Steve continues, "I'm not being childish, I just don't take you seriously. How old are you, Tom? Chomsky fans are often young, but seldom old."
Steve you have acted like a total asshole. I pointed out that Bush lied to America about why we were attacked on 9/11.
The CONTEXT is Bush lied to the nation about why we were attacked. I pointed out that I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices. And you claim the problem is I am being an "obtuse pain in the ass".
No, that isn't the problem Steve. You PATHETICALLY tried to act like what Bush said could be the truth. You really don't care how much of an ass you make of yourself do you.
For the last time: As I have pointed out, right here in this thread a person called Ran writes that the terrorists "got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die."
So no the problem is not with me Steve, people are in fact taking Bush at his word and are being fooled.
Clearly you think this is a joke and you like the idea that people are being made fools out of by the president.
I have pointed out that what I am saying is correct and that for example RIGHT HERE a guy named Ran has been fooled by the President.
You can't act like an adult and admit this?
What kind of little shit starts to think up stupid ass excuses for how Bush's lie "could be true". CLEARLY it is a lie and CLEARLY people are being fooled by it.
You are the one being an "obtuse pain in the ass". You then want to play it like IF Bush lied it "doesn't matter." I was living in NYC when 9/11 happened. My sister was running for her life in tears across the Brooklyn on 9/11. I take these life and death matters very seriously. You clearly do not. You think it is a big joke to play along with Bush's lie?
You have no respect for people or the truth. I even gave you the chance to hear Truman's own voice give a big lie to the American people. The problem with you is you can't admit you are wrong. Instead of being so resentful of people that know more than you, why don't you educate yourself? Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a disgrace!
In 1963 President Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled, as he did on several other occasions, that in July 1945 he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: “... I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
And if you start to do some research you can see that this was indeed the case. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Monday, March 29, 2004
Mike writes "I see you chose not to attempt a rebuttal of my quote from the fatwa which absolves the Muslim rulers in the Middle East of complicity with the Americans, even though it directly contradicts you."
No Mike, you don't understand what a puppet government is. That is what Osama bin Laden says of Saudi Arabia for example.
Mike pathetically tries to claim I "lied" because my main point is that Bush lied about 9/11 motives. What does a five year old do? Simply turn it around and accuse the messenger of the same thing.
Here is the pathetic argument he refers to: "Bin Laden contradicts you Tom. He doesn't claim the U.S. is propping up corrupt puppet states. No, he argues the rulers are opposed to the U.S., but helpless to resist them. Tom, I think you “ lied. "
Mike a puppet is helpless to resist the puppeteer. Saying a government is helpless from the US is not a contradiction with the idea that it is a corrupt puppet government. You don't have a grasp of basics and you are trying desperately to contradict me. You are acting like a child.
What bin Laden says does not contradict what I have written and it doesn't contradict what is said in the 1998 fatwa. Here he explains the same idea in an interview the same year as the fatwa: "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control." usama interview john miller abc
No Mike, you don't understand what a puppet government is. That is what Osama bin Laden says of Saudi Arabia for example.
Mike pathetically tries to claim I "lied" because my main point is that Bush lied about 9/11 motives. What does a five year old do? Simply turn it around and accuse the messenger of the same thing.
Here is the pathetic argument he refers to: "Bin Laden contradicts you Tom. He doesn't claim the U.S. is propping up corrupt puppet states. No, he argues the rulers are opposed to the U.S., but helpless to resist them. Tom, I think you “ lied. "
Mike a puppet is helpless to resist the puppeteer. Saying a government is helpless from the US is not a contradiction with the idea that it is a corrupt puppet government. You don't have a grasp of basics and you are trying desperately to contradict me. You are acting like a child.
What bin Laden says does not contradict what I have written and it doesn't contradict what is said in the 1998 fatwa. Here he explains the same idea in an interview the same year as the fatwa: "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control." usama interview john miller abc
chris writes: "The omission by the poster doesn't really change the context of which Kerry made these assertions in '71. Additionally, these assertions have since been disproven"
The omission very much changes the context. The actaul quotes reveals that it is others who are saying these things happened an not Kerry.
As far as the assertions, they happen to be true. why do you say they are not?
An earlier investigation had been closed in 1975, even though it had established that members of the unit had committed war crimes.
Soldiers told the newspaper they had severed ears from the dead, stringing them on shoelaces to wear around their necks, and had dropped grenades into bunkers where children and women were taking refuge.( THEY ADMITTED THIS TO THE NEEWSPAPER JUST LAST YEAR!!)
But a Pentagon statement said the case was more than 30 years old and there was no new or compelling evidence to justify reopening it. BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | US shuns Vietnam war claims
An official investigation, which was opened in 1971 at the instigation of an outraged soldier, found evidence of 20 war crimes, said the spokesman, Joe Burlas.
The allegations included murder, rape, mutilation and failure to report a war crime. But commanders concluded there was insufficient evidence to try the case successfully before a court martial, and the investigation was closed in 1975 with no charges made, Mr Burlas said.
The US Army has defended its decision to drop investigations more than 30 years ago into war-crimes allegations that its soldiers killed and mutilated civilians during the Vietnam War.
A spokesman, however, said the army was looking into statements by veterans of the unit who were quoted over the weekend by the Toledo Blade, an Ohio newspaper, as admitting having killed civilians.Vietnam war-crimes probe resurfaces - www.theage.com.au
War Crimes
The omission very much changes the context. The actaul quotes reveals that it is others who are saying these things happened an not Kerry.
As far as the assertions, they happen to be true. why do you say they are not?
An earlier investigation had been closed in 1975, even though it had established that members of the unit had committed war crimes.
Soldiers told the newspaper they had severed ears from the dead, stringing them on shoelaces to wear around their necks, and had dropped grenades into bunkers where children and women were taking refuge.( THEY ADMITTED THIS TO THE NEEWSPAPER JUST LAST YEAR!!)
But a Pentagon statement said the case was more than 30 years old and there was no new or compelling evidence to justify reopening it. BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | US shuns Vietnam war claims
An official investigation, which was opened in 1971 at the instigation of an outraged soldier, found evidence of 20 war crimes, said the spokesman, Joe Burlas.
The allegations included murder, rape, mutilation and failure to report a war crime. But commanders concluded there was insufficient evidence to try the case successfully before a court martial, and the investigation was closed in 1975 with no charges made, Mr Burlas said.
The US Army has defended its decision to drop investigations more than 30 years ago into war-crimes allegations that its soldiers killed and mutilated civilians during the Vietnam War.
A spokesman, however, said the army was looking into statements by veterans of the unit who were quoted over the weekend by the Toledo Blade, an Ohio newspaper, as admitting having killed civilians.Vietnam war-crimes probe resurfaces - www.theage.com.au
War Crimes
Sunday, March 28, 2004
[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve
I replied, "As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale."
[ There you go again with ignoring the context. ] -Steve
Steve, for God sakes you had just made the point that the context doesn't matter! You said "stated motivations don't matter " when it is on a massive scale and the target is civilians. You made the point that deliberately targeting civilians on such a scale shows that the cause "has gone beyond reason."
But now you want to make excuses for it. Osama bin Laden has excuses for his attacks too.
An interesting point is the level of dishonesty when dealing with US crimes against civilians. You mentioned Truman and MacArthur. Truman apparently was in denial (or incredibly IGNORANT to the point of absurdity) about the fact that he was targeting civilians. President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children." Truman lied about what really happened, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Hear him lie.
The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."
And the "need" for dropping the bomb is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.
"... there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace."- Leo Szilard
As far as Nat Turner, the media was no more honest about his motives than they are about terrorists today. When Nat Turner and fellow terrorists attacked in American in 1831, the press played the SAME GAME of denying what was behind the terrorism. Describing Nat Turner in 1831 the Richmond Enquirer wrote, "He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation"
WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR PROVOCATION!
[The Nat Turner rebellion was a slave rebellion.]-Steve
So? And you can see how the press reported it at the time. You ignored my point, Nat Turner killed civilians: does that mean we never should have ended slavery? Was what Nat Turner did wrong or not, you really didn't make that clear.
As far as Israel, ethnic cleansing is wrong. From the beginning key Zionists plotted to remove non-Jews from Palestine. The Jewish Zionists used terrorism and the Jewish Zionists even killed Jews who objected to their agenda. Why should a small minority be allowed to discriminate and impose their racist agenda upon the majority? This is what happened when they sought to impose partition of land that wasn't theirs. Do you believe in democracy and human rights or not? You may be interested to know the background of the May 1948 unilateral declaration by 33% of the population, imposing their will on 67% 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 (33%) 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. IsraelHistory What Israel is doing is about imposing a racist state upon people, it isn't about "security". You don't move Jewish families into the territories if your concern is "security". It is more of the land grab, those that accept the excuse of "security" are naive to say the least.
I replied, "As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale."
[ There you go again with ignoring the context. ] -Steve
Steve, for God sakes you had just made the point that the context doesn't matter! You said "stated motivations don't matter " when it is on a massive scale and the target is civilians. You made the point that deliberately targeting civilians on such a scale shows that the cause "has gone beyond reason."
But now you want to make excuses for it. Osama bin Laden has excuses for his attacks too.
An interesting point is the level of dishonesty when dealing with US crimes against civilians. You mentioned Truman and MacArthur. Truman apparently was in denial (or incredibly IGNORANT to the point of absurdity) about the fact that he was targeting civilians. President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children." Truman lied about what really happened, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Hear him lie.
The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."
And the "need" for dropping the bomb is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.
"... there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace."- Leo Szilard
As far as Nat Turner, the media was no more honest about his motives than they are about terrorists today. When Nat Turner and fellow terrorists attacked in American in 1831, the press played the SAME GAME of denying what was behind the terrorism. Describing Nat Turner in 1831 the Richmond Enquirer wrote, "He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation"
WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR PROVOCATION!
[The Nat Turner rebellion was a slave rebellion.]-Steve
So? And you can see how the press reported it at the time. You ignored my point, Nat Turner killed civilians: does that mean we never should have ended slavery? Was what Nat Turner did wrong or not, you really didn't make that clear.
As far as Israel, ethnic cleansing is wrong. From the beginning key Zionists plotted to remove non-Jews from Palestine. The Jewish Zionists used terrorism and the Jewish Zionists even killed Jews who objected to their agenda. Why should a small minority be allowed to discriminate and impose their racist agenda upon the majority? This is what happened when they sought to impose partition of land that wasn't theirs. Do you believe in democracy and human rights or not? You may be interested to know the background of the May 1948 unilateral declaration by 33% of the population, imposing their will on 67% 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 (33%) 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. IsraelHistory What Israel is doing is about imposing a racist state upon people, it isn't about "security". You don't move Jewish families into the territories if your concern is "security". It is more of the land grab, those that accept the excuse of "security" are naive to say the least.
[The question is: Can Tom Murphy actually repond to this, or will he avoid answering again?]-Steve
Steve, you are the one that said " I really don't care what you say."
As far as Bush's lie and what the motives are, other readers can see that I pointed out in a previous post that I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Here is a quote in which bin Laden addresses Bush's lies:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
The motives been made clear for years. Bush and other lie in order to serve special interests that prefer the public don't focus on the specific foreign policies for which they are targets.
Basic freedom means the right to know why you are in harm's way and not to be lied to about matters of life and death.
[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve
that is garbage. First of all, there were three symbolic targets. Clearly the intent was not simply to kill civilians but rather to hit these targets. You don't hit THE SYMBOL of US MILITARY POWER if you simply want to kill civilians. US policy makers would call the civilians "collateral damage"
As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale. When the terrorists attacked, it did not make our foreign polices just.
The bottom line is there is no right to continue unjust polices even if a small handful of people has responded to them in a way you don't like. By your rational we could never have ended slavery since Nat Turner and others killed all those civilians.
There are other people involved and it is evil to insist that you have a right to continue unjust polices because some terrorists responded to them. Continuing the unjust polices continues to wrong people and to drive others to do things like acts of terrorism.
You clearly want specific foreign policies to continue AND THAT WAS WHY BUSH LIED: To rob the American people of the chance to decide for themselves if they want to continue to be put in harm's way because of these policies.
Steve, you are the one that said " I really don't care what you say."
As far as Bush's lie and what the motives are, other readers can see that I pointed out in a previous post that I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Here is a quote in which bin Laden addresses Bush's lies:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
The motives been made clear for years. Bush and other lie in order to serve special interests that prefer the public don't focus on the specific foreign policies for which they are targets.
Basic freedom means the right to know why you are in harm's way and not to be lied to about matters of life and death.
[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve
that is garbage. First of all, there were three symbolic targets. Clearly the intent was not simply to kill civilians but rather to hit these targets. You don't hit THE SYMBOL of US MILITARY POWER if you simply want to kill civilians. US policy makers would call the civilians "collateral damage"
As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale. When the terrorists attacked, it did not make our foreign polices just.
The bottom line is there is no right to continue unjust polices even if a small handful of people has responded to them in a way you don't like. By your rational we could never have ended slavery since Nat Turner and others killed all those civilians.
There are other people involved and it is evil to insist that you have a right to continue unjust polices because some terrorists responded to them. Continuing the unjust polices continues to wrong people and to drive others to do things like acts of terrorism.
You clearly want specific foreign policies to continue AND THAT WAS WHY BUSH LIED: To rob the American people of the chance to decide for themselves if they want to continue to be put in harm's way because of these policies.
[The question is: Can Tom Murphy actually repond to this, or will he avoid answering again?]-Steve
Steve, you are the one that said " I really don't care what you say."
As far as Bush's lie and what the motives are, other readers can see that I pointed out in a previous post that I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Here is a quote in which bin Laden addresses Bush's lies:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
The motives been made clear for years. Bush and other lie in order to serve special interests that prefer the public don't focus on the specific foriegn policies for which they are targets.
Basic freedom means the right to know why you are in harm's way and not to be lied to about matters of life and death.
[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve
that is garbage. First of all, there were three symbolic targets. Clearly the intent was not simply to kill civilians but rather to hit these targets. You don't hit THE SYMBOL of US MILITARY POWER if you simply want to kill civilians. US policy makers would call the civilians "colateral damage"
As far as actaully targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale.
The bottom line is there is no right to continue unjust polcies even if a small handful of people has responded to them in a way you don't like. By your rational we could never have ended slavery since Nat Turner and others killed all those civilians.
Steve, you are the one that said " I really don't care what you say."
As far as Bush's lie and what the motives are, other readers can see that I pointed out in a previous post that I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Here is a quote in which bin Laden addresses Bush's lies:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
The motives been made clear for years. Bush and other lie in order to serve special interests that prefer the public don't focus on the specific foriegn policies for which they are targets.
Basic freedom means the right to know why you are in harm's way and not to be lied to about matters of life and death.
[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve
that is garbage. First of all, there were three symbolic targets. Clearly the intent was not simply to kill civilians but rather to hit these targets. You don't hit THE SYMBOL of US MILITARY POWER if you simply want to kill civilians. US policy makers would call the civilians "colateral damage"
As far as actaully targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale.
The bottom line is there is no right to continue unjust polcies even if a small handful of people has responded to them in a way you don't like. By your rational we could never have ended slavery since Nat Turner and others killed all those civilians.
Q: What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?
Osama bin Laden: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ...
link
Osama bin Laden: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ...
link
[ Steve Meyer rather eloquently fleshes out my disagreement with your “ Bush lied “ obsession. ] -Mike
We obviously have different definitions for eloquent.
[ As I see it, you insist Bush lied because he doesn’t acknowledge bin Laden’s reason for jihad against the U.S., as specifically described in the 1998 fatwa. ] -Mike
No, I say Bush lied because he feeds the public a false reason for why we were attacked. You can pretend all you want what Bush's words mean but the interpretation that many Americans are getting is that the terrorists attack us because they don't like our freedoms here in America and that they want us to force us to convert to Islam. When Bush lied, many Americans were fooled. As I have pointed out, right here in this thread a person called Ran writes that the terrorists "got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." We can see he is still tricked by Bush's lie since he writes, "Tom, sorry lad, but you fail to convince."
[ This is further established in your earliest post, which reads; “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?” ] -Mike
No Mike I am not only talking about the 1998 fatwa.
[ In keeping with your insistence on accuracy, I have pulled some quotes from the fatwa as well. Before I cite them, I’d like to remind you of another claim you’ve made in this thread. It reads as follows:
“In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."
Now, I am confident you see no inconsistency between this statement and what is contained in the fatwa. After all, it is the content of the fatwa that you continually insist on returning to in making your case. ] -Mike
No, I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Your premise that I am talking only about the 1998 fatwa is wrong.
[ That being the case, here’s a passage for you to chew on. Be sure to take little bites; “ Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. “
Well, isn’t that interesting? In your list of “motives“ attributed to bin Laden, you state it is “ U.S support for Israel’s brutal occupation ” that drives bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to an Israeli/U.S. relationship. Yet bin Laden clearly states in the fatwa that his objection to American support of Israel is that it is “ GUARANTEEING ISRAEL’S SURVIVAL.” Big difference, don’t you agree? ] -Mike
Mike what are you doing? I did not say that "what drives bin Laden's fatwa
" was the specific motives I quoted. I was just listing motives in response to YOUR claim that I "conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S." GET IT? You made a false claim that I "ignore" the motive of wanting troops pulled out. I responded with a quote from the article which I linked to.
In the very thing you quoted bin Laden says "to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there" Yes it is a motive and bin Laden resents the US supporting Israel.
[ Need I remind you again of your earlier remark, “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands….. These are basic facts and this is about honesty.” You have twisted the intent of bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to Israel. Bin Laden clearly demands the United States step aside to facilitate the extermination of Israel. Your comments infer bin Laden demands an end to American support of Israel’s alleged oppression of the Palestinians.] -Mike
You really think your games make sense? Osama does want an end to US support for Israel's oppression. I haven't twisted anything. I have provided links to two of my articles and provided many quotes.
In my article I write, "But the truth was revealed in" and then I mention the things YOU misrepresent as "my list of motives which drive the fatwa". That is not what it was, what it was in the context of my response to you was proof that I am not omitting particular motives. You are the one that twists things.
As far as Israel, you are clearly as ignorant about this. What Israel is is a system of discrimination. Zionists have made it clear that Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights IS the "destruction of Israel".
[ As Steve Meyer has mentioned in his post, American support of a democratic Israel, threatened for decades with race based genocide, definitely qualifies as a defense of somebody’s freedoms, if not “ our freedoms.”
In making such a demand on the U.S., is bin Laden not attempting to deny the U.S. the “freedom “ to formulate its own foreign policy, including such a core element of that policy as the right to support and defend allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia? ] -Mike
You just don't care about the truth do you? I pointed out explicitly what the lie Bush tells is. You want to pretend that what Bush said means something else or "could qualify as" something else. What you wrote is dishonest junk and you know it.
The meaning of Bush's words is clear and Ran's response shows exactly what the meaning of Bush's words is. Ran wrote that the terrorists attacked us because "the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." And you know damn well that this misconception permeates our society. So stop playing these games Mike.
Basically your game is: gee whiz, did the public get the wrong idea? Didn't they know that by "beacon of freedom and opportunity" Bush actually MEANS specific foreign polices?
At least in the Soviet Union they knew they were being fed propaganda, unfortunately here we have little shits gleefully make up excuses for the propaganda.
And propaganda is what it is. And I gave you two specific examples of others playing along with Bush's lie but you ignored it. Are you now going to tell me that CBS and the CIA are simply trying to inform the public when they omit the section that mentions MOTIVES?
That part is: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
You have a brainwashed response to the facts. You cannot get it into your head that listing motives is not endorsing the crime?
You don't seam able to grasp this basic point. You explain away Bush's lie by claiming Bush shouldn't list the specific motives. You ask "And why would he? The American public overwhelmingly believes the 9/11 attacks were unjustified mass murder."
Mike, do you HONESTLY think that listing the motives is justifying the crimes?
You write that you agree that the attacks were unjustified mass murder, "I happen to agree, you can choose not to, as many on the far left do."
Again another sick minded lie from you. No Mike, "many on the far left" do not say that the attacks were justified. In fact in the two and a half years since 9/11 I have not come across a single article that makes that claim. Have you ever give any thought to what you are writing?
We obviously have different definitions for eloquent.
[ As I see it, you insist Bush lied because he doesn’t acknowledge bin Laden’s reason for jihad against the U.S., as specifically described in the 1998 fatwa. ] -Mike
No, I say Bush lied because he feeds the public a false reason for why we were attacked. You can pretend all you want what Bush's words mean but the interpretation that many Americans are getting is that the terrorists attack us because they don't like our freedoms here in America and that they want us to force us to convert to Islam. When Bush lied, many Americans were fooled. As I have pointed out, right here in this thread a person called Ran writes that the terrorists "got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." We can see he is still tricked by Bush's lie since he writes, "Tom, sorry lad, but you fail to convince."
[ This is further established in your earliest post, which reads; “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?” ] -Mike
No Mike I am not only talking about the 1998 fatwa.
[ In keeping with your insistence on accuracy, I have pulled some quotes from the fatwa as well. Before I cite them, I’d like to remind you of another claim you’ve made in this thread. It reads as follows:
“In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."
Now, I am confident you see no inconsistency between this statement and what is contained in the fatwa. After all, it is the content of the fatwa that you continually insist on returning to in making your case. ] -Mike
No, I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Your premise that I am talking only about the 1998 fatwa is wrong.
[ That being the case, here’s a passage for you to chew on. Be sure to take little bites; “ Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. “
Well, isn’t that interesting? In your list of “motives“ attributed to bin Laden, you state it is “ U.S support for Israel’s brutal occupation ” that drives bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to an Israeli/U.S. relationship. Yet bin Laden clearly states in the fatwa that his objection to American support of Israel is that it is “ GUARANTEEING ISRAEL’S SURVIVAL.” Big difference, don’t you agree? ] -Mike
Mike what are you doing? I did not say that "what drives bin Laden's fatwa
" was the specific motives I quoted. I was just listing motives in response to YOUR claim that I "conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S." GET IT? You made a false claim that I "ignore" the motive of wanting troops pulled out. I responded with a quote from the article which I linked to.
In the very thing you quoted bin Laden says "to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there" Yes it is a motive and bin Laden resents the US supporting Israel.
[ Need I remind you again of your earlier remark, “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands….. These are basic facts and this is about honesty.” You have twisted the intent of bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to Israel. Bin Laden clearly demands the United States step aside to facilitate the extermination of Israel. Your comments infer bin Laden demands an end to American support of Israel’s alleged oppression of the Palestinians.] -Mike
You really think your games make sense? Osama does want an end to US support for Israel's oppression. I haven't twisted anything. I have provided links to two of my articles and provided many quotes.
In my article I write, "But the truth was revealed in" and then I mention the things YOU misrepresent as "my list of motives which drive the fatwa". That is not what it was, what it was in the context of my response to you was proof that I am not omitting particular motives. You are the one that twists things.
As far as Israel, you are clearly as ignorant about this. What Israel is is a system of discrimination. Zionists have made it clear that Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights IS the "destruction of Israel".
[ As Steve Meyer has mentioned in his post, American support of a democratic Israel, threatened for decades with race based genocide, definitely qualifies as a defense of somebody’s freedoms, if not “ our freedoms.”
In making such a demand on the U.S., is bin Laden not attempting to deny the U.S. the “freedom “ to formulate its own foreign policy, including such a core element of that policy as the right to support and defend allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia? ] -Mike
You just don't care about the truth do you? I pointed out explicitly what the lie Bush tells is. You want to pretend that what Bush said means something else or "could qualify as" something else. What you wrote is dishonest junk and you know it.
The meaning of Bush's words is clear and Ran's response shows exactly what the meaning of Bush's words is. Ran wrote that the terrorists attacked us because "the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." And you know damn well that this misconception permeates our society. So stop playing these games Mike.
Basically your game is: gee whiz, did the public get the wrong idea? Didn't they know that by "beacon of freedom and opportunity" Bush actually MEANS specific foreign polices?
At least in the Soviet Union they knew they were being fed propaganda, unfortunately here we have little shits gleefully make up excuses for the propaganda.
And propaganda is what it is. And I gave you two specific examples of others playing along with Bush's lie but you ignored it. Are you now going to tell me that CBS and the CIA are simply trying to inform the public when they omit the section that mentions MOTIVES?
That part is: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
You have a brainwashed response to the facts. You cannot get it into your head that listing motives is not endorsing the crime?
You don't seam able to grasp this basic point. You explain away Bush's lie by claiming Bush shouldn't list the specific motives. You ask "And why would he? The American public overwhelmingly believes the 9/11 attacks were unjustified mass murder."
Mike, do you HONESTLY think that listing the motives is justifying the crimes?
You write that you agree that the attacks were unjustified mass murder, "I happen to agree, you can choose not to, as many on the far left do."
Again another sick minded lie from you. No Mike, "many on the far left" do not say that the attacks were justified. In fact in the two and a half years since 9/11 I have not come across a single article that makes that claim. Have you ever give any thought to what you are writing?
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Steve Meyer wrote, "Your 'Bush Lied' assertion is weak, and misses the point. Bin Laden's fatwa was widely reported when it was issued, and again after each of the terrorist attacks since then. While it was not repeated verbatim on the evening news, I do recall reading it in the paper and on the internet. What Bush has said about the terrorist's motivations is not original - many others have come to the same conclusions. What Bush has said is more of an assessment of the motives rather than a direct quote from Bin Laden."'
No Steve, you miss the point. Bush lied about why we were attacked, Bush lied about the motives. Bush told us why we are being targeted for attack and what he said is a lie, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." President Bush September 11, 2001
Bush tells us, "The war against terror goes on." Bush then tells us a lie about why, "It goes on because we love freedom and we're not going to change and our enemies hate freedom. It goes on because there are cold-blooded killers who have hijacked a religion. It goes on because we refuse to relent." President Bush September 1, 2003
Bush is lying and others are helping spread the lie. I never said that if you searched you couldn't find the complete sentence from the fatwa. I said that what is widely reported is only the first half and that there is a clear pattern of omitting the part that states the motives. I mentioned CBS and the CIA are playing the same game by not mentioning the part with the motive.
You seem to be trying to make the point that the lie doesn't matter since a person could if it occurred to them research the facts and find out what the truth actually is. What I am saying is that the public does not deserve to be fed lie. By not pointing out that what Bush said wasn't true and by omitting the motives when talking about terrorism, people are spreading a lie about why we are being attacked. People are serving powerful interests by "playing the game". I never said there was an actual censorship that made telling these facts forbidden. No, it is a societal and financial pressures that intimidate some and select others who conform out of ignorance. Some people surely know what they are doing when they omit the motives and talk about "our freedoms." The result is many people are fooled by Bush's lie. Are you trying to act like this is not the case?!? My first comment in this thread was met with a sarcastic response which mocked "my thesis". Writing about why the terrorists attacked, this person responded by saying, "I thought it was because a backwards, angry, extremist organization with zero respect for other religions, other sects within their own religion and half of their own population got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die.
Steve writes, "you said:
"I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us."
Most people assume that they are talking to a reasonable person who isn't being an obtuse pain in the ass.
Unfortunately you're a Chomsky fan, so they have to explain every little thing. The foreign policies of the US (and other nations) are in a general sense BASED UPON our common national principles, which include our freedoms."
Steve, you are the one being obtuse. I wrote and you quoted, "people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms"" and you come back with nonsense. Your argument is that people who insist that the motive isn't our foreign polices are not wrong because our foreign polices are our freedoms?
You are tying desperately to spin something out of your nonsense but readers here I don't think will be so quick to play along with your game.
Steve writes, "Lastly, you finish with a perfect Chomskyite sentence:
"It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Break it down, everyone: "It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others..." Ah, the passive voice. So much easier to distort with. With this clever turn of phrase you make the accusation, while still denying that you made the accusation that others insinuated something. 'Others' made it, even though you said it. Sorry if I gave the other readers a headache."
I think you need a course in logic 101. What you are saying doesn't make sense. Others have indeed said it. For example Norma Sherry wrote, "Rumors abounded after 911 ..., that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel. However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." letter
Steve writes, "Continuing with your last statement: "...that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Splitting hairs again. Hatred of US support for Israel is commonly anti-semitic. "
No, it isn't. Although an anti-Semite may hold that opinion, the opinion itself is not anti-Semitic AT ALL.
You can't play the game that a legitimate opinion is "commonly" anti-Semitic.
Just as thinking OJ Simpson is guilty is not racism AT ALL. A racist may have the opinion but the opinion itself is not racist AT ALL. You can't go around tainting legitimate opinions because it suits your agenda. It is an underhanded and dirty tactic.
Steve insists, "Not mentioning this anti-semitism is what people get mad about, since it is so obvious; yet obtuse Chomskyites don't see fit to mention it. Which is why people in general think that someone missing the obvious anti-semitism is also an anti-semite. Not an unreasonable assumption in my opinion, since it would make no sense to appear to be an anti-semite when you're not."
Steve, you are really off the wall and TOTALLY unreasonable.
No Steve, you miss the point. Bush lied about why we were attacked, Bush lied about the motives. Bush told us why we are being targeted for attack and what he said is a lie, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." President Bush September 11, 2001
Bush tells us, "The war against terror goes on." Bush then tells us a lie about why, "It goes on because we love freedom and we're not going to change and our enemies hate freedom. It goes on because there are cold-blooded killers who have hijacked a religion. It goes on because we refuse to relent." President Bush September 1, 2003
Bush is lying and others are helping spread the lie. I never said that if you searched you couldn't find the complete sentence from the fatwa. I said that what is widely reported is only the first half and that there is a clear pattern of omitting the part that states the motives. I mentioned CBS and the CIA are playing the same game by not mentioning the part with the motive.
You seem to be trying to make the point that the lie doesn't matter since a person could if it occurred to them research the facts and find out what the truth actually is. What I am saying is that the public does not deserve to be fed lie. By not pointing out that what Bush said wasn't true and by omitting the motives when talking about terrorism, people are spreading a lie about why we are being attacked. People are serving powerful interests by "playing the game". I never said there was an actual censorship that made telling these facts forbidden. No, it is a societal and financial pressures that intimidate some and select others who conform out of ignorance. Some people surely know what they are doing when they omit the motives and talk about "our freedoms." The result is many people are fooled by Bush's lie. Are you trying to act like this is not the case?!? My first comment in this thread was met with a sarcastic response which mocked "my thesis". Writing about why the terrorists attacked, this person responded by saying, "I thought it was because a backwards, angry, extremist organization with zero respect for other religions, other sects within their own religion and half of their own population got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die.
Steve writes, "you said:
"I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us."
Most people assume that they are talking to a reasonable person who isn't being an obtuse pain in the ass.
Unfortunately you're a Chomsky fan, so they have to explain every little thing. The foreign policies of the US (and other nations) are in a general sense BASED UPON our common national principles, which include our freedoms."
Steve, you are the one being obtuse. I wrote and you quoted, "people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms"" and you come back with nonsense. Your argument is that people who insist that the motive isn't our foreign polices are not wrong because our foreign polices are our freedoms?
You are tying desperately to spin something out of your nonsense but readers here I don't think will be so quick to play along with your game.
Steve writes, "Lastly, you finish with a perfect Chomskyite sentence:
"It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Break it down, everyone: "It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others..." Ah, the passive voice. So much easier to distort with. With this clever turn of phrase you make the accusation, while still denying that you made the accusation that others insinuated something. 'Others' made it, even though you said it. Sorry if I gave the other readers a headache."
I think you need a course in logic 101. What you are saying doesn't make sense. Others have indeed said it. For example Norma Sherry wrote, "Rumors abounded after 911 ..., that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel. However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." letter
Steve writes, "Continuing with your last statement: "...that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Splitting hairs again. Hatred of US support for Israel is commonly anti-semitic. "
No, it isn't. Although an anti-Semite may hold that opinion, the opinion itself is not anti-Semitic AT ALL.
You can't play the game that a legitimate opinion is "commonly" anti-Semitic.
Just as thinking OJ Simpson is guilty is not racism AT ALL. A racist may have the opinion but the opinion itself is not racist AT ALL. You can't go around tainting legitimate opinions because it suits your agenda. It is an underhanded and dirty tactic.
Steve insists, "Not mentioning this anti-semitism is what people get mad about, since it is so obvious; yet obtuse Chomskyites don't see fit to mention it. Which is why people in general think that someone missing the obvious anti-semitism is also an anti-semite. Not an unreasonable assumption in my opinion, since it would make no sense to appear to be an anti-semite when you're not."
Steve, you are really off the wall and TOTALLY unreasonable.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Mike,
When you assume someone is saying that attacking civilians is justified, THAT is insulting. I spelled this out for you: when the FBI or police give the motives for a crime, are they "justifying it"? YOu wouldn't play that game with them, don't play it with me.
I spelled it out to you: there is such thing as two wrongs.
NAt Turner killing the civilians, including the women and children was wrong. AND slavery was wrong too. Get it? TWO WRONGS.
you wrote, "Your website is heavy on emphasizing American support for Israel as a primary motivation for bin Laden's call for jihad. On one hand, you characterize my pointing this out as " insulting." Then you proceed to trot out a Zionist quote which demonstrates a healthy contempt for Israel and the Jewish race. Where is the insult?"
I list all the motives. A "contempt for the Jewish race," is Zionism the "Jewish race," you really need to go to bed, you sound like a total fanatic. Zionism is not the "Jewsih race." Research the history of Zionism from the killing of Jews by Zionists because they dared speak out against Zionism to the ethnic cleansings and killings. Racism is wrong, even if it is Jews doing it. Not a difficult concept but since you can't grasp the other ideas I have been spelling out for you I can see why you don't get it.
You wrote, "To suggest that Bush is lying as to why the U.S. has been targeted by bin Laden is an abuse of the word " lie.""
Really? We were attacked because of specific foreign policies, but Bush said it was because we are "the brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity in the world." THAT is a lie.
You wrote, "You conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S."
No, you are not reading the info I posted. I clearly list all the motives: "the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."
More inaccuracies from you. The point was Hanson acted like the motive about Israel didn't exist (remember he wrote that "have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands " YET those demands included Israel and Hanson didn't mention it and knows that that demand has not been met!)
The motives bin Laden has stated has been mentioned rarely in mainstream media and a false impression is put forth. It has never been pointed out that Bush lied. I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us. It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!
When you assume someone is saying that attacking civilians is justified, THAT is insulting. I spelled this out for you: when the FBI or police give the motives for a crime, are they "justifying it"? YOu wouldn't play that game with them, don't play it with me.
I spelled it out to you: there is such thing as two wrongs.
NAt Turner killing the civilians, including the women and children was wrong. AND slavery was wrong too. Get it? TWO WRONGS.
you wrote, "Your website is heavy on emphasizing American support for Israel as a primary motivation for bin Laden's call for jihad. On one hand, you characterize my pointing this out as " insulting." Then you proceed to trot out a Zionist quote which demonstrates a healthy contempt for Israel and the Jewish race. Where is the insult?"
I list all the motives. A "contempt for the Jewish race," is Zionism the "Jewish race," you really need to go to bed, you sound like a total fanatic. Zionism is not the "Jewsih race." Research the history of Zionism from the killing of Jews by Zionists because they dared speak out against Zionism to the ethnic cleansings and killings. Racism is wrong, even if it is Jews doing it. Not a difficult concept but since you can't grasp the other ideas I have been spelling out for you I can see why you don't get it.
You wrote, "To suggest that Bush is lying as to why the U.S. has been targeted by bin Laden is an abuse of the word " lie.""
Really? We were attacked because of specific foreign policies, but Bush said it was because we are "the brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity in the world." THAT is a lie.
You wrote, "You conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S."
No, you are not reading the info I posted. I clearly list all the motives: "the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."
More inaccuracies from you. The point was Hanson acted like the motive about Israel didn't exist (remember he wrote that "have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands " YET those demands included Israel and Hanson didn't mention it and knows that that demand has not been met!)
The motives bin Laden has stated has been mentioned rarely in mainstream media and a false impression is put forth. It has never been pointed out that Bush lied. I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us. It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!
Ran wrote, "So Tom, are you saying that Bush was lying when OBL stated videotaped reasons? Interesting thesis."
And OBL stated videotaped reasons are what I said they are. To quote bin Laden, "We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live." November 9, 2001
Nov
"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people." Dec 26, 2001 Dec
and so on ... Motives for 9/11
And OBL stated videotaped reasons are what I said they are. To quote bin Laden, "We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live." November 9, 2001
Nov
"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people." Dec 26, 2001 Dec
and so on ... Motives for 9/11
I see the sick game of pretending the 9/11 motives are something they are not continues. The bottom line is Bush and others are lying to us about why we are targets of terrorism.
I notice Hanson's article refers to the 1998 fatwa. Hanson writes "If they believe al Qaeda is a rational interlocutor, they should assume that the U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and cessation of the embargo of Iraq — replaced by massive American aid — have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands and that peace is at hand."
Yet again Hanson as other do, seeks to distort or ignore the motives for the terrorist attacks. DOESN'T ANYONE GET OFFENDED BY THESE CONSTANT ATTEMPTS TO PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS?
The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?
Here is part of that 1998 fatwa:
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. "
Note that nearly everytime the powers that be quote this section of the 1998 fatwa they only quote the fist part of the sentence and leave of the part that starts with "in order to". THAT part contains the motives. And we can see that Hanson has continued the game that many others play by pretending the basic motives don't exist.
In fact when I say the powers that be don't quote that sentence fully I mean the powerful interests and those that serve those interests. So when CBS's 60 Minutes did a report just last Sunday they omited the part "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. " When The CIA's George Tenet quotes the same sentance he too leaves out the part that contains the motives. http://www.representativepress.org/Intelligence.html
I notice Hanson's article refers to the 1998 fatwa. Hanson writes "If they believe al Qaeda is a rational interlocutor, they should assume that the U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and cessation of the embargo of Iraq — replaced by massive American aid — have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands and that peace is at hand."
Yet again Hanson as other do, seeks to distort or ignore the motives for the terrorist attacks. DOESN'T ANYONE GET OFFENDED BY THESE CONSTANT ATTEMPTS TO PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS?
The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?
Here is part of that 1998 fatwa:
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. "
Note that nearly everytime the powers that be quote this section of the 1998 fatwa they only quote the fist part of the sentence and leave of the part that starts with "in order to". THAT part contains the motives. And we can see that Hanson has continued the game that many others play by pretending the basic motives don't exist.
In fact when I say the powers that be don't quote that sentence fully I mean the powerful interests and those that serve those interests. So when CBS's 60 Minutes did a report just last Sunday they omited the part "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. " When The CIA's George Tenet quotes the same sentance he too leaves out the part that contains the motives. http://www.representativepress.org/Intelligence.html
Thursday, March 18, 2004
What motivated the nineteen terrorists on 9/11?
The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam.
Note that Osama bin Laden has said why repeatedly and he says that the attacks will continue UNTIL specific foreign policies are stopped. He doesn't say "until you believe in Alah", none of the terrorists have ever said this. It is dangerous to spread false reasons for why 9/11 happened. Please read the follow for the motives for 9/11 attacks:
"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
A German friend of Mohammed Atta(the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC , "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley ,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might.
The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."
Abdullah Azzam authored Join the Caravan and he writes, "We then are calling upon the Muslims and urging them to proceed to fight, for many reasons, at the head of which are the following:" Then he listes 16 reasons. NONE of them state that the reason is just for the sake of attacking non-believers.In fact the first reason is: "1. In order that the Disbelievers do not dominate.""Do not dominate" Note that he does not write "just because they are disbelievers" or "in order to make them believe." NONE of the 16 reasons say "fight to make disbeleivers into Muslims"
In fact Osama bin Laden addressed the lying about motives for 9/11:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
in that same statement Osama bin Laden once again listed the motives: " ... in 1995 , the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that region displaying their rejection and opposition to the American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year, another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their bases from the cities to the desert . Then in 1998 , the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah , smashed them with two mighty smashes in East Africa . Then again America was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow to the face of the American military and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as American agents, similar to all the countries in the region." -Osama bin Laden February 14, 2003
The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam.
Note that Osama bin Laden has said why repeatedly and he says that the attacks will continue UNTIL specific foreign policies are stopped. He doesn't say "until you believe in Alah", none of the terrorists have ever said this. It is dangerous to spread false reasons for why 9/11 happened. Please read the follow for the motives for 9/11 attacks:
"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
A German friend of Mohammed Atta(the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC , "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley ,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might.
The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."
Abdullah Azzam authored Join the Caravan and he writes, "We then are calling upon the Muslims and urging them to proceed to fight, for many reasons, at the head of which are the following:" Then he listes 16 reasons. NONE of them state that the reason is just for the sake of attacking non-believers.In fact the first reason is: "1. In order that the Disbelievers do not dominate.""Do not dominate" Note that he does not write "just because they are disbelievers" or "in order to make them believe." NONE of the 16 reasons say "fight to make disbeleivers into Muslims"
In fact Osama bin Laden addressed the lying about motives for 9/11:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
in that same statement Osama bin Laden once again listed the motives: " ... in 1995 , the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that region displaying their rejection and opposition to the American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year, another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their bases from the cities to the desert . Then in 1998 , the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah , smashed them with two mighty smashes in East Africa . Then again America was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow to the face of the American military and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as American agents, similar to all the countries in the region." -Osama bin Laden February 14, 2003
Monday, March 15, 2004
<< That theory falls apart when you understand that the Arabs were massacring Jews and other non-Muslims in the region long before the State of Israel became independent in 1948. >>
And Jews were massacring Arabs, Muslims, non-Muslims and Jews before 1948. It is important to be aware of this. These facts are generally suppressed in the US so I can understand why you would not mention them. Unfortunately you have drawn wrong conclusions with your exclusion of the above fact.
Research Jewish groups Hagana, Irgun and LEHI(Stern Group) if you want to see. For starters I recommend "Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky.
" ... in the single month of July 1938, the Irgun killed 76 Arabs with bombs in market places and the like" p165 "Fateful Triangle"
But I suspect (I hope this isn't true) that no matter how many instances of Jews killing Arabs civilians are presented, you can always explain it away. But what About killing other Jews?
Killing Jews is seen by some as the ultimate evil above killing of any others so I will focus on that. Jews were killing other Jews long before 1948 in order to advance their racist agenda of Zionism. Here is one example: A Jew was murdered by the vicious Zionist group Hagana(a Jewish group) in June 1924 as he left the small synagogue in the 'Shaarey Tsedek' hospital. Why? Because he dared organize other Jews who opposed the racist Zionism.
<< Turkey was the last entity with sovereignty over Palestine until their empire dissolved after losing in WWI. Turks aren't Arab. >>
Did you forget Britain?
<< In 1948, the Arabs were offered by the U.N. a 22nd Arab state on the Western side of Palestine (Jordan was the 21st Arab state on the Eastern side of Palestine). The Arabs rejected it and waged a war of extermination against the Jews that has continued to this day. >>
you have a very distorted view of history. If you believe in democracy, tell my why less than 33% of a population has the right to dictate such a partition? (I would love to hear it) Also, the Jews did not accept the partition, they grabbed MORE than the suggested partition BEFORE May 1948 and they also ignored the international zone around Jerusalem. Don't be naive, key Zionists saw "accepting" the UN partition as a ploy to advance their agenda of racist domination. The record is clear, the Jews didn't accept the UN partition, they IMMEDIATELY SEIZED AREAS BEYOND THE SUGGESTION AND THEY FORCED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION BEFORE MAY 1948
The father of Zionism, Herzl, called for ethnic cleansing back in 1895 "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl (The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)
<< When Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967, it's significant and highly informative that there was absolutely no movement at all by the Arabs to set up another Arab State on those territories. >>
History matters. I can see how you can draw wrong conclusions.
what is really significant and highly informative is that you don't know that Jordan regarded Palestinian independence and its leadership as a primary enemy. Israel and Jordan working in a secret agreement divided up Palestine. The King of Jordan was assassinated by a Palestinian in 1951. The PLO was formed in 1964. To suggest that there wasn't resistance to what was done to them is incorrect.
The dominant forces in the Zionism movement succeeded in imposing their racism system upon the Palestinians, If you believe in democracy how the hell can you see what was done as legitimate? For the partition see: http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
Note that the facts about population and land are no often presented to American audiences. Again: if you believe in democracy, how in God's name can you make excuses for less than 33% of a population to impose their will of more than 67%?
The history of Zionism is one of murder and terrorism in order to impose a system of discrimination and injustice. The dominant forces wanted to ethnically cleans the Palestinians and did to an enormous extent.
In 1919 President Wilsons's King-Crance Commission reported that "the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine"
Israel has practiced ethnic cleansing aand Israel Violates the Conditions for Admittance into U.N. http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html
If you are not a racist, why make excuses for Zionism and Israel?
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
And Jews were massacring Arabs, Muslims, non-Muslims and Jews before 1948. It is important to be aware of this. These facts are generally suppressed in the US so I can understand why you would not mention them. Unfortunately you have drawn wrong conclusions with your exclusion of the above fact.
Research Jewish groups Hagana, Irgun and LEHI(Stern Group) if you want to see. For starters I recommend "Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky.
" ... in the single month of July 1938, the Irgun killed 76 Arabs with bombs in market places and the like" p165 "Fateful Triangle"
But I suspect (I hope this isn't true) that no matter how many instances of Jews killing Arabs civilians are presented, you can always explain it away. But what About killing other Jews?
Killing Jews is seen by some as the ultimate evil above killing of any others so I will focus on that. Jews were killing other Jews long before 1948 in order to advance their racist agenda of Zionism. Here is one example: A Jew was murdered by the vicious Zionist group Hagana(a Jewish group) in June 1924 as he left the small synagogue in the 'Shaarey Tsedek' hospital. Why? Because he dared organize other Jews who opposed the racist Zionism.
<< Turkey was the last entity with sovereignty over Palestine until their empire dissolved after losing in WWI. Turks aren't Arab. >>
Did you forget Britain?
<< In 1948, the Arabs were offered by the U.N. a 22nd Arab state on the Western side of Palestine (Jordan was the 21st Arab state on the Eastern side of Palestine). The Arabs rejected it and waged a war of extermination against the Jews that has continued to this day. >>
you have a very distorted view of history. If you believe in democracy, tell my why less than 33% of a population has the right to dictate such a partition? (I would love to hear it) Also, the Jews did not accept the partition, they grabbed MORE than the suggested partition BEFORE May 1948 and they also ignored the international zone around Jerusalem. Don't be naive, key Zionists saw "accepting" the UN partition as a ploy to advance their agenda of racist domination. The record is clear, the Jews didn't accept the UN partition, they IMMEDIATELY SEIZED AREAS BEYOND THE SUGGESTION AND THEY FORCED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION BEFORE MAY 1948
The father of Zionism, Herzl, called for ethnic cleansing back in 1895 "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl (The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)
<< When Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967, it's significant and highly informative that there was absolutely no movement at all by the Arabs to set up another Arab State on those territories. >>
History matters. I can see how you can draw wrong conclusions.
what is really significant and highly informative is that you don't know that Jordan regarded Palestinian independence and its leadership as a primary enemy. Israel and Jordan working in a secret agreement divided up Palestine. The King of Jordan was assassinated by a Palestinian in 1951. The PLO was formed in 1964. To suggest that there wasn't resistance to what was done to them is incorrect.
The dominant forces in the Zionism movement succeeded in imposing their racism system upon the Palestinians, If you believe in democracy how the hell can you see what was done as legitimate? For the partition see: http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
Note that the facts about population and land are no often presented to American audiences. Again: if you believe in democracy, how in God's name can you make excuses for less than 33% of a population to impose their will of more than 67%?
The history of Zionism is one of murder and terrorism in order to impose a system of discrimination and injustice. The dominant forces wanted to ethnically cleans the Palestinians and did to an enormous extent.
In 1919 President Wilsons's King-Crance Commission reported that "the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine"
Israel has practiced ethnic cleansing aand Israel Violates the Conditions for Admittance into U.N. http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html
If you are not a racist, why make excuses for Zionism and Israel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
