You wrote, "You scream about Halliburton and Bechtel but bury stories about the UN oil-for-food scandal. I read stories complaining about the fact that 500,000 children had died due to poor malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of sanctions, and now we find out that the "braintrust" of the United Nations was on the take and Saddam was pocketing the kickbacks. So...WHOSE fault is it that a half a million children lost their lives due to malnutrition and lack of medicine? "

You may think you are making some great point but you are not, you are ignorant of the facts. The 500,000 children died BEFORE the oil for food program was even instituted.

The stringent economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq in August 1990. In August 1995 the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reported that there had been a fivefold increase in child mortality in Iraq since the imposition of sanctions. It is a 1995 UN report that is the source of the info about the 500,000 children dead.

On the show 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright about it:

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

The first Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food Programme was exported in December

1996 and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997
http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

Some one calling themselves "JG" writes, ""I can respect you sticking to your beliefs, but how far will you take that ?
At what point would you be willing to consider the possibility that you may have been wrong ? On both sides of the issues, we all become too locked into our first feelings, we all have to be able to rethink things, every time someone on CL is presented with information that doesn't match their pre set notions, they dismiss it, it came from the wrong website... it's a vast right or left wing conspiracy, it's all a ploy by the saudis or by al franken, its a by product of the polarization that is gripping this country, and I have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, it is not good.
So I'll ask you directly, when will you be willing to consider the possibility that it this invasion is NOT about oil, or land grabs, that whatever you feel about the outcome or the methods, the motivation was sincere ? When US troops leave Iraq ? when a new Iraqi government is elected ? When Iraq steps up and votes against us in the UN security council in 50 years, those falafel eating surrender monkey ingrates ?"
I responded: G, here are the facts:
On May 22 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1483, abolishing sanctions against Iraq and recognising the United States and United Kingdom as the country's occupying powers. The resolution called upon the US-UK authority to "comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079563,00.html
The US and UK have already violated these Conventions. what the hell is your deal, you don't understand this or know about it? you expect our mainstream media to spoon feed you the facts? The media didn't report to the American people how the CIA helped put the Baath party into power in the first place. They didn't report how the CIA handed over the names of thousands of people to be killed by the Baathists. The media continues the game by not reporting the violations the US is doing right now in Iraq.
when the **** are you going to wake up?
are you putting us on with this bullshit of yours that the US is simply trying to help the Iraqi people, that the "motivation was sincere"!?!, are you a **** two year old? Are you really this God damn ignorant or naive? You ignore 50 years of the US **** over the people of the Middle East.

Now that you see that the US has clearly shown its true colors (again) with the violations of the rights of the Iraqis (this is happening RIGHT NOW!) with the illegal imposing of business deals upon them, are you going to finally wake up or not?

JG ignored the above.
He posted the following in responce to some other topic:

I am not saying school prayer is some sort of be all and end all, but I do think that laws, a system of crime and punishment, will never be enough to prevent people from doing bad things, there has to be some underlying morality , be it religious, or just a sense of right and worng, thats missing from society today. If the only deterrence of a crime will be "can I get away with it or not " then we are all in trouble. This is nothing new, when the Romans stopped revering (and fearing) their gods, the moral code fo their society collapsed. Its a basic formula, am I saying everyone needs to start going to church, but I do think a godless, faithless society is asking for trouble. Whats this guy was is that if these two murdering teens had a real faith, and a sense fo right and wrong, this tragedy would have never happened.

Too many of our young men and women today are growing up without souls, heartless and cruel, if religion is no longer strong enough to provide a model for thought and deed, and the collapsing family not noi longer able to provide it, then who or what will ? the government ? hardly ! public opinion ? yeah right. Every society is built and runs on 4 pillars, Religion, Family, Law, and Public Opinion, I don't need to tell you how shaky our table has become.

So I wrote, "JG you write things like "If the only deterrence of a crime will be "can I get away with it or not " then we are all in trouble. "
yet you don't practice what you preach. you are complicitous with crimes in the Middle East.
you write as if you live in a mke believe world. you say things like we can wait and see if the US in honest about what it is doing in Iraq. But I have pointed out to you that we do not have to wait. I showed you the facts and you ignore them.
I am talking about this:Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pillage is forbidden LINK>>>> http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/32258349.html

JG responed: "I think it was pericles who said " a state can not be moral as the people must be, it's first last and only goal must be preservation and welfare of the state "

or something like that, someone google it for me.

Every government has to act solely in it's own interests, don't be childish and asume that any nation on this planet acts in any other way besides it's own self interests. All I need my government o do is look out for me and my fellow citizens, thats harsh, but true. It has no responsibility to any other master besides it's own citizens."

I responed:
You wrote, "I think it was pericles who said " a state can not be moral as the people must be, it's first last and only goal must be preservation and welfare of the state " or something like that, someone google it for me."

JG, you really should give more thought to your opinions. You may think you are dressing up your immorality but it doesn't hide the fact that it is immoral. OF COURCE A STATE CAN BE MORAL AND SHOULD BE MORAL!! A human being has the goal of preservation of him or herself, that doesn't mean they can disregard morality! What an evil concept that you can simply disregard morality because the state "gotta do what it gotta do" That is the philosophy of a thug.

You write, "Every government has to act solely in it's own interests, don't be childish and asume that any nation on this planet acts in any other way besides it's own self interests. All I need my government o do is look out for me and my fellow citizens, thats harsh, but true."

Two points: First of all, a government has to act morally or we should end it. Second, who is being naive? when you talk about the internets of a government you aren't serious when you include the interests of the average citizen are you? The interests served by this government are those of the powerful. And that is why they want you to disregard morality, they are THAT greedy.

But the thing about you is that you are really twisted. Are you now going to tell me that you are serving the interests of the state by being deceptive here on Craigslist? YOu made a big point about "the motivation was sincere" as far as the US toward Iraq. Yet you don't think the US has to be sincere, it only has to "do what it gotta do". You write, "It has no responsibility to any other master besides it's own citizens" Why are you on here trying to get people to believe that the US is sincere when your philosophy is that the US has no responsibility to be sincere at all? You are going to argue that the US by some fluke happens to be sincere when the US has no responsibility to be so? You are bullshitting your fellow citizens for whose benefit? The state? America is supposed to be a government of the people, so you miss the point of what America is supposed to be about.
What is you contribution to America? Trying to trick Americans into thinking their government is acting morally while AT THE SAME TIME (actually after it is made clear to you that the US is not acting morally) insisting that the government has not responsibility to be moral?
When do you finally come clean and stop acting like a shit. People are suffering and dying because of the kinds of games people like you play.

An Example Of What Should Be Considered a Newsworthy, Significant Contribution to the Counterterrorism Debate

William Kaminsky quotes J. Cofer Black, the director from 1999-2002 of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center on his blog.
Here is a key point:
"At the more strategic level, the only way to address terrorism is to deal with the issues that create terrorism, to resolve them where possible, and where that's not possible to ensure that there is an alternative to violence"

Mr. Kaminsky makes a good point: "Politicians from both sides of the aisle would do well to heed this." I could not agree more with Mr. Kaminsky. Have you noticed that the specific foreign policies are worth more than our lives? Where is the discussion about these specific policies and why aren't people questioning if we should continue with them and continue to put out lives at risk because of them?
Here is my web page about Bush's lie: http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

Dear Mr. Burke:

I read your review of Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival. I thought
it was interesting because I am finishing my book and I want everyone that
reads it to "get it". Here is my article that focuses on the central argument
I make in my book. I was hoping you could read it and tell me what you think:
http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

I can answer any questions you have. These are matters of life and death
so I think you will agree it is important to address them.

Below I try to address the concerns you raised in your review and also
in a post I found at Burke on Chomsky
In your post you write, "Likewise, more contentiously, I'd say putting
Hussein and Ba'athism way down the list of things that explain Iraq prior
to this war (or prior to Gulf War I) is an error of equal proportions, because
it leaves Chomsky or a similar critic as blind to the motors that drive history"
But Chomsky is not blind to the motors that drive history. The US is the
most powerful motor on earth so it is important to focus on the US, I don't
know how you measure "way down the list".

I read the first mention of Saddam in his book, Hegemony or Survival
p31, and I think it addresses your concern about where on the list to put
Hussein and Ba'athism. Yes Saddam's record was horrendous but the US supported
him during the worst of it. Simply listing Saddam's crimes without mention
of the US role would be wrong. The "motor" of the US is the most powerful
one and is one for which we are responsible for. But the history shows that
we bear enormous responsibility for Saddam too. We knew he was a murderer
when the CIA was supporting him decades ago (before the 1980's). We supported
him even after the Gulf War. Chomsky explains in detail about Saddam and
US policy on his CD ( http://www.representativepress.org/listentothis.html )

As far as discussing crimes that we can control and the importance in
doing so, Chomsky makes a good point here: "But take a look, say, at the
book Edward S. Herman and I wrote on this topic. We discussed three kinds
of atrocities. What we called "benign bloodbaths", which nobody cares about,
constructive bloodbaths, which are the ones we like, and nefarious bloodbaths,
which are the ones that the bad guys do. The principle that I think we ought
to follow is not the one that you stated. You know, it's a very simple ethical
point: You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions.
You're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's
actions. The most important thing for me and for you is to think about the
consequences of your actions. What can you affect."

The point that we supported Saddam is rarely mentioned in the media
and the hypocrisy of this I have rarely seen addressed. Chomsky talks about
this on his CD. I have seen a few mentions of the support but here is something
interesting, talking heads from the Administration and think tanks list Saddam's
crimes using the statement that "Saddam? attacked his neighbors" (neighbors
plural)! So they include the attack on Iraq! But that is the war that we
supported him in! NEVER have I seen a reporter question these talking heads
about why Saddam's attack on Iran is listed as a wrong act by Saddam even
though the US helped him do it. How can the very same act be wrong for Saddam
and right for us? (this is an example of the media "playing the game")
I haven't seen Chomsky mention it but I think how the Ba'ath party came
to power in the 60's is very important (see below). I think the media's omission
of how the Ba'ath party came to power is very telling. Don't you agree? The
problem with the games reporters are playing or going along with out of ignorance
is exposing it requires proving two things. The first is that the omitted
thing is in fact true and second? that the? omitted things was in act omitted
and should have been reported. I have people tell me that "oh the media doesn't
give a history" but that simply is not true. Specifically, I have seen the
media a few times mention the 1980's and US support and I have seen media
talking heads justify it as the "lesser of two evils". But notice that the
60's coups and the handing over of hundreds of names to the Ba'ath party
is NOT mentioned in the media. I am talking about effective reporting in
the media, not a single mention somewhere like the? OpEd in the Times written
by . In fact a NYTs OpEd written by author Morris that did talk about the
1963 coup shows that reporters are ignoring it unless no one reads the OpEds
in the Times.

Here are some details about how the Ba'ath party came to power in the
60's and the US role: US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy
at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked
them". "The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of
the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American
one and you don't get that chance very often.
"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us". http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

The role of the US in putting the Ba'ath party into power should have
been reported to the public, but it wasn't. I have several examples at my
web site the first article that I mentioned ( http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html
) is a dramatic example of the interests of the powerful being served without
regard for the rights of the common man. Maybe I present it forcefully enough
for the reality to be clear to everyone? I think Chomsky understates the
fact that Bush doesn't give the public the truth. About the Bush lie (about
why we were attacked) Chomksy refers to the "comforting story" that is "completely
at variance with everything we know." I think Chomsky is great but he tones
it down too much in this particular case. The fact that Bush lied about why
we are attacked on 9/11 is an outrage.

Another dramatic example of the media playing the game is their refusal
to report that the Iraq War was illegal. ( By the way, I have my correspondence
with a Newsday reporter that? sheds light on how the game is played if you
are interested.) Also the media is neglecting to inform the public that the
US is violating the Geneva and Hague Conventions by imposing business conditions
and changing laws in Iraq. Another dramatic example is ignoring the last
50 years of the US of undermining democracy in the region. The media played
along with the idea that the US intends to see up a democracy. The media
"forgot" to mention that we were lied to to get us into Vietnam. They "forgot"
to report we were lied to in the fist Gulf war. ( Lies About Iraq
)

As Chomsky explains in the movie Manufacturing consent, "the interests of
power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the
needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the
blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing
themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
http://home.twcny.rr.com/heurich/chomsky.html

You asked the question "why isn't Chomsky dead?" (for publishing the
ideas and facts he does). Chomsky has explained this in other publications.
The interests of the powerful in the US are not carried out inside the US
by violence, instead it is by manipulation and propaganda and it is done
largely voluntarily.

This idea was explained by George Orwell in a preface that was intended
for his novel Animal Farm but was not included. Here is part of that preface,
"The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely
voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark,
without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign
country will know of instances of sensational items of news ? things which
on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the
British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general
tacit agreement that ?it wouldn?t do? to mention that particular fact. So
far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press
is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have
every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind
of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in
plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body
of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without
question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but
it is ?not done? to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ?not done?
to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the
prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.
A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either
in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Orwell's Proposed Preface to 'Animal Farm'

Chomsky explains a Propaganda Model: Propaganda Model
Below is another example of? manipulation and lies being told in order
to fool the public. Yes there are people playing games in the world.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example
of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's
1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game",
which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that
powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you
believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants
peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been
presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false
premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants
peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine
is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United
States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process,"
while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking
peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."
This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise.
So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with
Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many.?
Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play
the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky
wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that
Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called Chomsky
to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her
that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman
looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would
run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said
they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
As Chomsky writes, "But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times
and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's
like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

"Russil Wvong" "Noam Chomsky" and "George Kennan" Wvong Wrong

You wrote, "Chomsky is taking a single sentence from the middle of a 21-page
document and arguing that this represents the primary goal of US
foreign policy, ignoring the rest of the documentand numerous
other documents in which it's clear that the primary goal of US<
policymakers was containment of the Soviet Union."

And yet you wrote, "I am *not* arguing that US foreign policy is virtuous and
benevolent, or that Kennan himself has never made any
recommendations which cannot be criticized on moral grounds. In the same document, PPS/23, Kennan recommends that the US encourage the Western European countries to retain, develop, and exploit

their African colonies, as a source of food and raw materials,
with no mention of the interests of the Africans themselves. ... Here, Chomsky definitely has a point. "

You wrote "The US has done plenty of immoral things. But *it shouldn't be
necessary to make stuff up*, and I think Chomsky's quote of
PPS/23 is so misleading that it falls into this category. "
Russil, you see yourself how Kennan wrote in the same document, your
point about "ignoring the rest of the document" is just wrong. I hate to think there are people that will absolutely refuse to concede a
valid point. The fact is Chomsky is correct when he quotes Kennan. Have you
given it more though because I hope if you do you will agree.


I myself have been doing extensive research into the agendas served by US policy makers.

I have made an effort to present the facts as clearly as possible. I was wondering what you think: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives
I was hoping you would read my article and be motivated to purchase and wear one of myT-Shirts. Tell me what you think.

Sincerely,

Tom Murphy
PS my book will be coming out soon, I hope you will consider buying it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html
This is a hell of a lot more than "hazing". NOTE that the media has done a poor job informing the public about these facts, in fact the contribute to a down playing of the horrific events. Many still have a chip on their shoulders and say "big deal". The media has not made it clear that this is a **** big deal. Jesus Christ, you guys are not going to start making excuses for God damn rapists are you? How **** low are you robotic blind leader followers going to sink?

"He pointed the laser sight directly in the middle of my chest," said Professor Shaker, a political scientist at Baghdad University. "Then he pointed to his penis. He told me, 'Come here, bitch, I'm going to fuck you.'"

The incident is one of a number in which US soldiers are alleged to have abused, intimidated or sexually humiliated Iraqi women.

US officials have acknowledged detaining women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information: a strategy that is in violation of international law.

According to the New Yorker magazine the photos and videos so far unreleased by the Pentagon show American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner", and a secret report by General Antonio Taguba into the scandal confirms that US guards videotaped and photographed naked female prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard" is shown "having sex with a female detainee".

my point about the media downplaying the worst part of the abuse is correct. You don't know about the abuse of the women and the rapes. Notice how many people still can say "What's the big deal? Sounds like college kids at a frat." thanks to the way the media has underreported the abuse of the women??

(by the way, even the "liberal" Air America's Al Franken was unwilling to mention the women abuse and rape, as was his co-host who only had the courage to say "and other things")

Please read my post: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/30416569.html (link works on the page)

This is absolutely crazy. We have soldiers RAPING female detainees.
Senior US military officers who escorted journalists around Abu Ghraib on Monday admitted that rape had taken place in the cellblock where 19 "high-value" male detainees are also being held.

David,

I posted a response to your question: "Can you please explain to me why the US government should take any account whatsoever of other people *unless* it furthers the interests of the US government? I mean, what else is the US government for? In fact can you give me one instance from all recorded history where any national government has ever done anything of real import for another country unless it was in their interest?"

Here it is:
Did you miss the point? US policy makers setback the people of Afghanistan by supporting terrorists in an attempt to destroy the progressive government.

You wrote, "where any national government has ever done anything of real import for another country" The point isn't that US policy makers didn't do anything for the Afghanis, the point is they HARMED THEM.


I have found that people want to deny that US foreign policy makers are willing to harm people to further their agendas. This seems to be what you are doing by not dealing with it and instead acting like the question is between actively helping or just doing nothing. I think I am making myself clear. The point is not that US policy makers aren't doing something of "real import" for the Afghanistan, the point is that the US policy makers were willing to HARM them as they carry out their agenda. I think you are not addressing this point because I can't imagine that you would be arguing that any national government should actually hurt people as they pursue their agenda.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

A reader comments, "you're a racist. let me ask you a question, RIGHT NOW, as we speak, Arabs are murdering blacks by the THOUSANDS in the Sudan, ethnically cleansing them out of the country, where' your outrage, hypocrite?"


Our country isn't SUPPORTING IT! ****, is that such a difficult concept for you to get?

As a citizen of the United States I have a moral responsibility to make sure my government doesn't CAUSE harm. THat is what is happening with Israel. that is what is happening in the Middle East. By the way, I went to the trouble of explaining how US polciy makers fucked over country after country after country in the Middle East. so you are a LIAR when you make your claim that "it is only about Isreal".

I emialed you the following (it talked about US policy makers fucking the people of Iraq, fucking the people of Iran fucking the people of Jordan)

what the hell are you talking about "in order to fight what was a greater threat at the time"? The CIA handed over the names of THOUSANDS of people for the Baaath party to kill, many tortured first. you can justify any evil action by claiming "we had to in oder to fight somethign else" but what did you dream we were fighting when we put the Baath party into power in 1963?
at some point does it ever sink in that there are indeed greedy immoral people that use US polcies to further their agenda?

and when the hell did you think the US "paid for the mistakes"? are you totally clueless?
Do you realize how many times the US has undermined democracy? Why? because greedy men want to expliot the resources and not have the population share in the wealth. this is easily done when you have dictators in charge. Jesus Christ, at some point don't you feel foolish making excuses for these guys?

Deal with the fact that there are indeed greedy people that use American policies for immoral agendas. If you need another example of the dishonesty, look at the case of CIA coup to overthrow Mossadegh. I am told that "everyone" knows about this. In fact it is widely know and has been publicly admitted by former CIA director James Woolsey, "in the early 1950's the CIA, under President Eisenhower's instructions, helped overthrow the Mossadeg government and re-install the Shah. Given what's happened in Iran since 1979, Mossadeg looks pretty good by comparison. In retrospect it would have probably been a better idea to let Iran take its own course then -- there might not be so much resentment against the U.S. there now if we had kept our hands off." Now if you want to see if things are on the level, check the CIA web site: ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html ) where they explain,"Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling shah was forced into exile. " The CIA omits 44 years of history in order to avoid admitting the truth on their web site. For God Sakes, what more do you need to see?


And guy, we supported the Shah, that was the problem. we even allowed the murderer to get medical treatment here. You don't think the Iranians should be angry with the US for imposing the Shah on them. (and at the same time the US pumped money to the mulahs to keep them quite. so we really fucked over the moderates in Iran.) We supported a murderous dictator AND pumbed money to the fundamentalsits.

AS for Jordan, King Hussein responded to public pressure by allowing free parliamentary elections. He was aligned with the British but the people were pro-Nasser. (Nasser was the champion of Arab nationalism) In 1956 he replaced 64 British officers with native ones and "this was followed by free parliamentary elections which produced a pro-Nasser government under Prime Minister Suleiman Nabusli. Briefly king and government worked together, but seeing his royal prerogatives eroded by a government of the people, the former reached for outside help."1 And the outside help that King Hussein reached out to was CIA agent James Russell Barracks.
"In April 1957 King Hussein was twenty-two and the US government had already replaced Britain as his financial backer and protector. ... the US government was determined to reclaim Jordan as a Western sphere of influence. This meant replacing the freely elected government of Jordan and the reemergence of Hussein's royal dictatorship."

The exampes above show US policy makers fucking the people of Iraq, fucking the people of Iran fucking the people of Jordan. do you see a pattern?

what "threat" were we fighting when we enslaved hundreds of thousands of blacks? Slavery in America was about GREED and BUSINESS. has anyone every put in those terms for you?
And sure enough the press explained away the terrorism that was in reponce to slavery by claiming it was "without cause or provocation"
so rather than"paying for mistakes" the elites have lied to the public and gotten away with it. and in large part becasue of people like you.

Chomsky's book is a must have: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)




Learn about "The Zionists, the Oil Companies, and Washington" as she explains it on p27.

It is disgusting how people play this game that we are actaully going to allow democracy in Iraq. What the US is doing is setting up an Arab facade just like the British did.
It is really increadible how so many people play along with the idea that the US goals are noble.

"(We need an) ..Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff.... There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on?. - Lord Curzon on installing the puppet Feisal as King of Iraq

From the start it was clear to many that the Jews had not moved to Palestine to live in peace with the people already living there. Many statements are startling in their fanaticism. I am talking about mainstream Zionist thought. Extremist slogans like "A land for a people for a people without a land" circulated in America without people realizing just how ugly the claim was. First of all it is an outrageous lie. That should give you a clue about how the Zionists intended to treat the native inhabitant. They were denying that they even existed! What about the Palestinians right to exist? The ironic thing is with all the pro-Israel propaganda, it is the Zionists that are the ones denying a "right to exist".
When you hear about "right to exist" what they actually mean is the right to be racist. If you look at the opinions this is the fact. They consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights to be "the destruction of Israel."
Please get this book:
or this book:

Comment from someone, "And the Palestinian terrorism before Sharon was Prime Minister? Arab terrorism wasn't born under Sharon. They killed children on purpose prior to that! Remember a little thing called the PLO?"

And who started the mess? The Zionists moved into Palestine with the intention of moving people out because they were not Jews. This ethnic cleansing was planned from the start. The Father of Zionism plotted to have the non-Jews be "spirited across the border" wrmea

From the start it was clear to many that the Jews had not moved to Palestine to live in peace with the people already living there. MAny statements are startling in their fanaticism. I am talking about mainstream Zionist thought. Extremist slogans like "A land for a people for a people without a land" circulated in America without people realizing just how ugly the claim was. First of all it is an outrageous lie. That should give you a clue about how the Zionists intended to treat the native inhabitant. They were denying that they even existed! What about the Palestinians right to exist? The ironic thing is with all the pro-Israel propaganda, it is the Zionists that are the ones denying a "right to exist".

When you hear about "right to exist" what they actually mean is the right to be racist. If you look at the opinions this is the fact. They consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights to be "the destruction of Israel."

If you are concerned about Jews then you should respect the history of Jews who actually did stand for justice. Some paid with their lives for insisting that racism is wrong. Zionists killed OTHER JEWS who dared point out what I am saying. The Hagana archives contain the names of 40 JEWS who were killed by Irgun and the Stern Group (Jewish terrorist groups). For example an anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitant of Palestine was assassinated as he left his synagogue in June 1924 by two Haganah agents (Jewish terrorists) see Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians pp164-165


What these murdered Jews were resisting was a racist ideology. Racism is wrong, even if Jews are doing it. Far too many Jews are excusing racist policies but not all, for example the Jews I mentioned who were murdered by racist Zionist Jews. Far too many whites accepted slavery in the US but not all and they to suffered for standing up for the right thing. Don't tell me you think Jews can't do wrong and only non-Jewish white people are capable of such things. Right now the Zionist ideology is spreading such misery and injustice. People are people and you need to drop your distorted views. If you are concerned about the hate created by Israeli polices then you need to do some research. How could so many Americans go along with slavery? THINK about it.

From the start the Jews were using terrorism. As I pointed out, even against other Jews who dared speak out against their racist agenda. Terrorism continued as Jews went about implementing the agenda of "demographic purity" (by the way they continue the process but the US Media is unwilling to show it)

there are dramatic examples of stories that go unreported. American TV simply suppressed this video,
I only know about it because of the Internet: CBC News - Israeli army embarrassed by video broadcast Watch the video, the Israeli soldier actually talks about "purification" as an excuse for letting the mother of five bleed to death in front of her children. THIS IS SO CLEARLY NAZI ACTIONS! WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT IN AMERICA IS BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE IT. (Note that this was only on Canadian TV, not American TV.) Here is a picture of one of the woman's children crying as she watches her mom bleed to death. And Israeli soldiers refuse to allow an ambulance to reach her. (remember US TV executives didn't want you to see it, so you didn't)

Some American reporters think "Shit I am not going to touch that story, it could hurt my career." other American reporters simply think Israel should be treated differently. Yes American media treats Israel differently, and they think it is perfectly natural to do so. It has even been admitted openly: "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

The opinions you hold about Israel are the result of you not seeing the realities and not hearing the facts.
The airing of the video itself was a story and it made headlines in Israel. In America, reporters and editorsrefused to show it or acknowledge it existed.

Even when the rare opportunity to confront the media about their omissions happens, they IGNORE it!
At a Center for Communications Forum called “The Press & The Pentagon” on April 4, 2002 NYU
A woman asked five media people about why they never showed the video in the US:
“All four of you ... all five of you actually have discussed how editors
decide what's in the public interest and I really want to know how that decision
is made. I am thinking particularly of coverage right now of what's happening
in the Middle East and I wonder who decides it's not in the public interest
to describe the suffering and the humiliation and the terror of 3.5 million
Palestinian people who are suffering under Israeli military occupation.
I want to know why we’re not hearing those stories. why aren't we speaking
to Palestinians by telephone when possible for example
And I want to know why for example coverage, film footage of a woman, a Palestinian woman, [Huda Hawarjeh], being killed and dying, bleeding to death, in front of her four children which was deemed appropriate viewing on Israeli Television never made it to the United States. That is the first part of my question.”

     “Hold it there”, said the moderator and he then changed the question and asked the media panel a DIFFERENT question. So not only did mainstream media ignore the video, they refused to even respond to a woman that asks them about it.

The fact is facts about Jewish terrorism get suppressed in the US. In fact the first airplane hijacking in the Middle East was by Jews: " The first airplane hijacking in the Middle East also falls outside the canon: Israel’s hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent “to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus,” who had been captured on a spy mission in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the “factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice.” In October 1956, the Israeli air force shot down an unarmed Egyptian civilian plane, killing 16 people including four journalists, in a failed attempt to assassinate Field Marshall Abdul Hakim Amar, second to President Nasser, at a time when the two countries were not in a state of war. This was a preplanned operation, thus unlike Israel’s downing of a Libyan civilian airliner with 110 killed as it was lost in a sandstorm two minutes flight time from Cairo, towards which it was heading. This February 1973 action took place while Israeli airborne and amphibious forces were attacking Tripoli in northern Lebanon, killing 31 people (mainly civilians) and destroying classrooms, clinics, and other buildings in a raid justified as preemptive.28 All of this was (and is) dismissed as insignificant, if even noticed. The reaction to Arab terrorism is quite different." WesternStateTerrorism

From what you wrote I take it you hold broad and common misconceptions about Israel. By giving you examples of lies I hope you can start to see a pattern an eventually to see the truth.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's 1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game", which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process," while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."

This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise. So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many. Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called CHomsky to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
As Chomsky writes, But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

For examples of how rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see Thomas L. Friedman, "Seeking Peace in Mideast," New York Times, March 17, 1985, section 1, p. 1 (chronologically listing U.S. and U.N. Security Council proposals, but ignoring all of the Arab proposals prior to those that led to the Camp David Accords of 1978); Eric Pace, "Anwar el-Sadat, the Daring Arab Pioneer of Peace With Israel," New York Times, October 7, 1981, p. A10 (explicitly denying the facts, and referring to Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 as follows: "Reversing Egypt's longstanding policy, [Sadat] proclaimed his willingness to accept Israel's existence as a sovereign state").

Like I said, this is just one example.

This point never gets made. Here is my web page about it: History of Israel.

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...”
— Yitzhak Shamir
Israeli Prime Minister, Zionist terrorist
in an August 1943 article titled “Terror”, written for Hazit
the journal of Lehi, the terrorist organization he belonged to
Visit my blog

"We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong. We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession." - For Jewish Readers from Jews for Justice

If you do nothing else please search the facts of the 1971 peace offer by Egypt, it could open your eyes to the pattern of misinformation and lies that are spread in service of powerful interests. I know that human nature is such that people form their world view based on what they are exposed to and what they experience. The problem we face is how can I show you that you hold views that have been influenced by deception and omission? If you are sincere about wanting to know about the world you live in and the society you are a member of then please review what I have to say and like I said actually research the facts of the 1971 peace offer. I can't make you change your mind, I can't make you see the facts, only you can do that.

From what you wrote I take it you hold broad and common misconceptions about Israel. By giving you examples of lies I hope you can start to see a pattern an eventually to see the truth.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's 1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game", which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process," while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."

This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise. So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many. Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called CHomsky to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
AS Chomsky writes, But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

For examples of how rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see Thomas L. Friedman, "Seeking Peace in Mideast," New York Times, March 17, 1985, section 1, p. 1 (chronologically listing U.S. and U.N. Security Council proposals, but ignoring all of the Arab proposals prior to those that led to the Camp David Accords of 1978); Eric Pace, "Anwar el-Sadat, the Daring Arab Pioneer of Peace With Israel," New York Times, October 7, 1981, p. A10 (explicitly denying the facts, and referring to Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 as follows: "Reversing Egypt's longstanding policy, [Sadat] proclaimed his willingness to accept Israel's existence as a sovereign state").

Like I said, this is just one example.

If you are concerned about Jews then you should respect the history of Jews who actually did stand for justice. Some paid with their lives for insisting that racism is wrong. Zionists killed OTHER JEWS who dared point out what I am saying. The Hagana archives contain the names of 40 JEWS who were killed by Irgun and the Stern Group (Jewish terrorist groups). For example an anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitant of Palestine was assassinated as he left his synagogue in June 1924 by two Haganah agents (Jewish terrorists) see The Fateful Triangle pp164-165

What these murdered Jews were resisting was a racist ideology. Racism is wrong, even if Jews are doing it. Far too many Jews are excusing racist policies but not all, for example the Jews I mentioned who were murdered by racist Zionist Jews. Far too many whites accepted slavery in the US but not all and they to suffered for standing up for the right thing. Don't tell me you think Jews can't do wrong and only non-Jewish white people are capable of such things. Right now the Zionist ideology is spreading such misery and injustice. People are people and you need to drop your distorted views. If you are concerned about the hate created by Israeli polices then you need to do some research. How could so many Americans go along with slavery? THINK about it. If Americans are supposed to be wonderful and the creation of the US was supposed to be great, why was such evil written into our Constitution and inflicted on so many people? Zionists consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal right to be the "destruction of Israel". It is like when a white racist says a "neighborhood is destroyed" when they think there are too many blacks in a neighborhood or that there are any blacks in a neighborhood.

You mentioned suicide bombers as if that was the end all of everything. You need to know this started in Israel at a eertain time, about six weeks after Baruch Goldstein killed some 29 Muslims as they were praying on February 25, 1994. And after Israel had been supporting Hamas as a way to undermine the PLO and derail political attempts at peace. And they come after decades of murders and human rights abuses. You fixate only on others killing civilians and you overlook Israel's killings and other actions. Killing civilians is wrong but that doesn't make the actions of others right. Israel has killed far more Palestinians and has ethnically cleansed 750,000 people all in the name of the racist ideology of Zionism.

One could harp on the murders of whites by blacks during the years of slavery but that doesn't mean slavery was OK.What would you think of someone that went on and on about the murder of whites at the hands of black slaves in early America? You know of cource that the whites were in the wrong with their slavery even though killing whites wa wrong. Stop using the killings you refer to as an excuse for the original and ongoing wrongs of Zionism.

Think about this from Jews for Justice writing about Israel:
"We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong. We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession." Conclusion I
Origin Introductioncolor="#000000"



I suggest you order thes two books written by decent and honerable Jews: Amazon.com: Books: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
Amazon.com: Books: Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948
History of Israel
Israel violates the conditions for admittance into UN