Adam, I hope you reconsider. Thomas Friedman is not someone you should be quoting, the man has no credibility because of the falsehoods he has pushed. For example , the lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman makes this claim about Palestine, " 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
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Why did we not attack Sweden?
In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]
Bin Laden is angered by U.S. support for Israel and was angered when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. He is angered by the injustice and was determinated to punish the transgressors. He decided "we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children."
Bin Laden says any nation that does not attack them will not be attacked.
Text from the speech Osama bin Laden delivered in a videotaped message which aired on the Arab language network Al-Jazeera October 29, 2004. Transcript of his speech translated by CNN senior editor for Arab affairs Octavia Nasr.
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.
And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.
Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. [The 19 hijackers of 9/11] May the mercy of God be upon them.
We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.
I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.
And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.
But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.
We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.
And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.
The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.
Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.
We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.
He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.
Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.
In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]
Bin Laden is angered by U.S. support for Israel and was angered when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. He is angered by the injustice and was determinated to punish the transgressors. He decided "we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children."
Bin Laden says any nation that does not attack them will not be attacked.
Text from the speech Osama bin Laden delivered in a videotaped message which aired on the Arab language network Al-Jazeera October 29, 2004. Transcript of his speech translated by CNN senior editor for Arab affairs Octavia Nasr.
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.
And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.
Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. [The 19 hijackers of 9/11] May the mercy of God be upon them.
We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.
I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.
And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.
But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.
We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.
And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.
The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.
Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.
We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.
He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.
Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Luvy Duby responds to my post Osama bin Laden quotes author William Blum to explain the motive for the attacks on the U.S. : Luvy Duby asks, "You're saying the blame-America crowd now is actually writing UBL's speeches for him?"
"Blame-America" is a propaganda phrase used to insulate policies from public scrutiny. Policy makers hide behind the concept of "America" and obscure the policies and their actions. What is happening is you have been duped into not seeing that it is specific policies and specific policy makers that are being blamed for wrong and/or unjust acts. These guys have you fooled into not even seeing them, all you see is the concept of "America" and you don't focus on the issues and actions that are being discussed.
"Blame-America" is a propaganda phrase used to insulate policies from public scrutiny. Policy makers hide behind the concept of "America" and obscure the policies and their actions. What is happening is you have been duped into not seeing that it is specific policies and specific policy makers that are being blamed for wrong and/or unjust acts. These guys have you fooled into not even seeing them, all you see is the concept of "America" and you don't focus on the issues and actions that are being discussed.
Was it "blaming America" to say that slavery was the root cause of slave terrorism? Of course not. Stop falling for such a manipulative and stupid concept as "blaming America." You really need to open your eyes to the fact that politicians are lying to you about life and death issues. Bush deceives Americans about the terrorists motives to shield U.S. foreign policies from public scrutiny, his first concern is the special interests he serves. The cover story (the lie that we are attacked because of our freedoms) which Bush feeds the American people robs the American people of the chance to decide for themselves if they want to continue to be put in harm's way over specific foreign polices. Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"
Attacking Iraq Increased the WMD Threat
"Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We're told that they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that's not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't tell their troops to guard the sites.
"Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We're told that they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that's not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't tell their troops to guard the sites.
So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.
By people who knew what they were doing.
Yeah, people who knew what they were doing. It meant that they were taking the high-precision equipment that you can use for nuclear weapons and missiles, dangerous biotoxins, all sorts of stuff. Nobody knows where it went, but, you know, you hate to think about it. Well, that's increasing the threat of terror, substantially." - Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror"
Cowboy claims, "... in the real-world Islamist interpretation, comes to be the same thing that UBL stated.... that we "come to Islam" or the attacks on us don't stop."No, Cowboy. Bin Laden has been explicit: "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
The 1998 Fatwa was signed by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and others.
It lists three grievances:
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless."
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."
3. U.S. support of Israel.
"Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."
These three grievances are the motives for al-Qaeda's attacks.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries.
The fatwa quotes shaykh of al-Islam, "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [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.
Over and over again bin Laden has stated the same motives. And the very latest tape continues with the pattern of years of messages from bin Laden. The one letter that does not fit the pattern is the one you constantly point to. (and even that letter says they are fighting for the same motives that Bin Laden has repeatedly stated: "As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us. a) You attacked us in Palestine:)
The latest tape from bin LAden is consistent with all the other messages that we know are from him. In the latest tape, Osama bin Laden once again clearly states the motives for attacking the United States: "You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment. You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death."
"Michael Scheuer, a former top CIA official who once led the spy agency's hunt for bin Laden, said the Bush administration failed to understand al Qaeda and would shrug off the tape at its peril." "U.S. officials continue to describe these people (al Qaeda) as a small bunch of gangsters and crazy people. They have no apparent conception that so much of the Islamic world is angry with America, not because of our freedoms or liberties but because of our foreign policies," he said. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20197808.htm
Friday, January 20, 2006
Osama bin Laden quotes author William Blum to explain the motive for the attacks on the U.S.
Bin Laden said in the most recent audio tape, "If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all.""
UPDATE (February 16, 2006): I now learn, from a recent William Blum article, that bin Laden was apparently reading from the opening of a paragraph which appears only in the Foreword of the British edition of Rouge State and which was translated into Arabic. I had assumed that Bin Laden was confused about which book he was reading from but now I learn that there was an edition of Rouge State which did indeed have the paragraph that he was quoting from and that it was this edition, the British edition only, that was translated into Arabic. "If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated." - Why Terrorists Hate America or Myth and Denial in the War on Terrorism The paragraph also appears in Blum's book Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
In the latest tape, Osama bin Laden once again clearly states the motives for attacking the United States: "You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment. You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death."
Full text of bin Laden tape
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television, which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press.
Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:
My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.
I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).
The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.
On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.
As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.
And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.
And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.
And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.
Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.
We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.
If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."
Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.
You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.
In that there is a lesson for you.
Bin Laden said in the most recent audio tape, "If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all.""UPDATE (February 16, 2006): I now learn, from a recent William Blum article, that bin Laden was apparently reading from the opening of a paragraph which appears only in the Foreword of the British edition of Rouge State and which was translated into Arabic. I had assumed that Bin Laden was confused about which book he was reading from but now I learn that there was an edition of Rouge State which did indeed have the paragraph that he was quoting from and that it was this edition, the British edition only, that was translated into Arabic. "If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated." - Why Terrorists Hate America or Myth and Denial in the War on Terrorism The paragraph also appears in Blum's book Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
In the latest tape, Osama bin Laden once again clearly states the motives for attacking the United States: "You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment. You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death."
Full text of bin Laden tape
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television, which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press.
Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:
My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.
I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).
The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.
On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.
As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.
And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.
And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.
And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.
Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.
We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.
If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."
Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.
You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.
In that there is a lesson for you.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
You wrote, "Dude, you sure know your 20th century history. How about 15th, 5th, or how about 2500 years ago. It's a much bigger picture than you wish to paint and goes back far future than your WWI time period. So understand it all. Not just your canvas."
I know the history. Today I expect all people to live with equal rights. If there are actually Jews in Israel that justify the Jewish supremacist system with concerns of "safety" then they are more than welcome to come here to AMerica where they will be perfectly safe but of course required to respect the equal rights of non-Jews. The Israeli system of injustice must end, it is unfair to even more than just the Palestinians, it is extremely unfair to do to the American people who don't want injustices forced upon people. It is unfair to those Americans that speak out for justice. It is unfair to people like Alison Weir, founder and Executive Director of If Americans. She doesn't deserve to receive death threats. It is unfair to me, I don't deserve to be cursed, to have lit matches thrown at my face, to receive threats by email, to have one of my web sites hacked, to have my flyers ripped down. None of this is justice. People in positions to get the truth out need to start doing so. People like Jon Stewart.
I know the history. Today I expect all people to live with equal rights. If there are actually Jews in Israel that justify the Jewish supremacist system with concerns of "safety" then they are more than welcome to come here to AMerica where they will be perfectly safe but of course required to respect the equal rights of non-Jews. The Israeli system of injustice must end, it is unfair to even more than just the Palestinians, it is extremely unfair to do to the American people who don't want injustices forced upon people. It is unfair to those Americans that speak out for justice. It is unfair to people like Alison Weir, founder and Executive Director of If Americans. She doesn't deserve to receive death threats. It is unfair to me, I don't deserve to be cursed, to have lit matches thrown at my face, to receive threats by email, to have one of my web sites hacked, to have my flyers ripped down. None of this is justice. People in positions to get the truth out need to start doing so. People like Jon Stewart.
Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 1980's and the world didn't end.
Actually Israel's violation of international law in attacking Iraq's Osirak reactor increased the threat. The Osirak reactor was not being used to persue nuclear weapons but AFTER the agression Israel's attack, such weapons were pursued: "Israel's strike, far from foreclosing Iraq's nuclear career, gained Iraq support from some other Arab states to pursue it."
"The Osirak reactor was unsuitable for the production of plutonium, though after the Israeli bombing in 1981, Iraq took the "solid decision to go full speed ahead with weaponization. Prior to that attack, Osirak had regularly been inspected, and the IAEA saw no evidence of any attempt to construct a nuclear weapons programme."
"In 1981, when Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak reactor, Tel Aviv's move caused Baghdad to accelerate its quest for nuclear arms. By demonstrating Iraq's military weakness in its failure to prevent an Israeli air strike, Tel Aviv's decision merely caused the leadership in Baghdad to believe even more strongly that they needed nuclear weapons to shield against future aggression from hostile states. By acquiring nuclear arms, states are able to increase their defense capabilities since other states are hesitant to take military action against a nuclear-armed rival. As Khadduri writes in his recent book describing Iraq's nuclear research program, after Israel attacked the Osirak reactor, "Saddam took the political decision to initiate a full-fledged weapons program immediately afterwards."
Friday, January 13, 2006
You wrote, "..i think it's common knowledge that the israeli settlements are illegal."
People are not born with the knowledge so where are they supposed to learn it? American TV news reports clearly play the game when they keep their mouths shut. and there are indeed many people that do not know it.
You are in denial if you think it makes sense not to report a fact as important as the legal status of these settlements. CLEARLY they are reluctant to inform people that do not know about the illegal status.You can't be claiming that all AMericans know, so why would the news make a point of not informing people that do not know? This has been going on for years, as people grow up, they should be able to learn by hearing basic facts on TV. You really are trying to hard to excuses. N.J. Burketts didn't expect to be confronted on what he had been doing and he pulled an absurd excuse out of his ass. It is sad that you can convince yourself that it makes sense. It is one word: "illegal" and it would carry so much information, no way in hell is there an innocent reason for it not being reported You are in extreme denial if you think there is.
You know damn well why it is happening, these reporters are playing the game. I haven't posted the NJ Burkett story "at least 5 times", you resent that I am informing people about the truth. Reporter N.J. Burkett is an embarrassment, here is his comments from Gaza: "I mention in the piece that the prayers reached a cresendo as the troops were breaking in and that was extraordinary - that was a moment that I will never forget and I'm not Jewish, and as I made my way through the crowd I suddenly realized that here I was and their world as they know it was falling apart all around them, and I'm not wearing a yarmulke. I pulled out a handkerchief from my back pocket and covered my head as a gesture of respect." http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/BurkettGaza/wabc_081805_gazaPM.html
"Wolfowitz's statements: the Bush administration, he said, was disappointed that the Turkish military "did not play the strong leadership role on that issue [i.e., the Iraq debate] that we would have expected. .. in Turkey the meaning seemed painfully clear: The United States wished the Turkish military had either overruled the elected government or perhaps even pushed it aside in favor of one more subservient to U.S. demands.
As numerous Turkish commentators have noted, that's an odd stance for a country now presenting itself as the champion of Middle Eastern democracy."
You are in denial about Wolfowitz. Look at "Wolfowitz's career – like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.
As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines."
U.S, policy makers showed pathological disregard for the improvements to the lives of the Afghanis, what they did to Afghanistan had nothing to do with helping the Afghan people.
"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.'" http://www.doublestandards.org/blum6.html
There was a "large following of people who favored reforms and didn't want to live under a fundamentalist Islamic government" and you think it was OK to support Muslim fundamentalist extremists?!
Many improvements were being made in Afghanistan, girls were going to school. The U.S. actions destroyed that by backing extremist fundamentalists, backing them with BILLIONS of dollars. The CIA was literally shipping Korans and weapons. You think it was a good idea to encourage violent Muslim fundamentalism????
It is unbelievable that you can make excuses for backing violent Muslim fundamentalists after 9/11. You really are too much, it is absolutely unbelievable given what happened on 9/11.
By the way, it isn't just my opinion that what the U.S did provoked the Afghan war, Brzezinski brags about drawing the Russians into "the Afghan trap." This guy was willing to use the Afghan people as expendable chess pieces in a game just to hurt the Russians. "We didn't push the Russians to intervene," Brzezinski said, "but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm
if it's a closely guarded secret, how did wikipedia find out?
Brzezinski made his statements in 1998, the guy that wrote the wikipeda article could have found out just like I did. The point was it was a lie pushed on the American people and kept secret for years. Obviously after Brzezinski is talking about it publicly people can learn about it.
People are not born with the knowledge so where are they supposed to learn it? American TV news reports clearly play the game when they keep their mouths shut. and there are indeed many people that do not know it.
You are in denial if you think it makes sense not to report a fact as important as the legal status of these settlements. CLEARLY they are reluctant to inform people that do not know about the illegal status.You can't be claiming that all AMericans know, so why would the news make a point of not informing people that do not know? This has been going on for years, as people grow up, they should be able to learn by hearing basic facts on TV. You really are trying to hard to excuses. N.J. Burketts didn't expect to be confronted on what he had been doing and he pulled an absurd excuse out of his ass. It is sad that you can convince yourself that it makes sense. It is one word: "illegal" and it would carry so much information, no way in hell is there an innocent reason for it not being reported You are in extreme denial if you think there is.
You know damn well why it is happening, these reporters are playing the game. I haven't posted the NJ Burkett story "at least 5 times", you resent that I am informing people about the truth. Reporter N.J. Burkett is an embarrassment, here is his comments from Gaza: "I mention in the piece that the prayers reached a cresendo as the troops were breaking in and that was extraordinary - that was a moment that I will never forget and I'm not Jewish, and as I made my way through the crowd I suddenly realized that here I was and their world as they know it was falling apart all around them, and I'm not wearing a yarmulke. I pulled out a handkerchief from my back pocket and covered my head as a gesture of respect." http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/BurkettGaza/wabc_081805_gazaPM.html
"Wolfowitz's statements: the Bush administration, he said, was disappointed that the Turkish military "did not play the strong leadership role on that issue [i.e., the Iraq debate] that we would have expected. .. in Turkey the meaning seemed painfully clear: The United States wished the Turkish military had either overruled the elected government or perhaps even pushed it aside in favor of one more subservient to U.S. demands.
As numerous Turkish commentators have noted, that's an odd stance for a country now presenting itself as the champion of Middle Eastern democracy."
You are in denial about Wolfowitz. Look at "Wolfowitz's career – like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.
As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines."
U.S, policy makers showed pathological disregard for the improvements to the lives of the Afghanis, what they did to Afghanistan had nothing to do with helping the Afghan people.
"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.'" http://www.doublestandards.org/blum6.html
There was a "large following of people who favored reforms and didn't want to live under a fundamentalist Islamic government" and you think it was OK to support Muslim fundamentalist extremists?!
Many improvements were being made in Afghanistan, girls were going to school. The U.S. actions destroyed that by backing extremist fundamentalists, backing them with BILLIONS of dollars. The CIA was literally shipping Korans and weapons. You think it was a good idea to encourage violent Muslim fundamentalism????
It is unbelievable that you can make excuses for backing violent Muslim fundamentalists after 9/11. You really are too much, it is absolutely unbelievable given what happened on 9/11.
By the way, it isn't just my opinion that what the U.S did provoked the Afghan war, Brzezinski brags about drawing the Russians into "the Afghan trap." This guy was willing to use the Afghan people as expendable chess pieces in a game just to hurt the Russians. "We didn't push the Russians to intervene," Brzezinski said, "but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." http://members.aol.com/bblum6/brz.htm
if it's a closely guarded secret, how did wikipedia find out?
Brzezinski made his statements in 1998, the guy that wrote the wikipeda article could have found out just like I did. The point was it was a lie pushed on the American people and kept secret for years. Obviously after Brzezinski is talking about it publicly people can learn about it.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
You asked, "you refer to a few books by minor authors who appear to me to have an extremely narrow world view - what makes you so certain that these books contain the truth?"
What you look for is corroborating evidence. For years I have read about what the CIA did to Iran. The game during those years could have been to claim that "minor authors" are making it up. BUT, as of 2000, it is official because the U.S. State department has admitted that "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister." The internal logic is that the U.S. admitting it corroborates it because it doesn't make sense to say that the U.S. State department is lying when it admits to wrong doing by the U.S. Once you see a dramatic wrong that has evidence to back it up, and the 1953 coup against Iran is a perfect example because the State Department has admitted it, then you can see that these things are possible and that powerful interests in the U.S. are not only capable of these things but often seek to obscure the fact that these things happened.
I have looked into many of the things that have been written about and they do check out. When Chomsky points out that the division of Vietnam was not supposed to create two countries you can look into it yourself and see that he is telling the truth, the 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam "the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." 1954 Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference You can read about the provision for a election. When you look into the facts, without a chip on your shoulder, when you stop with the subservient fanaticism of desperately making excuses for those in power, you can start to see what has been, and what is, going on. If you get it into your head that government officials are like your daddy and daddy would never lie to you then you will never learn the truth and be truly free. Thomas Jefferson warned that a nation cannot be ignorant and free.
When it is former U.S officials who spill the beans, it is something to take seriously because the internal logic demands it. You can't irrationally dismiss everything you don't want to hear. When former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admits that the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion, this is something you should take seriously. The story we have been told is that the U.S. responded to the Soviet invasion but that is a lie. Brzezinski said, "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."
Notice too that mainstream media is not eager to make any of these things clear to the general public.
There are dramatic examples by the way. You can look into International Law and the UN resolutions and see violations that MSM is unwilling to make clear to the public. Remember these Presidents turn a blind eye to the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. (and the mainstream media basically refuses to report that the settlements are illegal) Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett: I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett.
I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?"
"Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights."
These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. "The BBC must be crazy then," I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. "The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience," I said, demolishing Burkett's asinine argument. "Your network doesn't report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?" I demanded.
Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, "Americans don't care." Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.
When you read about this and see what the MSM has been up to, it is time to stop mindless falling aver yourself trying to make excuses for people that get into positions of power within our government. The idea of America was never supposed to be "follow the leader!" WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to have self rule, anything less betrays the Spirit of '76.
Media is key to the solution. Control is the issue. You get the maximum control with ownership so there must be a competitive media system that is free from private control and is instead controlled by the general public. The old media can of course be free to do what they do but it is a necessity that a new media system be established that will be in competition with the MSM. Part of that mission is to advocate for a Representative Media, a media system which will be controlled by the American people and not special interests. A system that can compete with the power of the current mainstream media.
What you look for is corroborating evidence. For years I have read about what the CIA did to Iran. The game during those years could have been to claim that "minor authors" are making it up. BUT, as of 2000, it is official because the U.S. State department has admitted that "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister." The internal logic is that the U.S. admitting it corroborates it because it doesn't make sense to say that the U.S. State department is lying when it admits to wrong doing by the U.S. Once you see a dramatic wrong that has evidence to back it up, and the 1953 coup against Iran is a perfect example because the State Department has admitted it, then you can see that these things are possible and that powerful interests in the U.S. are not only capable of these things but often seek to obscure the fact that these things happened.
I have looked into many of the things that have been written about and they do check out. When Chomsky points out that the division of Vietnam was not supposed to create two countries you can look into it yourself and see that he is telling the truth, the 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam "the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." 1954 Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference You can read about the provision for a election. When you look into the facts, without a chip on your shoulder, when you stop with the subservient fanaticism of desperately making excuses for those in power, you can start to see what has been, and what is, going on. If you get it into your head that government officials are like your daddy and daddy would never lie to you then you will never learn the truth and be truly free. Thomas Jefferson warned that a nation cannot be ignorant and free.
When it is former U.S officials who spill the beans, it is something to take seriously because the internal logic demands it. You can't irrationally dismiss everything you don't want to hear. When former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admits that the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion, this is something you should take seriously. The story we have been told is that the U.S. responded to the Soviet invasion but that is a lie. Brzezinski said, "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."
Notice too that mainstream media is not eager to make any of these things clear to the general public.
There are dramatic examples by the way. You can look into International Law and the UN resolutions and see violations that MSM is unwilling to make clear to the public. Remember these Presidents turn a blind eye to the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. (and the mainstream media basically refuses to report that the settlements are illegal) Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett: I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett.
I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?"
"Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights."
These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. "The BBC must be crazy then," I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. "The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience," I said, demolishing Burkett's asinine argument. "Your network doesn't report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?" I demanded.
Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, "Americans don't care." Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.
When you read about this and see what the MSM has been up to, it is time to stop mindless falling aver yourself trying to make excuses for people that get into positions of power within our government. The idea of America was never supposed to be "follow the leader!" WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to have self rule, anything less betrays the Spirit of '76.
Media is key to the solution. Control is the issue. You get the maximum control with ownership so there must be a competitive media system that is free from private control and is instead controlled by the general public. The old media can of course be free to do what they do but it is a necessity that a new media system be established that will be in competition with the MSM. Part of that mission is to advocate for a Representative Media, a media system which will be controlled by the American people and not special interests. A system that can compete with the power of the current mainstream media.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The fact is there are details that mainstream media either severely under-reports or doesn't report at all so that is why so many people are unprepared for the truth.
I go into detail in this post: syriana isn't "disgusting leftist propaganda" http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/01/syriana-isnt-disgusting-leftist.html
There are incredible facts that don't get reported like the fact that the U.S. policy makers are responsible for the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place in the 1960's.
The story people heard was Saddam was an ally in the 1980's with the impression that we simply found this man and his party in power. BUT what wasn't reported in mainstream media was the US responsibility for putting the Ba'ath party into power in the first place (1960's) and of paying Saddam to be a murderer in the late 1950's and helping him rise to power. http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
This fact was not reported by the mainstream media. (it ruins the narrative that U.S. power players want the public to swallow. The game is "aren't we wonderful, we got rid of Saddam." Telling the public that the U.S. was behind putting the Ba'ath party into power in the first place ruins the story. Also the fact that the U.S. was paying this murderer to be a murderer in the late 1950's.)
Others have corroborated these facts, for example US diplomat James Akins who served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. What the U.S. media often does is ignore facts like these. You can't simply say "Akins is lying". If that were the case then why isn't "Atkins going off the deep end" a story that gets explored? (because he isn't, he is stating facts that powerful interests want swept under the rug) The media reporters are game players that curry favor for the powerful in this country. The story line is supposed o be "aren't we wonderful for getting rid of Saddam" the news editors do not want the facts know by the general public. It gets a marginal mention that doesn't hammer home the significance here or there, for example in an OPED mentions it: "As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958" http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm or a brief quote from Atkins on PBS: "We were very happy. They got rid of a lot of communists. A lot of them were executed or shot. This was a great development." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/etc/script.html. The bottom line is, an explosive fact like this, which conflicts with the story line U.S. elites push, doesn't get the coverage it should.
I go into detail in this post: syriana isn't "disgusting leftist propaganda" http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/01/syriana-isnt-disgusting-leftist.html
There are incredible facts that don't get reported like the fact that the U.S. policy makers are responsible for the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place in the 1960's.
The story people heard was Saddam was an ally in the 1980's with the impression that we simply found this man and his party in power. BUT what wasn't reported in mainstream media was the US responsibility for putting the Ba'ath party into power in the first place (1960's) and of paying Saddam to be a murderer in the late 1950's and helping him rise to power. http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
This fact was not reported by the mainstream media. (it ruins the narrative that U.S. power players want the public to swallow. The game is "aren't we wonderful, we got rid of Saddam." Telling the public that the U.S. was behind putting the Ba'ath party into power in the first place ruins the story. Also the fact that the U.S. was paying this murderer to be a murderer in the late 1950's.)
Others have corroborated these facts, for example US diplomat James Akins who served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. What the U.S. media often does is ignore facts like these. You can't simply say "Akins is lying". If that were the case then why isn't "Atkins going off the deep end" a story that gets explored? (because he isn't, he is stating facts that powerful interests want swept under the rug) The media reporters are game players that curry favor for the powerful in this country. The story line is supposed o be "aren't we wonderful for getting rid of Saddam" the news editors do not want the facts know by the general public. It gets a marginal mention that doesn't hammer home the significance here or there, for example in an OPED mentions it: "As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958" http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm or a brief quote from Atkins on PBS: "We were very happy. They got rid of a lot of communists. A lot of them were executed or shot. This was a great development." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/etc/script.html. The bottom line is, an explosive fact like this, which conflicts with the story line U.S. elites push, doesn't get the coverage it should.
The Menachem Begin quote ("In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.") is another example of the fact that Israel had launched a war of choice, your complaint that I didn't include his rationalization is irrelevant. The bottom line is the war had nothing to do with defense, Israel wanted more.
General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." (Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972)
"Citing corroboratory statements by Chief of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev and General Mattiyahu Peled, Amnon Kapelioul wrote that "no serious argument has been advanced to refute the thesis of the three generals." p. 100 Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )
The pattern of taking more started "immediately after the armistice agreements of 1949, Israel began encroachments into the demilitarized zones along with military attacks with many civilian casualties and the expulsion of thousands of Arabs" p. 101 Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
What right did Israel have to the Straits of Tiran anyway? They were opened by force
when Israel attacked Egypt in 1956. Nasser had every right to close them as Nasser said he did because Israel continued to refuse to honor the UN resolutions calling on it to allow the Palestinians refugees expelled during the 1948 war to return home. (Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Israel Violates UN Resolution )
Israel had no right to launch a war of aggression in 1956 and then get rewarded for it by being allowed to use the Straits. "Indeed, President Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if: ”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?” p. 137 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition
The UN should not reward aggressors, the UN could not 'condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter' p. 137 Image And Reality And Israel had continued its aggression against Syria, Egypt was under no obligation to help Israel by allowing it to ship through the Straits. Even a claim of a "right of free passage" doesn't include shipping supplies to facilitate military aggressions. Egypt's case was very strong and Israel knew it stood a real chance of losing its claim of a right of passage had the issue been decided on a legal basis.
Your wikipedai writer is very dishonest with the claim that "Israel viewed the closure of the straits with alarm" In no way was Israel dependent on the Straits. "The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed (albeit at greater cost) through Haifa." p. 139 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition
It is absurd to think Israel had a right to use the Straits to facilitate its aggressions and planned aggressions. I think it is clear that Egypt was within its right to prevent its waterways to be used for this end. Egypt's actions were accordance with International Law and Egypt was willing to have the matter arbitrated. And it clear Israel didn't think it had a strong case since it refuse to have the matter settled in the World Court. Israel anted another war in 1967 just like it started the previous war in 1956.
General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." (Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972)
"Citing corroboratory statements by Chief of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev and General Mattiyahu Peled, Amnon Kapelioul wrote that "no serious argument has been advanced to refute the thesis of the three generals." p. 100 Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the PalestiniansGeneral Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )
The pattern of taking more started "immediately after the armistice agreements of 1949, Israel began encroachments into the demilitarized zones along with military attacks with many civilian casualties and the expulsion of thousands of Arabs" p. 101 Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
What right did Israel have to the Straits of Tiran anyway? They were opened by force
when Israel attacked Egypt in 1956. Nasser had every right to close them as Nasser said he did because Israel continued to refuse to honor the UN resolutions calling on it to allow the Palestinians refugees expelled during the 1948 war to return home. (Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Israel Violates UN Resolution )
Israel had no right to launch a war of aggression in 1956 and then get rewarded for it by being allowed to use the Straits. "Indeed, President Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if: ”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?” p. 137 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition
The UN should not reward aggressors, the UN could not 'condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter' p. 137 Image And Reality And Israel had continued its aggression against Syria, Egypt was under no obligation to help Israel by allowing it to ship through the Straits. Even a claim of a "right of free passage" doesn't include shipping supplies to facilitate military aggressions. Egypt's case was very strong and Israel knew it stood a real chance of losing its claim of a right of passage had the issue been decided on a legal basis.
Your wikipedai writer is very dishonest with the claim that "Israel viewed the closure of the straits with alarm" In no way was Israel dependent on the Straits. "The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed (albeit at greater cost) through Haifa." p. 139 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised EditionIt is absurd to think Israel had a right to use the Straits to facilitate its aggressions and planned aggressions. I think it is clear that Egypt was within its right to prevent its waterways to be used for this end. Egypt's actions were accordance with International Law and Egypt was willing to have the matter arbitrated. And it clear Israel didn't think it had a strong case since it refuse to have the matter settled in the World Court. Israel anted another war in 1967 just like it started the previous war in 1956.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Eric, you really are obnoxious. You get point after point wrong and you claim I am lying. No apology from you when it is pointed out you are wrong, for example, the meaning of the term "ethnic cleansing". And you push falsehoods and try to get away with it. You lied and said Egypt attacked Israel in 1967. I pointed out to you that you get basic facts wrong, the fact is it was Israel that attacked Egypt. Without skipping a beat, you ignore the fact that you were wrong and launch into excuses for Israel attacking. And they didn't "have to" as Menachem Begin admits: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Israel wanted another war and rejected attempts to prevent it. "U.N. Secretary-General U Thant proposed (with the support of Israel's closest allies, the US and Canada) the repositioning of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border", Israel rejected this.
And the history shows that Israel was rejecting the diplomatic attempts to address the Straits, Egypt accepted but Israel rejected a special mediator to deal with the situation.
"Reaching Cairo just after the blockade was announced, U Thant elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate the crisis, and a two-week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the Straits. Israel peremptorily rejected both of U Thant's proposals." "Nasser repeatedly expressed willingness to submit the Straits dispute to the World Court" Israel REFUSED.
"Alongside U Thant, the U.S. also tried its hand at mediation in late May and early June. Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement BUT "Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked."
"the U.S. had called for "any recurrence of hostilities or any violation by any party" to be referred back to the U.N. Even "U.S. officials and legal scholars, not to mention U.N. secretaries-general Hammarskjold and U Thant, stressed that this was a "complicated" jurisdictional dispute warranting mediation" http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm Israel wanted war, not mediation, and it used anything it could as an excuse to attack.
Israel wanted another war and rejected attempts to prevent it. "U.N. Secretary-General U Thant proposed (with the support of Israel's closest allies, the US and Canada) the repositioning of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border", Israel rejected this.
And the history shows that Israel was rejecting the diplomatic attempts to address the Straits, Egypt accepted but Israel rejected a special mediator to deal with the situation.
"Reaching Cairo just after the blockade was announced, U Thant elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate the crisis, and a two-week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the Straits. Israel peremptorily rejected both of U Thant's proposals." "Nasser repeatedly expressed willingness to submit the Straits dispute to the World Court" Israel REFUSED.
"Alongside U Thant, the U.S. also tried its hand at mediation in late May and early June. Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement BUT "Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked."
"the U.S. had called for "any recurrence of hostilities or any violation by any party" to be referred back to the U.N. Even "U.S. officials and legal scholars, not to mention U.N. secretaries-general Hammarskjold and U Thant, stressed that this was a "complicated" jurisdictional dispute warranting mediation" http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm Israel wanted war, not mediation, and it used anything it could as an excuse to attack.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
init_baboy,
The political agenda that U.S. policy makers impose upon the Middle East has to do with power. If you really want to understand the political system in American then I suggest you ignore the terms "liberal" and conservative". They really do not mean much when we are talking about the brutal foreign policies.
For example, we don't sit around wondering if the Mob is "liberal" or "conservative", the mobsters simply want what they want and they break heads to get it.
You will never understand what is happening if you try to pigeon hole people into categories of "liberal" or "conservative". How are these thing even being measured, what do these terms actually mean? Clinton is guilty of enormous crimes too, like the continued backing of Israel. There is a continuity of the foreign policies from one Administration to the next. the recent Presidents all ignored the stated goal of the sanctions and said they would stay in place until Saddam was gone (thus undermining the whole intention of the sanctions)
If you really want to understand the political system in American then I suggest you visit http://www.chomsky.info/ Chomksy gives the analysis that you are looking for. Use this page: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en type the word or words of the topic you are searching and put http://www.chomsky.info/ in the domain field
Here Chomsky exposes some actions Clinton and Bush are guilty of:
Remember these Presidents turn a blind eye to the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. (and the mainstream media basically refuses to report that the settlements are illegal) Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett. I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett.
I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?"
"Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights."
These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. "The BBC must be crazy then," I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. "The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience," I said, demolishing Burkett's asinine argument. "Your network doesn't report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?" I demanded.
Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, "Americans don't care." Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.
The political agenda that U.S. policy makers impose upon the Middle East has to do with power. If you really want to understand the political system in American then I suggest you ignore the terms "liberal" and conservative". They really do not mean much when we are talking about the brutal foreign policies.
For example, we don't sit around wondering if the Mob is "liberal" or "conservative", the mobsters simply want what they want and they break heads to get it.
You will never understand what is happening if you try to pigeon hole people into categories of "liberal" or "conservative". How are these thing even being measured, what do these terms actually mean? Clinton is guilty of enormous crimes too, like the continued backing of Israel. There is a continuity of the foreign policies from one Administration to the next. the recent Presidents all ignored the stated goal of the sanctions and said they would stay in place until Saddam was gone (thus undermining the whole intention of the sanctions)
If you really want to understand the political system in American then I suggest you visit http://www.chomsky.info/ Chomksy gives the analysis that you are looking for. Use this page: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en type the word or words of the topic you are searching and put http://www.chomsky.info/ in the domain field
Here Chomsky exposes some actions Clinton and Bush are guilty of:
(notice it was not reported in the mainstream media for the general public)
The US continues to "enhance terror" by providing Israel with the means for terror and destruction, including a new shipment of the most advanced helicopters in the US arsenal. These are standard reactions to atrocities by a client regime. To cite one instructive example, in the first days of the current Intifada, Israel used US helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing 10 Palestinians and wounding 35, hardly in "self-defense." Clinton responded with an agreement for "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade" (Ha'aretz, 3 October, '01), along with spare parts for Apache attack helicopters. The press helped out by refusing to report the facts. A few weeks later, Israel began to use US helicopters for assassinations as well. One of the first acts of the Bush administration was to send Apache Longbow helicopters, the most murderous available. That received some marginal notice under business news.
Remember these Presidents turn a blind eye to the continued expansion of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. (and the mainstream media basically refuses to report that the settlements are illegal) Here is something that happened in August 2005 when I confronted a reporter named N.J. Burkett. I was in the lobby of WABC-TV in NY and I overhear a guy saying, "I just got back from Gaza!" gleefully to N.J. Burkett.
I couldn't resist confronting these bastards. I walked over and I asked, "How come you never report that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal?"
"Everyone knows the settlements are illegal," Burkett say to me. "No they don't," I said. Burkett says, "Sure, it is common knowledge just as there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights."
These guys are such miserable dishonest bastards. These sick minds must concoct lame excuses for not reporting BASIC important facts to the public. "The BBC must be crazy then," I pointed out because they report that the Israeli settlements are illegal. "The BBC manages to report this basic fact to their audience," I said, demolishing Burkett's asinine argument. "Your network doesn't report it, why do American TV networks refuse to report it?" I demanded.
Searching for an excuse why ABC is not reporting basic facts to the American people, the first guy tried, "Americans don't care." Burkett leaves at this point. These guys are such vulgar betrayers of the public trust.
Syriana isn't "disgusting leftist propaganda." U.S. policy makers have carried out many crimes against the people in the Middle East, it is not "liberal" to point out the truth. For example, the 1953 coup to oust Mossedeq has been admitted to by the U.S. officially so there is no point in denying it: "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”" - Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright March 17, 2000 Note that while acknowledging it, the U.S. never apologized for it. Do you have any idea how many Iranians suffered under the Shah? Israel's Mossad and the America's CIA worked with the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, which was ruthless, it tortured and killed many Iranians.
Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes. They wanted the Shah handed over to them because they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah in 1953. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210 We are a country that fought to free itself from a king and we have people in our government that undermine a democratic government and force a king upon them! ) http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-were-hostages-taken-us-media.html ) These are not minor crimes and the media overwhelmingly downplays or suppresses these things. Mainstream media keeps the general public in the dark about the many of the actions of U.S. foreign policy. It was not even reported how the Ba'ath party was put into power in the first place! (the U.S orchestrated the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq.) Think for a minute how outrageous it is that U.S. media has refused to inform the public about this) The media is incredibly subservient to powerful interests. (Obviously U.S. media wants to play along with the idea "aren't we wonderful, we got rid of Saddam." Telling the public that the U.S. was behind putting the Ba'ath party into power in the first place ruins the story.)
Would you have wanted to be one of the Iraqis on the lists that the CIA handed over to the Ba'ath part to be shot? 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." ... 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? You can't see that the actions of these U.S. officials is the same as the Nazis or Nazi collaborators? If someone was talking about people that handed over the names of Jews to be rounded up and shot by the Nazis would you say it is just "liberal propaganda"?
Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes. They wanted the Shah handed over to them because they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah in 1953. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210 We are a country that fought to free itself from a king and we have people in our government that undermine a democratic government and force a king upon them! ) http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-were-hostages-taken-us-media.html ) These are not minor crimes and the media overwhelmingly downplays or suppresses these things. Mainstream media keeps the general public in the dark about the many of the actions of U.S. foreign policy. It was not even reported how the Ba'ath party was put into power in the first place! (the U.S orchestrated the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq.) Think for a minute how outrageous it is that U.S. media has refused to inform the public about this) The media is incredibly subservient to powerful interests. (Obviously U.S. media wants to play along with the idea "aren't we wonderful, we got rid of Saddam." Telling the public that the U.S. was behind putting the Ba'ath party into power in the first place ruins the story.)
Would you have wanted to be one of the Iraqis on the lists that the CIA handed over to the Ba'ath part to be shot? 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." ... 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? You can't see that the actions of these U.S. officials is the same as the Nazis or Nazi collaborators? If someone was talking about people that handed over the names of Jews to be rounded up and shot by the Nazis would you say it is just "liberal propaganda"?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Hurting and Killing Iranians and Iraqis
barry-3 writes, "Don't be so dramatic and try to make the United States worse than it is."
Stop with the propaganda, we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about people within our government that have violated the principles that most Americans agree we should stand for. They are the "domestic enemies" that we are supposed to defend our Constitution against. These are not people we should bend over backwards making excuses for. Have you never heard of the oath which is sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
And notice that mainstream media keeps the general public in the dark about the many of the actions of these people. It was not even reported how the Ba'ath party was put into power in the first place! The media is incredibly subservience to powerful interests.
Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes and they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah. We are a country that fought to free itself from a king and we have people in our government that undermine a democratic government asn force a king upon them! ) http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-were-hostages-taken-us-media.html These are not minor crimes and the media overwhelmingly downplays or suppresses these things. Do you have any idea how many Iranians suffered under the Shah? Israel's Mossad and the America's CIA worked with the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, which was ruthless, it tortured and killed many Iranians.
Don't make it worse than it is? For God Sakes, would you have wanted to be one of the Iraqis on the lists that the CIA handed over to the Ba'ath part to be shot? 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." ... 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? You can't see that the actions of these U.S. officials is the same as the Nazis or Nazi collaborators? If someone was talking about people that handed over the names of Jews to be rounded up and shot by the Nazis would you say "don't make it worse than it is"? Have you given any of this serious thought?
barry-3 writes, "Don't be so dramatic and try to make the United States worse than it is."
Stop with the propaganda, we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about people within our government that have violated the principles that most Americans agree we should stand for. They are the "domestic enemies" that we are supposed to defend our Constitution against. These are not people we should bend over backwards making excuses for. Have you never heard of the oath which is sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
And notice that mainstream media keeps the general public in the dark about the many of the actions of these people. It was not even reported how the Ba'ath party was put into power in the first place! The media is incredibly subservience to powerful interests.
Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes and they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah. We are a country that fought to free itself from a king and we have people in our government that undermine a democratic government asn force a king upon them! ) http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-were-hostages-taken-us-media.html These are not minor crimes and the media overwhelmingly downplays or suppresses these things. Do you have any idea how many Iranians suffered under the Shah? Israel's Mossad and the America's CIA worked with the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, which was ruthless, it tortured and killed many Iranians.
Don't make it worse than it is? For God Sakes, would you have wanted to be one of the Iraqis on the lists that the CIA handed over to the Ba'ath part to be shot? 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." ... 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? You can't see that the actions of these U.S. officials is the same as the Nazis or Nazi collaborators? If someone was talking about people that handed over the names of Jews to be rounded up and shot by the Nazis would you say "don't make it worse than it is"? Have you given any of this serious thought?
Friday, January 06, 2006
Israel Does Target Civilians and Always Has
A claim often made about Israel is "They don't target innocent civilians. They never have."
That simply is not true.
The Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff summarized General Gur's comments as follows: "In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it...the importance of Gur's remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously...the Army, he said, has never
distinguished civilian (from military) targets... (but) purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck." see p 181 Fateful Triangle sourced to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz May 15, 1978 or see: pp 77-78 The Real Terror Network by Edward S. Herman
The attacks made by Sharon's Unit 101 were "directed against completely innocent civilians in villages that had no known relation to terrorist acts, for example, Qibya, where 66 civilians were massacred in October 1953 in the first major operation of Sharon's Unit 101" 101. The Real Terror Network by Edward S. Herman
"The military doctrine of attacking defenseless civilians derives from David Ben-Gurion, who was quite explicit about it, though not in public of course. In a January 1, 1948 entry in his Independence War Diary, he writes:
"There is no question as to whether a reaction is necessary or not. The question
is only time and place. Blowing up a house is not enough. What is necessary is
cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If
we know the family, --[we must] strike mercilessly, women and children included.
Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent. p182 Fateful Triangle
"The Diary of former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett is a major source of evidence for a conscious policy of deliberate, unprovoked cross-border attacks, in which advantage was taken of superior military power and a servile western propaganda machine, with the intent of destabilizing neighboring states and provoking them into military responses. Sharett was a footdragger in these enterprises, often shaken by the ruthlessness of the military establishment-"the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and so many clashes we have provoked;" the "narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness of our military leaders" [who] "seem to presume that the State of Israel may-or even must-behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle." Sharett himself referred to this long effort as a "sacred terrorism."" p78 The Real Terror Network by Edward S. Herman
And as I pointed out, Israeli soldiers still target civilians, including children. What reporters have witnessed first hand has been documented by an Israeli human rights group and has been confirmed by Israeli soldiers admissions. Physicians for Human Rights USA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem all confirm the Israeli policy of targeting civilians. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/10/you-quoted-joseph-farahs-vile-lie.html
A claim often made about Israel is "They don't target innocent civilians. They never have."
That simply is not true.
The Israeli military analyst Zeev Schiff summarized General Gur's comments as follows: "In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it...the importance of Gur's remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously...the Army, he said, has never
distinguished civilian (from military) targets... (but) purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck." see p 181 Fateful Triangle sourced to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz May 15, 1978 or see: pp 77-78 The Real Terror Network by Edward S. HermanThe attacks made by Sharon's Unit 101 were "directed against completely innocent civilians in villages that had no known relation to terrorist acts, for example, Qibya, where 66 civilians were massacred in October 1953 in the first major operation of Sharon's Unit 101" 101. The Real Terror Network by Edward S. Herman
"The military doctrine of attacking defenseless civilians derives from David Ben-Gurion, who was quite explicit about it, though not in public of course. In a January 1, 1948 entry in his Independence War Diary, he writes:
"There is no question as to whether a reaction is necessary or not. The question
is only time and place. Blowing up a house is not enough. What is necessary is
cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If
we know the family, --[we must] strike mercilessly, women and children included.
Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent. p182 Fateful Triangle
"The Diary of former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett is a major source of evidence for a conscious policy of deliberate, unprovoked cross-border attacks, in which advantage was taken of superior military power and a servile western propaganda machine, with the intent of destabilizing neighboring states and provoking them into military responses. Sharett was a footdragger in these enterprises, often shaken by the ruthlessness of the military establishment-"the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and so many clashes we have provoked;" the "narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness of our military leaders" [who] "seem to presume that the State of Israel may-or even must-behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle." Sharett himself referred to this long effort as a "sacred terrorism."" p78 The Real Terror Network by Edward S. HermanAnd as I pointed out, Israeli soldiers still target civilians, including children. What reporters have witnessed first hand has been documented by an Israeli human rights group and has been confirmed by Israeli soldiers admissions. Physicians for Human Rights USA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem all confirm the Israeli policy of targeting civilians. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/10/you-quoted-joseph-farahs-vile-lie.html
Thursday, January 05, 2006
afilsonmartinez, it is always good to try to learn all the facts you can.
The motives also include as I pointed out, interference with the Middle East countries' interior affairs. Note that Al-Qeada's main declaration of war, the 1998 Fatwa, lists three main motives:
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
3. U.S. support of Israel.
You wrote, " and we pretty much gave the jews israel without the consent of the people living there at the time (the muslims). "
Not really. In 1947 the UN made a partition recommendation. In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and had amassed much more arms. It is the right of the majority, 67% of the population of Palestine which was non-Jewish, to say they don't want their land carved up as the UN had suggested. By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, "Israel" was attacked by some countries but Jordan was working with the Zionist plan (by secret agreement) to prevent a Palestinians state.
You asked, " why did some Muslim groups support the Nazis in WWII?"
As far as I know Haj Amin al-Husseini met with Hitler probably hoping to gain help in opposing the Zionists' agenda. But if you know of "groups" let me know. It is hypocritical of supporters of Israel to point to this considering the proposal made by the Jewish group LEHI. The Jewish organization LEHI (Stern Group) went so far as to offer itself to Hitler in 1941 as a local agency to support the Nazis. Not an insignificant group. Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister, was one of its leaders. This Jewish Zionist group's proposal of January 1941 expressed sympathy for the "German conception" of a "New Order in Europe" and offered to cooperate in the formation of a Jewish state "on a national and totalitarian basis, which will establish relations with the German Reich" and protect Nazi interests in the Middle East. see p95 Fateful Triangle
The motives also include as I pointed out, interference with the Middle East countries' interior affairs. Note that Al-Qeada's main declaration of war, the 1998 Fatwa, lists three main motives:
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
3. U.S. support of Israel.
You wrote, " and we pretty much gave the jews israel without the consent of the people living there at the time (the muslims). "
Not really. In 1947 the UN made a partition recommendation. In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and had amassed much more arms. It is the right of the majority, 67% of the population of Palestine which was non-Jewish, to say they don't want their land carved up as the UN had suggested. By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, "Israel" was attacked by some countries but Jordan was working with the Zionist plan (by secret agreement) to prevent a Palestinians state.
You asked, " why did some Muslim groups support the Nazis in WWII?"
As far as I know Haj Amin al-Husseini met with Hitler probably hoping to gain help in opposing the Zionists' agenda. But if you know of "groups" let me know. It is hypocritical of supporters of Israel to point to this considering the proposal made by the Jewish group LEHI. The Jewish organization LEHI (Stern Group) went so far as to offer itself to Hitler in 1941 as a local agency to support the Nazis. Not an insignificant group. Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister, was one of its leaders. This Jewish Zionist group's proposal of January 1941 expressed sympathy for the "German conception" of a "New Order in Europe" and offered to cooperate in the formation of a Jewish state "on a national and totalitarian basis, which will establish relations with the German Reich" and protect Nazi interests in the Middle East. see p95 Fateful Triangle
Monday, January 02, 2006
Hostility and Cruelty
As early as 1891, decent Jews were shocked at the actions of Zionist Jews:
"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause. and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." p144 The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East by David Hirst
Some of the Jews who dared to speak out against these Zionists were murdered by them.
As early as 1924 these sick racist Zionists killed Jews because they stood in the way of their racist plan. Even a religious Jew was targeted by Zionists as he left his synagogue. The Holocaust has been exploited to the max but it is important to remember that the Zionist agenda started decades before it and has no right to claim it as some sort of excuse for Zionist activities.
The info about the June 1924 murder of a religious Jew by Zionist Jews comes from page 165 of Fateful Triangle. "a religious Jew organizing among the largely anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitants of Palestine" was assassinated by two Haganah agents "as he left the small synagogue in the 'Shaarey Tsedek' hospital." (Hagana was a Jewish terrorist group) Chomsky points out "the official history of the Haganah describes this "special activity" matter-of-factly, justifying the order "to remove the traitor from the land of the living" on the grounds of his "pathological character""
Chomsky makes the point that this very same kind of thing, killing a person as they leave their house of worship (for example the assassination of King Abdullah of Jordan) is supposed to prove the "inveterate evil" of Arabs which is supposed to be so different from the fabled "purity of arms" of the Jewish Zionists.
Menachem Begin (who was a Prime Minister of Israel) and Yitzhak Shamir (who was Foreign Minister of Israel) "are former terrorist commanders, with a bloody record of atrocities to their credit including the killing of Jews* as well as Britons and many Arabs, while the Secretary-General of the Jewish Agency until 1981 (Shmuel Lahis) was a man who murdered several dozen Arab civilians under guard in an undefended Lebanese village during the land-clearing operations of October 1948" pp164-165 Fateful Triangle
*"the Hagana archives archives contain the names of 40 Jews who were killed by Irgun and LEHI(Stern Group) [these are Jewish Zionist groups] men in the cource of their underground work or in the context of settling internal accounts" This does not include Jews killed by terrorist attacks aimed at others." In Haifa, Haganah had a torture chamber for the interrogation of Jews. - footnote pp164-165 Fateful Triangle
Long and Bloody Record
"in the single month of July 1938", "Irgun killed 76 Arabs with bombs in market places and the like." The official history of the Irgun makes little pretence that these actions were retaliatory, as is often alleged, referring proundly, for example, to the murder of 27 Arabs to prevent the celebration over the British White Paper limiting Jewish immigration, the murder of more 52 more when an Irgun member was arrested by the British, etc. The record is generally suppressed in the U.S., where cynics refer to terror and intimidation as an invention of the PLO." p 165 Fateful Triangle
In his book, The Gun and the Olive Branch, David Hirst has done a great job exposing these games, he gives examples of reporters being intimidated. "Behind closed doors some news types will admit they firmly adhere to the pro-Israeli line because it is editorial policy.
This issue has long ceased having anything to do with right and wrong, it has simply become policy" Hirst explains "Many journalists privately admit that they fear the retribution of pro-Israel publishers and editors and 'generally understand critical words about Israel to be hazardous to careers'." Mark Schneider said that before he took up political activism on the Palestinians' behalf he wasn't sure the censorship or self-censorship over Israel existed. But Schneider now says, "I used to be skeptical about ... allegations of censorship and self-censorship in the American media, but now I've seen it first-hand." Schneider recounts how he witnessed the Rev. Bob Kinsey being asked by a reporter in the studio what the main reasons for troubles in the Middle East were. "Rev Kinsey spoke of the massive US military aid to Israel and the resulting instability it caused. The reporter's stunning reply: 'While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk. ' Of course, the interview was never aired."- David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 p57
David Hirst's book is a must have. It is an updated edition and it is incredible.
As early as 1891, decent Jews were shocked at the actions of Zionist Jews:
"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause. and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." p144 The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East by David Hirst
Some of the Jews who dared to speak out against these Zionists were murdered by them.
As early as 1924 these sick racist Zionists killed Jews because they stood in the way of their racist plan. Even a religious Jew was targeted by Zionists as he left his synagogue. The Holocaust has been exploited to the max but it is important to remember that the Zionist agenda started decades before it and has no right to claim it as some sort of excuse for Zionist activities.
The info about the June 1924 murder of a religious Jew by Zionist Jews comes from page 165 of Fateful Triangle. "a religious Jew organizing among the largely anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitants of Palestine" was assassinated by two Haganah agents "as he left the small synagogue in the 'Shaarey Tsedek' hospital." (Hagana was a Jewish terrorist group) Chomsky points out "the official history of the Haganah describes this "special activity" matter-of-factly, justifying the order "to remove the traitor from the land of the living" on the grounds of his "pathological character""
Chomsky makes the point that this very same kind of thing, killing a person as they leave their house of worship (for example the assassination of King Abdullah of Jordan) is supposed to prove the "inveterate evil" of Arabs which is supposed to be so different from the fabled "purity of arms" of the Jewish Zionists.
Menachem Begin (who was a Prime Minister of Israel) and Yitzhak Shamir (who was Foreign Minister of Israel) "are former terrorist commanders, with a bloody record of atrocities to their credit including the killing of Jews* as well as Britons and many Arabs, while the Secretary-General of the Jewish Agency until 1981 (Shmuel Lahis) was a man who murdered several dozen Arab civilians under guard in an undefended Lebanese village during the land-clearing operations of October 1948" pp164-165 Fateful Triangle
*"the Hagana archives archives contain the names of 40 Jews who were killed by Irgun and LEHI(Stern Group) [these are Jewish Zionist groups] men in the cource of their underground work or in the context of settling internal accounts" This does not include Jews killed by terrorist attacks aimed at others." In Haifa, Haganah had a torture chamber for the interrogation of Jews. - footnote pp164-165 Fateful Triangle
Long and Bloody Record
"in the single month of July 1938", "Irgun killed 76 Arabs with bombs in market places and the like." The official history of the Irgun makes little pretence that these actions were retaliatory, as is often alleged, referring proundly, for example, to the murder of 27 Arabs to prevent the celebration over the British White Paper limiting Jewish immigration, the murder of more 52 more when an Irgun member was arrested by the British, etc. The record is generally suppressed in the U.S., where cynics refer to terror and intimidation as an invention of the PLO." p 165 Fateful Triangle
In his book, The Gun and the Olive Branch, David Hirst has done a great job exposing these games, he gives examples of reporters being intimidated. "Behind closed doors some news types will admit they firmly adhere to the pro-Israeli line because it is editorial policy.
This issue has long ceased having anything to do with right and wrong, it has simply become policy" Hirst explains "Many journalists privately admit that they fear the retribution of pro-Israel publishers and editors and 'generally understand critical words about Israel to be hazardous to careers'." Mark Schneider said that before he took up political activism on the Palestinians' behalf he wasn't sure the censorship or self-censorship over Israel existed. But Schneider now says, "I used to be skeptical about ... allegations of censorship and self-censorship in the American media, but now I've seen it first-hand." Schneider recounts how he witnessed the Rev. Bob Kinsey being asked by a reporter in the studio what the main reasons for troubles in the Middle East were. "Rev Kinsey spoke of the massive US military aid to Israel and the resulting instability it caused. The reporter's stunning reply: 'While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk. ' Of course, the interview was never aired."- David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 p57David Hirst's book is a must have. It is an updated edition and it is incredible.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
9/11 Myths Exposed at 911myths.com
911myths.com is great.
Another point you could add is that it is nonsense to claim that steel can never be effected by a fire. This is the implied argument that most 9/11 conspiracy people are making. The simple proof that steel can be damaged by fire is the fact that builders do indeed fireproof steel.
If the 9/11 conspiracy people think steel can never be damaged by fire, how do they explain the fact that fireproofing does indeed get applied to steel in buildings? The problem with the WTC was that the fireproofing was dislodged.
"Ineffective fireproofing and a shortage of staircases were the main reasons for the collapse of the World Trade Center, according to a report released Tuesday and led by Dr. Shyam Sunder, Acting Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)" http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055
"The report also says, of the fireproofing knocked off the steel, that "no fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts.""
The point about the steel failing in the Madrid Windsor Tower is good: "So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire show? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant"
Also see this page about WTC 7, WTC 7 was severely damaged and was on fire for hours.
911myths.com is great.
Another point you could add is that it is nonsense to claim that steel can never be effected by a fire. This is the implied argument that most 9/11 conspiracy people are making. The simple proof that steel can be damaged by fire is the fact that builders do indeed fireproof steel.
If the 9/11 conspiracy people think steel can never be damaged by fire, how do they explain the fact that fireproofing does indeed get applied to steel in buildings? The problem with the WTC was that the fireproofing was dislodged.
"Ineffective fireproofing and a shortage of staircases were the main reasons for the collapse of the World Trade Center, according to a report released Tuesday and led by Dr. Shyam Sunder, Acting Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)" http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055
"The report also says, of the fireproofing knocked off the steel, that "no fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts.""
The point about the steel failing in the Madrid Windsor Tower is good: "So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire show? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant"
Also see this page about WTC 7, WTC 7 was severely damaged and was on fire for hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
