariadna – ‘all truthers believe they have been lied to’. Ah yes. The ‘fallback’ position. Truthers shift back and forth between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ 9/11 truth positions – ranging from
    - it was definitely caused by someone putting explosives in the buildings, and anyone who can’t see this – or says they can’t – is an idiot or an accomplice
    - er, we’ve ben lied to
    (actual examples)

    The Big Bang is not reproducible, but it is falsifiable (no red shift, no background radiation…). 9/11 Truth is not falsifiable. No-one will ever be able to prove that the massacre was not a massive setup.

    Yes, the authorities often lie. They also often tell the truth. The official report on the tragedy of September 11th 2001 is by far the best explanation available.

    • Roy Bard

      May 8, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      “The official report on the tragedy of September 11th 2001 is by far the best explanation available.”

      Here Nafeez Ahmed outlines many of the things that the report doesn’t explain.

      It’s absolutely clear that the 9/11 Commission report is totally unreliable….

      I think he has a point….

      Lauri van Auken, whose husband died in the attacks:

      We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered, Yet, incredibly, we have found that the Commission’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers

      She indicted the 9/11 Commission Report as just “some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us one day soon.”

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos

        May 8, 2012 at 6:06 pm

        I agree with van Auken that:
        “some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us one day soon.”

        except for the last three words…. that day began instantly on 9/11 and never let up.

      • Jay Knott

        May 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm

        Roy: Nafeez Ahmed’s book was the first I read after September 11th 2001 alleging government involvement. I also saw Mike Ruppert’s talk, and read various other books and articles. I confess I was, at first, conspiratorially inclined, and I wrote this leaflet: http://bit.ly/JFI2f5

        Then I started to question my beliefs, and changed my mind.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos

          May 11, 2012 at 5:41 pm

          “I confess I was, at first, conspiratorially inclined, and I wrote this leaflet: http://bit.ly/JFI2f5”

          “Blowback” was the expression of your “conspiratorial” inclinations concerning 9/11?!? :-)

          I often have this hard-to-resist impulse of giving free advice to opponents on how to make themselves more believable, and here I go again:

          If I were you I would not give the link to your leaflet because there is always the danger that people might read it!
          They might even think that it is not far from Hillary’s recent “confession” of her belief that by “helping” the Afghans liberate themselves from the Soviets we inadvertently created AlQaida.

          It is the approved script for progressives to say that yes, the Arab terrorists did 9/11, which is “blowback” for our let’s say exaggerated support of Israel, careless dealings with the ME, etc.

          If I were you I would only describe the content of the leaflet in vague terms. I’d just say:
          “I confess I was, at first, conspiratorially inclined, and I wrote a leaflet expressing my doubts about the official account.”
          I would notsay “I changed my mind” simply based on questioning “my beliefs.” That’s weak.
          I would rather put in the shmeer you wrote the other day about the official story being… how did it go?… “the most economical explanation” of the event. Makes it seem more, you know, rational and well thought through.

          Then I started to question my beliefs, and changed my mind.

        • Roy Bard

          May 11, 2012 at 6:01 pm

          I think Nafeez does pretty extensive research.

          As to 9/11 I have no idea what happened.

          I find the ‘official’ version totally unconvincing.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos

            May 11, 2012 at 6:14 pm

            “As to 9/11 I have no idea what happened.
            I find the ‘official’ version totally unconvincing.”

            EXACTLY. It then begs the question “Why are they lying?”

          • Jay Knott

            May 11, 2012 at 6:31 pm

            Roy – you know what, I wrote another piece which explicitly refers to Ahmed’s “research”: http://bit.ly/IOfs7n – it makes me cringe now…

            • Ariadna Theokopoulos

              May 11, 2012 at 6:50 pm

              Don’t cringe, Jay and don’t be modest either.
              It was a nice piece about what’s ludicrous, done from your proletarian, wasn’t it? perspective, explaining the class angles and, most important, a tight piece with nothing hanging out, all tucked in safely:

              “There are even theories that say Osama bin Laden still works for the CIA! And, naturally, those who think Israel was directly responsible. What a ludicrous idea!”

              • Jay Knott

                May 11, 2012 at 7:18 pm

                But, Ariadna, do you understand that I was being sarcastic? When I wrote that, I thought those “theories” weren’t ludicrous. And I should be modest, since I once believed what you think now.

                • Ariadna Theokopoulos

                  May 11, 2012 at 7:23 pm

                  Is it necessary at this point for me to state whether I was being sarcastic praising you for your efforts?

                  • Jay Knott

                    May 11, 2012 at 7:33 pm

                    You’re sarcastic about your own views, Ariadna?

                    Seriously, there is a danger in some of these discussions. Some commenters use terms like ‘gatekeeper’ for people who don’t agree with some of their theories. In leftist cults, ideas are classified, and new ones dismissed, or even persecuted, if they fit into an already disapproved classification: “that’s a councilist/anarchist/leninist argument”. I know ‘truthers’ who became wary of me when they realized I hadn’t seen the light: “How COULD anyone not see there must have been explosives in WTC 7??? Very suspicious…”.

                    That could happen here. Instead, we should try to evaluate contributions on the basis of their merits (evidence, falsifiability…), not on how distantly they resemble ‘the approved script’ (actual quote from Ariadna).

                    • Ariadna Theokopoulos

                      May 11, 2012 at 10:20 pm

                      “Instead, we should try to evaluate contributions on the basis of their merits (evidence, falsifiability…), not on how distantly they resemble ‘the approved script’ (actual quote from Ariadna).”

                      I am gratified to see you seem ready to abandon your previous strongest argument: “It’s stupid”

  6. Ariadna Theokopoulos

    May 8, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    ‘all truthers believe they have been lied to’.

    The category is a lot larger– all people with nothing more than common sense know they’ve been lied to.
    I personally have no idea HOW it was done exactly or by whom but I can safely exclude that it was done as described officially and by whom it is claimed.
    If a catastrophe with characteristics never seen before occurs and you tell me that it was done with rubber bands cleverly placed by ninjas, even though I don’t know who did it and how I will refuse to believe it.

    “The official report on the tragedy of September 11th 2001 is by far the best explanation available.”
    Good for you. Stick to it and sleep tight.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login