STOP THE IMMORAL US FOREIGN POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The Morally Right Response to the Terrorism

"Three important historical conflicts that involved similar terrorism against civilians come to mind: Native Americans versus white settlers, black slaves versus whites in the American South, and blacks versus whites in apartheid South Africa.  Below are examples of such terrorism from each of these conflicts -- terrorism against white settlers, white Southerners, and white South Africans.
see Terrorist Massacre
Jefferson County's last Indian massacre occurred on July 17, 1789, when the family of Richard Chenoweth, builder of Louisville's Fort Nelson, was attacked.  Three of Chenoweth's children and two soldiers guarding them were killed at the family home on Chenoweth Run about a mile west of Floyds Fork. [ http://www.floydsfork.org/ht/ht_lastindian.htm ]

"In August 1831, Nat Turner and his small band of black rebels wreaked fear, violence and murder in Southhampton County, Virginia. Attempting to strike a crushing blow against the institution of slavery, Turner and slave insurgents killed approximately sixty whites, many of whom were children." [ http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume7/Jones.htm ]

In South Africa in 1986 Robert McBride, a member of the ANC's special operations unit, bombed Magoos Bar on the Durban beachfront, killing three people and injuring 80, nearly all of them white.

In all three cases the victims were no less innocent ... the violence no less wrong. Native Americans, as virtually everybody now concedes, were the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing. American slaves were the victims of the morally indefensible practice of chattel slavery. Blacks in South Africa were the victims of apartheid.

White settlers could have responded to the native American terrorism in two basic ways: increase their support for the U.S. cavalry's genocidal campaign against native Americans, or end the conflict by opposing their government's genocide and seeking to live with native Americans in peace by respecting them as human beings with rights fully equal to their own.  Southern whites could have responded to Nat Turner by supporting  increased security measures to protect whites from blacks in a slave society, or by abolishing slavery. White South Africans had to choose between supporting the apartheid government and its draconian methods for controlling the black population under apartheid, or abolishing apartheid. In these kinds of conflicts, the choice is between standing in solidarity with people who are fighting against a terrible injustice, or using the violence against innocent civilians as an excuse for taking the side of those perpetuating the injustice.

In every case cited above, the root cause of the conflict was a fundamental injustice; terrorism was merely a response, however indefensible, of the victims to the injustice. In every case the morally right response to the terrorism was to abolish the injustice, not to step up security measures against the Indians or slaves or black South Africans. Note that this is true regardless of the morality or immorality of the terrorist acts." exerpt from John Spritzler's article " RIGHT AND Wrong Responses to Palestinian Suicide Bombers" March 24, 2005
http://newdemocracyworld.org/suicide-bombers.htm

I have used the Nat Turner example myself for several years. The fact that terrorism is used does not mean the policies are OK.

STOP THE IMMORAL US FOREIGN POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

I agree with Nancy Hutchinson.

"Nancy Hutchinson, an Army spokeswoman in Arizona, told AP news agency that those opposed to the Iraq war should contact their legislators rather than bother recruiters.

"They need to direct their frustrations at people who have the power to change things," she said."Recruiters don't make policy and they can't change policy. They have a job to do and they are following orders." - 'Raging Grannies' want to enlist, go to Iraq

Subway Searches

This is total BS. Why the hell do we have to have this done to us when the special interests get their foreign policies to continue unchanged?

Ending policies that are wrong is the best thing we can do.

Some people tried to argue that we must not end slavery even after slaves were carrying out terrorist attacks against whites

Some of you dishonest Israel supports try to argue that calling for an end to the policies is the same as saying that the terrorist attacks are justified. This is a manipulative and dishonest tactic and it is used against the American public as a weapon to keep us from challenging the policies. It is one of the most vile tactics used by supporters of Israel against Americans.

Calling for an end to the policies is not saying the attacks were justified. Neither was calling for and end to slavery a claim that children's heads being bashed out of their skulls was justified. Attacks on the civilians are not justified, BUT that doesn't mean that the policies that drove these men to do it are justified The policies are WRONG. That is why they lie to you about why we were attacked

We can DRAMATICALLY increase our security and save billions of we end the policies.

READ: Trade Offs: Saving Our Lives and Our Money or keeping their policies

We can't just stop the foreign policies? That would be too easy!

Trade Offs: Saving Our Lives and Our Money or keeping their policies

We can't just stop the foreign policies? That would be too easy!

I'm a New Yorker too and I commute to NYC all the time. I am often just blocks from the WTC site. Why does the racist state of Israel take priority over my life and the lives of my fellow citizens? Why is the US foreign policy of manipulating Middle Eastern governments worth more than my life and the lives of my fellow citizens?

What happened to "live free or die'? Why are we giving up anything? If anyone has to give up something for us to be safer, why the hell can't it be the special interests who give up on those foreign policies in the Middle East that threaten our safety? The policies are unjust, immoral and illegal. Why should they continue?

And don't tell me we can't change what is happening. Fact is, we stopped insisting that all those US troops be stationed in Saudi Arabia, so YES we can change policy to increase our security. Problem is the agendas that want US support of Israel to continue and the policies of imposing force upon the Middle Eastern countries don't want to give up their stranglehold. They are putting us all at risk.

Why do we have to give up some of our rights? Why the hell should we give up ANY of our rights?

I have watched politicians and pundits lie to the American people about why we have been attacked and I am sick of it. We owe this lying bastards NOTHING, we owe the special interests that our politicians lie for NOTHING. We are not obligated to continue polices just because some special interest insists that we do. And to add insult to injury, they lie to us in order to trick us into thinking the attacks are not because of the policies but rather just because we are living here as we do with our freedoms. (Yes, there are many Americans that actually believe that we are attacked because "they hate our freedoms.") Freedoms our politicians tell us we must curtail.

There is a reason that politicians and pundits lie to us about why we were attacked, they serve interests that don't want the average American to understand the connection between specific foreign policies and the terrorism. We have to lose out and yet these policies overseas stay?

Now it is BS to say that "we aren't yielding". We are giving up freedoms. It simply can not be said that we are not paying a price for continuing these policies. We should not have to pay the price and it certainly isn't just that we are paying this price but the fact is we are paying, in huge amounts of our tax dollars and with our very lives.

It is not justified that we must pay the toll for having these policies. The choice is between dramatically increasing our security by stopping the policies or having our security put a enormous risk by keeping the policies going, I say STOP THE POLICIES. Why the hell should we the American people continue to put our lives at risk and waste billions of dollars?

Hundreds of Thousands or Millions of Americans Could Be Killed if Specific Foreign Policies Continue Unchanged

"In other words, one of the biggest dangers we face is if a biological, chemical, or nuclear device gets in the hands of terrorists. Listen, they will use them. By the way, you can't negotiate with these people or reason with them. That's what you've got to understand. These are not the kind of people you sit down and send a counselor over and hope to convince them to change their ways. These are cold-blooded ideologues who will kill. And therefore, we've got to plan for the worst." - President Bush July 20, 2005

"What I'm telling you is, is that we're focused here in -- and I want to thank again, thank Congress for staying focused with us. When you're at war, you can't lose sight of the fact that you're at war. And if your most important priority is to protect the people, you've got to work together to do so." - President Bush July 20, 2005

If your most important priority is to protect the people, you would end the unjust, immoral, and illegal US foreign policies in the Middle East. If you listen to Bush and others they are clearly saying we could get hit with a horrifically enormous attack. We could lose hundreds thousand and into the millions. We must stop liars like our President and other politicians from putting our lives at risk. Yes it does matter why are lives are being put at risk.

Complaining about NPR

Jim Miller complains about NPR wrote that on NPR there is, "... a nearly complete exclusion of more than half of the American public from the schedule. ... they do not think that Republicans deserve to be on the same schedule."

Wait a minute Jim, what percentage of Americans do you think are Republicans?

"Generally, slightly more Americans consider themselves a Democrat than Republican. Still, about a third of Americans identified themselves as a Democratic supporter with a slightly smaller percentage as Republican. The rest, again about a third, supported a minor party, didn't know their partisan affiliation or call themselves independent." - usconservatives.about.com

Jim Miller wrote, "Slightly more than half of the voters voted for Bush last November, and the Republican House candidates also received slightly more than half of the two party vote."

But Jim, number of voters is not the same as the number of Americans or the number of eligible voters. A dysfunctionally small percentage of eligible American voters actaully vote, roughly half.

It should be noted that shamefully large percentages of Americans went to the polls actually believing false information fed to them. We are not truly a free people voting freely if we are ignorant, you can not be ignorant and free.

In response to Rich who tried to play the ignorance off as simply people holding opinions:

Rich,

You are off the wall. I talked about false information not opinions. And NO, not everything is an opinion, there are such things as facts.

"75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. "

That is a God damn disgrace and the mainstream media helped make these people ignorant. Before the election I was trying to get the so called "liberal" media to report the results of this PIPA poll that revealed the startling large percentage of ignorance, the media refused to report it

And the basic premise of Miller's post is wrong. You guys really need to examine your assumptions. NPR is simply not doing what you claim. NPR's One-Sided "Liberal Media" Debate

Your claims about NPR are simply wrong, there is in fact a tilt towards Republicans: "little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study. Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story.

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR ’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." How Public is Public Radio? A study of NPR’s guest list

Patterico points to Michelle Malkin as if she is making sense.

Patterico,

What are you doing? Are you thinking clearly? What you are doing is offensive. Are you telling me that you honestly think any reasonable interpretation of the article, We rock the boat, is that the author means that the terrorist attacks are "opinions?"

The author wrote, "We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

You guys really ruin public discourse when you do these dirty and dishonest things. An "opinion" may figuratively "rock the boat" but, by definition, it does not destroy or kill. By definition an opinion is not a physical act.
o·pin·ion n.
* A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
* A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
* A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
* The prevailing view: public opinion.
It is disgusting that you and Michelle Malkin play such games about life and death issues. Opinion isn't terror, your post's title is extremely offensive.

Others across the web have played the same game, I explain to them: The author did not say that the bombers were sassy. The author referred to opinions shared by many Muslims, the term "sassy" CLEARLY referred to those opinions, not the bombings. You are a fool or a liar if you think otherwize.

Thomas Friedman is a dishonest manipulative bastard.

Back in 1998 he was trying to deceive the American public about the motives behind the terrorism: Terrorists, he wrote in 1998 after terrorists attacked two US embassies in Africa, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." That is bullshit.

Thomas Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, " 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. see the threat we face can be removed

Friedman also suppresses the history of the Palestinian-Israel conflict and he lies about recent events as well. I saw him on C-SPAN were someone pointed out that the US has been vetoing resolutions that would have served to end the conflict, Friedman claimed that the resolutions were not relevant. Talking about the Palestinian issue Friedman said "Then again, it would be nice if we had some help. Be nice if Crown Prince abdella and President Mubarak got on a plane and went to Israel and addressed the Israeli people directly. That might help too. We aren't exactly the only ones retarding this issue. Were not the only ones dropping the ball. ... I am a little bit tired of people telling us you have to resolve this. It is in your power to do this." When the questioner pointed out all the US vetoes and US votes blocking peace options Friedman dishonestly replied, "Oh this isn't about UN money, it isn't about UN vetoes" Then someone on the panel jumped in saying "we don't have time to get into all of that." What "all of that" is is US rejectionism for over 30 years. Find a list of all the votes and vetoes the US has done against resolving this issue and you will see what a sick bastard Friedman is.

Friedman was on Tim Russert (9/23/03) and again he was lying and manipulating. He talked about a "cease fire" between Israel and the Palestinians referring to is the six week period that Israel expected a cease fire from the Palestinians and that it didn't apply to Israel. I kid you not, what most people assume and what Freidman is intentionally misleading viewers about is the idea that Israel was party to the cease fire. But the fact is, IT WASN'T.
Israel never considered itself part of the cease fire and it continued attacks and killings during those 6 weeks. Then the media (and of course Friedman) played it like it was the Palestinians who broke a cease fire between the two parties.

Friedman is a propagandist. As Noam Chomsky wrote in his book Fateful Triangle, "When the intellectual history of this period is someday written, it will scarcely be believed."
Here is an accurate history of the so called cease fire: fair.org "Relative Calm"

Here is the transcript of Thomas Friedman lying on Tim Russert:
"Let's look what happened this summer. We had a seven week cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel said, "I'll ease up here on you". Palestinians said, "You do that, there won't be anymore suicide bombing." Palestinians were able to sustain it for seven weeks - it wasn't perfect - but guess what Tim, perfect ain't on the menu in the Middle East. You want perfect, go to Korea. It's not on the menu in the Middle East, alright. But it was good enough that so many Israelis told me, "God, if we could only go back to that cease-fire" -Thomas Friedman on Tim Russert 9/23/03

Friedman is deceiving the public into thinking there was a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians. He does this by saying, "We had a seven week cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians." The media and Freidman gave this false impression (many outlets even used the words "truce" as well which again gives the false impression that Israel was not continuing attacks, another example of media distortion and bias for Israel.).

So the public is tricked into thinking that Israel was reasonable enough to stop attacks and that the Palestinians ruined an agreement between themselves and Israel which never existed. You really don't see how corrupt Freidman and the media are? It is outrageous that Israel didn't agree to stop all aggression. The Palestinians are being occupied and they have a right to resist. Israel going around "arresting" or killing Palestinians is unacceptable.
Israel has violated law and the rights of the Palestinians for decades. Setting up a racist state is not legitimate. Thinking that it is OK to continue to attack and kill Palestinians is crazy. The fact that Israel continued to build settlements the entire time the so called peace process was being attempted shows just how sick the Israeli government really is. (the US mainstream media suppresses the fact that these settlements are illegal by not reporting the fact that they are illegal)

These guys never stop, they point to uranium already tagged by the UN inspectors and think it is a discovery of WMDs!

You wrote, "By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad. That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger."

Oh for God sakes, those tons of yellowcake uranium were already tagged by the UN inspectors! "In other searches during the day, inspectors continued their work at the al-Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center on the south side of Baghdad and at the Akashat uranium mine, about 420 kilometers (260 miles) west of Baghdad, near the Syrian border.

Several tons of uranium have been under seal at al-Tuwaitha since the previous round of inspections ended in 1998." -U.N. inspects new Iraqi military factory December 12, 2002

Even the NYT article you quote from makes this clear: "A second diplomatic official expressed puzzlement as to why the United States was considering moving the material, after the material has been presumably secured and resealed. Except for the incident immediately after the invasion, the official said, "this stuff has been there, secure, quiet, not a problem to anyone, since 1991."

Even I think we have no right to be throwing our weight around in the middle east and that our support is Israel is pretty one sided. Why wouldn't bin Laden feel even stronger about it?

There is no logical reason for the claim that "bin Laden doesn't really care about those policies"

It just doesn't make sense that bin Laden doesn't actually object to the specific foreign policies that he complains about, millions and millions of other people object to the same policies, by what "logic" would it be that bin Laden would be in a extremely small minority that "doesn't care" about the policies or thinks they are fine?

There is no evidence that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the specific foreign policies he complains about. In fact he has repeatedly stated the motives through the years and so have others.

"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
in that same statement Osama bin Laden once again listed the motives: " ... in 1995 , the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that region displaying their rejection and opposition to the American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year, another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their bases from the cities to the desert . Then in 1998 , the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah , smashed them with two mighty smashes in East Africa . Then again America was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow to the face of the American military and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as American agents, similar to all the countries in the region." -Osama bin Laden February 14, 2003

"9/11 ... UBL’s methods ... terrorism .. [is] .. about a subculture of lunatics"

No, you are wrong. They are not "lunatics"

"What manner of men are these, living in American society, for years in some cases, aiming to kill thousands while dying in the process? Surely, one would think, they must be crazed psychotics; no normal person could do such a thing. But in fact, the al Qaeda terrorists were psychologically “normal.” By no means were they psychologically disturbed. Indeed, terrorist groups expel emotionally disturbed individuals – they are a security risk." p17, Know Thy Enemy: Profiles of Adversary Leaders and Their Strategic Cultures" Barry R. Schneider Jerrold M. Post Editors
July 2003

(2nd Edition)
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER
PRESENTS Air National Guard CONFLICT 21
C21 Center for Terrorism Studies
" Dr. Jerrold M. Post is Professor of Psychiatry, Political Psychology and International Affairs and Director of the Political Psychology Program at The George Washington University. At GW, Dr. Post teaches a graduate course on terrorism and political violence, as well as a course on leadership and decision making. He is Co-Founding Director of the George Washington University Institute of Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management.

Dr. Post has devoted his entire career to the field of political psychology. Dr. Post came to George Washington after a 21 year career with the Central Intelligence Agency where he founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, an interdisciplinary behavioral science unit which provided assessments of foreign leadership and decision making for the President and other senior officials to prepare for Summit meetings and other high level negotiations and for use in crisis situations. He played the lead role in developing the "Camp David profiles" of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat for President Jimmy Carter and initiated the U.S. government program in understanding the psychology of terrorism. In recognition of his leadership of the Center, Dr. Post was awarded the Intelligence Medal of Merit in 1979, and received the Studies in Intelligence Award in 1980. He received the Nevitt Sanford Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Political Psychology in 2002.

A founding member of the International Society of Political Psychology, Dr. Post was elected Vice-President in 1994, and has served on the editorial board of Political Psychology since 1987. A Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, he has been elected to the American College of Psychiatrists and is currently Chair, Task Force for National and International Terrorism and Violence for the APA.

Dr. Post has published widely on crisis decision-making, leadership, and on the psychology of political violence and terrorism, and recently has been addressing weapons of mass destruction terrorism: psychological incentives and constraints, as well as information systems terrorism. He is the co-author of a study of the politics of illness in high office, When Illness Strikes the Leader: The Dilemma of the Captive King, Yale University Press, 1993, and Political Paranoia: The Psycho-politics of Hatred, Yale, 1997. He is editor and author of The Psychological Evaluation of Political Leaders, With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, Univ. of Michigan Press, 2003 and (with Barry Schneider) of Know Thy Enemy: Profiles of Adversary Leaders and their Strategic Cultures, Air Force Counter Proliferation Center, 2003, and is author of Personality and Political Behavior , Cornell Univ. Press (in press).

Dr. Post received his B.A. magna cum laude and M.D. from Yale. He received his post-graduate training in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the National Institute of Mental Health. He has also received graduate training at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

After the invasion of Kuwait, Dr. Post developed a political psychology profile of Saddam Hussein. His analysis of Saddam has been featured prominently in the national and international media. He provided his analysis of Saddam's personality and political behavior in testimony at the hearings on the Gulf crisis before the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He served as a psychiatric expert on terrorist psychology for the Department of Justice in the 1997 trial of an Abu Nidal terrorist, and in July, 2001 testified as an expert witness in the federal trial in New York of one of the Osama bin Laden terrorists responsible for the bombing of the US embassy in Tanzania. Since 9/11. he has testified before the House National Security subcommittee hearings on bio-terrorism, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on terrorist motivation, and before the UN International Atomic Energy Agency on the psychology of nuclear terrorism. He recently presented a keynote address to the Europe conference of international police on counter-terrorism in Copenhagen, and delivered an address to a terrorist expert meeting in Oslo, Norway in June 2003. He is a frequent commentator on national and international media on such topics as leadership, leader illness, treason, the psychology of terrorism, Slobodan Milosevic, Yasir Arafat, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il." -Jerrold M. Post. Professor of Psychiatry, Political Psychology and International Affairs
Director, Political Psychology Program

US Policy Makers: Cynical, Cruel and Dishonest

We will never know how many progressive people in the Middle East lost their lives because of US backed force

More intellectually dishonest arguments, more evasion from someone named Sharon posting at the asinine "Oh that Liberal media"

The point is we should follow the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

I asked if we are a moral people and a nation of laws. You post twisted and illogical arguments to ignore the reality that the US polices are wrong.

You ask, "Or are we not supposed to attempt to change the world?" we are supposed to act honorably, humanely and justly. We are supposed to uphold our commitments to International law!

You keep acting like you don't understand this and you are back again to acting like you don't know how Saddam came to be the ruler of Iraq in the first place.

You give such a smart-ass non-response to my point. You act like you don't know what happened to the hundreds of Iranians thru the years. The Shah's Savak was backed by the US's CIA and Israel's Mossad.

"The Shah's brutal secret police force, Savak, formed under the guidance of CIA (the United States Central Intelligence Agency) in 1957 and personnel trained by Mossad (Israel's secret service), to directly control all facets of political life in Iran. Its main task was to suppress opposition to the Shah's government and keep the people's political and social knowledge as minimal as possible. Savak was notorious throughout Iran for its brutal methods. "

We will never know how many progressive people in the Middle East lost their lives because of US backed forces.

"The notorious Iranian secret police, SAVAK, created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel, spread its tentacles all over the world to punish Iranian dissidents. According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. Amnesty International summed up the situation in 1976 by noting that Iran had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."

Example after example show US policy makers being cruel, selfish and immoral. Look at the poor Afghanis, they were making progress with social and economic reforms but the US policy makers didn't care and set out to destroy the Taraki-Amin governments.

"In August 1979, three months before the Soviet intervention, a classified State Department Report stated: the United States's larger interests ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan. ... the overthrow of the D.R.A. [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate."

The current situation in the Middle East is in large part the result of the US policy makers UNDERMINING democracy and helping get progressives killed or made powerless. Overall the US has made life worse for those living in the Middle East. Country after country we see that US policy makers have disregarded morality.

Do you know that there is more unemployment in Iraq now than there was before the war? Do you know that US policy in Iraq has violated our own obligations which we are bound to uphold, which are supposed to be law of the land according to our Constitution? "If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country, by foreign corporations controlling its essential services, by 70 percent unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs." the Us has "clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague Regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US Army's own code of war." Bring Halliburton Home

Your cynical, cruel and dishonest attitude towards Muslims is disgusting. This is the same callous attitude Rumsfeld has. Rumsfeld's Iraq Plan of "Screw 'em" has backfired. Rumsfled was advised that the Bush administration should develop a plan to pay Iraqi civil servants. Rumsfeld "was not not concerned if they were paid for several weeks or even months; if they rioted in the streets in protest, he said, the US could use such an eventuality as leverage to get the Europeans to pick up the tab."

"Right to Exist" another Zionist Propaganda Trick

John Titlow: What do you make of the Bush administration’s recent efforts through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to monitor NPR’s coverage of the Middle East in order to detect a so-called bias, which to the government might mean something different than it does to us?

Chomsky: On the Middle East bias, that’s an interesting question. There’s a big attack on the universities for that too, same as public broadcasting. And it does raise the question of “what do you mean by bias?” There are some very simple tests of that, which are never undertaken. They’re never undertaken because everybody knows what the answer will be.

     The question is: Are you biased against Israel? There’s a simple test: Do you think that Israel should have the same rights as any state in the international system? No more, no less. That’s neutral. That’s what it means not to be biased against, say, Luxembourg. Well, nobody asks that, because the answer’s going to be 100 percent agreement in the Middle East departments of the universities and the media and so on, so therefore that’s not a good answer. What lies behind it is the belief that Israel, the U.S. offshoot in the Middle East, should have rights far beyond those of any state in the international system. That’s called unbiased.

     And that’s what mainstream opinion is: Israel should have what’s called the abstract “right to exist.” No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right. For example, the United States has no such right. Mexico doesn’t respect the right of the United States to exist, sitting on half of Mexico, which was conquered in war. They do grant the U.S. rights in the international system, but not the legitimacy of those rights.

     This concept “right to exist” was in fact invented, as far as I can tell, in the 1970s when there was general international agreement, including the Arab states and the PLO, that Israel should have the rights of every state in the international system. And therefore, in an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept. Certainly, the Palestinians can’t accept it. They’re not going to accept Israel’s existence but also the legitimacy of its existence and the legitimacy of their dispossession. Why should they accept that? Why should anyone accept it?

     But that’s what’s called “neutrality” and being “unbiased.” It shows in all sorts of other ways. So what they mean by unbiased is approximately what they would have meant in the Kremlin. Yes, that’s very dangerous and the fact that that’s even contemplated is outrageous, and the attacks against the universities as well. These really reflect a totalitarian instinct, in my opinion, and of course they’re dressed up under the name academic freedom and so on, but anyone who’s read Orwell knows what that means.

     DFire Interview: Chomsky The venerated MIT professor talks about the future of democracy by John Titlow in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Recommended Books on Israel and Palestine

Rumsfeld's Iraq Plan of "Screw 'em" Backfires

praktike writes that he bought a copy of Larry Diamond's new book, Squandered Victory, "One story that really got me was the tale of former ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine suggesting to Rumsfeld in March of 2003 that it would behoove the Bush administration to develop a plan to pay Iraqi civil servants. Rumsfeld replied that American taxpayers would never go for it and that he was not concerned if they were paid for several weeks or even months; if they rioted in the streets in protest, he said, the US could use such an eventuality as leverage to get the Europeans to pick up the tab."

A big grievance of Iraqis is the unemployment, it is worse now than before the US attacked Iraq. A fact not made clear to the viewers of American TV news is the facts that many Iraqis are angered by the way they are treated by US policies. The insurgents feel that the US has wronged the Iraqis and they don't like what the US is doing.
The Rumsfeld mindset with regard to paying Iraqi civil servants mentioned inSquandered Victory is a perfect of how this cruel, arrogant, and stupid Administration has not only not made us safer but has increased the threat to the US. They have increased the anger at the US because of the specific things they are doing to people in the Middle East.

US policy makers have has also violated the terms of the occupation. This is yet another example of the Bush Administration's vicious approach to things.

Remember this the Bush Administration pressured the EPA to suppress information about health threats to New Yorkers living and working near the WTC site. This is what they do to the American public, what do you think these people are willing to do to people in foreign lands?

The author of Squandered Victory, Larry Diamond, is a researcher at the Hoover Institution. In a review of the book, Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes "is essentially a memoir of three months in Iraq: January through March 2004, the period when Diamond served in the Coalition Provisional Authority, the occupation brain center run by L. Paul Bremer III and the American military." - 'Squandered Victory' and 'Losing Iraq': Now What? July 10, 2005 NYT

Interestingly Reuel Marc Gerecht describes the US reluctance for democracy in Iraq as "Diamond prescriptions" when the fact is it was the Bush Administration that was not eager for elections and had to allow what Iraqi people were demanding. "... in Iraq, people don't like occupation and many, especially the Shiites' pre-eminent cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had caught the democratic bug. Had Diamond's prescriptions been followed, the entire country might have flared into rebellion."
The spin today is that the Bush Administration was eager for the elections.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

"RY" writes, the word "massacre" was over-doing it

Now you are making me repeat points I posted? Did you read this thread before you interjected your comments?
The Battle is known as "The Massacre at Wounded Knee" that is why Reuters thought it was "safe" to use the word "massacred"

"RY" writes, However...it is interesting that someone is still alive from the time of the American Indian wars.

Well yes, that is it exactly. That is why it was picked for the story, it was also the most dramatic thing that happened that year. There is nothing wrong with the Reuters story, the complaints here are evidence of an extremely unhealthy mindset.

As for the Shah, forcing people to live under a King is despicable, Undermining their efforts at democracy is a crime. The Shah was guilty of the deaths of many Iranians and the misery of many more and they had a right to overthrow their King. For God sakes, freeing oneself from a King is so basic to our American principles, it is the fundamental act our Founding Fathers! How the hell can you be so blind? Arguing with you is like arguing with Americans of the 1830's who couldn't see that slavery was wrong in spite of the fact that liberty was a fundamental principle upon which our country was founded. You are unreal in your disregard for the rights of people in foreign lands.

There is a simple rule you should learn, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Once you grasp, that you will see that US foriegn policy in the Middle East has been immoral.

"So, Tom blames the U.S. for doing what any other nation in history does, look out for their own best interests. Pathetic."

You are so brainwashed that you are an apologist for the massive wrongs of horrifically immoral foreign policies. Saying "other people have done it" as an excuse for imposing so much misery and suffering and death upon people is perverse? Any murderer can claim that "others have done it" and yes there have been other murderers. OJ can claim that others have murdered people too, that doesn't make it right! He and his lawyers didn't try to get away with that excuse, instead choosing the denial tactic.

All the crimes of US foreign policy makers you are excusing with the most despicable rationalization. And to deny or minimize the enormity of the wrongs with a euphemistic " look out for their own best interests" is disgusting. Any thug and criminal can claim that! The question is are we a moral people that are a nation of laws? Any one that wants to engage in immoral activity can always point to others like them in history. Would you want someone wronging you even if they had an excuse that others have wronged people in the past? What you are doing is simply grotesque and it puts us at greater risk."Greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."

Central Motive for anti-American Terrorism, Suicide Terrorism, and Catastrophic Terrorism

WARNING: "Greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."

Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
by Robert Pape

The July 18, 2005 Issue of The American Conservative has an interview with Robert Pape " a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American." "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism" I received an email recommending the interview in "The American Conservative" with Robert Pape: "Looks like we may be trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline over it. Send this to all you know, especially those who fully support Bush's policies. It is rare to come across an analysis that might ring true for all of us."

From the article: "Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us." "The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."- Robert Pape

"Lighten Up" ... "Get a Grip"

Over at the smart-alecky titled "Liberals against Terrorism" blog a fool calling himself "Stygius" reponds to my posts with "Um ... RepPress: Lighten up." and "Um ... RepPress: Get a grip." That's it, just those two sentence in the two posts, NOTHING of substance. Below are my responses to this bastard:

You insult all the victims with a comment like that

Stygius writes, "Um ... RepPress: Lighten up."

Hey guy, my life is on the line because of these lies. I live in the real world and I have to live with these threats every day and be insulted by politicians and people like you? What the hell would possess you to write such an asinine comment as "lighten up"? What in the world do you think you are contributing with such a comment?


This is about terrorism and human lives and you what me to "lighten up"? People are getting killed, our politicians are LYING to us about why and you think people shouldn't be "too serious" about it?

What is you agenda that you would write such a disgusting comment as "lighten up" in response to a post about the fact that our politicians are lying to us about why we are attacked? I am just supposed to play along with the big lie to please you? Let me guess, you resent the fact that I am pointing out why we are actually be attacked. You resent the fact that I am pointing out that our politicians are LYING to us.

Next time you feel the craving to post a 4 word quip, don't. Your intellectually dishonest comment is an insult to all the victims of this political conflict.

Mocking Americans who demand an end to lies and terror

Stygius writes, "Um ... RepPress: Get a grip."

Stygius,

You are really desperate to divert attention away from the fact that our politicians have lied to us about why we are being attacked You hope your mindless quips will make some readers here discount the facts I presented? This is your goal, to manipulate other people?

You resort to mocking in order to cover for the false premises of the so called "War on Terrorism." You can't argue with the facts so you are employing the most immature and deceitful tactics you can.

Your replies lack any substance at all, all they are is derisive and nothing more.
Again, what is you agenda? You think smart ass quips serve to nullify all the points I posted? I am trying to inform my fellow American about the truth and to get us out of harm's way, what you are doing is extremely vile. You hope people will read you 4 word quip and then dismiss what I have posted? What you are doing increases the likelihood that more Americans will be killed and die as double victims, of the violence and the lies. " Lighten up" about the fact that we are being lied to about why we are getting killed?? That is you contribution to this forum?

If you can't dispute a single fact I presented then shut up. But you can't stand that other Americans could get the chance to see through the lies that you hold so dear so you feel compelled to ruin the discourse. You want to undermine attempts at setting the record straight and freeing my fellow Americans from the threats and the lies. I am making an effort to present the truth and to back it up with sources and facts. By what delusion do you see yourself as a "progressive" or "liberal"?

Where do you live that you can take the terrorist threat so lightly? I lived in New York City and was there on 9/11, and so was my sister who was running for her life in tears across the Brooklyn Bridge. After the 1993 WTC bombing, I was saying we were going to get attacked again for years. I was pointing out even then that politicians were avoiding saying what the motive was or lying to us about the motives. I resent bastards like you doing what you are doing to fellow Americans.

"The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." - Michael Scheuer is a former senior intelligence analyst with the CIA and oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden.

Sharon makes the claim that a quote from any Muslim is proof that the motives of the 9/11 terrorists are different than the ones they have been stating for years. She wants people to believe that if we "stop doing things which make them hate us" it won't stop them hating us. She claims this because someone somewhere made a comment about a goal they desire which has not been stated by al-Qeada.

Sharon, that is such specious logic. You once again post a contrived argument, obviously to serve as a means to keep the foreign policies from being focused on. There are millions of Muslims in the world, it is dishonest of you to try to deny the 911 motives by claiming that something said by any Muslim is what determines the motivation of the terrorists.

It makes no more sense than to quote Ann Coulter as proof of the real motives for the US attack on Iraq. Ann Coulter said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", is this what Christian Conservatives actually want? Bush declared “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” Will anything less than forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity satisfy the Christian Conservatives? Would it be honest of me to insist this is what attacking Iraq was really about? You cannot take comments from just anyone and make the claim that that is the motive of the participants on either side of the so called "War on Terrorism."

What motivates the terrorists is the grievances. I listed several quotes from terrorists who were responsible for attacks going back to 1993. What motivates them are the grievances that have been stated by those running the terrorist organizations. What motivates them is what the terrorists themselves have said, not the nonsence you quote. Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta, is quoted as describing Mohamed Atta as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

It is the grievances that are used to recruit the terrorists, not the nonsense you quote. 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

Michael Scheuer, (author of "Imperial Hubris"): We're not winning because we continue to misidentify the enemy.

America has never had an opponent who has been more clear on why he is fighting us, what he intends to do, and then follows up by doing it. He is motivated by religion. He is not, as we continually say, a criminal or a gangster.

Chris Matthews: Right.

Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris"): He has no intention of destroying our way of life or our liberties or our freedom. He has focused the Muslim world on about six specific U.S. policies which are universally disliked in the Muslim world, whether or not the same proportion of Muslims support bin Laden.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

Michael Scheuer is a former senior intelligence analyst with the CIA and oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden. On the Lou Dobbs show, Scheuer said : " ... unfortunately the politicians are very comfortable with preaching the idea that this is a very small group of people who are opposing us, and that they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

If we really want to stop terrorism then we must take away the motives. You should give this serious thought, the fact is US policy makers have inflicted real wrongs upon many people in the Middle East and that is the motive for the 9/11 attacks. The Senior CIA Intelligence Analyst who oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden said: We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world.

CHRIS MATTHEWS interviewes the former head of the CIA unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden and author the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

Sharon,

For God sakes, stop ignoring the points. KB pointed out that he saw finally saw ONE person on TV telling the basic truth which the left has known about for years. You ignored this point and jumped to more of your nonsense. Your simplistic category of "the left" includes Carter and Clinton and Chomsky!?! That is simply ridiculous. When is it going to sink into your head that you can't lump all Americans into two category and claim that these categories are homogenous?

We already had discussed 1979, how the hell can you claim that Carter's actions were "liberal" and lump that together with people on the left that say propping up the Shah was wrong? How can you claim that "the left" and Carter are one in the same when people adhering to leftist principles of justice say Carter's actions with the Shah and Iran was wrong? I had pointed out that the US actions during the last year of the Shah were despicable, you know that was under Carter so why do you write such nonsense?

Clinton also lied about why terrorists attacked us. Much of Clinton's actions conflicted with basic liberal principles. You are in denial if you think Clinton actually represented "the left". The two major political parties in the US actually serve a narrow range of interests and others, including "the left" for the most part, are not represented.

Your comments look particularly foolish in light of what KB pointed to on the Lou Dobbs show. Michael Scheuer is a former senior intelligence analyst with the CIA and oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden. On the Lou Dobbs show, Scheuer said : " ... unfortunately the politicians are very comfortable with preaching the idea that this is a very small group of people who are opposing us, and that they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

If we really want to stop terrorism then we must take away the motives. You should give this serious thought, the fact is US policy makers have inflicted real wrongs upon many people in the Middle East and that is the motive for the 9/11 attacks. The Senior CIA Intelligence Analyst who oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden said: We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world.
Sharon, stop lying to yourself and people here.

Craigslist comment: " Bin Laden might well claim other causes if he couldn't claim the ones he's got, but it's a real mistake to think that the societal response to him would be the same. He's picked causes that wide swaths of people share, and it doesn't really matter whether he believes in them or not, so long as the people who support him (both actively and passively) share the views he is presenting. If we work to take away the grievances, we undermine his support."

There is no evidence that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the specific foreign policies he complains about.

It is extremely unlikely that bin Laden didn't actually object to the specific foreign policies that he complains about, millions and millions of other people object to the same policies, by what "logic" would it be that bin Laden would be in a extremely small minority that "doesn't care" about the policies or thinks they are fine?

There is no logical reason to think bin Laden would not be in agreement with Abdallah Azzam, who was born in Palestine and was an "early spiritual mentor" of Osama bin Laden, about Palestine. (see page 2 of "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke )

Contrary to the insistences of some people who deny that specific US policies have nothing to do with why we are getting attacked (they also don't want the specific US policies to be stopped), there is no evidence that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the specific foreign policies that he and others have complained about and have clearly stated for years. Specific foreign policies that wrong millions of people in the Middle East and which millions of people in the Middle East object to even if they may not share the same fundamentalist interpretation of Islam or even follow basic Islamic practices at all. Also a grievance shared by millions of people who think it is wrong to respond to the policies with the use of terrorism. It would actually be extremely unlikely that bin Laden didn't actually object to the specific foreign policies that he complains about, millions and millions of other people object to the policies, by what "logic" would it be that bin Laden would be in the extremely small minority that "doesn't care" about the policies or thinks they are fine? The claim that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the US foreign policies is a contrived argument obviously to serve as a means to keep the foreign policies from being focused on. Nearly everyone in the region thinks the US policies are wrong, why in the world wouldn't bin Laden share the same greivances? It makes no sense to insist bin Laden isn't actually angered by the same policies nearly everyone else is. (unless of course you are trying to dupe the public into thinking the policies have nothing to do with why we are being attacked)

I agree with you that the if we take away the grievances by ending the specific foreign policies we undermine the support for attacks that bin Laden has repeatedly said are carried out with the intention of ending the specific foreign policies. It is important to point out that US officials serve special interests that want the foreign policies to continue so they feed the public a lie that the attacks are about anything else but the specific foreign policies.
It is the shared grievances that are the motive for the attacks.

The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel.
His name is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his motivation for the crime of the 9/11 attacks was his objection to the US foreign policy of supporting Israel said the final report of the Sept. 11 Commission.

"After he was captured in Pakistan in early 2003, he told his interrogators that although he had developed no special complaint about America in his years here, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ] felt strongly that U.S. support of Israel was wrong and could be corrected by attacking the United States,"" reports LA Times writer Terry McDermott.

The ring leader of the September 11th suicide hijackers also held the same grievance. Mohamed Atta coordinated the other 9/11 terrorists and he was a pilot who flew into the WTC. Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta, is quoted as describing Mohamed Atta as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

This motive is shared by the terrorists who first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. The terrorists sent a letter to the New York Times after attacking the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

So how successful is the "fly paper" theory for the Iraq War?

Did the illegal war on Iraq do Britain any good? OR did it increase the threats and attacks to Britain?

I certainly don't feel safe on public transportation here in the US. Why the hell must my life be put at risk for the sake of specific foreign policies? How much longer are we going to allow our politicians to put our lives at risk because of their unjust and immoral policies?

I am watching CNN and they are talking about how we must now be watching out more as we travel the trains. For me it means the Long Island Rail Road and then the NYC subway.

I really resent the fact that their are people in America that are intentionally lying to the public about why we are being targeted. These foreign policies are not worth more than our lives and the American people have a right to know why their lives are being put at risk.
I posted this at my blog yesterday: The threat we face can be removed if we look at the situation honestly and fix what is wrong.

roublen,

The threat we face can be removed if we look at the situation honestly and fix what is wrong. You start out with claiming that "you know" bin Laden's motives and that "you know" his stated motives are not real.

You then claim that stopping the US policies he complains about would not change his behavior. That is a convenient theory, I see it as simply a claim that shields the specific US foreign policies from being examined, questioned or changed. I suggest you have been manipulated by people whose agenda is to keep the specific US policies going by inventing scenarios where the policies are not an issue.

If you address the points I raised I think you will find that your view is incorrect. First of all, it isn't just bin Laden's motives, his motives are shared by the others that have attacked us and plan to attack us. Also the same grievances are shared by millions of others. This isn't just about bin Laden and won't stop with bin Laden.

Your reply doesn't address the fact that when George Tenet quotes the Fatwas he omits the motives. Others do this too or they substitute some other motive, this substitution serves the function of insulating the specific US foreign policies from questioning doesn't it?

Doing these things, suppressing the stated motives and insisting that the motives are anything else but the stated motives, serves an agenda. That agenda is of keeping the specific US foreign policies from being challenged. I have never talked with someone who held the view that it really isn't about the US foreign policies that didn't also think that the policies aren't that bad or shouldn't be changed. The theory is convenient for those that don't want the policies to be changed.

I am trying to explain to you that people are intentionally manipulating you about what the motives are. Did you see what George Tenet did in the example I gave you?

George Tenet isn't alone in trying to deny why we are being attacked and lying about the available facts. President Bush lies about why we were attacked. Thomas Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives too. Friedman claims, " 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.

So know I have given you three specific examples of lies. Think about this. If you start going through the evidence you will see a pattern.

Your comment about the Palestinians is simply inaccurate and history proves this. Perhaps you are unaware of this because people are lying about the basic facts. You base a lot of your opinion simply on hypotheticals and baseless assumptions.

It is propaganda to suggest that the Palestinians have been rejecting peace. You have been manipulated, you are not getting the whole story. For example, in 1976 Arafat accepted the 1976 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. For examples of how these rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see the games played by 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)

"So in 1976, the United States became the chief obstacle to a Palestinian state, very simply. The Security Council of the United Nations debated a resolution calling for a two-state settlement, a Palestinian settlement, a Palestinian state alongside of Israel, both states having all the rights guaranteed in the international system. This was in accord with a very broad international consensus that was supported by the Arab states, backed by the PLO and just about everybody. And in fact by then it had crystallized as an overwhelming international consensus. The U.S. vetoed. It was vetoed. The U.S. veto, incidentally, is a double veto. It vetoes the resolution and also vetoes recording in history. So it's out of history but it happened." Democracy Now

You claimed, "How do you tell people of goodwill versus people of badwill? Well, mainly by the fact that people of goodwill really, really hate killing people, and don't do it unless there is a really good reason, and even then only as a last resort. "

I think you should rethink your premise, I will explain more below but I thought this was relevant: Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq said, "Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."

You write, "People of badwill either like to kill people, or they don't dislike it very much. Also, people of badwill don't kill for good reasons, or even if they do have a legitimate cause, they kill heedlessly, and not as a last resort. "

And you decide who has "bad will"?

You write, "We are trying to unite all people of goodwill, all across the world, regardless of nationality, religion, race, or political system, for the somewhat narrow, limited purpose of defeating all people of badwill, all across the world. "

I could not disagree with you more. You simply don't understand the motivations of the people the US is fighting. I think you have the so called "War on Terrorism" totally wrong. The argument you make only serves propaganda purposes and does not reflect reality. If we really want to stop terrorism then we must take away the motives. You should give this serious thought, the fact is US policy makers have inflicted real wrongs upon many people and that is the motive for the 9/11 attacks.

"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." - Transcript: Translation of Bin Laden's Videotaped Message
US officials are trying to deceive you, when George Tenet quotes the Fatwas he omits the motives.
The fact is we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices

Crimes Against Humanity and Ugly Hypocrisy. Can Israel Sink Any Lower?

Israel won't extradite Polish Jew accused of WWII genocide Solomon Morel, aka Shlomo Morel, ran to Israel in 1994, after the accusations against him surfaced.
"Israel has refused for a second time to extradite to Poland a Jewish man accused of crimes against German prisoners just after the end of World War II, prosecutors said Wednesday."
"Morel commanded a communist-run camp for German prisoners in southern Poland in 1945 after Soviet troops had occupied the country. Polish authorities accuse him of genocide by seeking to exterminate German prisoners by starving them to death, depriving them of medical care as well as carrying out torture and sanctioning torture by his subordinates.
Polish prosecutors charge that Morel is responsible for the deaths of at least 1,500 prisoners in the Swietochlowice cam"
Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against HumanityAt the end of World War II, thousands of Jews set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians -- German men, women, children and babies. There Jews beat, whipped, tortured and murdered the Germans. "Why, then, for fifty years did people suppress the news of Shlomo Morel? I'd have thought that a man who commanded a concentration camp, who Jews and Germans testified killed thousands of prisoners, who was wanted in Poland but who fled to the Middle East - I'd have thought that Shlomo's story was well worth telling, but Shlomo's not German but Jewish, he didn't flee to Syria but Israel, and for almost fifty years not one American newspaper mentioned him."
"Morel, 86, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland, many of whom perished in "barbaric" circumstances." - January 3, 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald
"From 1945 to 1949, we suffered starvation, beatings, mass murders and slave labor." -Testimony of Survivor Elisabeth Walter

Another fool (V the K) complains that Reuters is "anti-American" over at "Oh, That Liberal Media"

I explain to him:
You think what you do because you are ignorant or in denial. I searched on Google for "Reuters anti-american "

The very first story returned is from "AIM" and it claims "Reuters Anti-American Bias " "AIM" complains about how Reuters covered Jessica Lynch's homecoming but AIM is WRONG!!! The "AIM" story complains "Reuters used the event to replay allegations that the U.S. military had hyped Lynch's ordeal and rescue into a "story of U.S. heroism under fire."

Turns out the allegations were true. The fact is when we finally heard from Jessica Lynch herself, she said the same thing about the US military!
Jessica Lynch Says Military Manipulated Her Story
" Former prisoner of war Jessica Lynch has accused the military of using her capture and dramatic nighttime rescue to sway public support for the war in Iraq.
Lynch said she’s bothered by the military’s portrayal of her ordeal in Iraq. She said the U.S. military manipulated the story of her dramatic rescue — and shouldn’t have filmed it in the first place."

V the K responds "Ahem"

Yeah, I read that article V the K. More proof how off the wall the opinion's of the WSJ are. They bitched, just as AIM did, that the article was "anti-American", IT WAS NOT.

First of all, the WSJ admits that the byline thing is not an issue, "Now, wire-service stories often are collaborations between many reporters and writers; a single byline doesn't necessarily mean the putative author is responsible for every word of the story. If Reuters had stuck to simply reporting the news, this would not be a scandal."

WSJ 's beef is that Reuters included in the story what media critics said about "U.S. government propaganda and credulous reporters." WSJ wanted the article to be typical clueless BS that doesn't point to the culprits with a vague line that the Deanna Wrenn wrote: "reports vary about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her ordeal in Iraq."

"reports vary"?!? So the government didn't create propaganda? Its all a "misunderstanding," the fault of no one in particular? Typical American reporter BS.

Not only was Reuters right, when we finally heard from Jessica Lynch herself, she complained about the propaganda!

So there is your "Ahem" V the K. Reading comprehension is not your forte. The US government lied and they lied about Tillman too. When the hell are you going to wake up?

BadLiberal,

Has MSM reporting of the 1979 hostage crisis informed the public about WHY the hostages were taken? This isn't a "snarky" question. Can you answer it?

Insisting that people don't violate the law and that they respect human rights is not "bashing" Holding all Americans to this standard, including US officials, is not "America bashing"

MSM refused to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law

IS the MSM reporting basic truths or do they go out of their way to suppress them? How is it that a man who watches the MSM like a hawk with a critical eye was ignorant of the fact that American soldiers had murdered prisioners? If the media is behaving as you claim, how is it that Brent didn't know a story that according to your logic "the media would report"?

As far as ignorance, the MSM sat on its hands and refused to report the results of a PIPA poll that had startling results: "75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has actually been found."

I emailed the media myself, they refused to report these facts before the election. The majority of Americans went to the polls in ignorance. THe MSM didn't care.

Notice how the media played along with the idea that Kerry "accused" US troops of committing war crimes in Vietnam. what the media didn't make clear is that Kerry said "They told the stories at times they had personally ..." The soldiers were the ones saying war crimes were commiteed, but the media played along with the swift boat crap that Kerry was the one claiming it. And when in early 2004 evidence of the war crimes was published in the The Toledo Blade, the MSM sat on their hands again, refusing to inform the American public the war crimes chronicled in the US Army's own documents! The documents made available in the National Archives back up what Kerry had said and put the lie to his critics but MSM didn't report this to the American public! You can hunt for the info or be lucky enough to happen to read the Toledo Blade article that day or the Village Voice article but over all the MSM fails to report truths that you assume they would, truths you assume would be readily available for people to learn about. You assume that truths like these "would be" reported by the MSM and thus be made apparent to you but the fact is they overwhelmingly are not.

WHY were the hostages taken?

The US media overwhelmingly sweeps US crimes under the rug, many don't realize how much the US media bends over backwards to sweep these things under the rug. Notice the US propaganda right now about Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Notice how the media avoids saying WHY the hostages were taken? It is off the wall how in the past and still today the majority of MSM refuses to say WHY the hostages were taken.

"The students seized the embassy to protest the US refusal to hand over Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian leader who had been ousted from power that year." Notice that MSM is extremely reluctant to make the basic facts clear the the public?What the hell right did the US have to install the puppet leader in the first place? What an enormous violation of the rights of the Iranian people, they make strides in democracy and the US undermines their democracy and reinstalled a KING to power!

What the hell right did the US have to refuse to hand over the Iranians' own former leader?(the US did not want to send a message that we don't protect our puppets ) And sure enough, the MSM basically hides these facts when reporting on the events of 1979. Notice that the perfectly responsible demand of a sovereign people to hold their own (supposedly) leader accountable was refused by US leaders and suppressed by overwhelming degree by US media. We are a nation that fought to free ourselves from a king yet this is the ugly hypocritical "dirty business" that US policy makers were willing to do to foreign peoples. Truly disgusting, and it is despicable that MSM works so hard to serve this agenda and suppress this "dirty business".

There has been such extreme suppression of the facts of US policy that you are totally unprepared when one fact slips through in a story. You guys really are pseudo-patriotic indoctrinated totalitarian-minded folks. One little fact (from 115 years ago for God sakes!!!) slips into a story and you guys go bananas? You guys really have problems.

Sharon continues to complain that Reuters wrote "Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee." She complains, "it seems odd to me that a feature story with international circulation wouldn't include events that might be better KNOWN by the Europeans."

Sharon,

The fact that the US military fought Indians is a well known fact in Europe, when an artilce says "the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee." it is not an unknown concept.

I explained this to you in detail:

The massacre at Wounded Knee is considered the last battle between white soldiers and Native Americans. It is known as "The Massacre at Wounded Knee" that is why Reuters thought it was "safe" to use the word "massacred"

The woman is so old that she was alive when the US was still fighting Native Americans.

The reference is fine and only can be an issue with those that insist that only favorable events must be referred to if they relate to the US, even a US government of 115 years ago. The reference puts her birth in a DIFFERENT ERA because it is considered the last battle between the US troops and the Native Americans, it closes a ERA, it is very significant, and thus emphasizes her age. Your examples of a sports game or yet another State being added does not put her birth outside a particular era. Three states were added the year before, two states added in 1890 and another added in 1896, not really dramatic, not closing an era, not life and blood.

The mere fact that it is something that doesn't cast the US government of 1890 in a good light makes you guys go bananas. There really is a problem with rational thought here. To argue that only "innocuous" events must ever be referred to in stories is simply a fanatical position.

You resorted to lies once again. The MSM did not discuss the reason WHY "ad nauseam". But that wasn't even my question . The question was if the MSM was making the public aware NOW. NOW, Sharon, not in 1979.

The US violated the rights of the Iranian people by orchastarting a coup to reinstall the Shah. The Shah was a harsh dictator and many Iranians were murdered. When they overthrew him they were worried that the US would screw them over once again using the CIA to reinstall the Shah. When the students took over the embassy, they actually called it the "den of spies" because they knew the '53 the coup had been actually plotted from the U.S. compound, the very same building that they took over. They demanded that the US hand over the Shah, the US refused. "In the United States, if you watch how the media covered it here, it saw the hostage crisis as Iranian emotional rampaging mobs in the streets calling for death of America and the '53 coup was intentionally not brought into that context. So you can go for reams of programs on the main channels in the United States about the hostage crisis, which lasted 444 days, and you rarely get the mention of the '53 coup."

And you could have watched tons of programs on the main channels and not hear WHY the hostages were taken. Today, you can watch tons of reports mentioning the hostage crissis and not hear about WHY the hostages were taken.

Sharon, you lie once again about how the media behaved.