Ecce Signum.
Fifteen years ago, the man who ran the tentacle of the Vatican responsible for keeping abusive priests in line, the man who was one day to become the pope - Ratzinger - personally, specifically, and repeatedly blocked attempts to defrock a priest with a known history of sexually abusing minors. The Diocese wanted Rev. Stephen Kiesle removed. Ratzinger didn't; in his words, such an outcome would put "the good of the Catholic Church" at risk. This phrase is translated from the Latin original, in a letter, signed by Raztinger, that is part of years of correspondence between the Oakland Diocese and the Vatican specifically addressing the matter.
So now there is some proof.
What I want to know is:
and
AP exclusive: so its a googlecache at link.
- will it do any good
- will it prevent any more harm
- will it even have an effect
- will the next one be any better - that is, will the next Pope try, much less be able to, make up for the centuries of evil for which the Catholic Church is most assuredly guilty?
and
- will it resolve enough of this suspiciously sudden controversy, so that the Vatican will cease to continue to be eagerly used by a Main Stream Media, especially hungry right about now for fodder for its Distractus Ex Machina?
(Gentle Reader, have you seen that Wikileaks video yet?)
AP exclusive: so its a googlecache at link.
Be seeing you!
Free Counter
i was fooled by this. i am extremely disappointed by the way wikileaks portrayed this subject, as i am with the headline of this page.
ReplyDeletethe men first fired on in the video had weapons. two of them (this has been admitted by by the editor AFTER it was released).
so in context, these soldiers fired on a group of men congregating together in a known warzone (there was ground fighting barely a mile from where this was going on), 2 of whom had cameras (as they were reuters journalists), and two of whom had weapons (AK and RPG). this info can be found on the net, as the US actually carried out their own investigation (at the request of reuters) closer the when it happened.
wikileaks mention nothing of these men having weapons, and instead portray it as an unprovoked attack. the attack was wrong and shouldn't have happened, but it was a mistake, not an act of evil.
the one part that still retains any merit, is the part where the van was attacked, as the two men were merely helping an injured friend/co worker (combatant in the US' eyes) and attacking them was a direct violation of the 1st geneva convention, article 3. attacking an already injured and, believed to be, combatant.
your headline WIKILEAKS VIDEO - JOURNALISTS MURDERED, KIDS TARGETED, IN COLD BLOOD & WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION
is actually as bad (worse in my opinion) as any distorted western media headline i have ever seen. the journalists were not 'murdered', they were killed and not in cold blood as the men, while not combatants, were armed in a warzone (as i mentioned before, this has been admitted by the wikileaks editor). the kids were not targeted. you put that in there simply to catch attention but it is worse than a fabrication of the truth, it is a lie. the children were in a van, unseen by the soldiers. you should apply for a job with the times or something because the sensationalism involved in your headline is astounding.
one that i will give you, is that this was, in retrospect and on the face of it, unjustified that is, until you actually dig a bit.
i'm extremely disappointed by wikileaks. extremely disappointed.