<< 've been saying the same thing to you liberals for 3 years: bush is our president....LIVE WITH IT. >>


What the hell does this have to do with ignoring potential war crimes?
Answer this: why do we even lock people up in America for crimes? Why? Because we want a moral and just society. What is it with you freaks that can't get that into your heads?
Just as we demand that people in American obey the law, so too should we insist on lawful and just actions in foreign affairs. what the hell is it going to take for you to understand that holding people accountable and to the law is a necessity? what the hell is it going to take for you to understand that we must hold ALL our people accountable, even when they are doing things to foreigners.
we had to beat it into your heads that discrimination and racism in the US is wrong. you finally got that? now listen: for your next lesson you need to understand that no one is above the law and that we will indeed hold public officials responsible EVEN WHEN THEY ACT OVERSEAS. got it?

"To his American friends, Ahmad Chalabi is a democrat and a paragon of Iraqi patriotism. To his enemies, he's a crook. Does he have the stuff to reshape Iraq?" The answer, according to Newsweek, is no.

'IT'S ASTONISHING HOW LITTLE SUPPORT HE HAS'
That goes for many Iraqis inside the country. Nobody in Iraq can be sure what Chalabi's agenda is, or who his real allies are. A high-ranking U.S. military-intelligence officer told NEWSWEEK he was stunned when he began talking to locals, even anti-Saddam locals, about Chalabi's credibility. "It's astonishing how little support he has," the officer said. When a U.S. general asked the officer what he was hearing, the officer told him, "I'm sorry to say it, sir, but I'm afraid we're backing the wrong horse."

And surprise surprise, Chalabi supports an oil pipeline to pump oil into Israel!! (not something that would be popular with Iraqis either). This Chalabi guy isn't popular in a country that we supposedly want to set up a democracy. Democracy is supposed to mean that the citizens can vote on what leaders they want.
Notice this hasn't been pointed out on TV?

http://www.mikehersh.com/Friedman_and_Freedom_In_Iraq.shtml

Foriegn policy hurts the US in world opinion
One main problem is the ignorance created by mainstream media about Israel and Palestine.
we must start an information campaign to get the truth out to the public. we are having our lives put at risk for policies that are immoral and unjust and violate our basic American values.
Learn more (work in progress)get the facts out:
History of Israel http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

<<
Would it be OK to just allow the Palestinians to blow up Jews? >>


You cannot be this stupid. The racist agenda and forced demographics on Palestine was the Zionists idea. They are the ones that pushed it. Jews are blowing up Palestinians too, so you are dishonest to make it like only Palestinians are using terrorism.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that Jews "have to" move over into the West Bank? Continuing to steal land, continuing to oppress and occupy.
are you seriously going to argue that the settlers "have to" move into the territories. that Israelis "have to" continue to possess stolen land behind the green line? that the ethnic cleansing "has to" be continued. (just like a white racists insist he doesn't want to live around blacks)
You are playing a dishonest game that the wrongs the Israelis have done and are doing are some how in response to Palestinian acts. moving families into the West Bank IS NOT A DEFENSE MOVE. IT IS NOT A SECURITY MOVE. It is land theft plain and simple. How stupid do you think people are that you want them to swallow this idea that Jews "have to" move thousands of people into the West Bank. You use the killings as justification for land grabs and that is sick.

You play a stupid game that Palestinians are not reacting to having been slaughtered, ethnically cleansed and oppressed.

<< And to stir hatred and a racial divide. No one would move into Harlem and declare a "White Town", >>
would it be OK? NO. so why do you support Jews doing the same thing in Palestine?

<< Would you have liked it if blacks would have blown up whites, instead of protesting peacefully. >>

You can't get this into your head. Blacks did not only "protest peacefully"
you want to ignore the fact that blacks DID KILL WHITES.
the point you are either too stupid to get or you think you are clever pretending you don't get it is that blacks did resort to terrorism. and the point is it would be wrong to point to those terrorists acts and claim whites "had to" keep slavery going. it would be wrong to claims that whites "had to" keep blacks as second class citizens.

<< So, quit your stupid analogies and come to your senses. >>
the analogy makes perfect Sense you tries to counter it by dishonestly making the insinuation that blacks did not use terrorism.
you want to avoid what the implications are. by your logic the whites should have continues to keep the blacks as slaves or continued to treat them like second class citizens because blacks attacked whites. by logic the oppression would always be justified because it would be "giving in" since blacks had attacked whites.
there have been many, many, many times of peace. the Israelis never do what they are obligated to do.
they have designs on all of Palestine and they reject peaceful plans. It is Israel that still intends on not fulfilling the bare minimum of a just settlement.
One plan could be to ensure everyone in Israel/Palestine equal rights and operate it like a bi-national state. Here is another plan: Israel stops the aggression and the Palestinians and Israelis work to end terrorism. As far as land and people. Israel could either withdraw to the "Green Line" and honor the right of return or Israel could withdraw to the boundaries suggested by the UN partition plan and then compensate the Palestinians to settle in the Palestinians State. That would end the conflict.

<< BECAUSE BLACKS DID'NT STRAPS BOMBS TO THEMSELVES AND BLOW UP SCHOOL BUSES, YOU MORON. >>

You are totally ignorant of history. Blasck did indeed go out and kill whites. They stabbed, shot and clubbed (no they didn't use explosives staped to themselves but so what? there WERE blacks regiliously inspired (just as some Palestinians have been) and there were blacks that killed innocent people (just as some Palestinians have done) You can go on and on about how bad the blacks were that did these killings but to ignore the circumstances is dishonest and ignorant.
You are ignorant of history.

"And by signs in the heavens that it would make known to me when I should commence the great work, and until the first sign appeared I should conceal it from the knowledge of men; and on the appearance of the sign... I should arise and prepare myself and slay my enemies with their own weapons." -Nat Turner

Marching toward Jerusalem
On August 13, 1831 there was an atmospheric disturbance in which the sun appeared bluish-green. This was the final sign, and a week later, on August 21, Turner and six of his men met in the woods to eat a dinner and make their plans. At 2:00 that morning, they set out to the Travis household, where they killed the entire family as they lay sleeping. They continued on, from house to house, killing all of the white people they encountered. Turner's force eventually consisted of more than 40 slaves, most on horseback.
By about mid-day on August 22, Turner decided to march toward Jerusalem, the closest town. By then word of the rebellion had gotten out to the whites; confronted by a group of militia, the rebels scattered, and Turner's force became disorganized. After spending the night near some slave cabins, Turner and his men attempted to attack another house, but were repulsed. Several of the rebels were captured. The remaining force then met the state and federal troops in final skirmish, in which one slave was killed and many escaped, including Turner. In the end, the rebels had stabbed, shot and clubbed at least 55 white people to death.

How much more evidence do you mindless followers of Empire500 do you need to see? In the video we see Israeli officials acknowledging that the soldiers are Israeli! This Empire500 has some sort of agenda. He is in total denial about the actions of his beloved Israel.

It took years for liberals to beat the idea into your heads that prejudice against blacks is wrong. you guys kept attacking us, calling us names like "nigger lovers" and you guys kept insisting that we didn't understand that you had to treat the "niggers" like this. you guys thought you were doing the right thing! (racists ALWAYS do)
once again you guys get it wrong. ) and AGAIN you insist you are doing the right thing. you are calling Palestinians "vermin" and insisting on ethnic cleansing. you "just love it when the Israeli Army goes shopping"

LOOK in the Mirror you fools. you are putting this country through the same crap you did when you insisted on the "rights of whites" to kill blacks. You guys are following another hateful fanatic calling himself "Empire500". Look how extreme this guy is. He started this thread gloating about Israelis killing people. Even when video evidence of the extremist racist murderous Israelis is presented this jackass tries to pin it on Palestinians.

this is just like the white extremists that could not see whites doing wrong to blacks. (it was always an excuse with these people) these clowns divided our nation, now look at this freak "Empire500" as he writes about putting a bayonet into my liver!
you guys are always pushing the worst onto America. (always with your totally clueless and ignorant mindset)

Is anyone here going to be man enough to admit what they can see with their own eyes?http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=World&story=/news/2002/03/19/mideast_censor020319
Is anyone going to be man enough to admit the extreme racism of the Israeli society
you guys are too much.Is there anyone that can READ this Israeli newspaper and DEAL WITH THE FATC: Israeli sosciety is EXTREMELY RACIST:
Survey: Israel yet to grasp concept of democracy
By Mazal Mualem

More than half the Jewish population of Israel - 53 percent - is opposed to full equal rights for Israeli Arabs, according to a survey conducted last month by the Israel Democracy Institute.

The general conclusion of the survey, which is dubbed the "Israeli Democracy Survey" and will be conducted every year, is that Israel is basically a democracy in form more than in substance, and that it has yet to internalize fully the concept of democracy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=293813

so extremely brainwashed that you can't even imagine that Jews can do any wrong!
you have been brainwashed by a media that has sold you this idea by treating Zionists DIFFERENTLY (and you guys are too stuborn and arrogant to do the research to understand the at the media is not telling you basic facts that you can learn in an Isreali newspaper)
"... talk of a Jewish lobby is another one of those dangerous topics, it's dangerous for Jews because it feeds the imaginations of real anti-Semites who believe in a world wide Jewish conspiracy. It's dangerous for those who would discuss Jewish political influence because they risk the charge of anti-Semitism. It's not like when you talk about lobbying organizations for say immigrants or the disabled or the Saudi Government for that matter. History, sensitivity and politics make talk of Israel and its supporters different and alot more complicated. I'm John Donvan for Nightline in Washington." -broadcast 4/17/02 ABC's Nightline
and you guys never get it. So arrogant that you can never educate yourselves out of your ignorance. Even when presented with video proof, this fool refuses to believe it!

<< Hold on, its an MEDIA article. You expect us to believe it???? I thought the media wasn't credible?!?!?!?!?
>>

The point is the media is biased and that they withhold info.
I never said "don't believe anything in the media"
YOU created that as a strawman argument
so you got it wrong.
There has to be internal logic. Yours is a dopey view that biased and manipulative news can't be used as a source. The point here is look what they are willing to admit given the track record of towing the party line.

<< as long as it was by government authorities and not by civilians. >>

Soseraphic, I can understand why you would refer to terrorism "by government authorities" as if this is the only terrorism Jews are committing. This is the perception the media creates but it is not true. Civilian Jews are committing terrorism as well. Terrorism identical, just as deadly and just as bad as any terrorism you can imagine others (non-Jews) doing.

It must be pointed out that Jews have been practicing civilian terrorism as civilians from even before they imposed the Jewish State on Palestinians. Terrorism ON TOP OF the terrorism carried out by their "IDF". If you read what even one of their Prime Ministers have written you will see that these Zionist Jews thing terrorism has "a great part to play" in them forcing their racist system onto Palestine.

Prime Minister of Israel, commander of the group that assassinated Bernadotte, lauded terror as a moral imperative. "Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat," he wrote. "First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play...in our war against the occupier."

Some would have us believe that such thoughts, and the practices that follow from them, were only the province of extremists, and were abandoned with the establishment of the state that the press describes as the "symbol of human decency," "a society in which moral sensitivity is a principle of political life" (New York Times), which has been guided by "high moral purpose...through its tumultuous history" (Time).2 There is an extensive record to undermine such delusions. Stories about Jews carrying out terrorism are suppressed or extremely underreported in the American media.
Most Americans don't hear about the terrorism of Jews who the American media refer to these violators of the Geneva conventions euphemistically as "Jewish settlers."
They have run around with the same hate and the same killings the same intimidation tactics similar to any of the KKK members that have murdered blacks and made the lives of blacks miserable.

Sometimes these "Jewish settlers" even end up killing Jews.

Beita achieved notoriety when a Jewish teenager, Tirza Porat, was killed on April 6 by an Israeli settler, Romam Aldubi, after a confrontation that took place when 20 hikers from the religious-nationalist settlement of Elon Moreh entered the lands of Beita -- "to show who are the masters," as one hiker later told a TV interviewer. Two villagers, Mousa Saleh Bani Shamseh and Hatem Fayez Ahmad al-Jaber (there are conflicting versions of their names), were also killed and several were severely wounded by Aldubi, one of two armed guards accompanying the hikers. Aldubi is a well-known extremist barred from entering Nablus, the only Jew ever subjected to an army exclusion order; the second guard and organizer of the hike, Menahem Ilan, also had a criminal past. A 16-year-old boy, Issam Abdul Halim Mohammad Said, was killed by soldiers the following day.

The hikers claimed that Tirza Porat had been killed by Arab villagers, setting off virtual hysteria in Israel, including a call by two cabinet ministers to destroy the town and deport its population. Within a day, the army had determined that she was killed by Aldubi, then proceeding to blow up 14 houses while Chief of Staff Dan Shomron reported that "the Arab residents had intended no harm to the Elon Moreh hikers" and had indeed protected them. Many people were arrested (60 remained in prison when we visited), and six were later deported. General Shomron declared that "action had to be immediate. A failure to act could well have led to other action in the area," that is, more settler violence. The collective punishment and expulsions are "the expected tribute" paid to control the settlers, Nahum Barnea observes, punishment for their violence being out of the question, because they are Jews

Of the victims of the events in Beita, only the name of Tirza Porat is known, and only the circumstances of her killing merit inquiry and comment. This is only to be expected in the reigning climate both here and in Israel. Who would have heard the name of Intissar al-Atar, a 17-year-old Palestinian girl shot and killed in a schoolyard in Gaza last November 10, or of her killer, Shimon Yifrah of the Jewish settlement of Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip, arrested a month later and released on bail because, the Supreme Court determined, "the offense is not severe enough to order the arrest of the accused, and in this case there is no fear that Yifrah will repeat the offense or escape from his punishment"? The Israeli judge unwilling to punish a Jew for killing just an Arab.
These actions are severe. Imagine a "good old boy" judge that were reluctant to punish whites that killed blacks in the Old South. (The extremism of the judge and the settlers who sang and danced celebrating the judge's decision in the courtroom is perhaps more over the top than the pre-the pre-civil rights South and one would have to look back to the time of Slavery (pre-Civil War) for such despicable attitudes and actions):

The judge noted that the Jewish murderer intended only to shock the girl by firing his gun at her in a schoolyard, not to kill her so "this is not a case of a criminal person who has to be punished, deterred, and taught a lesson by imprisoning him" Yifrah was given a 7 month suspended sentence, while settlers in the courtroom broke out in song and dance.


Nearly all Americans don't hear about Jude Abdallah Awad, a shepherd murdered, and his companion who was severely wounded, when a Jewish settler tried to drive them from a field on May 5, an incident meriting 80 words in the New York Times (and none when the settler was released on bail, charged with manslaughter)? Or Iyad Mohammed Aqel, a 15-year-old boy murdered by Israeli soldiers, his head "beaten to a pulp" according to a witness, after he was dragged from his home in a Gaza refugee camp?

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z8807-uprising.html#FN24

Nahum Barnea ( Koteret Rashit, April 13 ) observes that punishment for violence by Jews is out of the question, because they are Jews.
In American this is the case largely because the media is creating a false impressions about what is happening. Whites who tried to speak out against slavery were demonized and against human rights violations were called "nigger lover" today the underhanded tactics to allow Israeli Jews to continue to get away with murder as just as sick. One might think claims of "anti-White" would look stupid if thrown at people speaking out for equal rights of blacks but notice how often and how effective the claims of "anti-Semite" are thrown at people speaking out for human rights of non-Jews when they are victims of actions by Jews.

additional info: http://www.ukar.org/levant/levant09.html

<< We are way beyond reasoning, negotiating, >>

BS. You are a sick twisted guy aren't you?

The powerful in this country make too much money off of screwing over the Middle East. They want to continue. They way they do that is by convincing the public that they aren't screwing over the Middle East. They continue the polices by convincing the public that those that attack us are doing it for "no logical reason" or "because they hate our freedoms"
Those that dare point out the truth and prove it with facts are denounced. They are denounced with the contrived slander of "anti-American," with the same ugly tactics used to keep horrible practices of America's past in practice.
How in God's name did Slavery continue for the years it did in America if we are such an enlightened people. I think because the people that benefited from horrible systems deceived them about the fundamental "way it is." People that dared to speak out against Slavery were attacked. People that dared to speak about equal rights were called "nigger lovers."
Today the ignorant scream "anti-American" in order to avoid dealing with the facts of U.S. foreign policy. They assume that since it is policies in America's name then it must be OK. this was the same thing that kept Millions of Americans from ending Slavery YEARS before the Civil War. Those that dared insist that racist policies against blacks must stop were denounced. How come slavery lasted as long as it did? I don't think Americans were more evil in 1776 then they are today. The thing must have been that the people did not give it enough thought and power was used to shout down and suppress any speech attempting to end the horrible policy. Today that kind of cruelty and greed has been exported. For over 50 years horrible polices have done great harm to human rights and justice. They continue because powerful men can manipulate the public's perception about what is going on. Some people do understand the injustices, many more don't think about it. And that is because of the influence of the media culture that presents the views that those in power want presented.

BUSH LIED ABOUT WHY WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11.
what more do you need to know?
MediaReform

<< I don't believe he lied. >>

what?? this isn't a game.
we were not attacked "because we are a beacon of freedom"
do you not see how asinine that reason is? how the hell does that make sense?
we have even seen video of some of the hijackers drinking and watching strippers. they didn't hate our freedoms. they hated
the interference and backing of dictators and kings and unjust governments.
why do you find that so hard to understand?
bin Laden may want a particular kind of government, a government that most in the region would not agree with. But what nearly everyone agrees with is that they don't like a foreign power propping up rulers that they didn't select.
get it?
here is a stat: MOST Saudi Arabians want women in Saudi Arabia to have more rights.
the problem is the Kings don't. we gives the kings the power to stay in power? the U.S.
the people have been trying to resist their rulers for decades. the U.S. has made it impossible for them to change their governments. Moderates have been killed with the help of the U.S. and on top of that the U.S. pumped in BILLIONS of dollars to the most radical elements: those with bin Laden's philosophy. Do you realize the damage U.S. policy makers have done to the societies in the regions?

Did Nat Turner and crew do what they did because they "hated our freedoms" too?
<< Is that what OBL is doing?
>>
what are you talking about? Did you ever look into what this whole thing is about??

<< Too bad posters like Mallory don't read posts like this >>

I have no doubt that most soldiers think they are doing the right thing. But you need to do research and open your eyes.

RIGHT NOW, American businessmen are violating the rights of Iraqis. RIGHT NOW they are making business deals and dictating policies and making decisions that the PEOPLE OF IRAQ SHOULD BE MAKING.
Not every American soldier is an angel, you didn't hear about the war crimes? (the media doesn't like reporting these thing: can you get that into your head?)
the media is out for profit. A reporter makes sure he keeps his job. These things are done by NOT REPORTING most of the very critical and uncomfortable stories.

But even the ones that do get reported should make you think. Remember the soldiers who were caught trying to steal the millions of dollars in cash? Remember that?
They could not get away with it because they didn't have political power, they were just soldiers.
But the businessmen that have connections have just as much greed as these soldiers caught trying to steal the cash, the difference is they do have the political power to get away with it.

As an example of what a poor job the media does informing the public:
even Microsoft's Bill Gates thought the media would tell him the whole story about suffering and deaths of third world peoples. He was shocked that the media presented such a distorted picture of the world. He did the research, he didn't try to make excuses.

Because the media has done such a poor job informing the public about the foreign polices, people are clueless as to why people would be angry.

If we take Saddam as an example, nearly EVERYONE agrees he was horrible. the thing the American public need to know is that the anger at America is because of doing things: specifically as one example Putting the Baath party into power and helping Saddam

It is no wonder the general public is so clueless: the media has made them that way.
The public assumes that mainstream media lives up to its obligation of serving the public good. The public is ignorant of the fact that the corporations that control the media are not serving the public good.

I am just listing one example but it is very dramatic. By not reporting that in 1963 AND 1968 the US backed the coups to put the Baath party into power. By not explaining that at the time Saddam was know to be a murderer and that the U.S. handed over names of hundreds of people for the Baath party to kill.

Don't be ignorant. The media is indeed playing games and withholding info. The media's role should include giving context and background info. The problem is that they only tell what they want to. the media made sure to report to the public that the Israeli astronaut on the space shuttle was one of the Israeli pilots that attacked the Nuclear power plant 20 years ago. so we see the media can and does give background info.
the problem is the media is serving powerful people and they want to give the public a distorted view of the world because it benefits them financially to do so.

Not telling the public that the US policy makers put the Baath party into power is a very serious omission the media is making fools out of the public. NO WONDER the public can't understand why people in other countries would be angry, the public is kept in the dark about these horrible crimes.
Then when they here about it, they are so unfamiliar with reality that they get angry and claim these things aren't true. The corporate media has really screwed over the American people. STOP defending a corrupt system. There are powers that profit form keeping facts from the public. Don't be foolish and claim that the 1960's crimes are not newsworthy and are not thing the public should be informed about.

<< You are simply another Antisemitic pig with nothing to do but throw unsubstantiated rumors around. >>

You guys are shameless. I quote a reporter to back up what I said and still it isn't enough. Again with the name calling.
Your source is very suspect since he begins his article with a dishonest and flawed argument in which he attempts to show "anti-Israel" bias on the part of the Times:

A TALE OF TWO BAPTISTS
On March 4, a 59-year-old American Baptist, William P. Hyde, was among 21 people killed by a suicide bomber in Davao in the southern Philippines. That an American died was made clear in the following day's New York Times. The Times titled its news report "Bombing Kills An American And 20 Others In Philippines." The first seven paragraphs concerned Hyde, who had lived and worked in the Philippines since 1978, and another American, Barbara Stevens, who had been "slightly wounded" in the attack. The caption alongside two photos on the front page of that day's Times also made reference to his death, as did a news summary on page 2. In addition, the paper ran an editorial titled "Fighting Terror in the Philippines." And a front-page photo of a wounded boy, and the caption that accompanied it, made clear that at least one child had been among the injured.

On the next day (March 5), another American Baptist, 14-year-old Abigail Litle, was among 16 people killed by a suicide bomber on a bus in Haifa, Israel. The story and photo caption in the March 6 Times, tucked at the bottom corner of page 1, made no mention of Abigail's name. Neither the headline nor the photo caption indicated that an American had died, or that the suicide bomber had deliberately chosen a bus packed with schoolchildren, or that a majority of those killed had been teenagers.

Tom Gross is trying to make the case that the NYT is "anti-Israel" because it reported a suicide bombing killing a Baptist which they named but when a suicide bombing occurred the next day in Israel they "only" printed a story about it "tucked at the bottom corner of page 1" Page 1 no less! Tom Gross is too much. And his point that the Baptist isn't mentioned by name "proves" bias is absurd. What he neglects to say is that the girl's name was mentioned at least two times the following day. And he wrote his article 7 days after that so it was available to him. The lengths some go to make such absurd points is really to much. Here is one of the NYT articles that does mention the girl by name. (so the guy you are quoting has some kind of argument that doesn't even hold water. What the hell did the guy think he was proving and why such sloppy or dishonest approach about his point? His point is absurd. he wants us to believe the NYT is "anti-ISrael'?? boy does he lay it on thick!


Foreign Desk | March 7, 2003, Friday
Israelis Bury Haifa Bombing Victims

By JAMES BENNET (NYT) 820 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 10 , Column 3

ABSTRACT - Suicide bombing of bus in Haifa, Israel, kills 15 people, at least 8 of them students under age of 18; among victims is Abigail Little, 14-year-old American Christian whose father worked for Baptist Church; in Haifa, funeral after funeral is held in section of cemetery reserved for victims of terrorism; photo (M) On the brightest of spring days, on the most pleasant of streets, among the most innocent of strangers, after the longest of lulls for Israelis in their seemingly endless conflict, a Palestinian suicide bomber exploded in a hail of shrapnel on Wednesday.

These were some of the victims: a father and son riding the bus together; a 12-year-old Druse girl; a 14-year-old American Christian; a 13-year-old boy, Yuval Mendelevich, who had just said to his father, ''I love you.''

the article by Tom Gross that you quote claims that Hedges makes "wild accusations against Israel." what does he do to back up his claim?
he claims that the accusations are "rejected by the Israeli army" yet offers no proof, no name of someone saying so. he just says "the Israeli army" rejects the accusation. (and this is supposed to "prove" that the accusations are "wild"?)

What Tom Gross neglects to say is that Hedges is not alone in pointing out that the Israeli arming is targeting and shooting children. A reporter for an Israeli newspaper interviewed an Israeli army sharpshooter who admits they shoot children AND the Israeli Human Rights group, B'Tselem reports this too.

Ha'aretz (Hebrew daily newspaper) correspondent Amira Hass interviewed an IDF sharpshooter who admitted that IDF rules of engagement give soldiers a freehand to shooting children above the age of 12. "If you say you have seen children that have been hit in the head a lot, then it is sharpshooters," the sharpshooter told Hass. No surprise. IDF soldiers are amongst the best-trained and equipped in the world. ( source is the Israeli newspaper's article, "Don't shoot till you can see they're over the age of 12," Ha'aretz, November 20, 2000 )

IDF troops shoot and kill civilians at will, with total impunity from the international community as well as their own military commandants, as the Israeli Human Rights group, B'Tselem reveals:

"Over the years, B'Tselem has received hundreds of letters from the Judge Advocate General's office regarding events in which Palestinians were killed, injured, or beaten by soldiers. In some of the cases, Military Police investigations were opened, and in some, the Judge Advocate General's office only conducted an internal investigation. Most of the replies that B'Tselem received state that the soldiers acted properly and that no action was taken against the soldiers involved" (B,Tselem, 11/13/01).

before you libel someone with this "antisemitic" lable, why not reaserch the facts? you are out of control and so is Tom Gross.

<< No, I didn't. You are changing the subject. Here is what you originally posted:

Media Reform 5/9/2003 2:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time

Take Action: After reading the following article; Call your congressional Representatives and tell them to demand that no American or Non-Iraqi company be granted the rights to distribute Iraqi Oil! >>


I posted the article from another source, I didn't write it. The point I was making was the point I wrote. I wrote this and only this:
do you like terrorism? If not, it is time to stop the people in Washington from screwing over MORE people in the Middle East. Call your representative and tell them to stop the US foreign policy makers from trying to profit off of Iraq.

The decisions on who will distribute the oil and how it will be done is the decision of the Iraqi people not US businessmen. Who do you think is making the decisions? The US could have included Iraqis that wanted to be in the political process and set up a true democratic system to establish a government. That is not happening. People are being excluded and the Iraqis allowed in are hand picked by the US.
Look at the sick plan they want to impose on the Iraqis. (you keep playing this game that this is all on the level) do you HONESTLY think that the Iraqi people ant to have a pipeline to Israel? Remember I said honestly. You can't seem to get the idea that this whole thing is corrupt.
Can the fact that they are planning a pipeline that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis would oppose finally make you understand that this US of Control of Iraq is CORRUPT?
What the hell does it take?

<< President Bush is an Honorably discharged veteran. His Honorable Discharge certificate IS the record that shows he was where he was supposed to be! >>

No, it isn't. You have got to be kidding me with this.
Your fanatical devotion to our leader Bush blinds you to basic logic. Just because you get away with breaking a law does not mean you didn't do it. I know you love the President but this is ridiculous. You need to get a grip. 9/11 was a failure not a success. I get the impression if we get hit with another terrorist attack, you will start worshiping him.

<< there's a lot of thing this country use to do, and don't anymore. >>

true. but it is a very bad sign that the specifics I am pointing out are not admitted publicly.
<< you realize mistakes made and correct them. >>

who is correcting anything? we now see them setting up their hand picked people and setting up their business deals.
We can heard Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Condoleezza Rice arguing that since blod was spilt, "the US" earned the right to play a leading role in the politics of Iraq!!
(does this sound like people that are doing Iraqis a favour? who argues about having a "right" to do someone a favour? An they are USING BLOOD as an excuse. The people insistinging "no blood for oil" don't look that far of do they, in fact they were right!

"... it seems to me that the administration is on the right track by trying to develop an interim Iraqi authority, which will be developed by Iraqis, themselves, in
close consultation with coalition members who, after all, have shed
their blood and expended their treasure to bring about the liberation
of Iraq." - Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage April 7, 2003

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03040705.nlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

"But as Colin Powell said yesterday, it would only be natural to expect that after having participated and having liberated Iraq with coalition forces, and having given life and blood to liberate Iraq, that the coalition intends to have a leading role. I don't think -- "the" leading role. I don't think anybody is surprised by that." -National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice April 4, 2003
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0304/S00142.htm

They plan to do exactly what many protested "No Blood For Oil". Look how they shamelessly use the excuse that blood has been spilt so that "earns" them the "right" to dictate the decisions in Iraq. They want to be the ones to select certain companies to control the oil. "it is only natural" for U.S. policy makers to decide polices for the millions of Iraqis because "after all" the "right" to do that was "paid for with blood". These people are sick.

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's buddy, Richard Perle, who just happens to sit on the Defense Policy Board, also just happened to get a classified briefing from the top secret Defense Intelligence Agency on crises in North Korea and Iraq last February. Three weeks later "the then-chairman of the board, Richard N. Perle, offered a briefing of his own at an investment seminar on ways to profit from possible conflicts with both countries." write reporters Ken Silverstein and Chuck Neubauer. Synchronicity, or deep conflict of interest?
MotherJones.com | News http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/19/we_412_04.html

<< Wow, I guess if I have to believe everything just the way you do huh? Sorry, but I don't see things quite the way you do. I think it's you that has a skewed vision of what is happening. Even the Democrats in Washington don't seem to see it the same way as you. >>

no kidding huh? they don't? OF COURCE NOT. what do you mean "even the Democrats"? Both political parties are corrupt.

<< You'd better get busy making phone calls to all the Federal legislaturers to fill them in on this big huge conspiracy! >>

this blows your mind that all these polititians would "play the game" doesn't it? we saw that well known huge firms on Wall Street were all giving false financial advice. 10 big frims, no they didn't have to conspire with one another to decide they were going to be greedy and dishonest.
this happens to be a fact.
now in politics, money and power have influence. you can actually do research and find many of the big companies give money to both the Democrats and the Republicans.

not every single polititian is simply accepting everything without even questioning. look at the questions asked by Sen Levin:
Sen. Carl Levin: ... might be used as a model for the Iraqi interim administration? [asking Wolfowitz if Afghanistan would be a model for Iraq]

Paul Wolfowitz: ...What we're hoping to start with this meeting that's scheduled to take place next week is to have a kind of rolling dialog where Iraqis that we can identify as notables or potential leaders or with distinguished credentials of one sort or another can come together and begin to debate the issues and meet to begin to define what the issues are and not to do it in a single meeting...

[...]

Sen. Carl Levin: Who will be organizing the meetings?

Paul Wolfowitz: General Franks is gonna be the host of the meetings ...we're basing it on the various ways in which we have had of identifying people as potential leaders, that includes people we've dealt with for many years. ...

Sen. Carl Levin: If you would supply to the committee the procedures, the description of who is invited to these meetings.

Paul Wolfowitz: I would emphasize, it's a process more than a blueprint.

do you sriously find it hard to believe that businessmen would want to maipulate politics in order to profit from it?
do you seriously find it hard to beleive that people would "play the game" in order to keep their jobs? Others don't want to deal with the work or problems or responsibility that comea with acknowleding these facts.

you even avoided what you didn't want to deal with.
we have a horrible histroy, for you to think that after 50 years of horrible crimes that violate our supposed basic principles, the policy makers what they have been doing is naive. we are a people that fought agaisnst kings and talked about the rights of men. we know, and ex-CIA diretor James Woolsey admits that we overthrew Mossedeg (a democratically elected leader) and installed the Shah (a king)
Now look at the CIA web site and notice that the time period for this is excluded from the summary. we jump over decades from 1935 to 1979. Not to honest are they? the game is still to keep as many Americans as possible from understanding what crimes have been done. That is how these things can continue. people look the other way. You never dirrectly responded to the fact that well known Wall Street companies are guilty of deceiving the investors. you didn't notice how mainstrem media underreported this story? you didn't notice how these guys got a slap on the wrist?

Those that control the well known TV news companies are misleading the public just as those that controlled these well known Wall Street companies.

There are many network executives that share the same kind of deceit and arrogance of those Wall Street executives. An email found by prosecutors, a businessman from Lehman Brothers wrote " Yes, the "little guy" who isn't smart about the nuances may get misled, such is the nature of my business"

and the business of America is business so said an American President (and becasue of this attitude we all suffer)
<< You'd better get busy making phone calls to all the Federal legislaturers to fill them in on this big huge conspiracy! >>

why do you have to be a wize ass? is the idea of this corrption so frightening that you can't deal with it? if Iraqis are to have real democracy they have to be allowed to have real democracy. the US policy makers RIGHT NOW are denying them this and every step that is taken is not a demecratic one but one that is controled by US foreign policy makers. you serious find that "far-fetched" given what has been the last 50 years of actions? come on, you haven't given it enough thought and that is mainly because the reporters don't want to "stick their necks out"
Perhaps you don't know why but you do know that Israel is not well liked in the region. The MAJORITY of the people don't like Israel. doesn't it finally sink in the level of disregard for the democratic rights of the Iraqis when we see powerful men planning a pipeline from Iraq to Israel?!? doesn't it sink in when we send our puppet Chalabi (a convited crook) into Iraq and he talks about the pipleline as if it was a good idea?

they were not that religious,
<< THEY WERE FANATICS, YOU MORON. >>


Wunderful2gether, if the fundamentalist version of their religion says don't drink alcohol and not to get lap dances from stripperslike they did, they are by definition not that religious.
You have a big problem understanding basic facts.
The actions are clearly as fanatical as any suicide mission of a US soldier or Japanese soldier for example. The story is also that only four of them actually were in on the plan to commit a suicide attack with the planes.

In a message dated 5/7/03 1:02:46 PM, Dbetter writes:

<< 'm ancient history buff, especially Roman history, so I'm faniliar with the Middle East, so here's an example from my perspective, and I find it in-line with all the other references I've read. Scrolling down to the Arab Isreali conflict is a good place to start
Search ResultsÊ-ÊWorld Book OnlineÊAmericasÊEdition >>

and it shows an off the wall avoidance of basic facts.
The example you gave is a perfect illistration of manipulation and lies of omittion.
Tell me you think it is honest to simply say "Israel was declared in May 1948"
and overlook facts like 35% of the population unilaterally seized the land from the other 65%? This obviously has nothing to do with democracy. Notice it isn't pointed out? Check out the BBC site and you can at least get these stats? do you think it is fair to lie and say that the Jews were "accepting the UN partition" when we know what the Zionists did and what they said?
they ignored the UN plan and used terrorism and murder to seize well beyond the land mapped out in the UN plan. they ignored the Jerusalem part of the plan. they ethnically cleansed 300,000 people. and you act like responding after all these things is some sort of crime? you think it was wrong for the Arabs to try to fight back after this?
this is some kind of "unjust attack on Israel"?!?! "Israel" as it is suddenly called which in reality is 35%of the population making war and using terrorism on the others in Palestine. This is legitimate in your eyes?

The source you quote is manipulative:
"On May 14, 1948, the nation of Israel officially came into being. The surrounding Arab nations immediately attacked the new state, in the first of several Arab-Israeli wars. In 1967, at the end of one of the wars, Israeli troops occupied the Gaza Strip and the West BankÑterritories that are home to millions of Palestinian Arabs. "
They don't point out all the wrongs and they simply refer to Israel "coming into being"
That is like writing about OJ Simpson and simply saying that his relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson ended. (and only saying that) (very deceptive if you don't know the details)
The who thing is written manipulatively. It is written to hide the fact that it is the Jews that are the aggressors can you see that? Notice how it says "Arabs attacked" when the reality is that the Jews attacked and used terrorism to seize well beyond the UN plan, killed and used terrorism to ethnically cleanse 300,000 Arabs THEN the Arabs responded. Notice these facts are not mentioned? Notice that the next sentence doesn't say who attacked who in 1967 and gives the impression from the previous sentence that Arabs attacks when the truth is it was the Israelis?:
overlook facts like 35% of the population unilaterally seized the land from the other 65%? This obviously has nothing to do with democracy. Notice it isn't pointed out? Check out the BBC site and you can at least get these stats? do you think it is fair to lie and say that the Jews were "accepting the UN partition" when we know what the Zionists did and what they said?
they ignored the UN plan and used terrorism and murder to seize well beyond the land mapped out in the UN plan. they ignored the Jerusalem part of the plan. they ethnically cleansed 300,000 people. and you act like responding after all these things is some sort of crime?

It is the Zionists that pushed for the radical idea that the land be divided up so that a "pure" racially established state of Jews could be established. They didn't want to live as equal citizens as is expected of all religions in America. But the division was only considered temporary by them since their goal was and is to take over all of Palestine.

You may be interested to know that the Zionist Congress rejected the partition that the Peel Commission offered in 1937. Also if you look into it, the Zionists had no intention of accepting any fair partition. As Ben-Gurion himself said in 1937, "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of Eretz Israel." (see p162 Fateful Triangle)

"In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the "Jewish state" was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations."

You may be interested to know the background of the May 1948 unilateral declaration by 35% of the population, imposing their will on 65% of the non-Jews.
In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and had amassed much more arms. By May 1948, when the Jews (35%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, "Israel" was attacked by its neighbors.

In 1967 the Jews attacked and took over the remaining part of Palestine with the intention of keeping it. All through the supposed "peace process" they have been illegally building on the occupied territories.

<< I think they should go back to the original UN proposed boarders >>
You seem sincere, what you propose would be viciously fought against by the Zionists. (although I think it would be more just) No one suggests what you propose, they propose less than what you proposes since they all accept the original land grab in 1948. What has been proposed is to go back to pre-1967 boarders. The fact is that nearly the entire world and most Americans agree with a plan like that but it has been rejected by the Zionists. email me if you would like more details.

<< Terrorism by Jews can't be discounted. >>
the problem is much of the terrorism goes unreported here in America. I am talking about terrorism that is clearly seen as the "classic" terrorism. The kind that is claimed against the Palestinians in general. Just recently, Jews bombed a school targeting children. (not the military by the way) and it isn't the first time Jews have targeted children with their terrorism (not that children happened to be there, these attacks have been targeted at children at the schools).
There is a pattern of violence by Jewish terrorists of targeting children specifically (and a pattern of it going unreported in America) For years, like the murder of Palestinian girl, Intissar al-Atar, in a school yard. When the Jewish terrorist got a seven-month suspended sentence the illegal "settlers" in the courtroom broke out in song and dance. p473 Fateful Triangle.

These Jewish terrorists are subsidized (living on land illegally and in violation of the Geneva Convention and are not pursued by "the law" the same way other terrorists are) and they are ON TOP of the violence, the maiming and killing of thousands, against the Palestinians. The Israeli military have been targeting children and maiming them for life. Dramatic examples of other crimes go UNREPORTED here in America.
She watched helplessly as her Mother bled to death for over an hour as Israeli Soldiers ignored her father's cries to let the ambulance through to save his dying wife. See the Israeli describe his mission as "purification"! See the video that American TV News Editors decided you shouldn't see. (at a Canadian web site)
The fact this video was even show in Israel was itself a news story in Israel. It made headlines. Here in America, news editors pretend it didn't exist.

<< I know I don't get them solely from personal websites with agenda. >>

why is a "personal website" such a problem to you?
what does "with an agenda" mean?
is it that my web site is controled by me that is the problem? what do you think major media web sites are controled by and do you think there is " an agenda"?

you are tying to avoid the issue. we supposedly went in becasue of a threat from WMD and slo tacked on: to liberate the Iraqis.
I show you how the Iraqi liberation is a farce and you desperately try to attack my web site. what gives?

<< The reason for lifting the sanctions now will allow for a rapid fix to the humanitarian shortfalls that Saddam caused AND it will also allow the Iraqi economy to start producing as a world player once again. >>


the major humanitarian problems were casued by the US/UK bombing of Iraq. the US targeted water treatment plants and the power grid among other things. it was not militarily necessary AT ALL to bomb Iraq to get a weak army out of Kuwait. you wil probably try to make some excuse, but what we did was murder. if you look at the recent history, you will see that Bush sr. did everything he could to make the war happen and he rejeted serious offers of Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait.

<<
And how did you hear about then? I've been seeing in on the news. >>

didn't you sae "he resigned"? as if the matter was taken care of? again, why are you trying to make excuses for big media?
these are corporations just like the crooked Wall Street firms. what they are doing is hurting the interests of the public and helping themselves.
you kneejerk reaction to try to defend the media must be the result of them constantly telling you how trustworhty they are. you have been influenced so much by their rhetoric that you can' bring yourself to holding them accountable. Steven Biko once said the greatest weapon an oppresor has is the mind of the oppressed.
<< Watched some of the hearings on it last night on C-Span.
>>
good. the problem is the media is not following through on its obligations to serve the public good. we have a right to expect the news to be the news. and not just what they want to tell the people. Try to think about why are you so resistant to holding these companies responsible.

<<
WHY THE HELL WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOU IF THE U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTORS ARE THERE, >>


becasue we have seeen SEVERAL times the US claim finding WMD then it turns out to be jet guel or something else. the UN weapons inspectors could make finding them happen faster if they really exist. The whole rational about the danger they pose you are throwing away. supposedly we worried they would get into terrorists hands. We have see for decades that Sadam never did give them to anyone. But now if they exist we are in grave danger now that they can be grabbed now that Saddam is gone.
<< IF THEY FOUND ANY WEAPONS YOU WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE U.S. PLANTED THEM FOR THEM TO FIND, SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT. >>
do you think this is a game? reread the above. explaine to me why it was urgent to invade Iraq.
<< I DON'T BUY YOUR BULLSHIT FOR A MINUTE

CAN'T YOU SEE, CAN'T YOU SEE, WHAT A TRUE MEDIARETARD YOU BE. >>
grow up.

Trusted by who? The Iraqis didn't say they only want the US in there and no UN. You are repeated the BS from Bush.
Trusted? And the US can be? The US helped put the Baath party into power in the first place! The US gave names over to Saddam to kill.

Are you the guy that blindly trusts any American businessman? Do you really understand what the top ten well known firms on Wall Street did to the investors? It is foolish to blurt out "liberal conspiracy". The Wall Street firms PROVES they DID CONSPIRE!! Wake up. The facts are right there. ENRON proved that they did conspire as well. They even gave their conspiracies names like "death star" and "get shorty". "Death star" was a plan to screw over the public. We have seen how they are willing to treat fellow Americans,
what do you think these kinds of people are willing to do to foreigners.

What the hell is the reason for not letting the UN weapons inspectors help???
This has got to be one of the most ridiculously obvious actions of the Bush administration.
How could anyone possibly argue that it is good to leave the UN inspectors out? Supposedly Iraqis get to have democracy. Do you think Iraqis would actually say "no we don't want UN inspectors, we just want the US to search". Who in God's name is so clueless to think that is what the Iraqis want? If you guys actually swallow the idea that this is about the Iraqis liberation, who believes that the Iraqis would actually insist on the US and only the US to search for the supposedly hidden WMD?
Can anyone hear say they buy all this? (after you actually give it some thought.)

It just has to be that people are not even thinking it over.
(and not aware of the other facts)
I know it probably is too much to ask that all of you watch hearings like:
Paul Wolfowitz testifies on NATO & Iraq before a House Appropriations Subcommittee
I actually AGREE. The media is supposed to be looking into things like this and reporting important facts. It is supposed to be a watchdog in the public's interests. The thing far too many people don't understand is that the media is not operating in the public interests, and there is a structural reason for this. There is a conflict of interests. The dominate interests should be the public but it is the ownership and finances that dominate what gets on the news because of the influence of these powerful forces.
The media is serving the interests of rich and powerful corporations that prefer that the American public not know that Iraq is being positioned politically so that corporations can profit off of Iraq. The manipulations of the politics of Iraq are done so that corporations can force market conditions that they prefer regardless of what the Iraqis want. TV news is owned by powerful corporations. You don't think there is a conflict of interests? The TV News didn't tell you about how the US is selecting who gets to "speak for the Iraqis" and that the US will control what happens.
The TV news did not make info AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. If you really did research you can find out about these things but that is not what I am arguing) THE GENERAL PUBLIC MISTAKENLY ASSUME THAT THE NEWS WILL REPORT IN THE PUBLIC GOOD. (And by the way the network broadcasters are OBLIGATED TO, IT IS THE LAW) But he news doesn't serve the interests of the public. They didn't report this to the American people:

Paul Wolfowitz: ...What we're hoping to start with this meeting that's scheduled to take place next week is to have a kind of rolling dialog where Iraqis that we can identify as notables or potential leaders or with distinguished credentials of one sort or another can come together and begin to debate the issues and meet to begin to define what the issues are and not to do it in a single meeting...

[...]

Sen. Carl Levin: Who will be organizing the meetings?

Paul Wolfowitz: General Franks is gonna be the host of the meetings ...we're basing it on the various ways in which we have had of identifying people as potential leaders, that includes people we've dealt with for many years. ...

Sen. Carl Levin: If you would supply to the committee the procedures, the description of who is invited to these meetings.

Paul Wolfowitz: I would emphasize, it's a process more than a blueprint.

US policy makers plan to dictate what will happen in Iraq. The Iraqi people are not going to have a true democracy.

This is the rare Conspiracy Theory Rock (a spoof of "Schoolhouse Rock") segment from Saturday Night Live. It only aired once, and then was mysteriously cut out from that episode's rebroadcasts.

NBC claimed it was pulled because it "wasn't funny", but that's the same excuse they gave when they canned Norm MacDonald. Ironically, instead of ignoring the cartoon's joking around about NBC suppressing information and squashing dissent, it proved it instead.

In fact, there is more truth in this 2 1/2 minute short than has been broadcast on network television in the last decade. It was produced by Robert Smigel, (The Ambiguously Gay Duo, X-Presidents, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog) who has a new show on Comedy Central called 'TV Funhouse'.
see the video here:
tvparty

look what the Simpson's Harry Shearer said:
Question: A few years ago there was a Robert Smigel cartoon on Saturday Night Live entitled "Conspiracy Theory Rock" which was actually a very sophisticated satire of the increasing concentration of media ownership in a small number of huge multi-national corporations. It included references to Disney, ABC, CBS and NBC and its parent company, General Electric. When the show went into reruns the cartoon was pulled from the show. Loren Michaels was quoted as saying that the reason the segment was pulled was because "I didn't think it worked comedicly." Having worked on the show for two years and having a good grasp on the media and politics what do you think the truth really is?

Harry Shearer: The truth is that Lorne wanted to continue working at 30 Rock.
Harry Shearer

my letter to some guy with a Clinton fixation:
What could you possible be thinking when you write an article like "THE MEDIA: MAKE IT GO AWAY"
and claim "Their constellation by which they navigate is The Golden Calf, its Polaris is Bill Clinton, who convinced the thralls of media that a false god ... "
Your claim that Clinton has any role in influencing the media is absurd.

The media serve power. Dan Rather said "George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions, and, you know, itÕs just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And heÕll make the call."
Dan Rather also said, "you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism."

Keeping Clinton's blowjob a secret did not serve power. The reason the Republicans went after this is because policy wise what could they really attack? The media obediently kept quite about the helicopter sales to Israel right at the time Israel was killing civilians with them. In fact Noam Chomsky confronted some editors about this suppression and the flatly told him they are not going to report it.
The media has never show a map of the so called "generous offer" that Israel supposedly offered the Palestinians. The media has always bent over backwards for the racist state of Israel and routinely ignores the wrongs committed by Israel. Terrorists acts by Jews, like planting a bomb at a girls school, go unreported or extremely underreported. In fact most Americans are not aware that Jews have committed terrorists acts, that is how extreme the bias is. Very newsworthy stories go unaired here in America. Even when the facts that a particular brutality of the IDF was captured on video and its broadcast made headlines in Israel, here in America it isn't shown. One has to go to Canadian TV to even see the video. http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=World&story=/news/2002/03/19/mideast_censor020319

With Bush, the media's serving of power continues. http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/msnbc-iaea-report.htm Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11, not one mainstream reported pointed this out. We were not attacked because we are a "beacon of freedom" or that "they hate our freedoms". We have see video of some of the hijackers drinking and getting lap dances from strippers. They like our freedoms. What they don't like, and it has been stated clearly by the FBI and bin Laden, is the manipulation and undermining of US foreign polices. The media served power by not pointing out Bush's outrageous lie. http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html
It has to be one of the lowest thing a President can do to lie to the public in order to shield foreign policies from public scrutiny.
The media played along with the vicious game of claiming that those that look at the motives "approve of" or "justify" the terrorists acts. The media plays the game that they never even heard of the concept of two wrongs. The media's role in making half of America think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 is disgusting.
The media sold this war to the American people. Notice the media isn't reporting the pipeline deal to sell Iraq's oil to Israel. Because reporters "play the game" this goes unreported. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html
Don't you feel foolish trying to pin the media's corruption on Clinton?
Clinton like Bush was corrupt. Your continued Clinton fixation is ridiculous.

"free press"? We have game players that are more worried about keeping their jobs than telling the public the whole story. Do you realize how corrupt the media is?
You have heard of big names like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and J.P. Morgan Chase right? Think you can trust them? Many people learned the hard way that they couldn't. They were lied to.

TV news networks are just as corrupt, they are not interested in the interests of the "little guy" anymore that these corrupt brokerage houses were worried about the "little guy". Those that control the well known TV news companies are misleading the public just as those that controlled these well known Wall Street companies.

There are many network executives that share the same kind of deceit and arrogance of those Wall Street executives. An email found by prosecutors, a businessman from Lehman Brothers wrote " Yes, the "little guy" who isn't smart about the nuances may get misled, such is the nature of my business" Do you realize how foolish it would be to dismiss all of this because they are Americans? Now take a look at what the same kinds of people have been doing with US foreign policy. It would make no more sense to insist that the Wall Street men could do no wrong because they are American that it does to insist that the men that control our foreign polices could do no wrong because they are American.
The failure to understand this is what propaganda is about. That is what propaganda is, it isn't something that people realize, it is what they don't. Propaganda is what is at the root of this crazy "anti-American" talk. is it "anti-American" to point out that Enron and Wall Street firms ripped the public off? No. so don't fall for it when corrupt men try to hide behind America to get away with corruption.
You can expect more terrorism if you don't wake up to what is going on.

Operation Support Garner

The Pentagon's one-size-fits-all 'liberation' is a disaster in Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Tuesday May 6, 2003
The Guardian

American efforts to foist new rulers on the people of Iraq are becoming increasingly grotesque. In some cities US troops have sparked demonstrations by imposing officials from the old Saddam Hussein regime. In others they have evicted new anti-Saddam administrators who have local backing.

They have mishandled religious leaders as well as politicians. In the Shia suburbs of Baghdad, they arrested a powerful cleric, Mohammed Fartousi al-Sadr, who had criticised the US presence. In Falluja, an overwhelmingly Sunni town, they detained two popular imams. All three men were released within days, but local people saw the detentions as a warning that Iraqis should submit to the US will.

The Pentagon's General Jay Garner has taken an equally biased line in his plans for Iraq's government. He held a conference of 300 Iraqis in Baghdad last week and excluded almost every group which has an organised following.

The corruption is greater than the corruption we have see recently exposed of those 10 big brokerage firms. These are the biggest names on Wall Street, names that the public is supposed to trust especially because they are so big (so goes the logic that since they are so established and big, they are reputable plus they often tell us they are reputable).

Their role, in theory, was one of "gatekeeper" as SEC Chairman William Donaldson has called them. Those brokerage firms issued biased ratings and were in fact lying to the public.
The TV networks, in theory, are supposed to be the Òguardians of truthÓ, they are supposed to be Òa public watchdogÓ called is sometimes called Òthe forth estateÓ But thy are as corrupt as these big Wall Street firms.
The fact is it is not just big names like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and J.P. Morgan Chase that are corrupt, it is also big names like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and FOX.


the problem is TV news networks are just as corrupt, they are not interested in the interests of the Òlittle guyÓ anymore that these corrupt brokerage houses were worried about the Òlittle guyÓ. Those that control the well known TV news companies are misleading the public just as those that controlled these well known Wall Street companies.

There are many network executives that share the same kind of deceit and arrogance of those Wall Street executives. An email found by prosecutors, a businessman from Lehman Brothers wrote " Yes, the "little guy" who isn't smart about the nuances may get misled, such is the nature of my business"

This is what is happening with the TV news, the Òlittle guyÓ (you and me) are manipulated by these people. The problem is, who is going to report it to the public when it is the news reporters that are corrupt and manipulating?

"Wall street banks were not looking out for investors, they were looking out for themselves and for the companies they represented." - Scott Cleland CEO Precursor Group

And media firms are not looking out for the viewers, they are looking out for themselves and for the companies they represent.

The facts were know about the reality of the stocks true poor value but no one told the public and investors lost their socks because they took Wall Street at its word. Too much damage has been done because many people fail to see what the TV News is operating in the interests of the public. Many take the News at its word about being honest reporters.

They withhold information of vital interest to the public. For example, the facts about the FCC review of media ownership rules were not reported to the public by mainstream media. They didn't want the public to know about these things that they have interests in and the hell with the public's right to know. Actually according to the PBS show called NOW, ABC's WORLD NEWS THIS MORNING is the only network show to acknowledge the FCC's announcement - at 4:40 in the morning.

<< Enough of the "It's all America's fault".... >>

American is the biggest force ever. You need to do research becasue the foreign polices are not what you assume.
US foreign polices supported the dictators and undemocratic rulers. US polices even funded the extremists. So stop with your thinkng that just becasue the people that dictate US foreign policies are Americans it "must be good"
we helped put the Baath party into power for God sakes. we gave the names of hundreds of people to Saddam for him to kill.

Many of those in these countries that would have fought for justice and had tried to fight for justice have been killed by US foreign policies.
you complaint is like saying "stop blaming the plantation owners" for the unrest in the Old South!! Slavery lasted for all the time it did becasue people were unwilling to blame those that deserved to be blamed.

<< I'ts all your imagination dude...Get some help before it's too late!
>>
No it is not. are you putting me on with your refusal to deal with the issues? what are you afraid of?

According to Senator John McCain, the changes being contemplated by the FCC right now are monumental and "will shape the future of communications forever."

Yet a recent study by The Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that a large majority of the American public aren't aware of the media ownership changes being suggested by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Seventy-two percent of the respondents reported that they had "heard nothing at all" about the new ownership proposals.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bigmedia.html
(I question if even the 28% who responded that they did "know something" about it just said they did out of embarrassment or in error, assuming that they did. But even if 28% did, 72% left ignorant because the mainstream media has not reported this to the public.) People assume if they watch the TV news that they would learn about important issues since they assume the media would simply report any story as big as this.
But the fact is this has gone unreported on TV.
Is this your idea of a free society? Is this your idea of an informed public?

"Paranoid"?!? Case after case we have seen the abuse of power.
You think it is "paranoid" to understand that interests of the rich and powerful are catered to? And that information is slanted AND withheld? Look at the fact that the FCC plans a major change to ownership rules and mainstream media has not reported this to the public. OVER 70% of the public doesn't know a thing about this. Has the broadcast media met its requirement to serve the public good? Or are the reporters worried about their jobs and have decided not to report this because of the interests of the owners.

Time to rethink you assumptions about power and the media. Why not make the effort?

<< This is why Iraqi's from all over are meeting to set up a governement..Patience!
>>

You really are naive. How can these people meet when they have not been chosen by the Iraqis? These guys were chosen by the U.S. wake up. Just because you select people from am ethnicity doesn't mean they represent the interests of the majority of those people. We backed the Baath party and helped kill of opposition Iraqis but just because Saddam was an Iraqi doesn't mean he was representative of the people.

Sen. Carl Levin: Who will be organizing the meetings?

Paul Wolfowitz: General Franks is gonna be the host of the meetings ...we're basing it on the various ways in which we have had of identifying people as potential leaders, that includes people we've dealt with for many years. ...

Sen. Carl Levin: If you would supply to the committee the procedures, the description of who is invited to these meetings.

Paul Wolfowitz: I would emphasize, it's a process more than a blueprint.
see the link: Iraqis We Identify
Look who the US guy is: Chalabi has been convicted for bank fraud in Jordan and has zero support amongst the Iraqi people.
why the hell is the US backing this guy? could it be becasue of what his polices are? Like thinking it would be a good idea to build a pipeline to Israel so Israel can get cheap oil?
ask yourself, is this really what the average Iraqis wants?
what does it take for it to sink into your head that this sin't on the level?
Our troops died for this? Oil for the racist state of Israel?
Shoving a plan like this down the throats of the Iraqis will guarantee terrorism against the US.
Anyone that has a clue about what Israel is and what the Iraqis would not want such an oil deal should be contacting their representatives now)
(below from The Observer Ed Vuillamy in Washington Sunday April 20, 2003 )

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.

To resurrect the pipeline would need the backing of whatever government the US is to put in place in Iraq, and has been discussed -- according to Western diplomatic sources - with the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi, the former banker favoured by the Pentagon for a powerful role in the war's aftermath.

Sources at the State Department said that concluding a peace treaty with Israel is to be 'top of the agenda' for a new Iraqi government, and Chalabi is known to have discussed Iraq's recognition of the state of Israel.

<< >But the power players in the US don't want that. They are worried about the
>profits of the rich and powerful that dictate our foreign polices.
>

Mindless spew! >>

you have been so brainwashed by the media and popular culture that you have no idea of our history (control by the wealthy is a concern but that idea has been driven out of your head by too much TV):

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson warned of "a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations" which would mean "the end of democracy and freedom".

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

You tell me how the US puppet Chalabi is a good idea and fair to the Iraqis. You tell me how these plans for an Israeli pipeline is fair and just and what the Iraqis would want. (NOTICE THE MEDIA HERE IN AMERICA HASN'T EVEN REPORTED IT?? GET IT??) You have this idea in your head that since the media is privately owned that they automatically serve the interests of the general public??? What brainwashing can accomplish! Try to debate these facts. Remember, the facts, I am not interested in reading more characterizations or "clever" put downs. Deal with the facts above.
Tell me how it is in the best interest of American to keep these facts from them.

<< A policy of containment, as the Cuban missile crisis demonstrated, is not to be taken too literally. >>


the Cuban missile crisis is an example of insane policy.
What did you learn about it? Did you learn that we had missiles right on top of them? Did you listen to the Kennedy admitting that he should not have told the public that it was a necessity to get the missiles out of Cuba?
Did you know he risked nuclear war for just appearances instead of admitting to the American public what the situation was? Did you know that the soviets were the ones that got us out of the crisis? did you know the deal involved us removing our missiles from right next to them?
you don't know that the Cuban missile crisis is an example of off the wall bad and dishonest policy?
and most of all, do you have any idea how close we came to a nuclear WWIII? we were one word away from disaster. there needed to be three soviet sub commander's OK's for the ordered missile launch. the third man refused. that is why we are alive today.

We had slavery because of greedy immoral businessmen. They are the reason thousand in the North AND South died.
If Americans are "automatically" wonderful, how the hell did slavery go on for so many years?
It existed because of business demands by immoral men. The same demands dictate the immorality you see (or probably don't see) in US foreign policies.

No, a small amount of WMD does not answer the claims that Bush insisted on as the reason to start a war on Iraq.

For the WMD situation to make sense, the weapons had to be at hand, ready to be used (not STILL hidden: that doesn't make any sense)

When we went in, did we run to the locations we "knew" had WMD? No, they ran to the oil fields.
Saddam knew we were going to attack him, any plan to use WMD meant that they weapons had to be ready to be used, not buried somewhere.

We know Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11. He claimed it was because we are a "beacon of freedom" and that they hate our freedoms. This is a lie. we have seen what the FBI said the motives were, terrorism experts have said and bin Laden has said.
we also know that the hijackers drank and went to strip clubs: they LIKED our freedoms. what they didn't like was the fact that US foreign polices impose undemocratic rulers over them and prop up this leaders so that NO ONE (not those wanting a strict Islamic government nor those wanting any kind of change in the governments that rule over them) US foreign polices manipulate and oppress all the people (except of course the rulers and even at one point the extremists!! At one point, our leaders in their infinite wisdom thought it was a good idea to support the same extremists agenda that attacked us on 9/11!) Terrorism was fine as long as it was directed at others.

Our troops died for this? Oil for the racist state of Israel?
Shoving a plan like this down the throats of the Iraqis will guarantee terrorism against the US.
Anyone that has a clue about what Israel is and what the Iraqis would not want such an oil deal should be contacting their representatives now)
(below from The Observer Ed Vuillamy in Washington Sunday April 20, 2003 )

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.

To resurrect the pipeline would need the backing of whatever government the US is to put in place in Iraq, and has been discussed -- according to Western diplomatic sources - with the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi, the former banker favoured by the Pentagon for a powerful role in the war's aftermath.

Sources at the State Department said that concluding a peace treaty with Israel is to be 'top of the agenda' for a new Iraqi government, and Chalabi is known to have discussed Iraq's recognition of the state of Israel.

supporting the Peel partitian, David Ben-Gurion said "The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."Ê
It should be noted that Ben-Gurion's "boundaries of Zionist aspirations" in his vision are very broad, including southrn Lebanon, southern Syria, today's Jordan, all of cis-Jordan, and the Sinai.

Even after the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, Menachem Begin declared that "
: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever."
Noam Chomsky (The Fateful Triangle, 182) and Fred Khouri (The Arab Israeli Dilemma, 83-84, 187) shed further light on Ben Gurion's true colors (Ben Gurion was Israel's Prime Minister from 1948-1953, and from 1955- 1963). Chomsky quotes from Ben Gurion's diary entry for January 1, 1948:"There is no question as to whether a reaction is necessary or not. The question is only time and place. Blowing up a house is not enough. What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If we know the family - [we must] strike mercilessly. women and children included (sic). Otherwise the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent. Where there was no attack - we should not strike."
(the latter qualification was not observed)

Khouri (83-84) cites an interview Ben Gurion gave TIME Magazine, August 16, 1948. On that
occasion he said, "I can quite imagine a Jewish state of ten million." When asked if this could be possible within the territory allotted under the UN Partition Plan Ben Gurion replied, "I doubt it...We would not have taken on this war merely for the purpose of enjoying this tiny state."