Thursday, December 30, 2004

The Iraq War was Illegal Mr. Kamm

Dear Mr. Kamm:

I read a review you wrote of Chomky's article ( http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/chomsky_on_fore.html ) from his latest book in which you wrote, "The Anglo-American liberation of Iraq was grounded in Saddam's defiance of the cease-fire terms that obtained at the end of the first Gulf War. He violated UN Security Council Resolution 687, which codified those terms, and 16 others; his overthrow was an assertion of the integrity of international law in an anarchic world order." Your claim that the overthrow of Saddam was "an assertion of the integrity of international law" is disturbing because attacking Iraq was a violation of International Law.

The US and UK can not legally decide what is enforcement of a UN resolution and on their own "enforce" a UN resolution. The idea that they have the legal right to do so is plainly wrong, both the United States and the United Kingdom have signed the UN Charter and agreed to abide by it. UN Security Council Resolution 687 does not authorize Member States to attack Iraq if Iraq violates the provisions of 687.

UN Resolution 687 says clearly that the cease-fire is effective when Iraq gave notification of its acceptance of the provisions. There is absolutely no provision for an automatic authorization to attack Iraq if Iraq violates any of the resolution's provision. And 687 makes clear that the Security Council will "take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution".

By the way, Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, professors at the Centre for International and Public Law at the ANU, make the same points I just made: "It is inconsistent with the clear terms of resolution 678 and indeed the whole structure of the UN charter to argue one or more states could decide for themselves when and if the authorization could be revived." "The position that individual member states can respond to claimed violations of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the UN without the consent of the Security Council is inconsistent with the role of the council and is an unsustainable view of international law." - No, this war is illegal By Hilary Charlesworth, Andrew Byrnes http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770379.html

I would have no right to pick a British law and decide that you are in violation of it and go about holding you accountable even if I claim it is my assertion of the integrity of the law to do so.

You wrote, "he mentions not once – he does not even allude to – the character of Saddam's regime." This is not the case. Chomsky writes, "But there is rarely any shortage of elevated ideals to accompany the resort to violence. In 1990, Saddam Hussein assured the world that he wanted not "permanent fighting, but permanent peace . . . and a dignified life"

You wrote, "There could scarcely be a starker illustration - morally, politically and intellectually - of the difference between President Bush and Professor Chomsky. Bush analyses political conditions carefully before alighting on a course founded on moral principle and strategic necessity." Mr. Kamm, you cannot be serious. Bush violates International law and thinks it's a joke. He responded to concerns about violations of International Law concerning Iraq contracts with this: "International law? I'd better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."

I agree with you when you wrote, "Clearly I ought to wait to read Chomsky's book in full before making a definitive judgment." I was wondering if you did eventually read it, I have and it is terrific.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

"democracy", "the term is repeatedly used to describe Israel – as in “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This, despite the fact that Israel has no constitution; despite the fact that Israel is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents. This, despite the fact that Israel bars any candidate from holding office who thinks the country should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all. This, despite the fact that non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents. This, despite that fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected “terrorists” and other “enemies” of the Jewish state.

For some, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections (though just how equally this right is protected is of course a different matter). The fact that one can’t vote for a candidate who questions the special Jewish nature of the state, because such candidates can’t run for or hold office, strikes most as irrelevant: hardly enough to call into question their democratic credentials.

The Soviet Union also had elections, of a sort. And in those elections, most people could vote, though candidates who espoused an end to the communist system were barred from participation. Voters got to choose between communists. In Israel, voters get to choose between Zionists. In the former case, we recognize such truncated freedom as authoritarianism. In the latter case, we call it democracy." Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

Sunday, December 26, 2004

The distortions of the press

George Orwell In Front of Your Nose"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

When one looks at the all-prevailing schizophrenia of democratic societies, the lies that have to be told for vote-catching purposes, the silence about major issues, the distortions of the press, it is tempting to believe that in totalitarian countries there is less humbug, more facing of the facts. There, at least, the ruling groups are not dependent on popular favour and can utter the truth crudely and brutally. Goering could say ‘Guns before butter’, while his democratic opposite numbers had to wrap the same sentiment up in hundreds of hypocritical words.

Actually, however, the avoidance of reality is much the same everywhere, and has much the same consequences." - George Orwell In Front of Your Nose

"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban." "Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."cover see blog post

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Right-Wing Pundits Still Spreading Lies


Media Matters had a good article about the fact that right-wing pundits lied about where the soldier's question for Rumsfeld came from.

American mainstream media is simply not giving the American public the info we need. An often repeated mantra is that the media has a "liberal" bias. The facts show this is not the case. The conservative media has pushed the lie that the soldier that asked the "tough question" of Rumsfeld was fed the question by a reporter. That is a lie. ANd what is interesting is that far from pushing for a tough question, the reporter suggested that the soldier tone it down!
According to the soldier that asked Rumsfeld armor question, the reporter actually "suggested a less brash way of asking the [armor] question."!

The media has given Rumsfeld and others involved in the WMD deception a free ride because Iraq isn't the first time that Rumsfeld and Cheney have pushed WMD claims.

The right wing media has pushed the lie about the reporter feeding the story to the soldier and one of the biggest liars is Media Research Center founder and president L. Brent Bozell III. Bozell recently pushed the lie that the soldier "was actually serving as a ventriloquist dummy" for the reporter. Bozell claimed that the reporter "whispered that question into the soldier's ear." Bottom line is Bozell is an extremely dishonest freak and one of the loudest mouths screaming the lie that the mainstream media has a "liberal bias". Read about Paul Waldman's encounter with Bozell. It is increadible what a hot headed fool this guy is.

Note: someone on craigslist insists on pushing the lies further, "Not only is the story true. The soldier was indeed coached by a reporter,"

No craigslist poster, that is not true! See:

"The reporter, far from being the protagonist, suggested that he find “a less brash way of asking the question," but Wilson “told him no, that I wanted to make my point very clear."

Wilson says he also came up with three alternate questions on his own.

The Time account continues: “As for Rumsfeld's brusque response -- that even a fully armored vehicle ‘can be blown up’ -- Wilson says, ‘Personally, I didn't like that answer.’" - Editor and Publisher

Mr. Small-town newspaper editor does it again

Rich writes, "interesting perspective...I'll recommend to any one reading this thread that they check out the original post on done with mirrors and your original post at (which was just copied and pasted here) and judge for themselves...I'm sticking with my original assessment."

Rich, this guy "Callimachus" is not being straight with his readers. I can go into detail but I will focus on a specific example from his "Left Behind" post.
I took your advice to check out Callimachus' original post (a second time for me obviously) and I discovered he has changed it. I think you should change your original assessment. Look at what I quoted from his original post:
"By this time, my commitment to freedom of speech was solid; up to "shouting fire in a crowded theater," I endorsed it all."
Now look what he has changed it to:
"My commitment to freedom of speech was solid; anything this side of "shouting fire in a crowded theater," I endorsed."
I had pointed out to him in response to what he had written originally that "I have never come across a liberal that says it is OK to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater." I explained to him that he "never grasped the concept of the free speech argument".
He does not acknowledge that I am correct yet like a sneak he changes what he wrote and deletes my post. This only confirms what I have written, he is rude, unreasonable, stubborn and intellectually dishonest.

Rich, you wrote that "people aren't so bad if you get to know them" Unfortunately with the case of "Callimachus" (AKA "The Sciolist", AKA "Doug Harper"), the more you get to know him through his writing the more you see how bad he acts. In his role as a newspaper editor he is doing damage to our society. You are assuming this guy is on the level, he isn't. I hope these points make you reevaluate your opinion. It is guys like "Callimachus" that pollute our public discourse with such a dishonest approach to discussions. Please read over my blog and webpage, guys like "Callimachus" in their media roles, have kept more than this from the public.

See previous post: a small-town newspaper editor

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Links

LINKS

Znet http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

The Official Noam Chomsky Website http://www.chomsky.info/

Turning the Tide http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/

This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow http://www.thismodernworld.com/

Ted Rall Online http://www.rall.com/

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org/

Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/

Media Lens http://www.medialens.org/

Fair Media http://fairmedia.org

Columbia Journalism Review http://www.cjr.org/

American Journalism Review http://www.ajr.org/

Google News http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&ned=us

Alternet http://www.alternet.org/

Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/

Tom Paine http://www.tompaine.com/

Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/

Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/

The Nation http://www.thenation.com/

Covert Action http://www.CovertAction.org

World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/

Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/

Indymedia http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

Indybay http://www.indybay.org/

Craigslist | politics in new york city http://newyork.craigslist.org/pol/

What Really Happened? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/

American Terrorism http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html

Journalism.org http://www.journalism.org

TV News Lies http://tvnewslies.org/

Independent Media TV http://www.independent-media.tv/

Media Monitors Network http://usa.mediamonitors.net/

Take Back the Media http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html

TBR News http://www.tbrnews.org/index.htm

UnderReported http://www.underreported.com/

Unknown News http://www.unknownnews.net/

Truth Out http://truthout.org/

The Memory Hole http://www.thememoryhole.org/

Information Clearing House http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Project Censored http://www.projectcensored.org/

Representative Press http://RepresentativePress.org/

News from Babylon http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/

Make Them Accountable http://www.makethemaccountable.com/

Double Standards http://www.doublestandards.org/index.html

Third World Traveler http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com

Global Issues http://www.globalissues.org/index.html

If Americans Knew http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/

The Electronic Intifada http://electronicintifada.net/new.shtml

From Occupied Palestine http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/

Haaretz http://www.haaretzdaily.com/

BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/

The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/

David Irving's Daily Newsletter http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html

The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/

The Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/

Uggabugga http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/

Representative Press Blog http://RepresentativePress.blogspot.com/

Air America http://www.airamericaradio.com/

Majority Report http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/

Eschaton Atrios http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/

NOW http://www.pbs.org/now/





open letter to chris matthews

Courageous Journalist Alison Weir


If Americans Knew was originally founded by an American freelance journalist, Alison Weir, who traveled independently throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip in February and March of 2001. Ms. Weir found a situation largely the reverse of what was being reported by the American media.

Ms. Alison WeirMs. Weir presents a powerful, well documented view of the Middle East today. She is intelligent, careful, and critical. American policy makers would benefit greatly from hearing her first-hand observations and attempting to answer the questions she poses.” -Tom Campbell, Former Congressman and Dean of Haas School of Business

In March of 2004, Ms. Weir was inducted into honorary membership of Phi Alpha Literary Society, founded in 1845 at Illinois College. The award cited her as a: “Courageous journalist-lecturer on behalf of human rights. The first woman to receive an honorary membership in Phi Alpha history.”

After debating on “How Can Peace Be Achieved Between Israelis and Palestinians?” Thursday, October 2nd, 2003
, Alison Weir and If Americans Knew received a voicemail message saying: “On Monday, at 2 PM, you better not be in your office. Because me and my buddies, who were trained in the Israeli Army, will come and kill every single one of you." The caller said, "This is not a joke. On Monday you better watch out. Don’t come to work. And close your organization or you’re going to die.
Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child
Radio exchange contradicts army version of Gaza killing

The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid "Thirteen-year-old Iman Al-Hams was killed when an Israeli officer emptied his weapon into her. Israelis have been responsible for killing over 600 other Palestinian children since September 2000."

"An Israeli army officer who repeatedly shot a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza dismissed a warning from another soldier that she was a child by saying he would have killed her even if she was three years old. "

"A tape recording of radio exchanges between soldiers involved in the incident, played on Israeli television, contradicts the army's account of the events and appears to show that the captain shot the girl in cold blood."
Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child
Research the situation: The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid

Citizens Must be Fully and Accurately Informed

"In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for a nation’s actions rests with its citizens. The top rung of government – the entity with the ultimate power of governance – is the asserted will of the people. Therefore, in any democracy, it is essential that its citizens be fully and accurately informed" -If Americans Knew

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

a small-town newspaper editor

Another post by "a small-town newspaper editor". I am starting to suspect this is some sort of shtik, his opinions are so odd that it seems forced. His blog is called "Done With Mirrors" and he has posted another "cleverly" titled post called "Left Behind". I quote from it and respond below:

"Like a lot of people, I recited the litany of "stupid American" stories and jokes."

You are one weird guy.

"Then I saw the reeking ruins in New York city. 3,000 dead -- people just like me, who probably told the same jokes and held the same views. Why dead? Because they were Americans. The edifice of the country shook, and it made me realize, this place is mortal, like any nation"

Could the problem be that you don't give things enough thought? If you never realized that Americans were mortal until 2001, it suggests a person that simply does not spend enough time thinking or it suggests someone that doesn't have the intellectual capacity. (To put it bluntly and be un-PC about it) All the years of your life you didn't know this? If even after the 1993 WTC attack you didn't realize "this place is mortal" May I suggest there is problem with the way you think about things or don't think about things? If you spent nearly all of your adult life with such an ignorant view, doesn't that make you pause for a moment? If you have been wrong nearly all of your life, why do you find it so inconceivable that you are wrong now? You have such an unreasonable stubbornness that you consider the very idea that you could be wrong as an insult!

When people point out that your views are wrong you twist it into "insulting" you. therefore you don't have to listen. I suggest that you are intellectually lazy and you eagerly seek a way out of giving things serious thought.
If what you say is true, then you have simply moved from a very simplistic and incorrect assumption about the world to another.

I find your opinions so odd that I think perhaps you are putting us on. Is this some kind of shtik that you are now doing in hopes of being some sort of Rush Limbaugh takeoff?

"By this time, my commitment to freedom of speech was solid; up to "shouting fire in a crowded theater," I endorsed it all."

Again, bizarre. I have never come across a liberal that says it is OK to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You never grasped the concept of the free speech argument either.

"it's a result of resentment of American power, you say?"

More games from you. How many times do you have to be told?
It's the reaction to US foreign policy makers' specific policies , the reaction to the actions and results of these policies. They aren't sitting there "resenting" power for power's sake. And just because they are reacting to actual wrongs does not mean their reaction is right. This really is a concept that you cannot get into your head isn't it?

"And when I look at the way the rest of the world reacted to us -- telling us we deserved it,"

IF some people did that then they are wrong, they are of the school of thought that any response to a wrong is right. But I suspect that you can't find a case of people making this argument and instead you are twisting the words of people who are clearly saying that the attacks are in response to the actions of US foreign policies. "Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it." -- Clint Eastwood "Unforgiven"

Monday, December 20, 2004

The book, Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot To Print, has incredible examples of how the self censorship works. The book is an anthology of articles that have been rejected by print media but the article by Robert Fisk gives examples of self censorship in TV media too. Fisk's article "Remember 'the Whys' " was killed by Harper's magazine in 2002.

The book's editor, David Wallis, says Killed "rescues remarkable stories that editors commissioned, then abandoned." Before each article there is an explanation about what the circumstances were surrounding the killing of the article. Fisk explains that his article was killed because the editor at Harpers thought it was "a little too close in time" to another article that mentioned Israel and for which they took a lot of heat for. Fisk explains the details about his interaction with the editor after "Harper's had just been attacked by pro-Israeli lobbyists".
Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot To Print
Fisk writes about the "whys" concerning terrorism. Here is an excerpt that highlights how bad the most extreme case of bias in journalism is:
"I've spent twenty-five years in the Middle East, trying to answer the "whys." And in no part of the world is reporting so flawed, so biased in favor of one country-Israel-and so consensual in its use of words. Indeed, the language of Middle East journalism has become so cowardly, so slippery, so deferential, so locked into the phrases used by the State Department , the President, the U.S. diplomats, and Israeli officials, that our reporting has in many cases become incomprehensible . For an American readership unfamiliar with Middle Eastern history or recent events-or for American viewers who may have no intrinsic interest in the region-our reporting has reached such poverty of expression as to render any real understanding of the conflict."

This extremely flawed reporting is especially dangerous because, as the Sept. 11 Commission report revealed, 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. This extremely flawed reporting is especially dangerous because Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker pilot who flew into WTC, was "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" according to a German friend that talked with him. This extremely flawed reporting is especially dangerous because Osama bin Laden has stated, "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

Sunday, December 19, 2004

You write, "Alright, now you are willing to go into a bit more detail. That is good. Originally, I commended you on being willing to talk about these matters, and I go back to that. It is commendable that you try to dialogue about these things. That is unusual and that is good.

First thing, you correct me in my statement that you are arguing that Bin Laden was justified. Let me see if I follow you. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that: (a) Bin Laden was wrong to use terrorism, because terrorism is wrong;
"

Correct.

You write," but (b) Bin Laden's grievances are justified."

The grievances are not just bin Laden's. I think it clarifies the situation to refer to the grievances as the grievances of most of the people in the Middle East. The objections to specific foreign policies are the grievances "viewed as legitimate, indeed laudable, in much of the Muslim world." ( REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ? BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE p194 http://www.representativepress.org/Intelligence.html )

It is important to be as clear as possible because some people are eager to paint those that point out the facts as supporters of the terrorist attacks. An easy and cheap and dishonest way to derail debate by painting a person as a "terrorism supporter" when they are not.

You write," In short, you agree with his political agenda, but disagree with the way that he is carrying out. Yes?"

No. I agree that the grievances are legitimate, as far as his political agenda, that is not a simply objection to the policies. He has that as the main task and this is what he focuses on and unfortunately takes to acction with terrorism. There is more of course although he has not given details. But the general idea is a very orthodox Islamic state as far as I can tell from what he has said. His complaint is in part that the Saudi Government is not abiding by religious principles and that they are corrupt. I don't agree that a society should be engulfed in a religious dogma. His views as far as religiosity is concerned do not garner widespread support in Saudi Arabia either. In fact although many people agree that the undemocratic Saudi Government does not respect their views, bin LAden only gets about 5% support when Saudis are polled when asked if they support him as a political figure to run Saudi Arabia.

An analogy would be that many people could see that slavery was wrong but that doesn't mean people agree with Nat Turner's terrorism nor does it mean they believe that Nat actually saw signs from God in the sky signaling him to plan the attacks.

You write,", it is not good form to continually berate the other guy for being a dim wit and an illiterate."

I don't think I do that. "continually"? I think not. Even sometimes? I don't think so but if you could quote me an example I will look at it. My asking "did you read that" is meant to confront you with what I see as avoidance on your part. I didn't write "can you read that", I asked "did you read it". My intention is not to insult.

You write,"You go totally off the point of the Bin Laden discussion to try to make the general point that US foreign policy is immoral."

Where did I do that? I am pointing out that you don't seem to appreciate the evil of specific US foreign policies. I then gave you a specific example, a very dramatic one. I must tell you that I think you are avoiding it. If what a laid out in that post was not horrifically wrong then what is? If there was someone who helped put the Nazis into power and handed over the names off Jews to be killed would you be arguing "context"? what are you doing when you argue "context" with me? Is there a context in which the specific actions I described and gave sources for would be OK? Would dead Jews be more serious end result than dead Iraqis if we substituted Jews for Iraqis for the people whose names it was that US officials handed over for killing to the Baath party which they helped put into power? Does the events and the people involved deserve more attention that dismissing it as an isolated case of the US having "done the wrong thing"? Shouldn't the people involved brought to justice? Seriously, have you given any thought about how we cab work to bring the people responsible for these crimes to justice? You dismiss these crimes with " But guess what? So has everyone else." Even a serial killer in the US can always point to others and say he isn't the only one that has done it. You clearly strike me as someone willing to let the people responsible for these horrific crimes to go unpunished.

I was giving you specific examples of US policy makers doing horrible things to people in the Middle East. I did not argue a "general point that US foreign policy is immoral" That appears to be a strawman you put together.

I will continue with my response later. Until then. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/

Friday, December 17, 2004

If I have to go, I'll go. Next question?

In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?
Can you answer that?

Why the hell should we give up an ounce of freedom just because special interests demand that the US policies remain unchanged? Why should taxpayers fork over billions of dollars to protect against something that we would not have to if it was not for these damn policies?
Elites lied about why Nat Turner and his men attacked in 1831. An 1981 Newspaper wrote that Nat and his men attacked "without cause or provocation"! When Nat Turner killed all those whites, people like you no doubt screamed bloody murder AND REFUSED TO EVEN THINK ABOUT WHY IT HAPPENED. People like you would have been pleased with their newspaper that assured them that slaves attacked "without motive or provocation". Today you can see the media playing the same game of feeding the public lies in order to serve powerful interests. Can you learn from history? We had a horrifically wrong policy and we suffered terrorism as the result of it. People like you insisted we continue with slavery because you were unwilling to even consider that a US policy could be wrong.

Don't act like we are not reacting to bin Laden. We are spending billions because of him and the people that insist on the specific foreign policies. why should we do that? why are you OK with that? Why are you OK with the enormous expense and the frustrating burdens placed on us because of all this? Why are these policies worth risking our lives and spending a fortune? So Israel can continue being racist? So that we can continue propping up oppressive regimes in the quest to control the oil for the benefit of particular elites? Why should our lives be risked for immoral policies and why do you feel obligated to obey US officials who are lying to us? Why are these policies worth more than our lives? Who is making this decision? The people lying to us about why we are in harm's way?

People who are serious about reducing the threat of terrorism will take an honest look at US foreign polices. Where immoral and unjust policies are identified decent people will demand that the policies be ended. Logical people will demand these policies be ended because doing so will dramatically reduce the threat we are facing because these policies are clearly motivating some people to acts of terrorism or violence. People who are serious about reducing the threat of terrorism will take an honest look at US foreign polices. Where immoral and unjust policies are identified decent people will demand that the policies be ended. Logical people will demand these policies be ended because doing so will dramatically reduce the threat we are facing because these policies are clearly motivating some people to acts of terrorism or violence.

what kind of things has the US done? Slavery (which was so off the wall wrong that it is incredible that today Americans could doubt that A US policy could be wrong!) and here is just one specific example in the Middle East: what if they were Jews?

and read this post please: "Now we see how much you really want to talk about it. You have been cluttering up this site with denunciations of how people are ignorant of Bin Laden's motives and will not discuss. Well, I know Bin Laden's motives, and I discussed them. I asked, very specifically, what is immoral about US policy, which justifies Bin Ladin, in your mind. "
I have made my position clear, bin Laden was not justified with the terrorist attacks on America. So please stop writing things like " which justifies Bin Ladin, in your mind"

The analogy I have used is of Nat Turner. His motive was objection to slavery. I point out that Nat's terrorism was not justified but that slavery was still wrong. Can I be any more clear than that?

I gave you a link to my blog that goes into detail about the wrongs of US foreign policies.

Your answer. Can't talk about it. Can't be specific. Read these books.

I gave you a link to my blog> http://representativepress.blogspot.com/ and to another post. Think it was right of US officials to orchestrate a coup that put the Baath party into power and to hand over the names of hundreds of people to be killed? Is that wrong or not?> http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/52569972.html

If you want to assert that Bin Ladin's motives are legitimate,

I don't do that. My blog made that crystal clear. Did you read my blog or not?

You guys need to understand what motives are and what that means.

then you have to have the guts to argue directly why US policy is so immoral.

was what we did to these Iraqis moral or immoral? > http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/52569972.html

this is the example I gave you. did you read it? Stop acting like I didn't provide info.

You refused to answer, not because it would take too long, but because you know how bad you would like if you openly stated your REAL opinions.

I gave you a very good example of an evil US action. did you read it? > http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/52569972.html

I asked you, directly, why is a two-state solution immmoral?
for years the US blocked peace efforts and blocked a two-state solution, don't ignore history. . start dealing with the facts. and even if now the US says it supports a two state solution, BUT actions speak louder than words. The problem is that what has been offered is not a viable state, Israel continues to violate international law and has refused to implement the things it has agreed to. And you really should think about why it is that the US and Israel refuse the solution that is available simply by abiding by International law, the UN resolutions and even the promises made at one time. There is an international agreement and international law that is already there to solve the Israel/Palestinains conflict the US and Israel refuse to abide by International law and agreed upon obligations. Actual support for international law would mean not allowing Israel to continue to build illegal settlements, that is just basic.

As far as recognition. peace and everything, the Palestinians agreed to it all decades ago. The accepted a plan that the entire world accepted. Israel and the US refused. So who do you think you are kidding?

Here is info from a previous post:

In 1976 Arafat accepted the 1976 PLO peace offer (the acceptance of the Security Council Resolution of January 1976 backed by virtually the entire world, including the leading Arab states, the PLO, Europe, the Soviet bloc -- in fact, everyone who mattered. ) The Security Council Resolution of January 1976 was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US. Remember this was a Security Council Resolution. The US vetoed it, killing a peace offer backed by virtually the entire world. Today THIS fact is effectively kept from the American public by mainstream media by now acting like it never happened.




(See the book World Orders Old and New)

Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World

(See the book Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World)

For examples of how these rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see Thomas L. Friedman, "Seeking Peace in Mideast," New York Times , March 17, 1985, section 1, p. 1 (chronologically listing U.S. and U.N. Security Council proposals, but ignoring all of the Arab proposals prior to those that led to the Camp David Accords of 1978)

Once the palestinians do that, then they will get their state and peace, just as Sadat and King Hussein did

I have news for you, Sadat offered peace in 1971, Israel refused. THis facts is basically suppressed in the United States. February 1971, when President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty in return for Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory, with no mention of Palestinian national rights or the fate of the other occupied territories. Israel's Labor government recognized this to be a genuine peace offer, but rejected it, intending to extend its settlements to northeastern Sinai; that it soon did, with extreme brutality, the immediate cause for the 1973 war. http://www.medialens.org/articles_2002/nc_US_Israel.htm The plan for the Palestinians under military occupation was described frankly to his Cabinet colleagues by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labor leaders more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. Israel should make it clear that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." Following that recommendation, the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant and degrading humiliation, along with torture, terror, destruction of property, displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources, crucially water.

Sadat's 1971 offer conformed to official US policy, but Kissinger succeeded in instituting his preference for what he called "stalemate": no negotiations, only force. Jordanian peace offers were also dismissed. Since that time, official US policy has kept to the international consensus on withdrawal (until Clinton, who effectively rescinded UN resolutions and considerations of international law); but in practice, policy has followed the Kissinger guidelines, accepting negotiations only when compelled to do so, as Kissinger was after the near-debacle of the 1973 war for which he shares major responsibility, and under the conditions that Ben-Ami articulated.

please read the following, it may shed light on why you and others have such a distorted view of the history
The suppression of the 1971 peace offer is another example of the extremes of pro-Israel bias in the US. read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process," while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."

This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise. So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many. Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called Chomsky to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour later she called and said they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.

As Chomsky writes, "But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth.

your concern is with destroying the Jewish state.

YOU SUPPORT A "JEWISH STATE"?!?! Do you support a white state too?

A Jewish State is a system of discrimination against non-Jews. I am against discrimination. I think Jews should live as they in America. No allowing Jews to discriminate against people of other religions.

You don't realize how non-whites would be treated under a "White State"? Why do you have this idea in your heads that a discriminatory state is OK?

Stop with the BS that ending the Jewish State means genocide. Were all the whites killed in South Africa?

How about respecting the Right of Return like Israel promised to do as a condition of being admitted into the UN?Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949 ) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 and Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution. But of course they immediately refused because the racist agenda of the Zionists is to remove as many non-Jews as possible It is a disgrace for these bastards to push people out of their homes and refuse to allow them to go home.

There are so many facts that are distorted and so many lies that are told it is no wonder people don't know the truth about Israel. Here are some facts:

Myth of Israel’s ‘generous offer’ damages truth, peace
By MIRIAM WARD

The myth of then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s “generous offer” and “Israel’s painful concessions” in the summer of 2000, and the consequent portrayal of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a “truculent rejectionist” in the mainstream media needs to be examined.

Although an American (Robert Malley) and an Israeli (Ron Pundak), diplomats intimately involved in the Camp David negotiations, went public some 12 months after Camp David with more nuanced versions of what really happened, the “generous offer” continues to be damaging to truth and ultimately to peace. Taken out of context, the question “Didn’t Barak offer 95 percent of the occupied territories to Arafat at Camp David?” is exploited to the fullest and enters the mythology of Israeli propaganda. Repeated enough, people believe it.

So just what was the offer made by Mr. Barak in July 2000?

According to Malley and Pundak, both Barak and Arafat made serious tactical errors based on misperceptions of the other. Neither side exhibited sensitivity to the others’ concerns or suffering. Barak wanted to bypass interim agreements and present Arafat with an “all-or-nothing” proposal, with no fallback options. He presented nothing in writing; proposals were stated verbally.

Conclusions of what proposals might be were drawn from maps. Israel would not return to its 1967 borders. Barak’s offer would have left the main Israeli settlements and their Jewish-only bypass roads intact. Palestinian villages would continue to be “islands” isolated from each other, “Bantustans” completely surrounded by Israeli military who could and do blockade entire villages from travel. Except for three villages, Barak excluded the 28 Palestinian villages Israel illegally annexed to Jerusalem. Israel would accept no responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. To his credit, Barak broke long-held taboos in discussing Jerusalem and the refugees.

Arafat was reluctant to go into the talks without reasonable assurance of success. President Clinton promised Arafat that if the talks failed, Arafat would not be blamed. Yet, when the talks failed, Clinton placed most of the blame on Arafat and contributed to the misleading, simplistic propaganda of the “generous offer” by Barak, which was then picked up by and carried on in the mainstream media. Given the history of broken promises and increased land confiscation and accelerated settlement expansion under Barak, Arafat didn’t trust these verbal promises. He wanted proof of Israel’s seriousness in implementing the agreements previously made (and negated by Netanyahu), and feared that in accepting an “all-or-nothing” final status proposal, the entire basis of international legitimacy would be undermined.

In the 1993 Oslo Agreement, by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, Palestinians already gave up 78 percent of their land and accepted the formula “land for peace” within the context of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories. This meant Palestinians were willing to settle for 22 percent of originally mandated Palestine. To put it bluntly: You take $100 from me and later offer to repay $22. I cut my losses and give up $78. Still later you want more of my remaining $22. In short, Arafat felt Palestinians had made real concessions in settling for the territories occupied since the 1967 war. Sheer ineptness and internal squabbling among Palestinian negotiators confounded the Palestinian presentations.

Even without the valuable insights of Malley and Pundak, a cursory look at a map of the settlements and their bypass roads amidst Palestinian cities and towns strikingly reveals the impossibility of a viable sovereign Palestinian state. Sovereignty presupposes contiguous territory. How many of us would agree to travel 40 miles from one town to another when the actual distance between them is only five miles?

Jeff Halper, a professor at Ben Gurion University, calls it a “matrix of controls” a system of “facts on the ground,” settlements, military checkpoints, permits for travel, permits for building, closure political control over every aspect of Palestinian life. Israeli military decide if and when one can go to work, to market, to school, to the doctor or hospital, to church/mosque, or to visit relatives, leave one’s home or one’s village.

Control means when and how much water will be allowed Palestinians. In a sense, control is as important as territory. A member of the Israeli peace group Gush-Shalom says, “Prisoners may occupy 95 percent of prison space, but it is the other 5 percent that determines who is in control.” Palestinians feel helpless and hopeless against the whole apartheid system of control, control backed by F-16s, Apache helicopter gunships and tanks.

There is no way Arafat or the Palestinian people could have or should have accepted Barak’s offer. Palestinians are not asking Israel for concessions, but compliance with international law not to give up, but to give back land.

Sister of Mercy Miriam Ward is a founding member of Pax Christi Burlington, Vt.

also see http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/camp_david.html

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/roadmap.html
You wrote, i think it is quite naive of you to quote bin laden as if he was a truthful and insightful person. in fact it just makes me sad. if bin laden is one of the conspirators responsible for the WTC attacks, then his words should be taken with a large grain of salt.

This has nothing to do with trusting bin Laden.

"... the issues he raised doubtless have appeal to great masses of suffering people in the world.  That has nothing to do with trusting him.  Rather, with understanding his appeal, something entirely different, and a crucial difference for those who have a serious interested in reducing the threat of terror in the world, which is no joke." - Noam Chomsky Posted: Nov. 9, 2004

In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?

can you answer that?

People who are serious about reducing the threat of terrorism will take an honest look at US foreign polices. Where immoral and unjust policies are identified decent people will demand that the policies be ended. Logical people will demand these policies be ended because doing so will dramatically reduce the threat we are facing because these policies are clearly motivating some people to acts of terrorism or violence.

You way of thinking means that we could have never have ended slavery.

Look at our history, see how off the wall wrong, how incredibly immoral and unjust US policies can be!! and look how Americans like you made excuse after excuse and goaded the public in continuing the policy of slavery.

when bin laden made his last public appearance, was he not trying to influence the outcome of our election???? wasn't that painfully obvious??

NO. the man is not a fool and Kerry was talking about INCREASING troops in Iraq and about continued support of Israel. so no, bin Laden was not endorsing Kerry. and it is vile that you and the Republicans exploited the bin Laden tape for political gain

the Zionist front group MEMRI pushed a bullshit translation in order to serve their agenda

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004/12/from-newshoundss-article-duelling.html

see my other posts: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/

Thursday, December 16, 2004

What if they were Jews?


The CIA actively supported the 1963 coup that brought the Ba'ath party to power and the CIA made lists of people it labeled as communists and gave these lists to "the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen". The people on these CIA lists were "jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions."

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business." US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them ... Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

What if they were Jews that were rounded up and shot? What if it was Jews whose names we handed over to be killed? Would this be persued? Would there be a call for prosecution of those responsible?
Think you can start to understand the degree of evil perpetrated by US foreign policies? This is just one example. Does substitution "Jews" in place of "Iraqis" or "Communists" help you understand the degree of evil that US policy makers are responsible for? Are you going to do something now to make a call for justice? "Nazi hunters" worked for decades after the initial crimes of the murderers and facilitators of the deaths of Jews. Just because in the above case those murdered were not Jews but Iraqis and the murders were not Nazis party members but Baath party members and the collaborators were Americans and not Europeans, does that mean you sit on your ass right now and do nothing? I think that if you realized someone who was responsible for the deaths of Jews had not be brought to justice you would actually do something about it.
and by the way, why the hell should we give up an ounce of freedom just because special interests demand that the US policies remain unchanged? Why should taxpayers fork over billions of dollars to protect against something that we would not have to if it was not for these damn policies?
Don't act like we are not reacting to bin Laden. We are spending billions because of him and the people that insist on the specific foreign policies. why should we do that? why are you OK with that? Why are you OK with the enormous expense and the frustrating burdens placed on us because of all this? Why are these policies worth risking our lives and spending a fortune? So Israel can continue being racist? So that we can continue propping up oppressive regimes in the quest to control the oil for the benefit of particular elites?
You wrote, "if Bin Laden wants America to remove troops from Saudia Arabia, I say we double our troops in Saudi Arabia.
If Bin Laden wants America to cut Israel loose, I say we strengthen our ties with Israel.
If Bin Laden says do X, I say we do the opposite.
Your eagerness to pander to this terrorist is sickening.
The demands of terrorists should never be asceded to.
"

and since Bin Laden says we should elect leaders that are truly representative of us we shouldn't?
You are really a moron.

Our lives are on the line. GROW UP! This isn't a God damn game.

Did you read the post or not?

"The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."- bin Laden, May 1998

What are you going to argue, that we DON’T elect leaders that are truly representative of us just to spite bin Laden?
This is a life and death isssue, arguing that we should not do the right thing just because bin Laden would like it is absurd.


People who are serious about reducing the threat of terrorism will take an honest look at US foreign polices. Where immoral and unjust policies are identified decent people will demand that the policies be ended. Logical people will demand these policies be ended because doing so will dramatically reduce the threat we are facing because these policies are clearly motivating some people to acts of terrorism or violence. People who are serious about reducing the threat of terrorism will take an honest look at US foreign polices. Where immoral and unjust policies are identified decent people will demand that the policies be ended. Logical people will demand these policies be ended because doing so will dramatically reduce the threat we are facing because these policies are clearly motivating some people to acts of terrorism or violence.

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/
and by the way, why the hell should we give up an ounce of freedom just because special interests demand that the US policies remain unchanged? Why should taxpayers fork over billions of dollars to protect against something that we would not have to if it was not for these damn policies?
Don't act like we are not reacting to bin Laden. We are spending billions because of him and the people that insist on the specific foreign policies. why should we do that? why are you OK with that? Why are you OK with the enormous expense and the frustrating burdens placed on us because of all this? Why are these policies worth risking our lives and spending a fortune? So Israel can continue being racist? So that we can continue propping up oppressive regimes in the quest to control the oil for the benefit of particular elites?
Bin Laden's latest message once again clearly explains that al-Qeada is not attacking America because "they hate freedom":

"People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results. Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we didn't strike -- for example -- Sweden. And we know that freedom haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 [The 19 men who hijacked the 4 planes on 9/11] . May Allah have mercy upon them."

Bin Laden's latest message once again calls for Americans to look at the cause:

"No we fight you because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay waste to our Nation, so shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure whereas thinking people when disaster strikes make it their priority to look for its causes in order to prevent it happening again."

Bin Laden once again says that Bush is not telling the truth to the public about why al-Qeada fights:

"But I am amazed at you even though we are in the 4th year after the events of Sept 11th. Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes."

Bin Laden explains when the idea of hitting the Twin Towers came to him:

"after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon it came to my mind."

Full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera As published by Aljazeera, Monday 01 November 2004

Google search: Transcript: Translation of Bin Laden's Video-Taped Message

Comment about bin Laden: "... the issues he raised doubtless have appeal to great masses of suffering people in the world.  That has nothing to do with trusting him.  Rather, with understanding his appeal, something entirely different, and a crucial difference for those who have a serious interested in reducing the threat of terror in the world, which is no joke." - Noam Chomsky Posted: Nov. 9, 2004

People who don't share the view that US foreign policies are just fine will should call for a different course of action. Chomsky says we should "call for police action to apprehend criminals and attention to the legitimate grievances that lie behind the opposition to US policies, rather than helping the terrorist vanguard to mobilize their potential constituency by our violence and our pursuit of the policies that are violating their legitimate rights." Posted: Oct. 27, 2004

"The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."- bin Laden, May 1998

What are you going to argue, that we DON’T elect leaders that are truly representative of us just to spite bin Laden?
This is a life and death isssue, arguing that we should not do the right thing just because bin Laden would like it is absurd.

People who are serious about reducing the threat of terrorism will take an honest look at US foreign polices. Where immoral and unjust policies are identified decent people will demand that the policies be ended. Logical people will demand these policies be ended because doing so will dramatically reduce the threat we are facing because these policies are clearly motivating some people to acts of terrorism or violence.

and by the way, why the hell should we give up an ounce of freedom just because special interests demand that the US policies remain unchanged? Why should taxpayers fork over billions of dollars to protect against something that we would not have to if it was not for these damn policies?
Don't act like we are not reacting to bin Laden. We are spending billions because of him and the people that insist on the specific foreign policies. Why should we do that? why are you OK with that? Why are you OK with the enormous expense and the frustrating burdens placed on us because of all this? Why are these policies worth risking our lives and spending a fortune? So Israel can continue being racist? So that we can continue propping up oppressive regimes in the quest to control the oil for the benefit of particular elites?
Why are these policies worth more than our lives? Who is making this decision? The people lying to us about why we are in harm's way?
from newshounds's article "Duelling Translations of bin Laden"

Here's the Al Jazeera translation which agrees with the ones broadcast on CNN and other media outlets:

"Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

Here's the MEMRI translation:

"Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

Comment

MEMRI surfaces whenever the Bush administration has need of a more favorable interpretation of Arabic texts and/or attitudes.

Here's an excerpt from an article on MEMRI by Brian Whitaker in The Guardian, August 12, 2002. Some of his observations are no longer the case (I've made the appropraite notations), but the rest of the excerpt is factual:

(Begin exceprt.) Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media"

Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address. [N.B. There is now some contact information on the site.]

The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).

This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.

The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. - Duelling Translations of bin Laden

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Ashley, it is too bad you were impressed with "the sophist". He was using devious argumentation.

"the sophist" invented the devious notion of a "legitimate motive" when there is no such thing. A motive is nether legitimate nor illegitimate, it simply the impulse that acts as an incitement to action. He is once again engaged in the underhanded tactic of trying to paint me as someone who approves of the horrible 9/11 attacks. The guy is a sleaze.

His whole post was disingenuous and it should have been clear that it didn't merit a line by line response. I already pointed out he was a very dishonest person.

My posts and links made my position clear.
Come one, how can anyone read what I wrote, "In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?
and "You guys need to understand what motives are and what that means." and "You guys are like the people in the 1800's who refused to admit that a US policy was wrong." and not get what I am saying?
The analogy should make it clear that the wrongs of slavery were not just the opinion of Nat Turner but were a grievance shared by millions of others.
Sophist is devious little creep ignoring what I have said and trying to position the grievances shared by millions as the whims of a few terrorists. These grievances are shared by millions and that makes it all the more dangerous. Sophist is deviously blurring the concept of motive and grievance. What honest and reasonable person could seriously think that I would be arguing "kill them all'? Come on Ashley. Could I possibly be arguing that we should continue wrong polices if I describe them as such?
I'm assuming that Tom believes that if Tenet and others didn't omit whatever it is that they omitted

Aren't you cute? "whatever it is they omitted"? I told you what it is they omitted. see the damn link

You are very dishonest person. You want us to believe that you didn't know what was omitted? Can you read?

Now, this is where things get hazy for me

And you can't bring yourself to say if we are being lied to about why we are being attacked or not? What kind of game are you playing? By the way, a report came out very recently that confirms what I have been saying for years (well before 9/11).
The Defense Science Board Report says that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

"There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies - except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends."

In the eyes of the Muslim world, the report adds, "American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering."

The report also says: "The critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world is not one of 'dissemination of information' or even one of crafting and delivering the 'right' message. Rather it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none - the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam."

Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, said the report had elevated the debate within the Defense Department, but he said no formal decisions had been made about reorganizing how the Pentagon and military communicate.
"We're wrestling with this," Mr. Di Rita said. "But it doesn't change the underlying principle, at least with respect to the Department of Defense. Our job is to put out information to the public that is accurate, and to put it out as quickly as we can." - from the article "U.S. Fails to Explain Policies to Muslim World, Panel Says" By THOM SHANKER November 24, 2004

From your references pertaining to "Palestine" and 1800 you obviously have no clue as to the history of that entire area...

Are you ignorant of when the term "Palestine" was used?
Herzl mentioned Palestine.
"... Argentina has a very GOOD SOIL and the conditions for agricultural labour are MUCH BETTER better than in Palestine, but in Palestine they work with enthusiasm and they succeed. " -The Father of Zionism 1902

The Balfour Declaration mentions Palestine
... "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..." -Balfour Declaration 1917

Note Britain had no right dictating anything upon a foreign people but even Balfour's letter doesn't say a "Jewish State" and it didn't say all of it: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" and like I pointed out it didn't OK the violations of the rights of non-Jews, it explicitly said their civil and religions rights were not to be violated but that is exactly what the Zionists were planning to do and did.
I wrote you, "I thought your assessment of the Abu Ghraib, "In itself, it was the stuff of hell night a Phi Kappa Sigma when I lived across the quad from their house at Dickinson." was the result of the media successful
underplaying the torture scandal."

You wrote, "No, it wasn't. That was a cheap shot, but I allowed you to make it. The revelations at Abu Ghraib came out piecemeal."

You refuse to see the point. You and the media are the ones that mischaracterized what happened at Abu Ghraib and you are the ones responsible for the revelations coming out piecemeal. The Taguba Report which was available at the time you were writing "it was the stuff of hell night a Phi Kappa Sigma" and the mainstream media was playing the same game.
The first day the news hit I was able to find the Taguba report online.
It detailed things like:

"Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time"

"Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture"

"Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee"

"Threatening male detainees with rape"

"Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell"

"Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

You wrote "I was addressing the moment in time." But the point is the Taguba Report was available when you were "addressing the moment" and downplaying what happened.

Not wanting to get into the details I just laid out (I wanted to get back to it later) so I wrote you, "I want to focus on the topic of 9/11 motives and put the other points off to the side for now."

You replied like an asshole with "How convenient."

See that Doug? You are the one with the problem. It is a bit much the way you play it like you are some kind of reasonable person on your blog. You don't want to be reasoned with and you like to play this game of jumping to say you have been offended.
"You wrote, "First, I would to commend this person, for attempting to discuss these matters. That is unusual and commendable. "

Thank you.

You wrote, " Unless I am missing something, you are arguing that Osama Bin Laden is not motivated by hatred of America, but rather is opposed to policies of America."

Correct and some US officials are lying to us about why we are targeted. But the truth came out in a recent report: report-says-that-muslims-do-not-hate us because of our freedoms

You wrote, " If I follow what you are saying, your argument is that Bin Laden is correct to oppose these policies -- because you think they are wrong -- and that he is correct to use terrorism to combat the policies, because they are so evil."

No you are not following what I am saying at all.

My first point is I don't want to be lied to about why we are being attacked. I point out what the motives actaully are. Second, I do point out that the grievances are legitimate. But I do not and have never said that he is "correct to use terrorism"
I have never said this or anything close to it.
I have used the Nat Turner example as a way to make this crystal clear. I point Nat Turner's motives and explicitly state that Turner's terrorism was not justified. I explain it is an example of two wrongs, Slavery and Turner's terrorism.

Maybe these posts will clear things up:
letter
read over my blog for more details: representativepress and webiste representativepress

I posted this on another blog:

" You guys seem incapable of admitting what the motives are. Incapable of understanding that motives does not mean justification. I painstakingly tried to spell that out for you. The US policy of slavery was wrong. AND the terrorist attacks by Nat Turner were wrong. I really think you guys live with such an absurd world view that you can't bring yourselves to admit this.

This thread started in reaction to the lies being told about why we were attacked. My position is that terrorism is wrong.

I think I see the problem with you guys. You guys are terrorists at heart and if you think you are wronged then you think terrorism is justified. I can see why you can't admit the US polices are wrong: In your simple minded world if a person reacts to a wrong then that reaction must be right. Is this the basic problem here? That you feel compelled to lie about why the 9/11 terrorists attacked because if they attacked because of a legitimate wrongs then in your minds the acts must be right. I think this is what is at the heart of your mental blocks. I thought that the Nat Turner example would spell that out but you guys REFUSE to be reasoned with. "


Even when the cause was stopping slavery, I do not believe that killing innocent civilians was justified

I agree. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that pointing out motives means you agree with the crime.
about Nat Turner:
"Nat Turner convinced several other blacks to engage in terrorism, killing dozens of whites. It would be dishonest not to admit the role slavery had in motivating these blacks to do what they did. It was an example of two wrongs" link

link 2
The question to ask is if a people are being wronged.
Playing this game of pointing to terrorist acts and using it as a way to dismiss all legitmate grievances is disgusting.
this is the game that was used against the South African blacks.

Yep, the US called these blacks terrorists too.

Dick Cheney voted against a House resolution calling for Nelson Mandela's release from prison!

Something to keep in mind when the Zionists here in America scream about "the terrorists" while ignoring Israel's greater terrorism record and the reality of the racist Zionist agenda.

Oh, and of cource we have liars today like O'Reilly who try to whitewash what Dick Cheney did. O'Reilly lies again

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

"So the US and Israel control Mecca and the Temple Mount, eh? "

Darleen, is there some sort of problem I should know about with you? Do you have a mental block or something? Israel occupies the territory and the US backs the un-elected Saudi Government, what part of that don't you understand? The call is a call of defense. You don't have to agree that Muslims need to defend themsleves but don't BS other Americans about why we are being attacked.

Again, what does the 1998 Fatwa actually say? You ignore all the statements and you invent things that are not there. The people MOTIVATED to attack us are not being told "hey, let's establish a worldwide Muslim State and dominate the world"

"A former member of an extremist Islamic organization which is part of al-Qaeda explained how the organization's recruiters operate on susceptible young men. "Someone approached me in the mosque as I was praying, and started to talk to me about injustice in the Middle East, the poverty, our impotence in the face of Israel. He made me want to listen to him - to find a solution. At first these people don't talk about violence. They concentrate on how much injustice America has caused in the world and how to get rid of this unfairness. They mention Palestine, they call on you to uphold your national dignity, to defend people, and suggest for that you must sacrifice yourself. Then your people will live after you and will always remember you." The young man, himself an Egyptian, speaking in the privacy of a quite courtyard in Cairo, believed this was the way Mohamed Atta was approached." - "Al-Qaeda" by Jane Corbin p125

What are you trying to pull with this crap that the 1998 Fatwa is a call for a Muslim state of the entire world. Over and over again it has been made clear that they are reacting to specific US foreign policies.
Osama is almost begging the US to leave the Muslim people alone, "You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences." "Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."

Can we at least establish what the 1998 Fatwa actaully says? You have not acknowledged this basic fact.
You deny that what motivates the terrorists is the specific foreign policies. And why not talk the time to look into these policies. Why is it just to force hundreds of thousands of people off their land in the name of ethnic purity? By the way, was being against slavery "blaming America"? Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that US foreign polices can't possibly be wrong since they are US policies.
Someone agrees with me about the arson attacks, " but to attack innocent people, regardless of their religious belief, is an atrocity."

I reply that if we can apply that universally we can make progress. Did you notice that the motive for the arson attacks is mentioned right away? On 9/11 and the days after, can you find ANY instance of the media even using the word "motive"? Notice that the article mentions possible motive in the first paragraph (when the terrorism is directed at Muslims), in the American media most articles and TV news reports never get around to mentioning motives when the terrorism is directed at Americans. post Notice how on 9/11 and the immediate following days that the media instinctively knew not to utter the word motive? Here is another example where the press shows it can mention motive when it wants to: again-motive-is-mentioned

More examples of when other crimes occur the media OFTEN refers to motive: "cops still looking for a motive", etc? Here is one recent example, look how the media is reporting the Kansas plant shootings:

Sixth person dies after shooting at Kansas plant
KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP) — A sixth person shot in a rampage at a meatpacking plant died Saturday, and investigators said they still have not determined the gunman's motive.

Victim wounded in Kansas plant shooting dies
Police say they don't know why employee opened fire
Police Chief Ronald Miller told reporters. "Obviously, there's a motive for this. Why exactly, or what pushed him to do this, we really don't know."

Six dead in Kansas workplace shooting
Authorities still don’t know gunman’s motive
Police did not offer a motive for Friday’s 10-minute rampage, but said there appeared to be nothing random about the killings at the Kansas City, Kan., ConAgra Foods Inc. plant.

And of course before 9/11, motive was talked about too. See this older story from 1999:
Shooting spree motive vague; suspect kills self
A white supremacist driving a hijacked van took his own life as he was being sought in a series of drive-by shootings that targeted blacks, Jews and Asians in a deadly Independence Day weekend rampage in two states, authorities said Monday. A specific motive for Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's three-day shooting spree was under investigation.

Some people think they know what the media is doing and what the bias is. The truth is the bias is towards powerful interests.
Darleen, can we establish what the 1998 Fatwa actually says and what it doesn't say? I really have to wonder how brainwashed someone has to be to look at the 1998 Fatwa and insist that the grievances listed are not the motives. It explicitly lays out what they object to
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
3. U.S. support of Israel.

and says what they want to do
"to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in 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."
This part of the sentence is omitted by Tenet and others.
Darleen, you ignore what the Fatwa says, you invent what you want it to say and you ignore the evidence I show you that US officials are manipulating the public by omitting the reason why when they quote from it.
What gives? Instead of dealing with the main point you want to run off on tangents and also sink to calling people "anti-Semites" for daring to point out the truth.
Carlos, Chomsky is not an apologist for terrorism.

You continue to play your games by avoiding the very first point I made on this thread. Can you answer it or not?
In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. (do you deny this? Does admitting this mean one is an "apologist" for terrorism?) Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?
I notice no one dealt with the very first point I made.

"to try to distract us from the real dangers of Islamofascism". that you even use the term "Islamofascism" shows that you are ignorant. Fascism is not the political system that they call for. What is mainly called for is resistance to policies that the West has imposed upon them. The little political structure that bin Laden has discussed involves consultive councils, not fascism. The bottom line is what motivates the attacks and you are in denial if you think the attackers are motivated by something other that resisting our policies. (how many times does the facts have to be laid out? Even the 1998 Fatwa which was quoted by Darleen says explicitly why they attack, she and others attempt to take a line that is quoted in it and with total abondoment of logic try to argue that it means they are motivated by a dessire for a "worldwide Caliph". The games being played here have an obvious motive. If you can convince yourself that what the terrorists are motivated by is "unreasonable" then the US foriegn policies need not change.

"desperate attempt to prove that the US is always to blame for whatever goes wrong"
NOT always wrong, wrong where it is wrongs. Was slavery wrong? The slave owners had people like you who bent over backwards making excuses for slavery.
The US backed the most extreme elements in the Middle East. Both the religious Jihad and Saddam, so don't tell me the US has not done wrong. And the more I think about it, can you guys READ? What does the 1998 Fatwa say? It explicitly says to other Muslims WHY the fight is being waged. And I showed you, I showed you how people like Tenet take the key sentence and chop of the second part in order to suppress the reason why. The 1998 Fatwa is a message to fellow Muslims and it says why and it doesn't say what you guys claim. And US officials quote from it and omit half of the key sentence, "in order to ..." In order to what? If it was in order to "establish a worldwide Caliph" why the hell doesn't it say so? (remember this is a message for Muslims) You guys are so over the top ridiculous it is unreal. For God sakes I am walking you guys through each step and showing you the facts, stop crossing your arms and refusing to think. Are you saying you can't even be reasoned with?

Monday, December 13, 2004

Carlos, you seem content on define other people's political movements and goals for them. You write, "Bin Laden is a political leader, not a religious one, and is therefore not qualified to make theological pronouncements. His "fatwa" to which you refer is one of many statements of his political position, which is the imposition of Muslim law in any country where Muslims live, including those in the West. That is the essense of the Islamist political program."

That is not what it says!! Very convenient for you to ignore what Osama has said over and over and over again. Yes it is a political agenda (It is others that insist this is only about religion, so what are you arguing?) It is about responding to the assaults on Muslims. (I am not saying the response is just)
1831 Americans played the same game of pretending Nat Turner and his men had other motives or none at all but killing. This is a common tactic of those that want to protect polices that are at the root of terrorism.

That is crystal clear. You invent the "imposition of Muslim law in any country where Muslims live" crap in order to distort what has been clearly stated for years."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 is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." see motives for 9/11 OK? Atta and others never said to their friends anything about what you claim is the motive. So what is your opinion actaully based on? You can't dictate what motivates others, it is what they want, not what you claim.

Did you notive that Tenet and others omit key things in order to hide the motives?
wg, you have so many misconceptions and avoidance of facts.

"which we put troops into AT THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA"

an undemocratic government that is run by royalty against the wishes of the people. The US is a country that fought to free it self from a king and you think you made some sort of legitimate argument? Propping up oppressive regimes frustrates the crap out of MOST of the people in the MIddle East, not just those that resort to terrorism. Are you blind to this fact? We are ignoring the wishes of the people, not a think to do id you really respect democracy.

"enforcing resolutions laid down by the UN
this is absolutely delusional. I really don't know what to say, you are brainwashed. By what Orwellian logic is ignoring and violating UN rules construed to be "enforcing UN resolutions"?? None of the UN resolutions gave the US the right to bomb Iraq for years! The fact that you don't know this should make you rethink your opinion about the media.

" In short, we're the big dog, and we make the rules. That's a historical constant.

and now you admit and justify the unlawful and immoral actions that have been taking palce all along! you are too much.