Pages

Off His Onion, or Breaking News: Julian Assange Mossad Agent!

Iran is a great country for kebab; their pretty if well-covered girls are fine; but sense of humour is just not their forte. Their state media repeatedly broadcasted items lifted from the Onion, a satirical magazine taking them for literal truth. The Onion ran a story about American farmers who would rather have a drink with Ahmadinejad than with Obama, and their Fars news agency duly reprinted it. The Onion faked an interview with Mark Zuckerberg, and Iranian state-owned Press TV took it for a real thing.

And now, a new faux-pas. The same Iranian state-owned Press TV published an attack on Julian Assange with a bombastic claim: “Exclusive: Assange-Mossad ties unveiled”. A brief check shows an identical piece appeared on The Veterans Today site. Both pieces are identical, both “exclusive” and both written by the same person, a Gordon Duff, wearing two hats, that of “the chief editor of VT” and that of a “columnist of Press TV”. Oy, it would be better to stick to the Onion.

Not only it is not “exclusive”, there is no “revelation” either. In his column, Duff claims that “Assange, an intelligence asset of Israel, as Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out on December 2, 2010 on National Public Radio in an interview with Judy Woodruff, one tasked with supplying a platform for Israeli intelligence to insert carefully crafted “pointed intelligence” wrapped in “Wikileaks.” A very strong claim! Who would know better than Zbigniew Brzezinski, whether Assange is an intelligence asset or not? If he says so, it is certainly true. But alas, it is not so. In the interview, or anywhere else, or on any other occasion Zbigniew Brzezinski did not say anything similar about Julian Assange.

So, does Duff brazenly lie? No, he cheats the reader. Brzezinski explained what is “intelligence asset”, and Duff built the sentence so a careless reader would think Brzezinski related to Assange. Crafty trick! He could say: Assange, a vile paedophile, as the head of London police said, one who lusts after small children, and we would think that the Head of Scotland Yard confirmed criminality of Assange. He should be a lawyer, this Duff, and make good money.

The centrepiece is the absurd claim that by accusing President Obama of seeking to exploit the Arab spring revolutions for political gain, Assange “supported Romney, just like Netanyahu”. This is too silly even for the Onion! Julian Assange called upon Obama to cease persecution of Wikileaks and of Sergeant Manning, and he said that Obama’s vocal support for freedom of expression had not been translated into action. All that is true: Obama was and is a big disappointment for his voters. He uses drones to kill people more often than any US president. He used and derailed the Arab Spring for the imperial benefit. He was beastly to the Wikileaks. But nothing whatsoever would justify Duff’s daffy assertion that “along with Netanyahu, Assange has tried to insert his way into the American election on the side of a losing candidate whose platform is simply war with Iran.”

He could say the same about any critic of Obama, including the Counterpunch late co-editor Alex Cockburn. Duff goes on: “this week, from his balcony at the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange unleashed his program, carefully coordinated with the world’s druglords, his “bankster” friends and, closest of all, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, his strongest supporter, one to interfere in the American election on behalf of Mitt Romney.” Is there any basis for this wild accusation? None whatsoever. Neither druglords, nor banksters nor Netanyahu neither Romney never expressed a single positive assessment of Julian, neither he of them. Probably Romney would kill Assange by now if he could, and so would bankers, as he published some Bank of America data.

Every line in this lengthy article is zanier than the preceding one. Duff writes: “We got to know Assange initially with his video of a US helicopter killing civilians in Iraq. The problem is, of course, Assange supported the war in Iraq, supported a US attack on Iran for Iraq (whatever this means – ISH), supported war with Pakistan, supports US interference in Syria and, where he stands apart from most well informed people of the world, is a lead figure in suppressing an investigation of 9/11.”

Duff forgot to mention that Assange started World War One and World War Two, supported the Inquisition and is a leading figure behind the global warming (or cooling, or both). For the sake of innocent readers who just now hatched from an egg in rural Kentucky, let it be added, that Assange was and is strongly anti-war, and his publications were instrumental in recognising the sheer criminality of the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“Assange, living as a princeling for years” – he writes of a man who is locked up for two years for no crime and who hardly had had money for a bus ride. “Assange is a pure Islamophobe” – no reasons given, but believe Duff, he knows. Or even better one: “Julian Assange is the darling of Europe’s ultra-nationalists and “anti-immigration” crowd, seemingly a genetic twin to Andrew Breveik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 77 children of party members who supported the Israeli boycott.” Any proof? A quote from Julian, or a quote from Breivik, or at least a quote from “anti-immigration crowd”? Expectedly, none whatsoever. Assange is very far removed from all the nationalist scene, he never was interested in them, or they in him. I do not know why Duff failed to mention that Assange is Jack the Ripper.

Here is another daffy assertion: “When, back in early 2011, it was exposed to the world that all Wikileaks were filtered through Israel and then the “pop culture” mainstream media before release, meaning there is no more censored source of information than Wikileaks, he fell from grace.” Was it exposed? By whom, I pray? From whose grace Julian fell? Actually, I know the answer. It is Duff, who wrote that Wikileaks work from Israel. And then, I presume, Julian fell from grace with Duff’s readers. Was there any basis for it? Again, for the same Kentucky’s chicken benefit, none whatsoever. Julian Assange did not write the cables: the US diplomats did. As I explained on the Counterpunch site, the State Department cables are not overtly critical to Israel, for the US diplomats know that it would jeopardise their career.

One can go on forever, for every single sentence in the lengthy article is a sheer lie and baseless invention. So it was a year ago, and two years ago; as long as I am aware of Mr Duff’s daffy writing. As a man who professionally works on the very edge of the loonies’ cyberspace, I know of him, of his ilk and of his readers. They are mainly the guys who see the Mossad behind everything, including sunset and sunrise. They are the softest target for cheating, Duff style. Just tell them “It is Mossad”, and they will ask no questions. Tell them Ahmadinejad or Putin is a Jew, they would never doubt it.

I am rather fond of the loonies and almost-loonies: they are seeking answers, and it is not their fault that they can’t find them. It does not matter for me what makes Mr Duff tick. Is it a result of his many wounds and contusions acquired during his military service, or is it his innate daffiness, or his friendship with some Pakistani intelligence officers, or does he cover the loony edge for the careful CIA operators who think that even the loonies should be infected with hate to Julian Assange like the feminists were thanks to Anna Ardin and the Jews thanks to the Private Eye? Who knows, who cares…

It never occurred to me to debunk his nonsense, like one does not debunk Grey Aliens and Lizards. So why now?

It is because Iran should be taken seriously, and it should take itself seriously. Whether they want to have a nuclear weapon or not, if such a possibility is ever been pondered, they should watch over what they say and over what their state media reports. Judging by this publication, Iranians profoundly failed, and this failure is worse than one of Siemens booby-trapped equipment. Their discourse can’t rely upon the Onion nor upon those who are gone off their onion.

Share Button

, , , ,

29 Responses to Off His Onion, or Breaking News: Julian Assange Mossad Agent!

  1. pgg804 October 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    I read that article in Veterans Today. I like some of their other articles and I like their columnists. I have to say when I read the article, my reaction was similar to what is written above. It didn’t make sense to me, but I was trying to keep an open mind. But, I agree with Mr. Shamir. Saying Assange works for Mossad makes no sense.

    • Blake October 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

      I say when Assange releases all of a quarter of a million docs he claims he has on “Israel” then my suspicions of him not being a zionist lackey will vanish. Until he does so I remain convinced he is.

      • Jonathon Blakeley October 5, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

        Yes I agree, let’s face it his info has been pretty lame.

      • pgg804 October 6, 2012 at 12:17 am #

        Blake, do you know if he has held any other documents back or has it only been documents regarding Israel? Also, is he just a coward who is afraid of the backlash if he releases documents regarding Israel or is he actually working for Mossad? It certainly would be a good interview question. Mr. Assange, why are you not releasing the documents you have on Israel; a country that is in the news everyday?

        • Blake October 6, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

          Good question pgg. Think it could be either or.

      • who_me October 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

        “when Assange releases all of a quarter of a million docs he claims he has on “Israel”

        where did assange claim he had a 1/4 million israeli documents?

  2. botafogo October 5, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    i agree with Shamir – iranians are stupid to repeat this nonsense, and btw this one is by far not the first and only PressTV blunder.
    PressTV regularly gives air time to half-jokes like George Galloway who sometimes do say sensible things but very often dutifully repeat from the screen ad nauseam the “9/11 box cutters story” a la Jay Knott, the “holocaust” mythology etc etc etc

  3. David Holden October 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    little as i like to enter into controversy, my instinct for truth compels me to make one or two points concerning this article and its author. i will keep my remarks brief. it will not be difficult for any serious reader of deLib to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.

    1. why, at this particular moment in time, devote column inches to poking fun at Iran in a rather supercilious way?

    2. Mr Shamir has been intimately associated with, and a consistent advocate for, Mr Assange. in attempting a defence of Assange (whatever be the truth on that matter) there is no need for disinterested motivation. if, as seems likely, Assange has been either a dupe of, or a willing stooge for, the Mossad & Co, then Mr Shamir’s own credentials will, at least amongst truth seekers, be in tatters. if his handlers/financial backers consider him too useful to throw to the wolves at this stage, one would expect a minor psyop sometime soon aimed at providing him with an opportunity to reinforce his threadbare credentials.

    3. Mr Shamir’s published opinions on 911, whether he actually believes them or not,
    (http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng42.htm) are, for such a knowledgeable commentator, extremely naive:

    I can’t accept the Mossad and/or the Jews as the perpetrators of the 9/11, not because it is an antisemitic claim. My readers know that this consideration has never stopped me before. It’s the other way around: I consider it a deeply pro-Jewish claim implying that only Jews are capable of enterprises of great pith and moment…

    after such drivel, why should i give his other views any serious consideration? i am glad if he lends his support to the ‘Palestinian Cause’. the admirable Tony Greenstein and Ali Albuminah do no less. such support falls short of the standards of evidence required for canonisation.

    4. Mr Shamir pours scorn on Gordon Duff (vide supra) and Kevin Barrett (in the short piece just referred to in my point 3), who are two of the leading writers on Veterans Today. like deLiberation, VT allows a wide range of opinions to be expressed, and is not unknown to use humour. the editors, Mr Duff and Mr Dean are shrewd men, and explicitly state that they expect readers of the more serious articles to learn for themselves how to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    5. Mr Shamir has a positive association with, and promotes, Noam Chomsky, who is, for all his useful critiques of US imperialism, the establishment gatekeeper par excellence.

    i tentatively conclude that Mr Shamir is an old hand at cognitive infiltration and that his sudden appearance on the pages of this journal has, as its main agenda, an attempt to drive a wedge between deLiberation and Veterans Today.

    whilst, aside from raising the points above, i do not wish to persuade readers in any way concerning their views of the respective merits of Mr Shamir and Mr Duff, it is fair, in the interests of an open debate, to quote what Mr Duff wrote, also on 4the October 2012:

    Veterans Today has been informed by sources within the ADL that, in coordination with Julian Assange’s announcement, they were “tasked” by the Tel Aviv government to begin operations against journalists and online publications that had led to Wikileaks being discredited as an Israeli intelligence operation.

    (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/04/wikilkeaks-adl-and-mossad-bloggerassets-defend-assange-for-israel/)

    if my view is essentially correct, then the editors of this journal can take some pride in the quality and seniority of the agents of cognitive infiltration its pages are now attracting. in a short few months we seem to have seen off the low-level hasbara trolls who previously plagued our discussions with their mindless and predictable attempts to distract and misinform.

    whilst the mysterious Helena Blavatsky was hardly a paradigm of non-mendacity, we can perhaps agree with the citation she used after the title of her extremely rhizomatic occult treatise The Secret Doctrine:

    there is no religion higher than truth

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

      I agree with you, David, on Vetereans Today, Duff and Assange. Your points are well taken. Nevertheless I disagree with your suspicious about Shamir, not because they are implausible, given the plethora of such types lurking in print, but because the arguments offered for them are somewhat weak.
      Shamir’s position on Chomsky ad 9/11 could be just “honestly wrong.” he could be a dupe or, to use Shamir’s own phrase about those he lambasts, he could be an “almost-loonie.”
      His appearance on deLib–much as I’d like to think that deLib has risen to the top of the list of targets to be infiltrated– is no argument at all because he did not write this article FOR deLIb–it appears on his home page and wherever else it was deemed worthy of publication. In fact the argument would be further weakened if we found out that deLib was one of the few venues where it appeared.
      Having said all that, I fully agree with you that Shamir is … full of it.

      • David Holden October 6, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

        my first instinct on IS (when i first became aware of his existence a few months ago) was neg. also, if irrelevantly, he does seem a bit full of himself, and a follower of the philosophy of manliness – good choice of sunglasses etc. he has three different aliases. he was in the IDF. he is at home in Russia, Sweden and Israel etc. weak ‘arguments’, but arguments all the same.

        but i gave him the benefit of the doubt. he supported the so-called 1-state ‘solution’ and he hosted a site where some good people wrote, or had their writings reproduced.

        when he first appeared on deLib (not in person, according to your info) i posted something friendly.

        this ludicrous piece on Assange, rightly or wrongly was the point – it always comes – when i thought ‘my instinct was right’. i may be an aspy, but in order to survive in a non-aspy world of lies, deceit and entrapment, developing the ability to sniff a wrong ‘un is a necessary condition for survival.

        however i appreciate, as always, your critique.

        my question now is: why is deLiberation suddenly blessed with such generous dollops of the divine prose of Israel Shamir (nee Izrail Schmerzler, alias Jöran Jermas, aka Ermash)?

        who is championing his cause here and why? i hope it is not considered bad etiquette for a mere commentor like myself to ask this question. it is merely a request for information, and not intended critically.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 7, 2012 at 3:54 am #

          No, your questions are entirely justified. Perhaps the editors can tell us how this works.
          Did they pick up Shamir’s stuff and posted it here? That would be fine–items for discussion, taking apart, bashing, excusing, the works–in a word, deliberation
          or
          Is he an author, like you and me–who can post his own stuff, in which case an increase in frequency lately may mean:
          a. he is assiduously courting us for a reason
          b. fewer others want him

  4. Ariadna Theokopoulos October 5, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Gordon Duff on wikileaks
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO45VxqjfJU&feature=player_embedded#!

  5. fool me once... October 5, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    “cognitive infiltration”
    A term coined by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_infiltration
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
    .
    Cass Sunstein and 911
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r95_cW3_oJU
    ??

  6. pgg804 October 6, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    I think I’m out of my league here. I can see the other people here know the players and what is going on much better than I do. I do know I like some of the other article Mr. Shamir has written.

    • David Holden October 6, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

      pgg804 don’t criticise yourself unnecessarily.

      there is no reason to divide writers into trustworthy and untrustworthy on some subjectively absolute basis. this causes much unnecessary confusion amongst truthseekers.

      first and foremost every piece should be judged on its merits taking into consideration any constraints due to the means by and circumstances in which it was produced and distributed. nothing should be assessed solely on the basis of its real or purported attribution.

      a doctor might help with a grumbling appendix, but you would not necessarily seek his or her help in planning a landscaped garden or solving an equation.

      to take one well-known example, Alex Jones has cast light on many shady goings-on, but he is not a good source for information about Israel or Jewish power. for this reason some dismiss him as a mere zionist shill, but i personally think this is both unfair and unhelpful.

      however there are even more shades of grey in the Great Game than there are in contemporary pornographic chic-lit. it is useful to gradually assess, and reassess each writer as you go on. your French primer might have been very useful at school, but if you have been living in Bourg St-Maurice for five years the same book will be less useful, and may even appear naive and mistaken in places.

      what is certain is that it is bad policy to believe something on trust, however highly you value the source.

      there is also the phenomenon known as gate-keeping

      whilst we cannot be effective without emotional commitment, our beliefs should be shaped by evidence and logic. where experience comes in useful is in developing useful heuristics – the ability to formulate hypotheses which help to direct further investigation.

      e.g. once you know that government agencies carry out false flag operations, then when some ghastly thing happens you begin to look at things like: whose interests does this serve and in what way, and you look for tell-tale signs in the modus operandi. even official denials and debunking can be useful sources of information, though not in the way intended. when Shyam Sundar of NIST – a trained scientist – declared in public, with a straight face, that WTC building collapsed due to burning office furniture and curtains he was, consciously or unconsciously, declaring that the whole official version of 911 is an utterly implausible tissue of lies.

      we are all engaged in a collective learning processes. it will never be completed. and even people whose knowledge is well-developed can make mistakes through prejudice or partiality. and don’t forget that people can be got at in various ways, so that their formerly reliable info-stream becomes cloudy and polluted.

      we should all strive to eliminate errors made from naivety, prejudice or partiality. these sources of error are built in to the human operating system.

      the proper response to a mistake is not to feel anger or shame. it is to correct the mistake.

      in matters of value, rather than of fact, it is natural and desirable that there should be a range of opinions. there are sincere people on both sides of many impassioned debates about ethics (cf abortion or euthanasia or sexuality). here tolerance of difference, and mutual respect are paramount.

  7. who_me October 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    shamir has written about assange and wikileaks several times in the past and has referred to assange as a friend.

  8. who_me October 8, 2012 at 4:29 am #

    David Holden

    October 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    October 5, 2012 at 1:41

    David Holden Reply

    October 6, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    my question now is: why is deLiberation suddenly blessed with such generous dollops of the divine prose of Israel Shamir (nee Izrail Schmerzler, alias Jöran Jermas, aka Ermash)?

    who is championing his cause here and why? i hope it is not considered bad etiquette for a mere commentor like myself to ask this question. it is merely a request for information, and not intended critically.

    Ariadna Theokopoulos

    October 7, 2012 at 3:54 am

    in other words:

    he’s not one of “us”! what is the meaning of posting material from this heretic here? i’m reminded when fw engdahl exposed the zionazi fraud of the “green” regime change ops in iran on the zionist front, “the real news” (gag…), some of the jewish comment spammers dug up and used engdahl’s criticism of global warming theory to ask “is this guy suitable for this site? his views are not ours, he doesn’t believe in global warming”.

    the zionazi jews and catholics at the old guardian talkboard used to use that routine all the time when somebody posted something that didn’t agree with their propaganda line. funny seeing you two use it here. well, not really. shamir posts positive views on russia, which is verboten in western fascist circles. very clever. laura was also fond of such methods to initiate censorship.

  9. who_me October 8, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    the jewish mafia extortion racket (british division) strikes again:

    http://rt.com/news/assange-backers-pay-thousands-911/

    Assange cash backers ordered to pay £93K

  10. David Holden October 9, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    david holden wrote:(emphasis added)

    who is championing his cause here and why? i hope it is not considered bad etiquette for a mere commentor like myself to ask this question. it is merely a request for information, and not intended critically.

    who_me wrote:

    the zionazi jews and catholics at the old guardian talkboard used to use that routine all the time when somebody posted something that didn’t agree with their propaganda line. funny seeing you two use it here. well, not really. shamir posts positive views on russia, which is verboten in western fascist circles. very clever. laura was also fond of such methods to initiate censorship.

    *************************************************

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”Hamlet III.ii

    (excuse gender bending, but i won’t mangle a quote from the bard)

    это возможно, что кто-то здесь является жертвой инфантильной привязанности? когда наблюдается такой иррациональной поток злоупотребления вызван отдельными словами, вряд ли это быть результатом рационального мышления.;-)

    perhaps, as a senior citizen with little experience of life, and, due to terminal mental rigidity, no ability to adapt to new circumstances, i am unfortunate in still having to resort to the outmoded activity still known (albeit, perhaps, only in the most reactionary circles) as thinking.

    i see that who_me leads the way to a promised land where one can decide every issue by simple and clear yet very powerful visceral responses to individual words.for example:

    russia, ussr – good, hero, saviour, hurrah!
    catholic – evil, hate, censor, destroy

    i am gratified that this new way, even though i am incapable of following it myself, will soon enormously increase the scope, range, accuracy and rapidity of human cognition. even young children, and perhaps some amongst the more intelligent of the non-human animals, will be able, in very short spans of time, to decide the most complex of philosophical and political issues.

    it seems i am also outmoded in thinking that disagreement can contribute to the dialectical evolution of thought amongst a group of (relatively) like-minded people. to disagree with who_me is nothing more than a hate-crime, and in the interest of should be punished as follows:

    first three offences: mild reprimand, sulking, increasingly intense streams of invective and name calling.

    fourth offence: call for excommunication

    fifth offence: exile

    sixth offence: penal colony

    seventh offence: the hangman’s noose.

    so should perish all evildoers (myself included)who strive to rally the inglorious counter -revolutionary rabble, a rag-tag of Rothschild agents, zionist provocateurs, neo-nazi scum and white suprematists, plus a scattering of common criminals, drug-addicts and other forlorn dregs of the lumpenproletarian gutter.

    i will amplify what i have already said, but wish to request that the first word is taken into account when the people’s tribunal is deciding my sentence. this first word is IF. Stanislawski wrote an interesting chapter with this title, which, like much of his writings on acting, has a far wider applicability than the main intended audience of practitioners of the dramatic arts.

    IF.

    if Mr Assange is ever shown to be a patsy, then Mr Shamir will be revealed as his Mossad minder, and many otherwise sincere and honest people will be compelled to examine critically the application of concepts such as deep moles and gullibility caused by emotionalism and naive partisanship.

    i trust that, whatever the outcome, that Mr Shamir’s prose will have an equal value, and will be avidly read by all serious students of history in 500 years time. many fine writers for a variety of reasons, some praiseworthy, others less so, have at times co-operated with those inhabiting the murkier zones of the Great Game.

  11. Jay Knott October 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    The Onion once published the story that Neil Armstrong had realized that he never went to the moon, and that the Apollo 11 mission was fake. It was a parody of a well-known daft conspiracy theory. I circulated the story to my local ‘9/11 truth’ group, who are fond of such theories. One of them responded ‘The Onion is a satirical magazine, Jay’.

    I didn’t have the heart to write back “I know it’s a satirical magazine – I was being sarcastic”.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 19, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

      How would they presume to think you were being sarcastic when you declaim–with a straight face–the legend of the Box Cutter Boys? They must have concluded that you were peddling another one.

      • Jay Knott October 20, 2012 at 12:32 am #

        And by the way, Ariadna, you are mistaken in saying I ‘declaim’ the official story of 9/11. But in order to explain how you made that mistake, I would have to explain to you the difference between science and religion. I don’t have time right now; I’m trying to help that local truth group defend themselves against a major Zionist shitstorm. So quit trolling.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 20, 2012 at 1:42 am #

          I imagined you were declaiming it to them only because you know it by heart and can recite it fluently but perhaps I was wrong.
          Perhaps you showed them ze little graphs? Ze little grey graphs?
          Yes, “the scientific method” of proving the tale of the 19 (later 14) Box Cutter Boys. Can one ever tire of hearing it?

          You have every right to be proud of yourself and boast a bit–defending their right to free speech! Why, you are a hero, jay, ain’t no doubt about it.

        • who_me October 20, 2012 at 2:26 am #

          “I’m trying to help that local truth group defend themselves against a major Zionist shitstorm.”

          no doubt your help, “j”, is in much the same manner as the “help” provided to palestinians by the likes of greenstain, weiss, horowitz (several first names), kane, robbins (not meaning tim in this particular instance), and last, and certainly least, mathis.

          :D

          • who_me October 20, 2012 at 2:30 am #

            btw, isn’t “shitstorm” the usual description of what happened to a dwelling after it had been visited upon by a bunch of pissed, randy rightwingers?

  12. Jay Knott October 19, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    No, it’s that they are as humorless as the Iranian government. Truthers take themselves very seriously.

    • who_me October 20, 2012 at 12:52 am #

      “No, it’s that they are as humorless as the Iranian government. Truthers take themselves very seriously.”

      bashing iran as a true israeli patriot. j lives up to his “j” naming.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 20, 2012 at 1:45 am #

      I think that you are an ingrate–they don’t laugh their asses off before you leave the room not because not because they are humorless but because they are polite and considerate and perhaps endowed with human compassion also.

Leave a Reply