thank you. now we need to wake America up to the fact that the President and others lie about why we were attacked and that we don't owe these liears a damn thing. We need to be honest and admit that the real reason was hidden from the public. How noble and jus can these polices be if these leaders are unwilling to admit that these polices are the reason we were attacked. Clearly Bush and others don't admit that it is the policies that are the issue becasue they want to shield these polcies from public scrutiny. Bush and company are serving the interests of those that want these foriegn polcies to continue.
It looks like "Jihad in America" was put together with the intention of serving special interests. Emerson appears to have an agenda and a problem with being honest.
"When one can check the source that Emmerson cites. it does not always lend credence to his claims. When he appeared on WBAI's Radio Broadcasting (12/ 5/ 94), the host of the programme noted that, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Muslim Community School in Maryland that was mentioned in "Jihad In America" had been vandalised shortly after the show was aired. Emmerson demanded, "Did you check with the Montgomery County Police Department to verify the report of vandalism ? because I did and in fact they never received a report."
But in a Feb., 18 letter to the New York Times, Emmerson made reference to the same vandalised attack. "Maryland police revealed that Islamic students at the Mosque were responsible." He claimed. He did not indicate how the police could close a case that had never been reported to them.
(Fairness And Acuracy IN Reporting) (FAIR) took Emmerson's advice and checked with the Montgomery County Police. "I don't have any information of anybody that did it." Sgt Frank Young the department's chief press liaison, told us. Officer Robin Xander, Who took the police report, said she suspected that the vandals were students, but said that they could have been from a number of schools.
After FAIR pointed to these discrepancies in a letter published in the New York Times (3/ 4/ 1995), Emmerson produced yet another version of the vandalism attack (New York Times, 3/ 11/ 1995) - again without indicating that any other version had existed."Maryland Police officers... told me students at the school were likely responsible," Emmerson now claimed. (emphasis added)
On One of the few of Emmerson's claims that could be independently checked, his position shifted continually as the facts emerged: from non - existent attack on a Muslim school, to an attack perpetuated by Muslim students, to an attack that may have been committed by Muslim students.
It's this sort of slippery use of evidence that makes people wary of Emmerson's report." http://www.islam.co.za/themessage/docs/S_emerson.html
As far as Baath party. the BBC did have an article on the web about it http://184.108.40.206/1/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2694885.stm
I am looking into Atkins (stange that he would lie don't you think? What would he gain? He was even our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The logical conclusion is that Atkins is telling the truth. )
Also PBS's frontline writes this: 1963 American diplomats encourage Kurdish leaders to support the new Ba'ath government in Baghdad, following a U.S.-supported coup. (See interviews with Jalal Talabani and James Akins) The Ba'ath Party leadership issues a statement saying it "recognized the rights of the Kurdish people." (these is more to this than current U.S> leaders have let on)
Seems to me that Atkins is telling the truth. I will try to contact him. perhaps you will do the same?