Thursday, September 28, 2006
CLINTON: But I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush Administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?"
How many did in the Bush Administration did Fox News Sunday ask? NONE.
Never has a host of Fox News Sunday asked a Bush Administration official about the Administration's failure to take action in response to the Cole bombing of the USS Cole. ""Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole" - http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/wallace-cole/
A question that should be asked is "Why didn't you do anything to get Israel to obey international law and stop putting America at risk of terrorism?"
Friday, September 22, 2006
We don't know what Chomsky said that didn't make it into the New York Times article written by MARC SANTORA but what did make it into the article was at least decent. The picture was dignified too.
For example, the article titled "A Scholar Is Alive, Actually, and Hungry for Debate" did allow Chomsky to make a clear points about the coup that Chavez complains about and Chavez's popularity and democratic credentials:
"Mr. Chomsky said that he would not choose to use the same harsh oratory, but added that the Venezuelan leader was simply expressing the views of many in the world. And he said Mr. Chavez's anger was understandable. "The Bush administration backed a coup to overthrow his government," he said. "Suppose Venezuela supported a military coup that overthrew the government of the United States? Would we think it was a joke?"
Proving that he was still up for a lively debate, Mr. Chomsky then went on to talk about income inequality in Latin America, the history of the United Nations, Iraq, Iran, Fidel Castro and, finally, the man who so fervently admires him, Mr. Chavez.
"I have been quite interested in his policies," Mr. Chomsky said. "Personally, I think many of them are quite constructive." Most important, he said, Mr. Chavez seems to have the overwhelming support of the people in his country. "He has gone through six closely supervised elections," he said."This article was no doubt promted by both of the mention at the UN (Chavez Cites Chomsky at the U.N. General Assembly) AND the boost in Amazon sales which now put Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival at #1.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
9/22/06 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1 in Books
"It's an excellent book to help us understand what's been happening in the world throughout the 20th century and what's happening now." Chavez
"It is an exaggeration to say that only the most powerful are granted the authority to establish norms of appropriate behavior - for themselves. The authority is sometimes delegated to reliable clients. Thus, Israel's crimes are permitted to establish norms: for example, its regular resort to "targeted killings" of suspects - called "terrorist atrocities" when carried out by the wrong hands. In May 2003, two leading Israeli civil rights attorneys provided "a detailed list of all of the liquidations and all of the attempted assassinations that Israel's security forces carried out" during the al-Aqsa Intifada, from November 2000 through April 2003. Using official and semiofficial records, they found that "Israel carried out no less than 175 liquidation attempts" - one attempt every five days - killing 235 people, of whom 156 were suspected of crimes. "It greatly pains us to say the following," the lawyers wrote, but "the consistent, widespread policy of targeted liquidations bounds on a crime against humanity."
Their judgment is not quite accurate. Liquidation is a crime in the wrong hands, but it is a justified, if regrettable, act of self-defense when carried out by a client, and even establishes norms for the "the boss-man called 'partner,' " who provides authorization" - Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, p24
"the 'solution to the problem of terrorism is to offer an honorable solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination.' So Yehoshaphat Harkabi - former head of Israel military intelligence and a leading Arabist - observed twenty years ago" Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, p213
Also see Chomsky's latest book: Failed States: The Abuse of Power and The Assault on Democracy
"Half a century ago, in July 1955, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued an extraordinary appeal to the people of the world, asking them "to set aside" the strong feelings they have about many issues and to consider themselves "only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire."
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
"As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated. " - President Hugo Chavez Delivers Remarks at the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday, September 20, 2006
"It's an excellent book to help us understand what's been happening in the world throughout the 20th century," Chavez said, "and what's happening now." - Chavez Calls Bush 'Devil,' Assails U.S. Policies
Monday, September 18, 2006
"She has been told, however, to remove an Iranian flag from her spacesuit and, at the insistence of the Russian and U.S. governments, promise that there will be no political messages during her trip."
By Shamil Zhumatov
"BAIKONUR, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - A Russian Soyuz spacecraft blasted off on Monday carrying a woman set to notch up three space records: the first female tourist, first female Muslim, and first Iranian in orbit.
Anousheh Ansari, 40, an Iranian-American telecommunications entrepreneur, joined a Russian cosmonaut and U.S. astronaut in the cramped interior of Soyuz TMA-9 for a flight to the International Space Station (ISS).Ansari, a U.S. citizen based in Dallas, Texas who left Iran in 1984, has said she wants to be an example to her compatriots.
"I think my flight has become a sort of ray of hope for young Iranians living in Iran, helping them to look forward to something positive, because everything they've been hearing is all so very depressing and talks of war and talks of bloodshed," Ansari told Reuters last week.
She has been told, however, to remove an Iranian flag from her spacesuit and, at the insistence of the Russian and U.S. governments, promise that there will be no political messages during her trip.
Looking relaxed and smiling at a pre-launch news conference at the Baikonur Cosmodrome on Sunday, Ansari said she would still pack another Iranian flag for her trip." - Iranian-born space tourist blasts off into orbit
Sunday, September 17, 2006
There has been massive fraud on the part of many people in influential positions in order to suppress the motives for 9/11.
Admitting to the troops in Saudi Arabia as one of the motives comes easily while another one of the motives, one just as clearly listed, doesn't get mentioned too easily.
In the few places it even get to be mentioned, the person pointing it out gets insinuations of "anti-Semitism."
I suggest you look at the facts, the ABC movie "The Path to 9-11" was not the only case in which the motives are omitted or lied about in the service of the Israel agenda.
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
You seem to have a notion that the US government can do no wrong. Fact is, it serves the interests of big business and powerful groups. Look at Enron, we had people willing to subject fellow Americans to blackouts, we had businessmen willing to lie and screw over Americans.
You can't let this notion of "America" obscure the fact that we are really talking about policies that are implemented on behalf of powerful businesses and groups. What they are doing to the people in the Middle East is no more noble than what was done to Americans, in fact it is much worse.
Don't try to play off what ABC did as some inadvertent mistake. I gave you a second very dramatic example which showed the same INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION of the MAIN MOTIVE for the 9/11 attacks.
Regarding a report that was supposed to serve the interests of the American people, we had 9/11 commissioners more interested in serving special interests, commissioners who "REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report" because they worried "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy."
US officials have done enough wrong to the Middle East including literally shipping Korans and weapons while encouraging Jihad and also of partnering with Saddam Hussein in war crimes. You are acting like the US officials who make these policies are moral agents, they are not. If you actually look at the evidence you will see that. Doesn't the fact that they would have the audacity to lie to us about why we were attacked give you a clue that something really dirty is going on? You can't leap to the copout of "Israel-bait" to avoid dealing with the ugly realities. Bottom line, if we want to PREVENT terrorism, we make sure our government respects the human rights of the people in the Middle East as we expect our rights to be respected. When the imminent domain decision was made, I noticed that opponents of it were not denounced as "anti-American" or "anti-Semitic". Lets use the same logic and realize that not all polices are produced by angels. Given how many Americans are willing to mistreat other Americans, you need to wake from the dream that US officials have been implementing policies that are just and moral. We could actually PREVENT terrorist attacks and also save billions of dollars.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Stop playing the anti-Semitism card. It has as much relevance and as much class as throwing "what, do you hate blacks?" at someone who thinks OJ Simpson was guilty of a vicious double murder.
Israel is not "the Jews," and to instantly jump up and down about the "the Jews" the minute foreign policies concerning Israel are discussed shows a very brainwashed mentality.
I just gave you a quote from the top commissioners of the 9/11 Commission. It showed that commissioners were willing to keep facts out of the 9/11 report all because they worried about protecting the policy of US support of Israel.
These commissioners knew that the average American would take a look at polices to see if anything could be changed THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED in order to serve the interests of the American people, their safety.
The Commission failed its duty to fulfill its mandate to address 9/11 and to make recommendations to prevent another attack with regard to the main motive for the attacks!
Israel is not "the Jews" and the government of Israel has no right to claim immunity from criticism because those that run the government are Jewish. You are intellectually lazy, you are unwilling to look at the facts.
Clearly the producers of "The Path to 9-11" played the same game the 9/11 Commission played. And this is about a gravely serious subject! They are playing political games with our lives! And you are from such a mindset of being subservient to powerful interests that you kiss the feet of people who are spitting on you. You can't see the enormous insult it is for these politicians, pundits and producers to lie us about why it is we are being attacked?
Why did they feel it necessary to fabricate a fatwa quote? Because they want to prevent Americans from having the chance to exercise their freedom to reassess the policy of US support of Israel. Lying about the 9/11 motives is the most dramatic lie in the service of the Israel agenda but it is not the only one. Why don't you make an effort? I laid out in detail the political games being played, how about having the intellectual courage and honestly to examine what I am saying instead of running from it screaming "anti-Semitism" in an attempt to abort discussion of this topic? There is a reason they are lying like this, the reason is these polices are not wonderful and are in fact very ugly if you take actually take a look at them.
"I was not quoting an ABC movie," says Gaius.
And you are not quoting anything from al qaeda. They don't say "convert or die." That is propaganda used to hide the real motives. You can look for yourself and see that "until America converts to Islam" has not been said by them and they don't demand such a ridiculous thing. Where ever you go the false quote of "until America converts to Islam," it isn't true. The ABC miniseries "The Path to 9-11" used the same phrase you did and they claimed it came from bin Laden's fatwa but you can check and see that it doesn't. If you are reading cbnnews, they quote the movie and as I said, the movie is wrong. (I contacted them to make the correction, apparently they don't care if it is wrong since they didn't correct it) Did you say you didn't see the movie?
"Do you understand the significance of the issuance of several “invitations to Islam” that both al Qaeda and Iran have issued?" asks Gaius.
I know what it says and what it doesn't say.
"He says ignorance of Islam leads Westerners to accept wars waged by their governments and Israel against Muslim countries:"
"To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent [your] misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself," he said in English on the new tape.
"But whatever you do don't attempt to spread your misery and misguidance to our lands," he added.
It doesn't say "convert or die," it is an invitation just as the title of the video said it was. Can you guess why the pundits you are reading lie about "convert or die?" Clearly the pundits use this false motive to cover up the real motives that bin Laden and others have stated for years. can't you see you are being manipulated and lied to? If you take the time, you could look into the policies and see why politicians would deny that they are the motive. We know intentional suppression is going on. we know that even the 9/11 Commission played the same game. We know from Hamilton and Kean's new book that there were commissioners who "REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report" because they worried "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy."
Politicians serve special interests that don't what their polices reassessed and possibly changed so they feed us lies.
Monday, September 11, 2006
ABC lied about what bin Laden's fatwa said.
ABC's movie "The Path to 9-11" last night was extremely ugly. They lied about what bin Laden's fatwa said. It didn't say, as they portrayed, "There is no room for negotiation unless and until America converts to Islam."
It is clear why the ABC movie lied.
The 1996 fatwa the movie misrepresents actually says things like "It is incredible that our country is the world largest buyer of arms from the USA and the area biggest commercial partners of the Americans who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men and financial supports."
The fatwa actually lists the same grievances bin Laden and others have mentioned for years as the 1993 letter from the terrorists made crystal clear: "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."
Bin Laden has made the motives clear and until what: "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."
The US has since pulled the troops out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11.
Please pass this video on to others, many blogs and websites are unwilling to tell the truth: What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?
UPDATE: Due to the many irrational responses I have received over at Kos, I want to make this point: If I was writing about an example of an ABC lie that covered up something about the Military Industrial Complex and I wrote "ABC lies to serve the Military Industrial Complex's agenda" I don't think I would have gotten these kinds of responses.
Many of those posting comments at Kos have made a mistake and are making fools of themselves. I stand by everything I have written, I can't help it if people ignore what I write and substitute their own ideas and INVENT things I have not written. I have written on the Internet for years and have interviewed Noam Chomsky who himself is subjected to this kind of nonsense. Take a deep breath, reread what I have actually written and take some time to sincerely think about it. THINK, why is writing "ABC lies to serve the Military Industrial Complex's agenda" OK but this topic results in an irrational and intellectually dishonest response?
As far as what country's agenda is being served, we know that even the 9/11 Commission played the same game. We know from Hamilton and Kean's new book that there were commissioners who "REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report" because they worried "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." What country's agenda was that serving? Mexico's?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
See Video: On 9/11, WTC1 Hit WTC7, Seriously Damaging the South Side
At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed and contrary to the claims of 9/11 conspiracy people, it did not collapse into its footprint like a controlled explosion. (See the diagram) Instead, as the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. (See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC 6).
Eyewitness accounts from firemen such as Captain Chris Boyle and Deputy Chief Peter Hayden and photographic evidence back this up. It is the south side of WTC 7 that was damaged and it is likely that the fires (see figures 5-16 and 5-17) started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, the fires in WTC 7 started at approximately the same time as the collapse of WTC 1 and it is the fires that are primarily the reason the WTC 7 building collapsed. Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of the WTC 7.Reports from the scene mention the damage:
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all,
but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
... Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Fire chief Daniel Nigro clearly thought the building could collapse. Here's why:
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create
a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7].
A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the
building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity
was in serious doubt.
Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
Hayden: ... also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.
Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized
this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took awhile for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 - did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of WTC 7 but it is the south side of the building that was damaged by the debris from WTC 1 and it is the west side of the building where the smoke was pouring out of. (see figures 5-16 and 5-17)
"at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
Division 14 - 34 years
Visconti: So now I was in contact with Jay. I found out what kind of shape he was in and I kept getting reports back from people that we're not there yet, we're working our way, there's a collapsed area in 6. I'm standing not too far from Frank Fellini. He says, Nick, I'm really worried about this building. We were all worried because there was a lot of fire in it and we were concerned about the building collapsing. We weren't sure that it was stable enough that it wasn't going to collapse.
Firehouse: Which building was that?
Visconti: Building 6. So I had put a battalion chief with each of the groups that went into 6. I kept trying to talk to him, walking over there, walking down a little bit into the ramp they went down, the door they went down into and how are you doing? You know we're trying, we can't find it. I don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. ...Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? I didn't realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we're moving the command post over this way, that building's coming down.
At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy
fire and smoke that really wasn't bothering us when we were searching
because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west
of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise
toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There
were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at
the intersection, and we were trying to back them up and here goes
7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
See 911Myths.com: WTC 7 Fire "A video taken from another angle shows conclusively that this really is smoke coming from WTC7"
Download it here
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.
Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory
Saturday, September 09, 2006
From CNN.com: "Al-Jazeera also showed al Qaeda video of the hijackers -- all wearing turbans and having full beards, in contrast to their clean-shaven looks on the day of the attacks -- reviewing flight manuals in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and it played a video message from one of the hijackers, who implored the United States to "take your fat hands off the land of Arabs." "We will get you. We will humiliate you. We will never stop following you," said Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which flew into the north tower of the World Trade Center. - Al-Jazeera: Bin Laden tape praises hijackers
What CNN.com left out highlighted in red: "To the United States, he says: "take your fat hands off the land of Arabs and stop supporting Jewish cowards. ... We will get you. We will humiliate you. We will never stop following you." - Hijack plot bared on Al Qaeda video
alt translation at CBS.com shows same thing: "My work is a message to all those who heard me and to all those who saw me but at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian Peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine," the bearded young man read from a paper he held. - '20th Hijacker' Arrested
When another tape was released CNN.com reported: ""It is time to kill the Americans on their own soil among their sons and next to their soldiers and intelligence agencies. ... We killed them outside their country, praise is to God, and today we kill them on their own soil," the man says on the tape." "The tape shows a bearded man wearing an Arab kaffiyeh or headdress, reading a prepared statement. Behind the man, a graphic appears -- apparently electronically inserted -- of New York's World Trade Center in flames after the attacks. Words also appear that say, "Get the infidels out of the Arabian peninsula." -New bin Laden tape surfaces
CNN didn't report that these words also appear: "I am out to look for the jihad land to get ready to kill the Americans and Islam's enemy. By this I'm helping my Creators religion and taking revenge for my brother's bloods. I never forgot and would neither forget the blood shed of my brothers by the hands of the Jews the grandsons of the monkeys and pigs with the clear support of the head of the kufr world the USA." .. "All this happens to our brothers and sisters around the world. Palestine even after half a century is still bleeding of Muslim blood."
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Q: What motivated the 9/11 hijackers to attack the US?
A: US foreign policy bias for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and US government support for other oppressive regimes in the Middle East.
The MSM didn't make this clear to the public. See the new video: What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?
The video shows the 9/11 Commission Hearing where the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. See FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald explain the motive for the 9/11 attacks.
The 9-11 Commission held its twelfth and final public hearing June 16-17, 2004, in Washington, DC. On June 16 the Commission heard from several of the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot. It was at this hearing that the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission said, "I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents. ... what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?" The agents looked at each other, apparently not eager to be the one to have to say it. FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald stepped up to the plate and laid out the facts, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." But this testimony was kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report and no recommendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.
After the report was issued, the ten commissioners formed the "9-11 Public Discourse Project." At the August 2, 2005 session on foreign policy, Lee Hamilton quickly tries to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed. The questioner started to ask, "Mr. Hamilton? I had a quick question for you sir. I had spoken with you on C-SPAN about a month ago ..." Immediately Hamilton interrupts him, "I think we'd uh ..." The questioner persisted, "why aren't we addressing the gorilla in the room? The gorilla in the room is US support for Israel." He corrects Hamilton's claim that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute wasn't addressed in the 9/11 Commission Report by referring to page 147 of the report which 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 questioner keeps getting interrupted by Hamilton as he pleads, "Why aren't we addressing that sir?" Hamilton didn't answer and dismisses the questioner, "Alright sir. Alright, this is a conversation you and I ought to have. Let's not take up the time of our resource people. May we go to the next question please?"
"This was sensitive ground," Hamilton and Kean say in their new book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission," and some commissioners worried "listed U.S. support of Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." There is a reason politicians don't want US support of Israel listed as a root cause of al Qaeda's terrorism. There is a reason politicians don't want the American people to "reassess that policy." If the public were to take a good look at the facts, if they researched what the policies actually do to people in the Middle East, they would be horrified. Politicians lie to us about "hatred of our freedoms" because they care more about serving special interests than about keeping us safe.The Commissioners were more interested in playing politics than in fulfilling the 9/11 Commission's mandate to "to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." These politicians betrayed the American people. Dishonesty about the 9/11 motives robs us of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
MSM often omits Israel as a grievance of bin Laden's. Thomas Friedman of the NYT 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."
CNN playes the same game too. They played bin Laden's words but omited the referance to Israel and Palestine. (Notice how the reporter tries to steer bin Laden's grievances towards fixating on the US presence in Saudi Arabia, note the reporter's second question too.)
This is from the 1997 interview:
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?
BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (killings in Lebanon perpetrated by Israel). ...
REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
Bin Laden has been angry about US support of Israel going back to at least 1982: "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."
In 1984, Jamal Ismail met Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was 27 at the time and he made it clear even then that he didn't like U.S. support of Israel. Ismail said that bin Laden did not talk much but he did know how bin Laden felt about U.S. support of Israel:
"I knew from the beginning that [bin Laden] was not willing to drink any soft drinks from American companies, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Sprite, 7-Up. He was trying to boycott all American products because he believed that without Americans, Israel cannot exist." p39 The Osama Bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader Peter Bergen
In fact: "Bin Laden's long-standing support for the Palestinians against Israel also appears to have been learned at his father's knee." p 82, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & the Future of America Michael Scheuer
Bin Laden has repeatedly made clear how critical US support of Israel is:
"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
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's motivation was his objection to the US foreign policy of supporting 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, was the pilot who flew into WTC 2. When someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Al-Shehhi retorted, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"
Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine." Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."
"... 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
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Kasi's roommate told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. "After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might."
Also, in the "Outline of the 9/11 Plot, Staff Statement No. 16", from the 9/11 Commission: "Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader, of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets: the World Trade Center, which represented the U.S. economy; the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military; and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel."
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Reviews of "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" in the NYT and the Independent Institute.
A look at reviews of "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" in the NYT and the Independent Institute plus a look at the book.
From James Bamford's review, Intelligence Test, in the NYT:
"the commission was charged with explaining not only what happened, but also why it happened. In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor. Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who investigated the attacks, Hamilton asked: "You’ve looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody. . . . What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?"This review in the NYT overlooks the fact that there were no recommendations in the 9/11 commission's report addressing US support for Israel. Bamford's review in the NYT does not reveal the fact that there was "some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it revolved around the question of al Qaeda's motivation." and that "this was sensitive ground." The review doesn't reveal the ugly fact that some commissioners were able to pressure the group into not putting any recommendations in the report addressing US support for Israel. It is a scandal that commissioners bowed to pressure to suppress what was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. Their compromise was to write in their report that "America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong," They were too worried about playing politics to admit that biased US government policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict motivates the terrorists. They coped out and wrote that "American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary." These "American actions" or more accurately, the actions dictated by the policies of special interests, are resulting in much more than "commentary!"
These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States," he said. "They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." As if to reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot, "was going to fly the final plane, land it and make 'a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East,'" Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue: "Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions."
Given the Bush administration's current policies in the region, another 9/11-style attack is less a matter of if than when."
Ivan Eland's review, "9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks" is the review that clued me in on the fact that the "book by the chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks." Eland makes these critical points in his review:
"The book usefully details the administration's willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue. Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda's 9/11 attack. Although Hamilton, to his credit, argued for saying that the reasons al Qaeda committed the heinous strike were the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel, the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy on Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."
Some commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: if the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known."
The book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" does reveal what those studying this issue have suspected, that some commissioners on the 9/11 Commission argued against and stopped the Commission from making a recommendation about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks: US support of Israel.
From Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission pp. 284-285:
"We did however, have some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it revolved around the question of al Qaeda's motivation. For instance, Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in al Qaeda's actions. Similarly, several commissioners pointed out that we had to acknowledge that the American presence in Iraq had become the dominant issue in the way the world's Muslims viewed the United States.This book lets this flawed argument stand as the excuse for why they ended up agreeing on what they put in the 9/11 Commission's Report. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology and against mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report ignored the findings of the Commission's own staff!:
--- This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by opposition to American policies - rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy. To Lee, though, it was not a question of altering support for Israel but merely stating a fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to the relations between the Islamic world and the United States - and to Bin Laden's ideology and the support he gained throughout the Islamic world for his jihad against America. ... We ended up agreeing on language that acknowledged the importance of the two issues without passing judgment:
America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S. choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.
- "The staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex."
- By 1992, Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He argued that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel, had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he called 'the head of the snake,' the United States. He charged that the United States, in addition to backing Israel, kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He also excoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War as a defilement of holy Muslim land.
MR. SNELL: Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets, the World Trade Center, which represented the United States economy, the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military, and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel....These Commissioners ignored what made it into the 9/11 Comission's own report!:
MR. HAMILTON: But what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?
MR. FITZGERALD: I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States
The report showed that the two terrorist pilots shared the same motivation. Both Mohammed Atta, the leader of the mission and terrorist pilot who crashed into World Trade Center 1, and Marwan al Shehhi, the terrorist pilot who crashed into WTC 2, were angry about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians:
- "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, 'How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?'" p 162
- "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." Chapter 5
- Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."
- Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."
"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 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
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might. - Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
Also see these blog posts: