Friday, August 27, 2004
You wrote, "Chomsky is taking a single sentence from the middle of a 21-page
document and arguing that this represents the primary goal of US
foreign policy, ignoring the rest of the document and numerous
other documents in which it's clear that the primary goal of US
policymakers was containment of the Soviet Union."
And yet you wrote, "I am *not* arguing that US foreign policy is virtuous and
benevolent, or that Kennan himself has never made any
recommendations which cannot be criticized on moral grounds. In
the same document, PPS/23, Kennan recommends that the US encourage
the Western European countries to retain, develop, and exploit
their African colonies, as a source of food and raw materials,
with no mention of the interests of the Africans themselves. ... Here, Chomsky definitely has a point. "
You wrote "The US has done plenty of immoral things. But *it shouldn't be
necessary to make stuff up*, and I think Chomsky's quote of
PPS/23 is so misleading that it falls into this category. "
Russil, you see yourself how Kennan wrote in the same document, your point about "ignoring the rest of the document" is just wrong.
I hate to think there are people that will absolutely refuse to concede a valid point. The fact is Chomsky is correct when he quotes Kennan. Have you given it more though because I hope if you do you will agree.
I myself have been doing extensive research into the agendas served by US policy makers.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
On the 2 disk CD Propaganda & Control of the Public Mind, Chomsky explains things about how the economics work for the rich and powerful. The story they sell the public is that private industries are "rugged individualists" that don't rely of the government. Disc One, Track 16 is called "Welfare for the Rich" and here Chomsky exposes the fact that Newt Gingrich was the biggest welfare freak in the country. But Newt wants the welfare to go to the rich. This isn't what is called corporate welfare, this is the system of subsidy of research and development. He explains the way in which our economy works: massive public subsidy and privatization of profit. Technology is developed under the guise of the military and handed over to private power when it works.
On Track 22, "Selling Free Enterprise", Chomsky says this is a good book, the first study he has ever heard on this major theme of modern history, the business communities' plans to use public relations industry indoctrinate the population in the "capitalist story": Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60 (The History of Communication) by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf. He says the material is pretty revealing. The things that went into creating the "Mohawk Valley Formula". The efforts to drive ideas like public control over industry out of people's heads. Fones-Wolf writes about the leaders of the public relations industry and what they called "The Everlasting Battle for the Minds of Men."
This angry reviewer, who gave the book Selling Free Enterprise one star, was pretty funny: "This book attempts to prove what everyone already knows". One thing I have to say is people should actually read the books they review. I doubt "everyone already knows" the details and the degree of manipulation that the public relations industry carried out in the name of big business. For example, I doubt very much "everyone already knows" that by the early 1950's a third of the material in American elementary schools was coming straight out of corporate propaganda offices and 20 million people a week were watching business-sponsored films. Major efforts were made, every aspect of social life was targeted, and permeated: schools and universities, churches, even recreational programs, all this to fight "The Everlasting Battle for the Minds of Men." The phrase is from the chair of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)'s PR Advisory Committee.
“Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society" - John Dewey
* New blog post to links and more info: Huffington Post article and two Chomsky articles
Monday, August 23, 2004
Mark of Benzene 4 quotes from The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (I bolded key parts):
"Leaving aside the former Soviet Union, the main developed countries -- Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, and the East Asian NICs (South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) -- all got rich in more or less the same way. Regardless of how they justified their policies, in actual practice they protected their domestic markets using high tariff walls and myriad "nontariff barriers" to trade. Britain, for example, did not accept free trade until the 1840s, long after it had become the world's leading industrial power. Between 1790 and 1940, the United States was probably the most highly protected economy on earth. In the 1970s and 1980s, the only country in the world without a single Japanese car in it was South Korea, because it was nurturing its own automobile industry. All these "developing" nations begged, bought, or stole advanced technology from the countries that first pioneered it and then, through reverse engineering and targeted investment, improved on it. They used state power to support and protect efficient capitalists within their own national boundaries who had the potential to become exporters. They poured subsidies into uncompetitive industries in order to substitute domestically produced goods for imports, often at almost any price. Some of them captured overseas markets through imperial conquest and colonialism and then defended these markets from other would-be conquerors, using powerful navies and armies. Even when defeated, like Japan after World War II and the USSR and the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe after the Cold War, they used every device and all the artifice in their power to subvert the economic reform programs that American economists applied to try to turn them into textbook capitalist economies. They understood, as the academicians did not, that a premature introduction of American economic norms was much more likely to produce mafia capitalism than development, as it did in Russia.
In short, the few successful economies on earth did exactly the opposite of what the gurus of globalization said they should have done."
Mark concludes, "the empirical evidence shows that protectionism works, at least in the early stages of a nation's economic development. I'd be very interested to know how free-trade enthusiasts -- real or fake -- answer this argument."
Mark, they can't answer it. Basically what is called the "free market" or "globalization" (neoliberal economic doctrine ) is a scam. Chomsky has explained in Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order that the policy advocates don't live by the same rules they insist on imposing on others. Those that actually impose neoliberal doctrine on other countries think "market discipline is good for you, but not for me, except for temporary advantage." see p34
The point is the US and the other countries that got rich did so by "radically violating approved free market doctrine." It is also clear that countries have been harmed when the neoliberal polices have been imposed upon them. "Neoliberal doctrines, whatever one thinks of them, undermine education and health, increase inequality, and reduce labor's share in income; that much is not seriously in doubt." The successful countries did not play by the same rules that they impose on defenseless countries. Major state intervention, subsidies and protectionism are used to make a countries economically successful. The doctrine is used as a means to open up markets to take advantage of the countries, not as a means to help them. Those that advocate the neoliberal principles don't live by them. The US was successful dramatically because it didn't subject itself to market forces. "Standard economic history recognizes that state intervention has played a central role in economic growth. But its impact is underestimated because of too narrow a focus. To mention one major omission, the industrial revolution relied on cheap cotton, mainly from the United States. It was kept cheap and available not by market forces, but by elimination of the indigenous population and slavery. There were of course other cotton producers. Prominent among them was India. Its resources flowed to England, while its own advanced textile industry was destroyed by British protectionism and force. Another case is Egypt, which took steps toward development at the same time as the United States but was blocked by British force, on the quite explicit grounds that Britain would not tolerate independent development in that region. New England, in contrast, was able to follow the path of the mother country, barring cheaper British textiles by very high tariffs as Britain had done to India. Without such measures, half of the emerging textile industry of New England would have been destroyed, economic historians estimate, with large-scale effects on industrial growth generally." p 30 of Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order
The point is the US along with others, have gotten where they are by using "socialist" policies. But in these cases the State intervention was to be for the powerful special interests. People need to look into this.
Dwayne Andreas has made a fortune with the help of politicians from Hubert Humphrey to Bob Dole. But, he says, their talk of "free markets" is just wind. "People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country." - Dwayne Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland
Notice that mainstream media doesn't get around to explaining clearly that these polices really don't help countries?
This is one of the grievances of Mohammed Atta. What is called a "free-market capitalist" approach is neoliberal economic practices that take advantage of the people of country and undermine their economic justice.
Liz Jackson: He [Mohammed Atta] was opposed to the adoption of a more free-market capitalist approach that Egypt had taken?
Ralph Bodenstein: Well I mean no, he was opposed to it and he was also pointing to details of it. For instance they were producing….strawberries. They were producing strawberries on the Egyptian fields which were not produced for the Egyptian market and were exported to Europe for instance, while at the same time they would have to import food for their own people, like wheat from the US, which he considered absurd. You know there was the old country being used for producing high class luxury products for foreign markets and then they had to again import nutrition from other countries at a certain price again actually to nutrify their own population. It was completely absurd."
Liz Jackson interviews Ralph Bodenstein who studied urban planning with Mohamed Atta
Sunday, August 22, 2004
"When the US took over global leadership in 1945, the policy became quite explicit. The documentary record from the time that John's quoting, in the 1940s, shows that the basic principle is that the US must prevent what is variously called radical nationalism, independent nationalism or economic nationalism. Various names for it, but it always means the same thing: Efforts to strike an independent course. The secret documents explain that the main US interests are threatened by nationalist regimes which are responsive to pressures from their own populations for improvement of low living standards and production for domestic use. That's got be stopped because we had the right to the resources, not they. We have to protect "our" resources." Chomsky
"A 1945 State Department document on Middle East oil described it as “...a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” "The secret documents explain that the main US interests are threatened by nationalist regimes which are responsive to pressures from their own populations for improvement ... The Third World was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo put it. It was to be "exploited" (in Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. (The references are to Southeast Asia and Africa, but the points are general.) "
I have noticed that many Americans are willing to see Britian as imperial nation but not America, even when both are involved in the same crime. The 1953 coup in Iran is a good example of this.
"In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt." The CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government
I have seen people argue that Britain was concerned about the oil but American was concerned about Iran slipping into the Soviets sphere of influence. But if we look at the CIA's Secret planning documents for the 1953 coup, we see the claim that "1) Both governments consider oil question secondary." (the US and UK) The first thing they wanted to make clear in their presentation to the Shah is that the "oil question" was secondary! I am quoting from the "Initial Operational Plan for TPAJAX as Cabled Nicosia to Headquarters on June 1, 1953. The writer of the document would have you believe BOTH the US and the UK were angels.
The 2nd concern listed is what they called the "major issue": "2) Major issue is to maintain independence Iran and keep from the Soviet orbit. To do this Mossadeq must be removed."
The 7th item is rich: "7) Acceptable oil settlement will be offered but successor government will not be rushed into it."
London -- Doctors working for the U.S. military in Iraq collaborated with interrogators in the abuse of detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, profoundly breaching medical ethics and human rights, a bioethicist charges in The Lancet medical journal.
In a scathing analysis of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics, University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles calls for a reform of military medicine and an official investigation into the role played by physicians and other medical staff in the torture scandal.
"The detaining power's health personnel are the first and often the last line of defence against human rights abuses. Their failure to assume that role emphasizes to the prisoner how utterly beyond humane appeal they are," Miles said in a telephone interview.
One example from a Human Rights Watch report is from when soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated he died of "natural causes ... during his sleep." However, after media coverage, the Pentagon changed the cause of death to homicide by blunt force injuries and suffocation.
British study outlines role of doctors and medics in Iraq prison abuses
Study outlines doctors', medics' role in Iraq prison abuses
Harper writes, "The goal of al-Qaida is to re-establish the caliphate across the entire Islamic world"
Yes and specific American foreign polices prevent bin Laden from doing so. THAT is why we are targeted, NOT "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world."
It is the interference of specific US foreign policies in the Middle East that motivates them, NOT the fact we are sitting here in America enjoying our freedoms and they can't stand it. The specific US foreign policies are seen, correctly, as blocking their attempts at self determination and wronging them, which they do. When al-qeada recruits they ask Muslims if they are upset about specific US foreign policies , they DON'T ask, "do you hate America being so free over there?" It is the wrongs against them that MOTIVATE the terrorists.
By the way, responding to the wrongs is the driving force behind al-Qeada. The grievances are shared by many, many people. Those very frustrated with being wronged resort to joining al-qeada since it is in their eyes their only champion. The only resistance they see as an option. It is the shared grievances the motivates the terrorists, individuals who may not even want the specific vision of fundamentalism that bin Laden calls for. But they can see they are being wronged and they are motivated to fight back.
you wrote, "If the question is, "Why did they attack?", the answer is simply, "In order to kill as many of us as they could." The only agenda here is to kill Americans. Unless I've missed something, this is in fact exactly what al-Qaeda says. (It's certainly what they say in the February 1998 fatwa.) I see no reason to believe they're lying. "
I have to inform you that you have been manipulated. Pundits and politicians want you to miss osmething and take way the impression that you have. These people have taken a key sentence from the 1998 fatwa and suppressed half of it in order to create the false impression you expressed. I explain in detail here showing how it is done: 9/11 Intelligence Report, basically when Tenet and others quote the key sentence, they only quote half of it and leave off the part that states the motives. Here it is (the part in black is often quoted, the part in red is often suppressed):
"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 [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."
Al-qeada does not attack to "simply kill Americans", the policy goals are the motive and still are the motive. Pundits and politicians deceive the public in order to serve special interests who don't want the specific foreign policies to be examined or changed. It is a very ugly thing to do to the American people to deceive them about why they are targeted but pundits and politicians don't have any scruples.
You wrote, "Thanks for drawing my attention to the line in the 1998 fatwa that I overlooked. I'll contemplate that, but I'm still not convinced that this is really just about getting the American military out of Arabia."
No it isn't only about the US military in Arabia, even the key sentence I quoted doesn't restict itself just to that. Please note that the first thing mentioned is "to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque" which is in Jerusalem. Soon after 9/11, ABC's Chris Bury managed to report correctly, "The US support of Israel tops the list of objections to American foreign policy. Indeed, some of the political grievances outlined by radicals, including Osama bin Laden, are shared even by a mainstream public that detests his murderous methods. In this view the US is not hated for the freedoms we enjoy, as the President suggested, but instead is seen as being hypocritical about them."
"because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" is NOT a "shorter, simpler version" of the 9/11 motives, it is a lie. It is a crude and ridiculous lie that robs the people of the right to know the truth and to exercise their political rights to challenge policies that endanger their lives. It is one of the lowest and nastiest things a politician could do to those he supposedly represents. It is a grotesque violation of the public's rights. To lie to the American people about why their lives are in harm's way and to fool them into thinking that policy changes can't make them less of a target is disgusting. The lie serves special interests who don't want the policies changed, special interests that clearly don't give a damn about the American people.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
David Duff asks"...who exactly is doing all this 'suppressing' and *how* do they do it? Instead you make yet another assertion: "...and look at the degree of deception and manipulaion going into maintaining the support [for Israel].
In a country with a free press, TV and radio all competing with each other, to say nothing of the net, I can only repeat my question: WHO is doing the deceiving and manipulating, and exactly HOW do they do it?"
The editors and reporters are doing the deceiving and manipulating and they are doing it by going about doing it. This isn't complicated. Chomsky explains this on p111 of Understanding Power" Chomsky explains that a complicated filtering system arises because of the way the system functions. I think Chomsky would agree that even the hiring process is a filtering system, employers are aware of what these reporters have written in the past and have a sence of what they will write about and expecially how they will present topics to the public. Chomsky says, "the whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter. It weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on-because they're dysfunctional to the institutions."
Orwell wrote it is not an official ban, facts are kept out of the press "not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact." - text of Orwell's Preface to Animal Farm Make sure you buy a copy of Animal Farm with the preface. CLICK HERE: This copy does include Orwell’s proposed but unpublished preface to the original edition
Chomsky has explained (see p 112 of Understanding Power" ) "So take Tom Wicker at the New York Times: when you talk to him about this kind of stuff, he gets very irate and says, "Nobody tells me what to write." And that's perfectly true, nobody tells him what to write-but if he didn't already know what to write, he wouldn't be a columnist for the New York Times." Chomsky explains that people are either in those positions because they have internalized the understanding that there are certain things not proper to say so they "play the game" automatically or of course sometimes there are people who consciously "play the game."
I will add details about the Iraq War (see Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law), but to explain quickly, the media basically refused to report to the public that the war was illegal. Mr. Harper rationalizes that facts about the illegality of the Iraq War don't belong in the news but rather in opinion columns. There are the kinds of excuses guys like Doug Harper make with themselves. Notice too how poorly the media behaved, the Washington Post now says something like "gee whiz, we though the war was an inevitability so that's why we didn't have a focus on serious questions about WMD."
I will add details to this post but more examples are on p241 of "World Orders old and New". World Orders Old and New Specifically examples of facts being supressed about Israel. The NYT's Thomas Friedman is an example, he reviewed "Two decades of Seeking Peace in the Middle East" and the major Arab Iincluding PLO) intiatives of these two decades were excluded.
The suppression of the fact that Sadat offerd peace in 1971 is another example. "in its two-page obituary after Sadat's assassination, The Times not only suppresses the actual fats but explicitly denies them, sating that until his 1977 trip to Jerusalem Sadat was unwilling "to accept Israel's existance as a sovereign state." Newsweek refused even to print a letter correcting outright falsehoods on this matter by their columnist George Will, though the research department privately conceded the facts. (Chomsky spoke by telephone with teh reseach department and admitted Chomsky correctly pointed out the facts, whcih were reported back in 1971 even in Newsweek. But the game is to suppress them now so thye did) The practice is standard." See page 31 of "Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World"
The out right fraud continues and people unwilling to deal with it continue to suppress it. Take Thomas Friedman and Doug Harper. I wrote Mr. Harper an email where I pointed out that Thomas Friedman is one of the people deceiving the public. Friedman writes, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street." (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and "Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world." (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
I also have to wonder how in this invented scenario Friedman knows what bin Laden "sensed" about the Arab street.
Ok, in his email back to me, Mr. Harper omits the above paragraph and when he posted on his web site his letter which quotes my letter the above paragraph is omited. Mr. Harper doesn't want to tell his readers about this. He wasn't told not to post it, he is doing it to play along.
For God sakes, do you see how Harper behaves when the facts are laid out right in front of him? He refuses to see that the German AP story reported the story correctly. He refuses to acknowledge the facts when they are pointed out to him.
Mr. Harper insists, "You practically have to read between the lines to learn that there were dozens or hundreds of Americans who intervened to stop the abuse of Iraqi prisoners"
I said: No, you could read the third sentence of the German AP article: "The newspaper's sources are soldiers of the Oregon National Guard, who had tried to help the abused Iraqis", but that is not good enough for you.
Mr. Harper wrote, "Three parts of the story: prison abuse, U.S. soldiers do the right thing, U.S. commanders call them off, citing Iraqi sovereignty. The missing second element, in the German AP version, stokes the fuels of anti-Americanism in Europe by preventing the "good" American troops from being seen. That, to me, is a bias, intended or not."
I explained: The second element is not missing. Your inability to see it is the problem. I recommend "Understanding Power" by Chomsky, see p111 Please consider reading it.
Did you notice this? Doug Harper is so heavily indoctrinated that he can't see "the second element".
And he has a chip on his shoulder to boot. Harper wants to call names like "Chomskyite" and raise the barriers to honest debate so that he can't possible concede he was wrong.
Notice how he slinks off, never admitting the truth. After all the facts that are pointed out to him, he still prefers snide comments like: "David, does that make him a "Doubtless Thomas"?" and never gets around to responding to me directly about the final points I made. Did you notice that or not?
Friday, August 20, 2004
"passerby" claims, "Oh, OK, but see, somehow you concentrate exclusively on Israel"
That is obviously false since a look at the posts I have posted shows several subjects. What you wrote is not true.
even though, warts and all, compared to any nearby country it's a piece of paradise.
you are not looking at it.For a reason of ethier blind following of the status quo or intentional deviousness.
I can't know for sure but "somehow" the very first thing you posted was a fabrication.
So this is important to you to shoot down criticisms of Israel, so much so that you can't pause and think straight enough to post accurate statements?
"Compared to any nearby country"? Why, first of all? Compare it to countires that you point out are undesirable? Again, why should this comparision take place? And you then insist on a dishonest premise, that Israel is "a piece of paradise" compared to the any nearby country. what is it you are comparing? Are there millions of people being actively tormented in these countries? Are there millions under a constant assault because of their religion? Israel continues to deny the Right of Return, continues to descriminate and continues to agressively grab more land. You need to look into the facts becasue "somehow" you aren't seeing them. I really don't know why that is.
We can see this blindness is not exclusive to dealing with Israel. When I tried to make a point about Iraq (not concentrating exclusively on Israel am I?), Doug Harper was blind to key facts concerning the issue of US commanders ordering torture victims returned to their torturers. So the problem of blind spots is not exclusive to Israel. With the Harper issue the subtext was that seeing things as they are would be "anti-American", with you and Israel the insinuation is it would be "anti-Semitic".
So how could you or Mr. Harper even begin to look at the issues if doing so means people ae going to "know the answer" as to why you look into it. You see, if people "know the answer" as to why people would question a fact, then why would you look into it. who wants to be labled an "anti-Semite" or "anti-American". You and Harper use dirty tactics and set up such defences that you can't possible bring yourselves to admit the facts.
As far as focus, you may notice that I am writting a book on 9/11 Motives in particular and the so called "War on Terroism" in general. Given that you should take note of what ABC managed to report acurately:
Chris Bury: "The US support of Israel tops the list of objections to American foreign policy. Indeed, some of the political grievances outlined by radicals, including Osama bin Laden, are shared even by a mainstream public that detests his murderous methods. In this view the US is not hated for the freedoms we enjoy, as the President suggested, but instead is seen as being hypocritical about them."
US support of Israel is the most extreme too. Look at all the billions of taxpayer dollars going to Israel and look at the degree of deception and manipulaion going into maintaining the support. We were attacked on 9/11 by people whose main grievance is US support for Israel and you have the audacity to question why I am talking about Israel?
U.S. policy on Israel key motive for effort key motive
On top of that we have people not only insinuating or out right declaring that criticism of Issrael is "anti-Semitism" but increadly they resor to claiming that stating the key motive for the 9/11 attacks is in itself "anti-Semitic"!
yes this is how extreme the underhanded tactics are and how ludicrous they can be. Yes some people want you to think that stating the key motive is being "anti-Semitic"!
Take a look at this ridiculous woman's arguements: letters
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Do you have any comment on the Sidney Morning Herald article shown on ZNet today claiming that Iyad Allawi exectued six suspected insurgents in an Iraqi police station?
Would you say that ominous positive reaction throughout Iraq is mainly due to the incredible lack of security provided by the occupying forces? In other words, this barbaric act was welcomed as a positive step when all the people know is constant violence?
Posted: 24 Jul 2004 02:27 PM
Reply from NC,
I read the article, and it looked convincing. There hasn't been a particularly convincing denial. It wouldn't be particularly surprising. Just check his background: Saddam's secret police, British intelligence, CIA, alleged terrorist acts against civilians in Baghdad.
Assuming press reports to be generally accurate, the most ominous part is that the stories about the execution seemed to elicit a fairly favorable reaction in much of Iraq.
It seems some want to use a level of proof higher than is commonly used for news stories. The report looks profesionally researched. I think there is solid reason to at least report the allegation. The US press has not done so. The reporter was interviewed about his report:
MAXINE McKEW: Paul McGeough, thanks for joining us.
Paul, as you've also made clear in your article, Prime Minister Allawi has flatly denied this story.
Why then is the Herald so confident about publishing it?
PAUL McGEOUGH, 'SYDNEY MORNING HERALD' AND 'AGE' FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well it's a very contentious issue.
What you have is two very solid eyewitness accounts of what happened at a police security complex in a south-west Baghdad suburb.
They are very detailed.
They were done separately.
Each witness is not aware that the other spoke.
They were contacted through personal channels rather than through the many political, religious or military organisations working in Baghdad that might be trying to spin a tale.
And they've laid it out very carefully and very clearly as to what they saw.
MAXINE McKEW: You haven't identified these witnesses but why have they felt free to talk about such an extraordinary story?
PAUL McGEOUGH: Well, they were approached through personal connections and as a result of that, they accepted assurances.
They were guaranteed anonymity, they were told that no identifying material would be published on them and they told what they saw.
MAXINE McKEW: And just take us through the events as they were accounted to you?
PAUL McGEOUGH: Well, I'll take you through what the two bits of pieces of what the two witnesses said to give you the full chronology as I understand it.
There was a surprise visit at about 10:30 in the morning to the police centre.
The PM is said to have talked to a large group of policemen, then to have toured the complex.
They came to a courtyard where six, sorry seven prisoners were lined up against a wall.
They were handcuffed, they were blindfolded, they were described to me as an Iraqi colloquialism for the fundamentalist foreign fighters who have come to Baghdad.
They have that classic look that you see with many of the Osama bin Laden associates of the scraggly beard and the very short hair and they were a sort of ... took place in front of them as they were up against this wall was an exchange between the Interior Minister and Dr Allawi, the Interior Minister saying that he felt like killing them on the spot.
It's worth noting at this point in the story that on June 19, there was an attack on the Interior Minister's home in the Sunni triangle in which four of his bodyguards
Iraq's interim PM executed six insurgents: witnesses
passserby claims, "Btw, these allegations were ignored not only by the US media -- they were ignored by everyone -- if you google for "allawi shot prisoners" the only hits you'll get will be coming from "activist" sites like counterpunch, repeating the allegations in the australian paper (but almost always as facts though -- a rather telling detail.) No solid media outlet reported that though."
That isn't true. United Press International reported it, The Washington Times picked it up and Newsweek also reported on the allegation.
In Scotland, the award-winning Sunday Herald ran its sister-publication’s copy, as did the New Zealand Sunday Star Times, the Irish Examiner and Canada’s Toronto Post. The London Daily Mail and South Africa’s Sunday Mail (same ownership) ran a story with a similar lead, although the denial comes right up front. Greetings From the Memory Hole: Our Media kills a Troubling Story that the Rest of the World Saw
Allawi began his career in the killing business in the 1960s on behalf of Saddam Hussein; but in 1978, he switched to the CIA after Hussein tried to kill him. In 1991 Allawi co-founded an anti-Saddam, CIA-front organization, the Iraqi National Accord (INA), which the New York Times described as “a terrorist organization.” A number of European papers routinely refer to Allawi as a “former assassin,” or in similar terms.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
You wrote, Turkey is not part of the Middle East. It is considered Asia Minor.
don't play these fucking games. It is very common to consider Turkey part of the Middle East.
Middle East: Geographical area without clear borders, with its centre in the eastern Mediterranean basin. The most limited version of what the Middle East includes is set to Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan.
An equally often used version of Middle East, includes Cyprus, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt.
An even larger Middle East includes Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen middle_east.htm cache http://i-cias.com/e.o/middle_east.htm
Look, Zionists are fucking manipulative liars that are making excuses for horrific wrongs and extreme racism because they have a fanatical devotion to their perverse interpretation of Judaism which to them means the State of Israel.
Zionists have Americans repeating the phrase "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" like Pavlov's dogs. The thing is just propaganda. Turkey is a democracy and so is Lebanon. The manipulative thing is this "Israel is a democracy" thing is thrown out as a way to paint Israeli in a positive light which it doesn't deserve. "Democracy" has several connotations that are taken for granted by Americans. One of them is equality. One of the definitions listed for democracy is indeed: "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy&r=67 but that isn't true of Israel, the propaganda is intended to obscure that fact.
Turkey is a democracy and Lebanon is a democracy if we consider Israel a democracy.
You wrote, " Now this part of the post is the one I that make me smirk. Where has this poster been for the last 30 years? Lebanon is a puppet state of the Syrians, who maintain a troop presence of 16,000 in its borders. ... The Muslims are solidly in control of the nation, and the Syrians routinely assassinate Druze and Christians. Sure, Lebanon was a democracy....in the 70's! "
You want to pretend that Lebanon is not a democracy. What you are doing is being critical of how good of a democracy it is. If we want to get into how good a democracy is then Israel fails too. The fact is there are parliamentary and municipal elections in Lebanon. It is a democracy even today. And this is why the Zionist propaganda about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East is false.
IS the Lebanese democracy flawed? Yes, BUT THE ISRAEL DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED TOO.
So it is DISHONEST to on one hand talk about Israel being a democracy but to deny that Lebanon is.
There are problems in Lebanon, the Lebanese people have only a limited capacity to choose their own government. And there are problems in Israel , non-Jewish citizens in Israel have a a limited capacity to choose their own government. The reason is there are laws that restrict what a candidate's platform can be and the platform cannot be what we take for granted here in America. Non-Jews are discriminated against because they cannot vote for who they want to vote for. By Israeli law, a candidate cannot run on a platform that calls for equal rights for non-Jews.
The point is this talk about "democracy" doesn't mean much. The attempt is to make it seem like the government of Israel is fair, it isn't.
So the way Israel is a democracy is talked about here in America is VERY MISLEADING. To take just one recent example, when was the last time in Israel that the Israeli police shot 13 Jewish Israeli citizens protesting in Israel? Never? In the year 2000, in Israel, Israeli police shot 13 Arab Israeli citizens protesting in Israel.
The thing with Zionist propaganda is that often it is a bald face lie. There is a history of lies like this in the Zionist movement. Another one is "a land without a people".
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Dear Mr. Harper,
Believe it or not but I still have the email you sent me and am still trying to think of a response. At first I was asking myself "why is he doing this?" but now I ask myself, "why can't he see this?" At first I thought you were intentionally trying to avoid the points I raised (actually in your blog post and response to me you omit my strongest points) and I thought that this was a deliberate thing you were doing. But as I read your blog, I think this must be subconscious and that you just keep introducing your slant unintentionally.
I now think, "why can't he see this?" this goes to the point Chomsky makes about news editors and reporters sincerely believing what they are saying. If you want to see how the media really functions, understanding that may be key.
I assume you did not intend on deliberate deception when you posted "Two Ways to Tell a Story". But the fact is the news headline from the Oregonian was "Ordered to just walk away", it was the U.S. version of the AP story that slanted the story, not the German version. They were ordered to just walk away by US officers.
So if you go to the source, "The Oregonian" it is clear that the US version of the AP story is the one that slants it away from the main idea of the US allowing the human rights abuses to continue by ordering the US soldiers to walk away. It is the German version that more faithfully represents what the original Oregonian article actually said.
You wrote "Note, too, that the vague "were ordered to return the prisoners" of the back half of the U.S. lede becomes prison abuse that "was tolerated by U.S. commanders" in the German story." and "If you trace the story back to the "Oregonian" version". This is what get me, I traced it back also and the headline of the "Oregonian" version" was "Ordered to just walk away", I really am amazed that you can just ignore that. The Oregonian story's focus was indeed that the human rights abuses were tolerated by U.S. commanders! That is what "walk away" means in that context. That point is not in the back half of the Oregonian story, it is the headline of the story. So it should be the lede of the AP story. In the German AP story it is, in the US AP story it isn't.
You wrote, "Note the date of the incident: it occurred after sovereignty was transfered to the Iraqi government." "Sovereignty"? NOW sovereignty matters? One of the excuses of our violating Iraqi sovereignty going into Iraq was that "we had to stop the human rights abuses because Saddam is so bad." It actually is now used as the main excuse. But NOW we can tolerate it? (after we got what we wanted.)
I along with others had argued that the premise about concerns for human rights could not possibly be taken seriously as a reason for invading Iraq because of how the US tolerates and contributes to human rights abuses all over the world in nations we support. Now the premise IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN since US officials are willing to let human rights abuses continue regardless of the "moral imperative" to stop them when we are right there with the power to easily stop them.
It is actually worse than this, the US media has suppressed the shocking story of actual killing of six prisoners at the hands of none other than our man, Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi.
AFTER Iyad Allawi was appointed PM, there have been reports about Iyad Allawi executing six suspected insurgents in an Iraqi police station! The story, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, is that six prisoners were handcuffed and blindfolded, lined up against a courtyard wall and shot by the Iraqi Prime Minister.(1) I haven't seen the reports in American media, looks like the media is up to there usual games of suppression. Reminds we of the period when the US supported Saddam, the media wasn't eager to talk about his evils THEN. These facts should mean something to anyone that is thinking about human rights. To spell it out: talk of human rights concerns was just an excuse to invade Iraq.
Concerns about democracy cannot be a reason either I explain why I call Iyad Allawi "our man" below) and by the way, the same Oregonian story had a great quote: "We did not generally put good people in." (and the media can be counted on to suppress this fact, both the fact that we put Allawi in and that he is a brutal murderer.)
The actions of the US show contempt for democracy and an unwillingness to help a true democratic process emerge. Iyad Allawi, the PM of Iraq, was selected by the men we selected, the Prime Minster was one of the people the US selected to be on the Iraqi Council.(2) The men we selected to rule Iraq "jumped the gun" when they appointed the Prime Minister. Apparently the UN envoy was actually supposed to select. "A United Nations spokesman has said UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi - who was charged with choosing the interim government - "respects" the nomination."(3)
Allawi is one of those we hand picked originally for the governing council and his placement into the new Iraqi government into the position of PM didn't even respect the agreed upon process. Did the mainstream media make the American public aware of these facts?
Also check out Iyad Allawi's background: Saddam's secret police, British intelligence, CIA, alleged terrorist acts against civilians in Baghdad.
German AP story
American AP story
Original Oregonian story
Thursday, August 12, 2004
The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg
Cheryl A. Rubenberg gives readers an accurate picture of the conflict in her 450 page paperback packed with information. The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace is a book of great research and logic. She points out the truth that "perceptions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are so deeply imbued with biases and stereotypes-typically unrecognized as such-that we often do not grasp the fundamental issues." Simply put, if you get this book you will grasp the fundamental issues.
Her central focus is the so called Oslo "peace process" but she covers the whole of the conflict from the beginning to the present with powerful examples that go under-reported to unreported here in America and includes in her endnotes other startling facts that never get exposed in mainstream discussions. Her thesis is brutally honest: Israel never intended to withdraw from the Occupied Territories based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 and Israel never intended on permitting a genuinely independent Palestinian state.
Facts that pro-Israeli and some pro-Palestinian writers leave out she doesn't shy away from. Readers will learn things that might shock them if they have relied on the dishonest sources and media presentations that dominate public perceptions. With the book you will get the full picture. You will learn not only what Israel has been up to but also how the Palestinian Authority, with its corruption and repression, "has contributed significantly to the deterioration of Palestinian society."
It is important for Americans to learn the horrific examples of Zionist cruelty. This book is really well written and gives a good sampling of events PLUS the endnotes contain even more cases of barbarism that may just open the eyes of some willing to act like a human being and not a robotic apologist for the "Jewish State."
The examples of what one can find in her endnotes are really shocking and she exposes attempts to suppress it. Read about Irgun's savagery in details you may never have heard before, this is what Menachem Begin's Zionist terrorist group did at Deir Yassin: "... on April 9. 1948, Menachem Begin's Irgun massacred 254 people-mostly old men, women, and children-then mutilated, raped, disemboweled, and paraded their corpses through the streets of Jerusalem." (from endnote 51) She notes that this was not an isolated incident.
And she points out that Begin bragged about this "triumph" when he wrote about it in his book published in 1951 but he removed reference to it in a revised edition of his book in 1977.
For those who thought it was only the Palestinians who fled and were refused entry back into Israel that lost property and land without reparations, this book is a wake up call. In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (from endnote 67)
If you want to know what you are talking about when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this is the book for you. Rubenberg spells it out clearly, buy The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace today.
Sept. 11, 2001."
Oh for God sakes. Bush reaching for a children's book after being told the second plane had hit the WTC impressed you? Bush sitting in the classroom for over 7 minutes after being told a second plane had hit the WTC impressed you? We now know that Bush was briefed just a month earlier about Osama bin Laden being determined to strike the United States. Bush sitting there is not the actions (actually inactions) of someone we want as our President.
That same night Bush went before the American people and lied to them about why we were attacked, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." That is a lie. By the way, the 9/11 Commission has agreed with what the evidence shows and I have been saying for years.
Nearly all of mainstream media refused to report this fact. Here is the rare exception:
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."
Always with the melodrama, always jumping to "what, you mean kill Jews?" The point isn't that Jews are "responsible for everything", the point is specific Jews are in fact responsible for specific horrific wrongs and it has to stop. Is that so God damn difficult to understand?
You wrote, "I have found that only the Jews EVER do anything wrong. So my conclusion is that we should just get rid of the Jews. Anybody disagree?"
How original, a Jew posing as a non-Jew posting over the top anti-Semitic nonsense. You couldn't just post something about finally ending the racist system and living as other civilized people in the world are expected to live, could you? You couldn't call for an end to the racism and land grabs, could you (even when you are posing as someone else)?
Once again someone has posed as an anti-semite in order to serve the Jewish State. How fucking sick is it that so many times the alleged "anti-Semitic" expressions turn out to be from someone Jewish who poses as a non-Jew? AGAIN! You twisted little freak, you have done it again. I am sure you thought you were clever with this stupid post.
I know you think your "satire" is clever. what it actually is is very revealing. you once again continue the trend of a Jew posting anti-semitic messages.
The point is not that Jews are always wrong but if you read the posts, no matter how much evidence is provided, some Jews refuse to believe Jews are ever wrong.
The father of Zionism plotted to ethnically cleanse non-Jews from Palestine. When Zionists had the power, they did just that to hundreds of thousands of non-Jews.
Now look at the denial of so many Jews, they refuse to admit what they did. We see "thank you, thank you, thank you" to posts that deny that Zionists forced non-Jews out of Palestine.
We see the sick-minded bullshit that "arab leaders told them to leave so that they could come back after the Jews were killed". Here is a quote form a Jew with honesty and class:
"since the birth of the refugee question, Israel i propaganda has steadfastly held that, in response to Arab radio broadcasts urging flight to clear the field for the invading Arab armies, the Palestinians departed of their own volition-indeed despite Zionist entreaties that they remain in place. This claim was conclusively demolished by British scholar Erskine Childers and Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi as far back as the early 1960s" Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition pp56-57
And yet we still have rabid Zionists that insist on Zionist propaganda which has been proven false. AND ON TOP OF THAT, when it is pointed out that it is indeed false, we have assholes like you that whine about imaginary arguments that "Jews are always wrong" and post anti-Semitic crap posing as a non-Jew. does the sickmindedness ever end?
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
The quote I used was not misleading, I quoted you and your clear indication that you think or thought the Gaza Strip had nothing to do with occupied status.
So your question reveals your ignorance. In addition to that you think you have some great point? you ask what would happen to Mr. and Mrs. Cohen and their 2.5 children, would they live 1 week, 1 day or 1 hour if they stayed in "Gaza City"? It is almost certain that the very first thing that would happen is Mr. and Mrs. Cohen and their 2.5 children would be told to leave. Moving populations into occupied territories is illegal. If they for some reason moved into an are controlled by the PA then they would also no doubt be asked to leave, illegal immigrants in most any country are asked to leave.
your question ignores the fact that these illegal settlers are moving in with the intention that the land they move into will become part of Israel. You are extremely dishonest or embarrassingly ignorant if you don't know this. And I don't buy your claim that you meant and that you "knew" Gaza or parts of Gaza were occupied. The context gives that away, I am not a fool. You clearly didn't understand the Gaza Strip is subjected to the same kind of occupation and illegal settlements.
OK, what would happen to these illegal settlers if they for some reason insisted on staying (again this would be bizarre, they would not stay if they accepted that the land they were on would never be part of Israel. It undermines the whole point of the ethnically cleansing of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews so that "demographic purity" could be established in Israel. ) In your unrealistic scenario, if they refused to leave the PA would probably forceable remove them if locals don't hurt them before that.
And that should come as a surprise? Your question is OBNOXIOUS. Settlers are there for a VERY UGLY REASON and you are acting like it is all innocent, that is really fucking OBNOXIOUS. You think it would be odd that people would take out their frustrations on members of a group that had wronged AND STILL WRONG them? You think it is some kind of joke that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Palestinains are STILL prevented from returning to their homes and MOST of the land is taken for a racist agenda? You think given the fact of these outragous ongoing violations that illegal settlers should be welcomed with open arms in the little bit of land the Palestinains have left? Guy, you are really OBNOXIOUS.
You are delusional. What the hell is your deal with Israel anyway? The ideas you express are so off the-wall and ignorant that something must be wrong here. Do you make up excuses for other agendas that are clearly wrong?
Akiva Orr, who is Jewish, was born in Berlin in 1931, served in the Israeli army in 1948. Orr relates the story about speaking at a conference in England in 1970:
"I explained that the conflict between Israel and the Arab world was essentially a conflict over lands and independence between Jewish immigrants and the indigenous Palestinian population. Until 1948 Palestine was populated by an Arab majority which was expropriated, exploited, and partially expelled by the Zionist immigrants from Europe. The immigrant settlers transformed the indigenous majority into a minority discriminated against in its own country, and imposed upon it a discriminatory state apparatus, namely a 'Jewish state'. No wonder the natives were restless. This came as a total revelation to the audience of some 500, who were used to apologetic versions of the Palestine conflict, in which Israel was presented as a small, democratic state created by the Jews who escaped from Auschwitz, a state that made 'the desert bloom', and that was beleaguered by the surrounding Arab states for the sheer fact that it was Jewish.
A lively session of questions from the audience followed. Suddenly someone at the back of the hall stood up and shouted, emotionally: 'Israel expelled the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 as a response to the Jews who were expelled from the Arab states. This amounted to a "population transfer", which had occurred more than once this century and was a legitimate, if cruel, way of settling minority problems.' I replied that in 1948 Jews were not expelled from countries like Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, but induced to leave by Zionist emissaries from Israel who often used dirty tricks like throwing bombs into synagogues to create the impression of anti-Jewish persecution to stampede the Jews to Israel.
This answer outraged my heckler even more, and he shouted in an agitated voice: 'You are a liar, no Jew ever threw a bomb into a Jewish synagogue.' The audience weren't used to seeing someone denounce a speaker as a 'liar'. Being British, they assumed such an accusation was based on solid information capable of withstanding a libel charge. The ball was now in my court, but having encountered this charge many times before I was well prepared. I had copies of the Israeli weekly Ha'olam Hazeh (of 20 April and 1 June 1966) with me, which published details, with photographs, of these events. Some Iraqi Jews who had become disabled as a result of the bombs thrown by Israeli agents into the Mas-uda Shemtov Synagogue in Baghdad had sued the Israeli government for damages, in Israel. The government had preferred to settle out of court and pay damages, but the legal exchanges had reached the Israeli press and had been published by some magazines. When I read out the details of the case from the Israeli magazine all eyes turned back towards my adversary. I demonstrated convincingly that I was not a liar. What would he say now?
There was a moment of silence and then he blurted out: 'You see, unlike the Arab countries Israel is a democratic state. You can publish everything in the press there.' The audience burst into laughter; I didn't." - Akiva Orr, Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, London and Boulder Colorado, 1994, pp. 5-6Akiva Orr, Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, London and Boulder Colorado, 1994, pp. 5-6
Details about how Zionists terrorized Iraqi Jews into leaving Iraq for Israel and the Israeli weekly Ha'olam Hazeh that Akiva Orr mentioned in his talk with the agitated Zionist:
"The astonishing truth-that the bombs which terrorized the Jewish community had been Zionist bombs-was revealed in the summer of 1950" Zionists victimized Jews in Iraq both emotionally and physically. "It happened outside the Mas'uda Shemtov synagogue, which served as an assembly point for emigrants. That day in January the synagogue was full of Kurdish Jews from the northern city of Suleimaniyyah. Outside a Jewish boy was distributing sweet meats to curious onlookers. When the bomb went off he was killed instantly and a man standing behind him was badly wounded in the eyes."
The plot was exposed after Yehudah Tajjar, an Israeli member of the Zionist underground group called "The Movement" which carried out the terrorist bombing operations, was recognized by a Palestinian refugee in Baghdad.
"It was Tajjar himself who first broke Jewish silence about this affair. Sentenced by the Baghdad court to life imprisonment, he was released after ten years and found his way to Israel. On 29 May 1966 the campaigning weekly magazine Ha'olam Hazeh published an account of the emigration of Iraqi Jews based on Tajjar's testimony."
The calculated manipulation of fears and the creating of false instances of "anti-semitism" are tactics used cynically by Zionists. The fanatical drive to fill Israel with Jews using anti-Semitic slogans was advocated shamelessly by, "a columnist in Davar, influential voice of the Israel trade union movement", he wrote:
"I shall not be ashamed to confess that if I had the power, as I have the will, I would select a score of efficient young men-intelligent, decent, devoted to our ideal and burning with the desire to help redeem Jews-and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and plague Jews with anti-Semitic slogans such as 'Bloody Jew', 'Jews go to Palestine' and similar intimacies. I can vouch that the results in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel from these countries would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries who have been preaching for decades to deaf ears." - David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 pp. 283-284
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
It is disappointing to see people post messages who say they are fans of O'Reilly. The bottom line is (and seems some here miss it) that O'Reilly was caught in a lie. Media Matters For America documented the lie. Krugman pointed out O'Reilly's lie. O'Reilly's first response was to emphasize the Radio Factor. SO WHAT O'REILLY, you lied on your radio show, does that make it less of a lie than lying on the cable show? then O'Reilly said fine but a few minutes later O'Reilly asked "And where'd you get that little evil quote" what difference does it make who went to the trouble of listening to O'Reilly 's crap show? O'Reilly was caught red handed lying so all he could do is scream about MMFA. The bottom line is MMFA caught him lying.
Unfortunately some viewers are too simple minded to pick up on this. Krugman did ask O'Reilly is he could dispute it. O'Reilly could not and instead ranted about "do your own research" But seriously, that is not even a valid point. thank goodness MMFA staff can sit through O'Reilly crap shows, I would not want to.
I guess to drive the point home that O'Reilly lied, Krugman should have started screaming you were caught lying you liar and MMFA proved it. He should have screamed "prove them wrong, prove you are not a liar" and "I am not going to sit through your crap show, MMFA does that for me, you liar."
Apparently that's what it takes with the WWF crowd that misses the points and only is impressed with tantrums and volume. Like John Fitzgerald above. John, did you miss the point that O'Reilly LIED and was caught LYING? Being a "balanced website" does not mean you ignore lies John. MMFA nailed the lying liar O'Reilly.
Peter Hart and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting ( FAIR ) do a good job exposing this asshole. But the book!
Monday, August 09, 2004
Norman Finkelstein has a whole section of his book devoted to Oren's book. The Appendix is called Abba Eban with Footnotes: A critical review of Michael Oren's Six Days of War.
You can get it here, it is really good:
Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition
Friday, August 06, 2004
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Then there would have been peace decades ago. The Zionists were willing to compromise by accepting the UN Partition plan in 1947.
what a load of shit. From day one the Zionists wanted to impose a "Jewish State" where non-Jews would be forced from the land or be made second class citizens in their own land. We have the words of the top Zionists (read below), stop trying to bullshit us here. The facts prove that the Zionists had no intention on ANYTHING reasonable and were not going to "negotiate". "Negotiate"? The Zionists pulled string to get an OFF THE WALL UNFAIR PLAN suggested by the UN. The plan was a suggestion, it wasn't something legally binding (against the wishes of over 67% of the population by the way, every hear of something called democracy?) "Negotiate"? once the UN plan was anounced the Zionists started theri ethnic cleansing operations, this is MONTHS before MAY 1948.
The Zionists pushed an extremist policy upon the people of Palestine. It is bullshit to claim that Zionists would have been satisfied with the UN plan. remember the UN plan did not call for ethnic cleansing hundreds of thousands of people, yet they started doing it well before "Israel" was declared. The plan was what many Jews were pushing: for dividing up Palestine on the basis of religion as a tactical step. The UN proposal was unfair, yet still not as extreme as the criminally unjust plans of the Zionists. It is really not accurate to say that the Jews “accepted” the UN plan when they did not abide by it even before May 1948.
AND no person in the world thinks it is fair for less than 33% of a population to grab MOST of the land! Yet this is the BS proposal that Zionists insist the Arabs "should have" accepted. No people on Earth would accept such an outrageous injustice (that is why the basic facts are suppressed) If Americans knew the facts they would be shocked
What the UN plan proposed was dividing Palestine into states the way states are divisions within a country. The UN partitions called for “A constitution of an Economic Union between the two states: custom union, joint monetary system, joint administration of main services, equal access to water and energy resources. “ That is not what the Jews accepted so saying the Jews accepted the UN partition is not accurate. And to claim that the Jews actually intended on sticking to the UN partition plan is to ignore the historical evidence and the words of the top Zionists.
The Zionist agenda is of ethnic cleansing and racism and that goes back its beginnings. The father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, plotted the removal of the Palestinians as early as 1895.
In 1919, President Wilson's King-Crane Commission reported that ' the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine ' and estimated that the latter - ' nearly nine-tenths of the whole ' - are ' emphatically against the entire Zionist programme '.
ANd who the f*** would be for such a "Zionist programme" who the **** says "please violate my rights, make me a second class citizen in my own land. the whole idea is ****. How blind or racist does someone have to be not to see this?!?!?! Who the **** thinks it is strange that ANYONE would want to resist this being done to them?
This was an immoral plan that violated the rights of 9 out of 10 people in Palestine. The author of the Balfore declaration admitted in 1919 that “in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the forum of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American [King-Crane] Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism “ Clearly it was wrong, it was immoral.
You don’t have a grasp on the basic facts. Even Israel’s Ben-Gurion stated, "who- ever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist ".
It is dishonest to claim that the UN plan was something the Jews were really going to accept. It is clear that the Jews would not have been content with what the UN plan had suggested, they intended on getting even more. Of the debates Zionists had about partitioning Palestine, Ben-Gurion in a press interview said bluntly, “The debate has not been for or against the indivisibility of Eretz Israel. No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of Eretz Israel. The debate was over which of the two routes would lead quicker to the common goal.”
One route was rejecting partition proposals, which the Zionists did in 1937. But they kept open the option of publicly declaring acceptance of a partition plan, which they did in 1947. What was to be publicly agreed to was privately discussed as only a tactic to get more.
In 1938 Ben-Gurion said to other Zionists, “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Sure enough, after the creation of the state in 1948, Menachem Begin made clear how serious the “Jews accepting the UN partition” was in reality, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“.
The UN partition plan DID NOT call for ethnic cleansing but after the UN partition plan was announced, Zionists ethnically cleansed 300,000 Palestinians and had grabbed land well beyond the area of the proposed Jewish State, These deeds were committed BEFORE they declared "Israel" in MAY of 1948. In reality there wasn't an acceptance of the UN partition. In fact there wasn't adherence to the cease-fire (violation of cease-fires has been a standard Zionist practice) that was supposed to end the 1948 war. In keeping with Zionist plans and tactics, "Immediately after the armistice agreements of 1949 , Israel began encroachments into the demilitarized zones along with military attacks with many civilian casualties and the expulsion of thousands of Arabs”
Are you an American? Why are you defending a grotesquely anti-democratic (less than 33% of a land imposing their will on over 67%) and an incredibly racist system? (the "Jewish State" is by definition and in practice a racist system that discriminates against people because of heir religion.) The very idea is a violation of BASIC American principles, why the **** are you making excuses for this madness? The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
What the **** are they even doing there? For God sakes, are there one set of rules for Zionists and another for the entire world? You know damn well that under International Law the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. You want to insist on barring Arabs from returning to their homes in Israel (the Right of Return that Israel dishonestly stated it would uphold) AND AT THE SAME TIME insist that Jews should be allowed to violate International Law by settling in the occupied territories. Are you guys trying to win the biggest assholes of all time award? You think people shouldn't be anrgy towards people who are doing this shit? You find it strange that someone would be angry at people that do this to them?
I take your point, Thomas, that Arabs in Israel may not receive quite the same treatment as Jews.
I would think at some point you would be embarrassed to have Jews create so much human misery in the so called "Holy Land." Why in God's name do you Zionists insist on doing this? Seriously, you sit like an ass in England obnoxiously insisting on a "Jewish State" in Palestine. How primitive are you? Do you realize how many lives people like you have ruined and how many lives you have ended all for this fanatical racist agenda? Is it so horrible to be expected to live as others are expected to live, respecting the civil rights of others and not imposing a religious nightmare upon them?
Your fellow Zionist ruthlessly ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of people (refusing for decades to let them back to their homes) because they were the "wrong" religion in order to create the "demographic purity" of an overwhelming Jewish majority.
THEN ON TOP OF THAT you sickminded freaks insist on moving into predominantly Arab areas which are the occupied territories??????? You killed and injured God knows how many people to make the population "acceptable" to Jewish Zionist sensibilities yet not satisfied with that, and undermining the whole God damn premise of the Jewish majority you insisted on, you miserable shits insist on moving Jewish families INTO the occupied territories! ****! What the **** is wrong with you?
It is like a **** spoiled brat from hell that is compelled to be as nasty and unreasonable as he possibly can. Aren't you embarrassed by this behavior? What kind of person are you? And what kills me is Americans are paying an enormous price for this bullshit. 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 is not enough for you?
The settlements in the occupied territories are illegal.
"the civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with these limits on Israel's authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide orderly government of the territories"
"Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, provides, in paragraph 6: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
"Paragraph 6 appears to apply by its terms to any transfer by an occupying power of parts of its civilian population, whatever the objective and whether involuntary or voluntary"
"The Israeli civilian settlements thus appear to constitute a "transfer of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" within the scope of paragraph 6"
"It has been suggested that the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply in the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories. However, those principles appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if any, until settlement of the conflict"
Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Declaring that Israeli Settlements are Inconsistent with International Law, April 21, 1978
Monday, August 02, 2004
It speaks volumes that you deny a basic fact of history. Of cource there was a Palestine! Iit is even referred to in The Balfour Declaration you lunatic. You are too much. At some point shouldn't the outragous lies told by Zionists tell you something? This is up there with The Myth of a 'Land Without People for a People Without Land"
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/balfour.htm
"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], "The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Palestine/conflict2.html
For all you clowns that insist that US policy makers don't screw over people in foreign countries: LOOK HOW THEY TREAT FELLOW AMERICANS!:
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.
That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.
"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."
This story was underreported. Why didn't we hear more about this? Think it is a game to have New Yorkers tricked into breathing in asbestos? And no action has been taken after we find out about these outragous actions!
NO INVESTIGATION OF WHITE HOUSE DOCTORING GROUND ZERO AIR QUALITY INFO: After 9/11, the White House intervened to force the EPA to downplay toxic dangers at Ground Zero, explicitly ignoring a top federal scientist who warned in a memo against the re-occupation of buildings in lower Manhattan because of dangers from asbestos and other toxins. Just seven days after the attack, the White House had the EPA delete words of caution and add reassuring language in a release that told New Yorkers the air around Ground Zero was safe. Republicans in Congress have launched no investigation into the White House's doctoring of information and endangerment public health. [Sources: New York Daily News, 10/28/03; Knight Ridder, 9/12/03; NYT, 10/28/03]
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1
Moore’s film got the book's title wrong when Moore called it “My Pet Goat”. The correct title is “The Pet Goat” and it is not a stand alone book, it is part of a workbook called “Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1”
Own a part of history, see what captivated Bush on 9/11.
the pet goat
A girl got a pet goat. She liked to
go running with her pet goat. She
played with her goat in her house.
She played with her goat in her yard.
But the goat did some things that
made the girl's dad mad. The goat ate
things. He ate cans and he ate canes.
He ate pans and he ate panes. He
even ate capes and caps.
- from the story “The Pet Goat” from the workbook “Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1” (the book Bush reached for and read for 7 and a half minutes after being told a second plane had hit the WTC)