Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

Paul Pillar, Former CIA Iraq Intelligence Coordinator, testified that the Bush Administration ignored the intelligence community's assessments. Pillar told the Senate Committee about "the non-use of intelligence and intelligence assessments in making the decision to go to war in Iraq."

"the intelligence community accessed, for example, that Iraq probably was several years away from development of a nuclear weapon. A judgment at variance with the publicly expressed view of the vice president that Saddam Hussein was fairly close to getting such a weapon."

"The estimate accessed that Saddam was unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction he did have against the United States or to give them to terrorists except perhaps in the extreme case in which we tried to overthrow his regime as with an invasion."

"On the issue of the Saddam regime's relations with terrorist groups, the intelligence community, in the assessments it produced on that subject, never judged that there was anything close to an alliance with al-Qaeda."

The intelligence community concluded "that there was no alliance, sponsorship or patron-client relationship between the Saddam regime and al-Qaeda."

"It also accessed that war and occupation would boost political Islam, increase sympathy for terrorists' objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East. Clearly, little, if any of this, influenced the decision making on going to war."

See the Senate Cmte. Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

Also see C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror

one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world

One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world

"one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all," Israeli diplomat Abba Eban argued, in a typical expression of this intellectually and morally disreputable position.

"The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities. These conceptions were clearly expounded by ADL National Director Nathan Perlmutter, who wrote that while old-fashioned anti-Semitism has declined, there is a new and more dangerous variety on the part of "peacemakers of Vietnam vintage, transmuters of swords into plowshares, championing the terrorist P.L.O.," and those who condemn U.S. policies in Vietnam and Central America while "sniping at American defense budgets." He fears that "nowadays war is getting a bad name and peace too favorable a press" with the rise of this "real anti-Semitism." The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them); and these interests are threatened by "the liberals," the churches, and others who do not adhere to the ADL political line." - Necessary Illusions

"The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement. The ADL was condemned by the Middle East Studies Association after circulation of an ADL blacklist to campus Jewish leaders, stamped "confidential." Practices of this nature have been bitterly condemned by Israeli doves -- in part because they fear the consequences of this hysterical chauvinism for Israel, in part because they have been subjected to the standard procedures themselves, in part simply in natural revulsion.

Anti-Semitism, in short, is not merely conflated with anti-Zionism, but even extended to Zionists who are critical of Israeli practices." - Necessary Illusions

Israel isn't a wonderful thing

I disagree with John Mearsheimer because Israel isn't a wonderful thing. The more I listen to him, the more I disagree.

Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children

There are many myths about how Israel came about. Fact is, discrimination against people because of their religion is wrong.

For over 35 years, Israel has imposed a harsh, brutal, military operation violating the Geneva convention. Israel has violated international law by continuing to grab more land and moving Israeli citizens into the occupied territories.

This problem would be over if the U.S. expected Israel to abide by international law. It really is as simple as that.

The media is not reporting the truth about what is really going on. We are being manipulated by the phase "destruction of Israel" which masks the ugly reality: Israel denies rights to non-Jews, rights that we demand for ourselves. This is something mainstream media never makes clear to the public. When people talk about the destruction of Israel - if all the Jews and non-Jews in Israel lived totally equally, that would be, by definition, the destruction of Israel. Chomsky Video Clip

Discrimination isn't a wonderful thing. Denial of human rights isn't a wonderful thing.

Zionists use the same tired underhanded tactic

Joe,

You resort to the tired underhanded tactic of writing something like "It does not legitimize the atrocities." I never said that anything legitimized atrocities. and I never inferred that anything legitimized atrocities.

First you post misinformation and now you are using the underhanded tactic of trying to paint me as someone who "legitimizes the atrocities." Must we Americans be constantly subjected to these manipulative games by those seeking to entrap us into continuing these horribly unjust policies?

My "style of argument" was crystal clear: stop telling lies about the situation. You tried to get away with telling us that the situation is "grey, grey, grey." It is not. My "style of argument" was to list the facts that make it clear that an aggressor has imposed tremendous wrongs on people because they are not the favored religion.

You couldn't be bothered to learn what the history actually is? Don't further mischaracterize what the situation is. I looked over what I posted and the links I posted. I provided a good deal of information, enough information that you should not be mischaracterizing what I am saying and what the situation is.

A majority of the American people support a Palestinian state. So first thing that should be done is to reword the description of this topic. The American people have a right to know what the situation is. This is something that Unity08 could accomplish. To sit back and allow the current deceptions to harm the American people is outrageous. No underhanded tactic can be allowed to stop us from spreading the truth and ending this situation. No dirty attempt to sabotage the discussion should be allowed to succeed, this issue is too important.

"The facts are, for 35 years, there has been a harsh, brutal, military operation. There has not been a political settlement. The reason that there has not been a political settlement is the United States, unilaterally, has blocked it for 25 years."

"There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada and was also supported by the majority of the American people"

"For 25 years, the United States has blocked the political settlement, which is supported by the majority of the American population and by the entire world, except for Israel."

The U.S. government keeps vetoing a political settlement and it keeps violating the Geneva convention. This issue can be solved, this must be an issue. We can't let people manipulate us in these forums to keep the lies going. Since most people agree with a political settlement, this should be part of our platform.

Same bin Laden

There was no "fat bin Laden." The video was poor quality and he looked slightly different at different angles and the poor lighting washed out his features but it is the same man. In the still shot on the left, bin Laden is smiling. Conspiracy theorists are comparing it to photos of bin Laden where he is not smiling.

The picture on the left is from the December 13, 2001 video yet the picture on the right is from the same video. It is the same man, it is bin Laden.

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. If you are confused about what to believe, you should take note that pundits who push lies about what is motivating the terrorists resort to fraud to make their case. Thomas Friedman covers up what bin LAden has said for years about Palestine. Friedman claims, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11." 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

George Tenet, when he was CIA director, played the same game, he covered up the motives by selectively quoting the terrorists. In his written statement before the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11, Tenet quotes the 1998 ruling "to kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military" yet omits the rest of the key sentence which states why: "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."

These pundits and politicians should not be suppressing or denying the facts.

President Bush said yesterday, "I know there is an international jihadist movement that desires to do us harm and they have territorial ambitions. The reason I know that is that's what they've told us. And part of their territorial ambition is to have safe haven in Iraq. That's what they've said. That's what the enemy has clearly said. And it seems like to me that the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." I agree, it makes sense that if we want to know their motives, we listen to what they have been saying. What they have been saying has been clear and consistent for years.

The terrorist behind the 1993 attack on the WTC sent a letter to the NYT which said: "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

Osama bin Laden reminded people in May of 1999, "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal."

The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks." On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."

The two terrorist pilots who crashed the two planes into the WTC shared the same motivation. Mohammed Atta, who flew into WTC 1, was described by one Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked with him, as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, telling a friend, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"

President Bush should do what he said, " the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." And what bin Laden says has been clear. In 2003, bin Laden reminded people again that "in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning ..." He also pointed out that President Bush was hiding the truth about their motives, "the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries."

You asked why other terrorists have attacked other countries. Their motives have been expressed. Most of the attacks you mentioned against those foreign countries had to so with those countries' participation in wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. The attack on the oil tanker was motivated by one of the grievances bin Laden has mentioned years before 9/11, aggression against them. After the attack on the oil tanker, bin Laden congratulated "the Muslim Nation for the daring and heroic Jihad operations" which he said was "reminding the enemy of the bloody price they have to pay for continuing their aggression against our nation.”

This is the kind of response you will get from some people when you point out that we are being lied to about why we were attacked on 9/11.

Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/05/dishonesty-about-911-motives-robs.html

The dominant Zionist agenda envisioned by Theodor Herzl

Joe,

You gave us a Zionist depiction of what happened which is no more honest than the fraudulent Zionist slogan "land without a people, waiting for a people without a land"* which pushed the lie that there were no people in Palestine. Zionism was born in a time when almost unbelievable racism was routinely excused.

Here are the facts. The dominant Zionist agenda envisioned by Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, was that European Jews were to move into Palestine and the native population, with the exception of the very small Jewish minority living there, were to be pushed off their land.

Even before the 20th century, some Jews saw warning signs that the Jews moving into Palestine were not going to respect the non-Jewish inhabitants. Ahad Aham, a Jewish critic of Zionist supremacy, complained in 1891 that "they treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."

In 1898, Leo Motzkin reported to the Second Zionist Congress that in Palestine "one must admit that the density of the population does not give the visitor much cause for cheer. In whole stretches throughout the land one constantly comes across large Arab villages, and it is an established fact that the most fertile areas of our country are occupied by Arabs."

"Our country," as Motzkin called it, actually consisted of an almost entirely non-Jewish population, 95 percent were not Jews, they were Muslims and Christians. Yet Herzl plotted massive Jewish immigration "based on assured supremacy" and early on he attempted to gain the the power to remove Palestinians who were not Jews. In 1901, Herzl went to Constatinople to try to get a charter from the Ottomans that would have given Jews the right to deport the native population.

Zionists knew "land without a people" was a lie.* In 1905, Israel Zangwel, a British Jew who coined this propaganda phrase, argued that Zionists “must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.” Another Zionist leader wrote, “Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country.” and “There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries—all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

In 1938, Ben-Gurion said to other Zionists, “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” He wrote to his son, "A partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning ... I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means...[If the Arabs refuse] we shall have to speak to them in a different language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state."

In Nov 1947, the UN made a recommendation for partition of Palestine, due in large part to Zionist pressures. Zionists privately plotted massive ethnic cleansing and they used the announcement of the recommendation as a way to carry out their plans. The recommendation was made by the UN General Assembly to divide Palestine up into 7 pieces, 3 pieces for a "Jewish state", 3 pieces for a "Arab state" and 1 piece for an international zone. General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. The majority of the people living in Palestine, over 67% percent, did not want their land chopped up into 7 pieces and it was their democratic right to turn down the recommendation. Less than 33% of the population had no right to insist that the recommendation was binding. What American would say that a UN recommendation forces over 67% of the people to give up their rights? The UN partition proposal was grotesquely unfair to the Arabs because Jews, who owned only 5.4 % of the land, were to be given 55% of the land.

In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine.

NOTE: This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is, from November 1947 to May 1948, the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State and ignored the proposed international zone.

"The Zionists were by far the more powerful and better organized force, and by May 1948, when the state of Israel was formally established, about 300,000 Palestinians already had been expelled from their homes or had fled the fighting, and the Zionists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state that had been proposed by the UN. Now it's then that Israel was attacked by its neighbors - in May 1948; it's 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, not before."

The May 1948 unilateral declaration of "Israel" was made by Zionists who were less than 33% of the population and who were imposing their will on over 67%. After the creation of the state in 1948, Menachem Begin made clear how serious the “Jews accepting the UN partition” was in reality, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever."

The Zionists knew there would be a reaction to their May 1948 unilateral declaration declaring "Israel" and they made plans, for example Plan D, to use it to carry out even more ethnic cleansing. The ethnic cleansing continued after May 1948, "thousands died in massacres, battles, and, finally, hardship from the brutal exodus of an entire population fleeing for its life, children dying along the roadsides." After May 1948, 400,000 to 600,000 more was added to the 300,000 driven from their homes.

There were thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave yet still had their homes and land stolen! In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never returned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." - See endnote 67 of The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg

Here is another Jewish writer exposing myths and propaganda:

"If there ever is to be real peace between Israel and the Palestinians, we have to understand the conflict without the myth and propaganda. ... Not surprisingly, or in fact quite naturally, when Israeli historians debunk Israeli myths they receive no press coverage and are completely ignored. It is much easier for us to go on living our myth instead of facing hurtful facts. ... One of the greatest Israeli myths is that most Arabs left their homes on orders from the Arab High Command. To support this myth, the oft-quoted scandalous canard "their leaders told them to leave" was concocted. Assiduous research has shown this to be false. ... The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves. Since the 750,000 refugees simply left, we had no obligation to let them back. ... We must reevaluate the myths we have created because, while they ease our conscience, they obfuscate our ability to analyze the situation from a political perspective." - "The Palestinian Problem: A Historical Review" by Jeff Bander - article from "The Commentator," the official undergraduate newspaper of Yeshiva University.

By the way, the myth had been debunked decades ago by scholars like Erskine Childers. "they found, on the contrary, that Arab and Palestinian authorities had repeatedly called on the people to stay put." David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p626

*Changed phrase to how it is written on p139 of The Gun and the Olive Branch
from Israel Zangwill's "The Return to Palestine", New Liberal Review II, Dec. 1901, p.627
"The truth, when they learned it, might at first have disconcerted them. When Max Nordau, one of Herzl's earliest disciples, did so, he came running to his master crying: 'I didn't know that - but then we are committing an injustice.' But it did not seem to disconcert them for long." p139 of The Gun and the Olive Branch

 The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us

It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.

Anger at the unjust policy of supporting Israel is the PRIMARY motive of the terrorists. It is despicable for Zionists to try to con the people about why we Americans have been killed and are at risk of being killed. Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.


Bin Laden's "agenda is a basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and imagery." p23 al-Qeada, Jason Burke

The NYT's Thomas Friedman lies about bin Laden and Palestine but the fact is bin Laden has talked about Palestine for years. Peter Bergen points out that lies have been pushed: "conventional wisdom has it that bin Laden adopted the Palestinians issue only recently. Reading this declaration [the first declaration of war, issued in 1996] SHOULD PUT THAT CANARD TO REST." p164 The Bin Laden I Know, Peter Bergen

In the 1996 declaration, bin Laden wrote, "I still feel the pain of Al Quds [Jerusalem] in my internal organs" "My Muslim Brothers of The World: Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis" "It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana [when Israeli forces struck a UN compound on April 18, 1996, killing one hundred] in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. " p 165 Bergen (see the 1996 declaration of war)

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

The two terrorist pilots who crashed the two planes into the WTC shared the same motivation. Mohammed Atta, who flew into WTC 1, was described by one Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked with him, as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted,"How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"" - page 162 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT


The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks." On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. "

At a "9/11 Public Discourse Project" Q&A, Hamilton quickly tries to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed since it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.

Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue. "Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." Yousef wasn't even particularly religious and his letter to the NYT made no mention of religion: "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

the fact that there were warnings debunks "inside job"

Someone argued, " no lay people - highly skilled/educated or otherwise- suspected anything like 9-11 would happen"

Completely untrue. I was dreading some sort of attack because of the foreign policies were continuing. The policies of supporting Israel and other oppressive regimes in the Middle East. The WTC has already been hit once (bombed by Ramsi Yousef) and Bin Laden had been on TV saying that Yousef would be a model. Bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. for such things as supporting Israel, troops in the Saudi Peninsula, and the sanctions against Iraqis. There were warnings about an attack. THERE WOULD NOT BE WARNINGS IF IT WAS AN "INSIDE JOB!" THINK about it!

Why would they make themselves look bad as ignoring warnings of an impending attack? So it doesn't makes sense for them to have created the warnings. And if they didn't create them, then the warnings were based on information that was gathered. This being the case, they (the theoretical "Inside Job" team) wouldn't know what info had been compromised and what had not. If parts of our government were actually learning of an impending attack, it would be pure madness for a "inside job" crew to CONTINUE with their planned attack given the fact that plans of it were already leaking! They wouldn't know if the supposed connections between the "inside job" team and the "al-qeada" operatives would be revealed too. Think about it. The very fact that there were warnings means it couldn't be an "inside job".

And for God sakes, if an "Inside Job" team were planning it to justify an invasion of Iraq, wouldn't they make at least one of the hijackers be an Iraqi? Instead the Bush team was insinuating a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Why wouldn't they manufacture one if they are supposedly manufacturing a massive attack?

and of course: WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory

Bush "didn't want to scare the children"!

Bush didn't want to scare the children?!?

"My problem with the conspiracy theories is that don't you think they would have had Bush doing something other than reading "My Pet Goat" and disappearing for the rest of the day? If they had planned it, they would have had him out right away looking Presidential"

I think the same thing. Bush's absolutely horrible performance that day shows that this was not an "inside job." Bush was caught off guard and his inaction, just sitting there for at least 5 minuets and then hanging around for perhaps a total of 20 minutes, was just pathetic. He really blew it, it if had been planed they would make the man look like a total jackass. After the first plane hit the WTC, Bush continued with his plan to go to a children's classroom where he read a book about a pet goat. That is not a leader. After being told about the second plane hitting the WTC, Bush continued to sit in the children's classroom listening to a book about a pet goat. That is not a leader. He just sat there when we were under attack. He sat there for at least 6 minutes and by some reports 11 minutes. That really looked bad. A real President excuses himself from the room. Apologists came up with the excuse that he didn't want to frighten the children so that is why he just continued sitting there after being told about a 2nd plane hitting the WTC! The thing no one points out is that before he left the school he scared those children ANYWAY by saying we were under terrorist attack RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SAME CHILDREN! The whole performance was pathetic, was 9/11 planed to make Bush look really bad? I think not.

Bin Laden even pointed out how pathetic Bush's performance was. (how the hell could that be part of an "inside job"?) "Bin Laden sharply criticized President Bush for his behavior on the morning of September 11, 2001, when the president was reading "My Pet Goat" to a group of schoolchildren in Florida at the time he was informed of the attacks. "It never occurred that the highest leader of the military armed forces would leave 50,000 people to face the horror that they faced all by themselves when they needed him most," bin Laden said, "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, that gave us double the time for us to execute our attacks." - Bin Laden criticizes Bush

There are physical proofs that it was not a "controlled demolition".

Debunking Loose Change and more

MarkyX made this counter-video of the famous "Loose Change 2nd Edition". Using their own video and words, "Screw Loose Change" debunks the theories and statements made in Loose Change 2nd Edition.
See: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6,
Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12

Also see these videos:
Loose Change- rebuttal

Facts the 9/11 Skeptics don't want you to see

Bush Lied to You and Me about 9/11

The WTC towers did not collapse into their footprints

Visit:
Indications of the Imminent Collapseof the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Facts about 9/11. Not Fantasy.

9/11 Myths

Debunking 911

massive campaign of disinformation

Powerful special interests have prevented a diplomatic and legal solution for decades with Israel and Palestine. You are not getting the whole story.

This problem would be over if the U.S. expected Israel to abide by international law. It really is as simple as that.

You really have to do research into this topic because there is a massive campaign of disinformation to serve the Zionist agenda. Their efforts are so effective that they have managed to plant the idea in some peoples heads that even using the term "Zionist" is somehow a bad reflection of the person that uses it. Quite an effective bit of propaganda, bias the debate before it even starts.

What Zionists insist is essential to the definition of Israel is in fact a violation of human rights that we demand for ourselves.

What we have to ask ourselves is why should the we continue to put our lies at risk for a policy that says Israel is not obligated to adhere to international law and to respect basic human rights. Why is any discussion of holding Israel accountable off the table? People need to know it is being kept off the table.

There are basic facts that major media keeps from the American people.

Another example: In the international system, countries simply get recognized. There is no such thing as a "right to exist," it is an invention by Zionists in order to prevent a diplomatic solution.

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

The arrogance of U.S. officials, the danger from them

"The contemptuous tone of United States admonishments to Iran over its nuclear ambitions is but one source of the humiliation, alienation and rage that propels disaffected Muslim youth to espouse fanaticism, Hans Blix said Monday." -Former weapons inspector decries U.S. tone against Iran

Blix is right. The arrogance of U.S. officials has really been amazing. And the media continues to pave the way for a confrontation by not mentioning the illegality of some of the "options" and by not questioning Bush's competence and right to do anything to Iran.

The bottom line is Bush is dangerous, there should be a reflection of this concern in the mainstream media but they continue the pattern of making excuses for him. The media should be reporting how off the wall Bush really is.

On July 14, 2003, President Bush said, "did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

What Bush said is simply is not true, Saddam did let the inspectors in. Contrary to your impression of how the media behaves, the media sat by and let the President get away with saying this. Dana Milbank, White House reporter for The Washington Post gave this excuse for why they let Bush get away with saying this blatantly false statement, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the president being the president. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure. Everybody in the White House is under a great deal of pressure."

"The New York Times didn't even report his bizarre statement, and the rest of the media followed along meekly."

That was the first time, President Bush has gone on to say this two more times and the press has continued to allow him to get away with it. You should ask yourself how it is that "a free press permitted the world's most important official to say such things without contradiction."

The second time he said it was January 27, 2004. Bush claimed Saddam "chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in." Again, this is flat out wrong yet the mainstream media sat by and let he get away with it again.

The third time Bush repeated the falsehood was March 21, 2006 when he said, "we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him."

How did the media react when Bush did this for a third time? "I can find not a single media outlet, broadcast, print or otherwise, that noticed the outrageous lie told by George Bush" wrote a concerned citizen in his letter to the editor that appeared in the online edition of the Seattle Times, presumably in the printed edition as well.

This is simply outrageous. The President of the United States should know why it is he started a war. He should know the basic facts! Not knowing is extremely incompetent. It is an insult to all those he sent into this war. The man has sent men to their deaths, at a bare minimum of Presidential duty, he should at least know why it is he did it.

What is the key to getting the blogisphere to make this an issue?!: Bush thinks Saddam didn't let the inspectors in and that is why we attacked him! He has said it at least 3 times now and the media keeps letting him get away with it!

Just Out of Curiosity

This is the kind of response you will get from some people when you point out that we are being lied to about why we were attacked on 9/11: "Just out of curiosity, Tom, would it be enough for us to abandon the Israelis, or would we actually have to march them into the ovens to make you and your Chomskyite pals happy?"
This is the kind of garbage Michael Reynolds ("MightyMiddle.com") throws at someone who points out the motives for the 9/11 attacks. It is an over the top sick minded attack the messenger tactic. Dirty tricks are often used by those excusing the manipulations and lies carried out in service of the Israeli agenda, specifically the Zionist agenda.

Reynolds' sick-minded insinuation was designed to abort the conversation about the fact that pundits and politicians are deceiving the American people about why we were attacked on 9/11. Below are the posts that preceded Reynolds' tantrum:

Reynolds posted his anger that "we were lied to" about whether the Saudis had removed things like "True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly" and "It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God ..." from some children's textbooks in Saudi Arabia. Reynolds mentioned that and "that Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Osama Bin Laden and of Al Qaeda and of the majority of 9-11 terrorists."

I wrote that, "I don't like the implied context of this focus on their textbooks. The implied argument that their religious views are the reason we were attacked on 9/11. The motivation of the terrorists is from POLITICAL issues that have to do with REAL wrongs.

This focus on the textbooks is a dishonest game to point the finger and say "see, that is why they attack us".

Why they attack us has been explicitly stated several times for several years. And the specific foreign policies motivate those that are not particularly religious, like Ramsi Yousef. Osama bin Laden openly declared war on the U.S. a few years before 9/11. In interviews he talked about making Yousef a model. (Yousef was behind the '93 bombing of the WTC) Yousef explained the motive in a letter to the NYT: "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

Instead of lecturing people about how to teach their children their religion (what is to you anyway other than what I see as the implication that this is supposed to be what motivated the 9/11 terrorists) The focus should be on what really motived them and that is U.S. foreign policies, namely U.S. support of Israel.

I mean, doesn't it make you sick to your stomach that Bush and others have the audacity to try to con Americans about why we are risking our lives and losing the lives of fellow Americans? One of the first things Bush did after 9/11 was lie to the American people about why we were attacked. Should the American people be robbed of the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to risk their lives over specific foreign policies?"

Reynolds argued, "Do you draw sharp lines between the political and religious positions of right-wing Christians? I doubt it." He continued with his attempt to obscure what it is that motivates the terrorists.

I replied, "When a rightwing Christian bombs an abortion clinic, I don't see people trying to play it off as "hatred of our freedoms" while suppressing the fact that abortion policy is what they aim to end.

Pundits and politicians are deceiving the American people about these foreign policies. Thomas Friedman LIES when he wrote that terrorists "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." He is a liar, it is not "generalized hatred" it is specific things! It is beyond the pale to feed the public lies about life and death issues. Friedman wrote that in 1998, after years of crystal clear messages from the 1993 letter to the NYT to the 1998 Fatwa which lists 3 specific policies, U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula., U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, U.S. support of Israel. Do you care at all t about what Friedman is doing to the public?

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

Ralph Bodenstein, from his knowledge of Mohamed Atta's political views, believes that the date of [Atta's] will is significant. The 11th of April was shortly after the Israelis bombed aUN refugee camp in southern Lebanon, killing several hundred Palestinian civilians. The Israeli operations was called 'The Grapes of Wrath', but the wrath was largely in the Arab world, where people were incensed at the muted criticism of Israel in the West. Ralph thinks this is what caused the jihad. [ Ralph must be thinking of the beginning of the operations because "The undisputed context, of course, is that Israeli forces from April 11 to 27 were attacking various targets in Lebanon, including Lebanese civilian infrastructure" Israel protested the U.N. conclusion that the camp shelling wasn't an error. That camp shelling was on April 18. A preliminary UN report said that Israel fired knowingly on a southern Lebanon UN compound on April 18.]

And here is the motive of the the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks":
"By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Watch this video and tell me it doesn't make you sick to your stomach how Hamilton and others have suppressed discussion of the MAIN MOTIVE. It WASN'T some "radical ideology."

Bin Laden commented on the lies: "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

The American people's rights have been violated by powerful groups working to manipulate them. Friedman is just one of the many media con men serving this vile and dishonest agenda. That doesn't bother you?"

and that is when he hurled his manipulative and totally outrageous question at me. Previous times has skirted the issue, this time when I asked him point blank he evades and throws a totally insane question at me. Previous posts I made raised the issue but Reynolds always evaded the fact that we are being lied to about why we were attacked on 9/11:

The U.S. signed the UN Charter. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. the war on Iraq was illegal. And I think the examples I gave about WMD intelligence were straight forward. You want to avoid what it means. Can you at least agree that when Donald Rumsfeld said "WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE" he was not telling the truth?

You write on your blog that "your larger motive" for supporting the Iraq war was "the Tom Friedman argument." I suggest that this is a big part of the problem because Friedman has lied to you and he is manipulating you.

Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, " the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998

Please don't try to make excuses for what Friedman is doing. It should be obvious why Friedman tries to con the American people.

Once you understand what the 9/11 motives actually were (and not what people like Friedman want you to think they were) you can see that attacking Iraq was outrageous.

Once you look at the facts about the 9/11 motives you can see that lack of democracy in Iraq had NOTHING to do with the motivation of the terrorists for the simple fact that they know that Iraq was one of the countries that the U.S. was not currently propping up. Lack of democracy in Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist threat, they didn't blame us for it! Can you see now how outrageous the war on Iraq was? In fact, the CIA Warned That a U.S. Attack on Iraq Could Ignite Terror!

McCain and other politicians are extremely offensive. He talks about respect? How much respect does this man have for the American people for him to play along with a lie about why are lives are at risk from terrorists attacks? He LIES when he claims we were attacked on 9/11 "for who we are." This is a grave violation of the rights of the American people, you want to talk cynicism? What kind of person cons his fellow citizens into continuing to put their lives at risk?

Michael, how can you support a man who is robbing the American people of their freedom of self determination? This is life and death, to lie about these things is really low. How more cynical can one be to rationalize feeding the public a lie about why their fellow citizens have lost their lives?

Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/05/dishonesty-about-911-motives-robs.html

Those that push the lie are not sincere. They intentionally omit things in order to misrepresent what the motives are. This should make you think about how honest they were about Iraq intelligence! The Bush administration cited Hussein Kamel's testimony to back up their claims of WMD while ignoring the fact that Kamel said " All chemical weapons were destroyed , I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed." "Drumheller also said the Bush administration paid no heed to Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, who had made a deal to reveal military secrets, and who said there were no secret weapons " "It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller said.

Look how Tenet selectively quotes from the key sentence being sure to omit this part about WHY they are attacking: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Prof Jones and his 9/11 Paper

Jones has some sort of problem. He misrepresents many things in his paper. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."

Here are two major problems from Section 12 of Jones' paper:

Jones invents a contradiction between NIST and Lane and Lamont, he writes: "even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.”

BUT NIST DOESN'T SAY core columns pulled the exterior columns!

Jones is at his most blind when he quotes NIST: "To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports" THEN HE ADDS: [e.g., complete collapse occurred]

But NIST is referring to changes in the building BEFORE the collapse! Clearly NIST is talking about the photogarophic evidence and eyewitness reports of things BEFORE complete collapse occurred. Apparently Jones is ignorant of the building changes before complete collapse. He thinks the simulations were tweaked to conform to the collapse not understanding that NIST is talking about observable events BEFORE that, like the bowing columns.

I have not seen Jones acknowledge the fact that the building was observably undergoing changes before the collapse. He communicates this ignorance when writes "How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result." And he is not mentioning the bending of the columns and the sagging of the floors which is what the simulation was being tweaked to conform with. This doesn't have to be "faked" as Jones is implying, since we know that the columns did bend and the floors did sag. The simulations were simply tweaked so they would conform WITH WHAT WAS SEEN (photographed and witnessed) before the collapse. And this was done "only within the range of physical reality" as NIST writes.

This is a key point. Griffin himself says changes like this would be evidence of a fire induced collapse, "In fire-induced collapses ... the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend." The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. But both Griffin and Jones are apparently ignorant of this key fact.

manipulating public opinion

Pundits and politicians are actively trying to create a confrontation with Iran. They are manipulating public opinion right now by misrepresenting what has been said. For example, Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

President Ahmadinejad was talking about true democracy for all those that live there which would mean the occupying regime would be gone. [ Many news sources reported that he said, "Israel must be wiped off the map" but a correct translation shows what President Ahmadinejad actually said: "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." ] - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
(also see: The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. )

President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran’s foreign minister said, "He is talking about the regime."

President Ahmadinejad also said in his speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power."

In his letter to Bush, he asks, "are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets?"

[ What President Ahmadinejad is saying is that the occupying regime would be wiped away by the very practice of true democracy. Allowing people regardless of what religion they are, to have the full rights that every American expects for him or herself. You can see why this fact gets suppressed by those serving a pro-Israel agenda. This is one of the unmentionable things in American media. So in American media distortions were broadcast about what President Ahmadinejad said. Those in the media are not going to allow the public to understand that the very practice of true democracy means the removal of the Zionist regime. The distortions are also part of manipulating the public into accepting a confrontation with Iran.]

President Ahmadinejad has clarified: "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

The media is not reporting the truth about what is really going on.* We are being manipulated by the phase "destruction of Israel" which masks the ugly reality: Israel denies rights to non-Jews, rights that we demand for ourselves. This is something mainstream media never makes clear to the public. When people talk about the destruction of Israel - if all the Jews and non-Jews in Israel lived totally equally, that would be, by definition, the destruction of Israel.
Chomsky Video Clip

When fellow citizens try to give us warnings about these things, we should take them seriously. It is far too easy to not think about it and let fear of being labeled "anti-semitic" prevent you from even taking the time to think through the actual issues. It takes time to understand what the actual issues are and it takes care to not fall for the misrepresentation of what the issues are.

There are indeed Zionists that are using American power to advance their agenda at the expense of the American people AND so are others but that doesn't take away the danger from what Zionists are doing. They have successfully distorted the basic facts for large numbers of the public and that puts our democracy at risk. State power is being abused and Zionists are part of that abuse. The thing that makes it more dangerous is while we can criticize others that manipulate state power for their goals, when we criticize Zionists we get accusations of "anti-semitism" hurled at us. About the tactic of hurling the accusation of "anti-semitism" at those that speak out against Israel policies, Shulamit Aloni, former Knesset member, explained "well it is a trick, we always use it."

* UPDATE: 60 Minutes deceived the public by not including President Ahmadinejad's comments about democracy SEE: President Ahmadinejad Calls for Democracy, Free and Fair Elections and a Durable Peace.
The text in red was edited out of the 60 Minutes broadcast:

MR. WALLACE: You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question. You still have not answered the question. Israel must be wiped off the map. Why?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, don't be hasty, sir. I'm going to get to that.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not hasty.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met.

So we said that allow the people of Palestine to participate in a referendum to choose their desired government, and of course, for the war to come an end as well. Why are they refusing to allow this to go ahead? Even the Palestinian administration and government which has been elected by the people is being attacked on a daily basis, and its high-ranking officials are assassinated and arrested. Yesterday, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament was arrested, elected by the people, mind you. So how long can this go on?

We believe that this problem has to be dealt with fundamentally. I believe that the American government is blindly supporting this government of occupation. It should lift its support, allow the people to participate in free and fair elections. Whatever happens let it be. We will accept and go along. The result will be as you said earlier, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Look, I mean no disrespect. Let's make a deal. I will listen to your complete answers if you'll stay for all of my questions. My concern is that we might run out of time.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, you're free to ask me any questions you please, and I am hoping that I'm free to be able to say whatever is on my mind. You are free to put any question you want to me, and of course, please give me the right to respond fully to your questions to say what is on my mind.

Do you perhaps want me to say what you want me to say? Am I to understand --

MR. WALLACE: No.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: So if that is the case, then I ask you to please be patient.

MR. WALLACE: I said I'll be very patient.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Maybe these are words that you don't like to hear, Mr. Wallace.

MR. WALLACE: Why? What words do I not like to hear? [the words highlighted in red and edited out of the interview]

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Because I think that you're getting angry.

MR. WALLACE: No, I couldn't be happier for the privilege of sitting down with the president of Iran.

a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel

"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people." -Osama Bin Laden

BBC: Transcript: Bin Laden video excerpts
Thursday, December 27, 2001
Qatar-based satellite television station al Jazeera has broadcast in full a 33-minute video recorded by Osama Bin Laden. Below is the transcript of the excerpts.

Three months after the blessed strikes against world atheism and its leader, America, and around two months after the fierce crusade against Islam, we must review the impact of these events.

The latest events have proved important truths.

It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam.

Those who lived under continuous US raids for the past months are aware of it.

How many villages have been destroyed and how many millions have been pushed out in the freezing cold?

These men, women and children who have been damned and now live under tents in Pakistan, have committed no sin.

They are innocent. But on a mere suspicion, the United States has launched this fierce campaign.

We have witnessed the true crimes of those who call themselves humanists and claim to be defenders of freedom.

Only seven grammes of explosives are needed to kill someone, but the United States has used bombs weighing seven million grammes proving their hatred of the Taleban and Muslims.

When the youths - may God receive them as martyrs - blew up (the US embassy) in Nairobi, less than two tonnes were used.

The United States then said it was a terrorist act and a mass destruction weapon, while they unscrupulously used two seven-tonne bombs, of seven million grammes each.

After they (the Americans), for no reason, bombed entire villages to scare the inhabitants, the defence secretary said it was the United States' right to exterminate the peoples since they are Muslim and since they are not American.

It is a blatant crime.

A few days ago, they bombed al-Qaeda positions in Khost (eastern Afghanistan) and dropped - in what they said was a mistake - a radio-guided bomb on a mosque where ulemas were praying.

They targeted the mosque, killing 150 Muslim worshippers.

It is the hatred of crusaders.

Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people.

We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred.

It is important to hit the economy (of the United States), which is the base of its military power...If the economy is hit they will become reoccupied.

Below is the translation that appeared in the Washington Post:

Excerpt: Bin Laden Tape

Thursday, Dec. 27, 2001

Following is an excerpt of a tape of Osama bin Laden as translated by the U.S. government. In the tape, given to al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television, bin Laden notes that his statement was made on the three month anniversary of the September 11th attacks, suggesting that he was alive as of early December.

Osama bin Laden: Three months after the blessed strikes against world infidelity and the head of infidelity, namely America, and two months after the fierce crusade against Islam, it gives us pleasure to speak about some of the ramifications of these events. These events have revealed extremely important things to Muslims. It has become clear that the west in general led by America bears an unspeakable crusader grudge against Islam.

Those who lived these months under the continuous bombardment by the various kinds of the U.S. aircraft are well aware of this. Many villages were wiped out without any guilt. Millions of people were expelled during this very cold weather, the oppressed ones of men, women, and children. They now live in tents in Pakistan. The committed no guilt. Although it was a mere suspicion, America launched this fierce campaign.

Those who claim that they are advocates of humanity and freedom we saw here their real crimes. Only a shrapnel is more than enough [to kill] a human being. The weight of this shrapnel is 7 grams. Out of its rancor against the Taliban and Muslims, America dropped on our brothers on the frontlines bombs, weighing 7 tons each.

For those who can calculate, this means 7,000 kilos or 7 million grams while man needs only seven grams, which are more than enough. When the youths -- may God accept them as martyrs -- detonated in Nairobi less than two tons [of explosives], America said that this was a terrorist strike with a weapon of mass destruction. However, it did not refrain from dropping two shells each weighing seven million grams. After bombarding entire villages without any justification but with the purpose of terrorizing people only and making them scared of hosting the Arabs or coming close to them the [U.S.] defense minister stated that this is our right. It is their right to annihilate people so long as they are Muslims and non-American. This is crime per se. It is clear and conspicuous and all the statements you hear them say it was carried out by mistake is pure lies. A few days ago, they hit what the claimed to be al-Qaeda positions in Khost and dropped a guided missile at a mosque. They said that this was a mistake. After investigations, it was confirmed that the ulema were reciting their Ramadan night prayers. They had a meeting after these prayers with the hero struggler Shaykh Jalal-al-Din Haqqani, one of the most prominent former leaders of the jihad against the Soviet Union, who rejected the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. They bombarded the mosque while the Muslims were praying, killing 150. This was their fate but Shaykh Jala was not hurt. May God grant him long life. This is the crusader grudge. Those who repeat words without realizing their consequences would be careful when they say that they condemn terrorism. Our terrorism against America is benign. It seeks to make the unjust stop making injustice. It seeks to make America stop its support for Israel while kills our people.

What Ahmadinejad Said

SPIEGEL: This letter to the American president includes a passage about Sept. 11, 2001. The quote: "How could such an operation be planned and implemented without the coordination with secret and security services or without the far-reaching infiltration of these services?" Your statements always include so many innuendos. What is that supposed to mean? Did the CIA help Mohammed Atta and the other 18 terrorists conduct their attacks?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not what I meant. We think that they should just say who is to blame. They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.