Saturday, December 14, 2013

What Nelson Mandela Said About Israel (+playlist)

Eric Alterman on loyalty to Israel (many occasions support Israel over U.S.)

Eric Alterman: ... it was drummed into me that I should do what’s best for Israel. I was at the Center for Jewish History not long ago where I heard Ruth Wisse, the Yiddishist professor at Harvard who happens to be the Martin L. Peretz professor, instruct a group of young Jewish journalists that they should think of themselves as members of the Israeli army. That in Israel young people have to serve in the army – well, they didn’t have to serve in the army, but they should think of themselves as members of a Jewish army, supporting the Jewish people, supporting Israel, putting aside their intellectual qualms and concerns about things. Like Lieberman. Now it so happens that because so few people are willing to say this, and there’s certainly good historical reasons for this, I end up being quoted by Walt and Mearsheimer as the only person saying, I am a dual loyal Jew and sometimes I’m going to actually go with Israel, because the United States can take an awful lot of hits and come up standing. Whereas if Israel takes one serious bad hit it could disappear. So there’s going to be some cases where when Israel and the United States conflict I’m going to support what’s best for Israel rather than what I think is best for the United States.


Jane Eisner: Can you imagine a time where you would feel that dual loyalty and go with Israel?
Eric Alterman: I just said, there are many occasions.




Thursday, December 12, 2013

Chomsky Exposes Israel's Crimes

Chomsky Exposes Israel's Crimes, Hear Facts the Media isn't making the public aware of. See Hope and Prospects http://tinyurl.com/hopesandprospects PASS VIDEO ON: Tinyurl.com/IsraeliCriminalAggression Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime.  The editors of the London Guardian are quite right to say that "If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a NATO taskforce would today be heading for the Somali coast."


 It is worth bearing in mind that the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats in international waters between Cyprus and Lebanon, killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes bringing them to prisons in Israel including secret prison/torture chambers, sometimes holding them as hostages for many years. Israel assumes that it can carry out such crimes with impunity because the US tolerates them and Europe generally follows the US lead. Much the same is true of Israel's pretext for its latest crime: that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that could be used for bunkers for rockets.  Putting aside the absurdity, if Israel were interested in stopping Hamas rockets it knows exactly how to proceed: accept Hamas offers for a cease-fire.

 In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement.  The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreeement on November 4, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket. Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire.  The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead on December 27.  Evidently, there is no justification for the use of force "in self-defense" unless peaceful means have been exhausted.  In this case they were not even tried, although — or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed.  Operation Cast Lead is therefore sheer criminal aggression, with no credible pretext, and the same is true of Israel's current resort to force.

The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext.  It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted "the wrong way" in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan.  The siege is savage and cruel, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that.  It is the latest stage of long-standing Israeli plans, backed by the US, to separate Gaza from the West Bank. These are only the bare outlines of very ugly policies, in which Egypt is complicit as well.

 BTW, the preceding statement was part of a longer interview for an Egyptian weekly which you can read online (see link below) BUT, the Egyptian weekly edited this out, Chomsky's mention of Egypt's complicity in Israel's crimes. And largely the press in the US really isn't better than this. Along with the other topics he deals with, Chomsky writes about the press's poor performance in his latest book Hopes and Prospects. See the link in the video info.

 Link to the Egyptian weekly's Chomsky interview: http://bit.ly/cN5v41 "One of the world's major intellectual voices and a leading critic of Israel, Noam Chomsky has sided with the powerless throughout his career, while at the same time reminding the powerful of the inconvenient truths they would rather forget. He spoke to David Tresilian in Paris." http://tinyurl.com/hopesandprospects PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/IsraeliCriminalAggression

Overcoming Zionism

Joel Kovel, author of Overcoming Zionism, talks with Amy Goodman about Zionist pressure which caused University of Michigan Press to drop his book from distribution. Only after fellow academics and civil libertarians led a campaign to get the book published did University of Michigan Press overturn their decision and agree to continue the distribution of Kovel's book.


Joel Kovel, author of Overcoming Zionism, said, "What we don’t have is any kind of real debate on this subject in our country at this time ... basically these Zionist repression groups have had pretty much a free hand ... that’s why I wrote the book. I mean, I wanted to -- I disregarded all the taboos, that you're not supposed to talk about Israel in any depth in this country."
[The distributor dropped his book after receiving threatening emails from a Zionist pressure group.] "They panicked this summer when they dropped my book. I mean, they were pressured by this Zionist watchdog team." [But the Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism
was able to convince them to continue distributing it.] "We have a committee forming, Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, codz.org. [UPDATE: Link apparently expired]And we’re planning a conference and all. But the committee leapt into action, and we were amazed at just how eloquent and, you know, basically fed up a lot of people were with being intimidated by these kinds of tactics. They just want to suppress an open discussion of this subject. ... I grew up in a very conventional Jewish home, except for the fact that there was a lot of division on this subject, so I think from an early age I learned   to take a certain distance from it and to think critically about it."

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Did You See THIS about Iran & Mass Media Deception? (+playlist)

U.S. Corporate media overwhelmingly sweeps U.S. crimes under the rug


U.S. policy makers have carried out many crimes against the people in the Middle East. For example, the 1953 coup to oust Mossedeq has been admitted to by the U.S. officially so there is no point in denying it: "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”" - Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright March 17, 2000 Note that while acknowledging it, the U.S. never apologized for it. Do you have any idea how many Iranians suffered under the Shah? Israel's Mossad and the America's CIA worked with the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, which was ruthless, it tortured and killed many Iranians.

Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes. They wanted the Shah handed over to them because they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah in 1953.
We are a country that fought to free itself from a king and we have people in our government that undermine a democratic government and force a king upon them! ) [ http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-were-hostages-taken-us-media.html ]

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

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

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

The US violated the rights of the Iranian people by orchestrating a coup to reinstall the Shah. The Shah was a harsh dictator and many Iranians were murdered. When they overthrew him they were worried that the US would screw them over once again using the CIA to reinstall the Shah. When the students took over the embassy, they actually called it the "den of spies" because they knew the '53 the coup had been actually plotted from the U.S. compound, the very same building that they took over. They demanded that the US hand over the Shah, the US refused. "In the United States, if you watch how the media covered it here, it saw the hostage crisis as Iranian emotional rampaging mobs in the streets calling for death of America and the '53 coup was intentionally not brought into that context. So you can go for reams of programs on the main channels in the United States about the hostage crisis, which lasted 444 days, and you rarely get the mention of the '53 coup."  - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4540.htm

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

This post taken from older posts I posted on this blog:

Friday, November 15, 2013

Dammit if that's the price we have to pay, then I'm willing to pay it. (...

Dammit if that’s the price we have to pay, then I’m willing to pay it.

"I think that bin Laden and 9/11 were to some degree inspired by U.S. support of Israel. I think a great deal of the terrorist attacks and the sort of pool of potential terrorists who want to attack the United States are inspired by the United States support for Israel. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support Israel for that reason. I’m saying, Dammit if that’s the price we have to pay, then I’m willing to pay it." - Eric Alterman

As iamuglow says in a comment posted in response to that at mondoweiss.net: "Bin Laden and 9/11 WERE inspired by U.S. support of Israel. Terrorists who want to attack the United States ARE inspired by the United States support for Israel."

 Alterman is "way behind the curve with these weasly understatements" as iamuglow also points out.

Anger at U.S. support of Israel was the main motive for 9/11. See video What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't 

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Response to wolco003 who posted a comment defending Luke Rudkowski

Read this: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/11/ive-been-debating-this-for-several-years.html
And THINK. Luke is a con man. He should at least attempt to think about the fact that I am pointing out how fires caused another failure in another building. 

It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken!

And if you want to make the leap that WTC7 was a target because  supposedly "fire can't do that," then how the hell do you explain what happened inside WTC FIVEhttp://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html Are we expected to believe that secret agents targeted 4 floors within World Trade Center FIVE too? Or how about you admit that  Eric Hufschmid made an ignorant assumption about what fires can do because he confused melting and weakening. He thought he was being clever looking up the melting point of steel and looking up the max temp of a hydrocarbon fire and making the conclusion he did BUT the fact is that the steel did not have to MELT in order for it to WEAKEN. It is really sad that the very basis of "9/11 Truth," the key foundational assumption was nothing more than ignorance. 

Look at what fires did to inside WTC FIVE and stop this viciously ignorant campaign which sucks the life out of productive activism: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html

I've been debating this for several years.

Representative Press ☞1 second ago (edited) +Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said, "I've been debating this for several years." I reply: Then why can't you answer what I asked you? How do you rationalize thinking the Mossad would think it necessary to get a second rate pictures or video of the attack from across the river? What possible purpose would the pictures serve? You don't grasp how immature those Israelis were and how recklessly jubilant they were that they stood out as strange? As I pointed out, the source for the claims that they were there before the first impact does not say that! http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

+Sir Daniel Nonfaultson said,"Whether they were filming after the attack or before, I don't care, it's not relevant."

I reply:  So when a point is debunked, it then is no longer relevant huh? Richard Gage plays that same game, when they sat him down along with David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery and showed they fires CAN weaken steel, Nat Geo sat those top gurus down and showed them an experiment where a steel beam failed and collapses due to being weakened by a fire, Richard Gage then declares it is "irrelevant" that fires can do that to steel. You really need to understand that what is called "9/11 Truth" is the Zionist misdirection. And I show exactly how the first seeds were planted by a guy who refused to read the word "Israel" on live TV and then became irrational fixated on a building with no relevance which collapsed many hours later after hours of predictions from firemen saying it would.

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html It is freakin' retarded to even think WTC7 was a target! The attack was to terrorize the public into forcing a policy change to stop support of Israel and other oppressive regimes. What the hell would an unknown building collapsing late in the afternoon have to do with anything? Even if you want to believe that "the government wanted to trick the public into thinking they were attacked by Arabs in order to get us into more wars," what the freakin' hell would an unknown building collapsing in the late afternoon have to do with any of that? The only reason you guys rationalize WTC7 as a target is because it collapsed and for so reason you had fallen for Eric Hufschmid IGNORANT declaration that fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse and he based his conclusion on the melting point of steel without understanding that the steel doesn't have to melt, only weaken! Then selfish and greedy con men entered jumped on board and continued with the BS.

I expose Richard Gage here AND I also show how the 9/11 Commission suppressed mention of Israel to a very large degree, they downplayed the main motive for the attack to an extreme degree. I show how the staff statements had several mentions of Israel, BUT by the time they made it to the 9/11 Report, MANY of the mentions of Israel were omitted. How much clearer do I have to make it? Look at Gage in action, CLICK HERE: See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"? Show less

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Come over and help us.

This is a good post: "Mark Dubowitz Is an Object Lesson in Where Bigotry Comes From" highlighting the pattern of rationalizing people use. The historical context was great, the mention of the Native Americans reminded me of another thing that highlights this. I remember Chomsky pointing out: "Like the Spanish, the English colonists were guided by Rice's "emerging humanitarian norm." The inspirational phrase "city on a hill" was coined by John Winthrop in 1630, outlining the glorious future of a new nation "ordained by God." A year earlier, his Massachusetts Bay Colony received its charter from the King of England and established its Great Seal. The Seal depicts an Indian holding a spear pointing downward in a sign of peace, and pleading with the colonists to "Come over and help us." The charter states that conversion of the population—rescuing them from their bitter pagan fate—was "the principal end of this plantation." The English colonists too were on a humane mission as they extirpated and exterminated the natives—for their own good, their successors explained." Read more: Genocide Denial with a Vengeance: Old and New Imperial Norms

 "Come over and help us."
 What a sick joke.

 I see this was also pointed out on this blog: Come Over And Help Us!

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Traffic Stop Nightmare: Multiple Anal Probes & X-Rays

"This 4 On Your Side investigation looks into the actions of police officers and doctors in Southern New Mexico." See video: 4 On Your Side investigates traffic stop nightmare

Sunday, November 03, 2013

What to Watch? How To Deal with Subscription Problems SEE SUGGESTIONS (+...

Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel

Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel by Max Blumenthal

"In the preface to the book, Blumenthal wrote that it is "Americans’ tax dollars and political support that are crucial in sustaining the present state of affairs" in Israel and that, in the book, he wanted to show what that money is paying for and to present the facts" wiki

“The only worthwhile, honest discussion of Israel can come from someone who possesses two attributes: fearlessness and expertise. Max Blumenthal wields both in abundance, and the result is an eye-opening and stunningly insightful book about the dramatic plight of a country central to America's political fortunes.”
Glenn Greenwald

"Max Blumenthal lays bare in rich and riveting detail the full, shocking scope and virulence of a cancer, both institutional and popular, which, unchecked, will surely do more to destroy Israel from within than its enemies — essentially of its own racist and colonialist making too — from without."
David Hirst

Thursday, October 24, 2013

WTC5

Are we expected to believe that secret agents targeted 4 floors within World Trade Center FIVE too?

World Trade Center 5

The World Trade Center Building 5 (WTC 5) was a 9 story office building located on the northeast corner of the World Trade Center Plaza. The collapse of WTC 1 caused damage to WTC 5 and started fires in it (McAllister 2002). The uncontrolled fires resulted in complete burnout of most floors and partial collapse of four floors. The building was steel frame construction with field-bolted connections between floor beams and column tree assemblies. Failure of large sections of floor, in areas not damaged by falling debris from WTC 1, resulted from bolt tear-out at these connections as a result of the uncontrolled fires (Figure 8–14). Photographs of two recovered samples of floor beams (Figure 8–15) show how the field bolts tore out from the beam web weakened by the fires (McAllister 2002).
338 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, WTC Investigation
See link for pictures of what fires did to four floors within WTC 5.

Also see Dan Rather and Andrea Mitchell and others misdirecting from why the attack happened and fixating on how: (Dan Rather suppressed mention of Israel and also became oddly fixated on a building that was just near the towers): http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Bob, Building 7 was just a building near the targets.


Bob,

The target in NY was the Twin Towers. Building 7 was just a building near the targets. The reason you guys have rationalized it as a target is just because it collapsed due to the fires too. You see, the false claim about the towers was "fires can't cause a steel structure to collapse" so when faced with another example showing fires CAN cause steel structures to collapse, you guys irrationally argued that building 7 was a target too.

You need to understand why the towers were targeted:

"Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples."

"9/11 Truth" is a misdirection away from why we were attacked, it manipulated people into not focusing on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments.

See my blog posts:

The 9/11 misdirection away from "WHY" and to "HOW"
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html

Focus on the atrocities that America is committing
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/focus-on-atrocities-that-america-is.html

I have made many videos try to get the facts out. You are listening to people who refuse to even respond to me when I point out the facts.

About 6.9 s BEFORE the initial downward motion of the north face roofline at the eastern section of the building the START of the descent of east penthouse occurred. "initial downward movement of the N face from the NE corner to the east side of the screenwall was observed at 6.9 s AFTER the initial downward motion of the E penthouse."

"The outer frame of wtc7 was attached to the inner structures which began falling first (as demonstrated by the initial motion of the penthouse). By the time the outer walls began falling, they were being accelerated not only by their own weight, but also by momentum transfer (via torque and tension through linkages) from internal structures that were already falling. All the forces involved, essentially weight + transferred dynamic forces - resistance, netted out to approximately mg for a brief period of time."

Building 7 did NOT fall at free fall, a small part of the time, a point on the exterior is measured at that rate YET the interior was already collapsing and pulling on the exterior. If I have 2 weights tied by a rope together on a table & I push one off the side of the table, it is not strange to think that the second weight might fall at a speed faster than free fall for a few seconds as the initial jerking motion of the first weight tied to the rope pulls on the second. Truthers have been omitting the penthouse collapse which occurs 1st but it is part of the collapse! The structure is connected so internal movement can pull the exterior


It is bizarre to think WTC7 would be a target and also bizarre to think it was a "controlled demolition" since firemen were warning that it would collapse for many hours prior to the collapse:

WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern On 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw&list=PL605641003DE05216

See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM&list=PL9792134412F365B3

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Representative Press

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Huffington Post runs BS Iraq War excuse

"The only reason we went into Iraq, I tell people now, is we were looking for somebody’s ass to kick. Afghanistan was too easy." And of course that is total bullshit. Bush had already bombed Iraq within his first 30 days of taking office in 2001. These guys had a war agenda before he even became president and 9/11 was and is only a BS excuse.

 Not only that, we learned last year that it was worse that simply ignoring the intel warning of an attack, there were sons of bitches who argued that the intel was a trick! Look at this: "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

 So there was intel warnings of an attack and we had these war hungry freaks arguing that those warnings should be ignored because they were supposedly a trick to get our attention off of Iraq!? We need to hold people accountable, these power hungry freaks got many Americans killed. Bush is still waging around a free man.

 It's no surprise that Huffington Post runs the story because it serves the BS war agenda and helps obscure the war industry agenda. "Former Bush Official: We Went Into Iraq Because 'We Were Looking For Somebody's Ass To Kick': Report The Huffington Post | By Paige Lavender Posted: 10/20/2013 1:57 pm EDT | Updated: 10/21/2013 11:27 am EDT"

U.S. illegally uses part of Cuba for Guantanamo Bay detention camp (+pla...

Sunday, October 20, 2013

It's Time to Shift Gears and Try Harder + See Chomsky Book I'm Reading (...

On Western Terrorism

On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare [Paperback]

"In On Western Terrorism Noam Chomsky, world renowned dissident intellectual, discusses Western power and propaganda with filmmaker and investigative journalist Andre Vltchek. The discussion weaves together a historical narrative with the two men's personal experiences which led them to a life of activism."

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

What, exactly are you afraid of?


UC Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union "for its part, based its rejection on J Street U's invitations to have Breaking the Silence, a group of former soldiers opposed to the occupation, speak to students,

At this point, I have only one question for the members of the JSU: What, exactly are you afraid of?


That students at Berkeley will be exposed to actual, flesh and blood Israelis talking honestly about their experiences serving their country?


UC Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union (JSU) "leaders told the Daily Californian last week that the picture presented by Breaking the Silence is unfair, and that "Jewish students with connections to Israel would be alienated."" - At Berkeley, love of Israel means no fear - except fear of J Street, What message is Berkeley's Jewish Student Union sending if it hails Israel's democracy while refusing to accept other points of view?


"UC Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union (JSU) voted Wednesday to deny membership to J Street U. Apparently, the main reason is J Street U’s relationship with Breaking the Silence, an organization of which I am a member." - J Street U Rejected for Standing Behind IDF Soldiers

Monday, October 14, 2013

focus on the atrocities that America is committing


But let's say it is the US support of Israel that's the main cause. In that case it makes perfect sense to attack the well known Jewish/Israel symbol in the US, the World Trade Center. Well, that doesn't make sense either.- Posted by tyr_13


I specifically address your claim that the World Trade Center made no sense as a target if they were concerned with US support of Israel below:

The main motive was mentioned in a newswire that morning but almost no one dared read the word "Israel":

Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET

Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday.

Dan Rather both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Rueters newswire ( http://representativepress.blogspot....warned-of.html see that link) that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn...utu.be&t=3m25s AND he was oddly fascinated with the collapse of WTC7. I suspect that part of the guilt or uncomfortable position of being a person suppressing the motive led him to find other things that day to shift focus to.

And you are wrong to argue that the Twin Towers made no sense as a target if they are angry about US support of Israel:

"Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." (source: The Osama Bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of Al Qaeda's Leader By Peter L. Bergen p 418 )

I remember the same game of suppression played after the 1993 attack on the WTC, almost no one wanted to report what the motive was even though it was made clear by Ramzi Yousef: "Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on 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.""

"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 said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that conserned him." (source: Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273 )

Ramzi Yousef sent that letter to the NYT making specific demands, Specifically, the letter declared:

We are, the fifth battalion in the LIBERATION ARMY, 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.

OUR DEMANDS ARE:

1 - Stop all military, economical, and
political aid to Israel.

2 - All diplomatic relations with Israel
must stop.

3 - Not to interfere with any of the
Middle East countries interior affairs.

Yet after that NYT's Thomas Friedman denied that there were specific demands. Terrorists, he wrote in 1998, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." (source: Foreign Affairs; Angry, Wired and Deadly by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: August 22, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/op...nd-deadly.html )

Friedman denied specifically that  Ramzi Yousef and Osama bin Laden had specific demands. "The super-empowered angry men have no specific ideological program or demands ... Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was a super-empowered angry man. Osama bin Laden is another." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/opinion/foreign-affairs-angry-wired-and-deadly.html

In addition to the clear demands Ramzi Yousef sent in a letter the New York Times, Osama was giving interviews including this one which was available before Friedman wrote lies in the NYT:

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 (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. 

And Thomas Friedman has continued to lie in order to suppress anger at Israel as the motive: 

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

So contrary to the arguments of some, there are indeed people with an agenda, not only the above example of Thomas Friedman: 
"Uzi Safanov, a writer at the Seawanhaka newspaper of Long Island University in New York, agreed. I'm a Jew before being a journalist, before someone pays me to write," he said. "If I find a negative thing about Israel, I will not print it and I will sink into why did it happen and what can I do to change it." Safanov said that even if he eventually wrote about negative incidents that happen in Israel, he would try to find the way "to shift the blame."" - Jewish journalists grapple with ‘doing the write thing’ http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/...e-write-thing/

There are many many references to the main motive, this example actually made it into the 911 report: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shared the same motivation. "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 

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

Many references to Israel were omitted from staff statements before they made their way into the 9/11 Report: See how many mentions of Israel got omitted between the staff statements to the final 9/11 Report: http://youtu.be/UHFhACaej4Q?t=2m2s (that jumps about 2 minutes into the video called "Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!")

My own research has turned up even more evidence which the Commission had access to as well:

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."

In March of 2002, MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohammed Atta. Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

"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


"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

Friday, September 27, 2013

The 9/11 misdirection away from "WHY" and to "HOW"

Truthers got the idea into their heads that fires can't cause steel structures to fail and collapse. So when they learned of WTC7, they doubled down and irrationally insisted that it too was targeted as part of a secret plan. As others have pointed out, it makes no sense to think of WTC7 as a target but understanding that involves understanding why the towers were made a target, The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks explained: "Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK72Snm6Y

I really thought this video in particular would have helped put an end to the BS about WTC7 because of all the firemen's predictions of its collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw‎


I really think that a way to get them to understand reality is to be honest about the full extent of how ugly the entire situation is. And to come to terms with the idea that the embrace of "9/11 truth" didn't happen in a vacuum. There was a ruthless and dominating agenda to suppress the main motive which I think played a role in the misdirection and obsession about  "how" the attacks happened and and the preoccupation about buildings that were not important. Case in point is Dan Rather who both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Rueters newswire that day:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn...utu.be&t=3m25s AND he was oddly fascinated with the collapse of WTC7. I suspect that part of the guilt or uncomfortable position of being a person suppressing the motive led him to find other things that day to shift focus to. So the same man that wouldn't read the word "Israel" is the same guy truthers fall over themselves THANKING because he was so fascinated by WTC7's collapse AND Dan Rather is the first person to misidentify the start of the collapse of WTC7, he introduces the video clip then after the collapse has already started he says "NOW we go to video tape of of the collapse of this building" YET they were already were showing it and had shown the penthouse collapsing first. "Amazing, incredible, pick your word, for the 3rd time today …" Well, if he had spent the time talking about the MOTIVE for the event he was covering maybe he wouldn't have felt so self-conscious and felt he needed to be so amazed by the collapse of a building that just happened to be near the targeted towers.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC is another person who both suppressed the main motive AND shifted the focus to "how" (away from "why") So we can see her report from that day where she too omits mention of Israel as she cites the same Rueters newswire AND even shows the news editor who is quoted in that newswire. Yes the very "Arab journalist with access to him" who is quoted in that newswire who says what bin Laden has said, "Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday." Michell reads for that newswire and even shows a video clip of that very same Arab journalist YET omits mention of Israel. She even plays a clip of him saying "I believe the only thing is to revise their policies, to look at what's happening, WHY for example the anti-American sentiment is very high in the Middle East and the Muslim world" BUT RIGHT AFTER that clip, she says "HOW could this happen"! So she suppressed mention of the main motive WHY (anger at US support of Israel) and the very next thing she asks is "HOW" (and not "WHY" which is exactly what the journalist had just said should be asked seconds before!)

I have watched hours of reporting from that day and days after and it is hard to even find a reporter utter the word "motive." Compare that to all these other events including recent high profile shootings even as recently as the Navy Yard shooting.

What I am saying is the abnormal fixation on HOW by many people must, to some degree, have been influenced by mass media pushing that while at the same time suppressing the more normal and relevant question of WHY.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Iran significantly reduced ts stock


"Iran significantly reduced its stock of 20 percent-enriched uranium by converting it to reactor fuel"

Iran Reduces Enriched Uranium Stockpile
TEHRAN, Iran September 13, 2013 (AP) By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press

Conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace

There were people plotting to attack Iraq (that's even before 9/11, See Footnote 1 below), that we do know. And what is described in The Deafness Before the Storm By KURT EICHENWALD Published: September 10, 2012 is disturbing.

The writer says, "By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation."

"But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

Let's not be naive, people do scheme to get us into wars and it looks like these guys rationalized arguing that the intel was a trick. Think about that and think about the reason they gave for insisting it was a trick.

You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to. http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html

Mainstream media really doesn't allow for a fair forum for public discussion of the fact that there are people who work to get us into wars and are doing so for illegitimate reasons. It is common practice in elite circles to act like it is far-fetched to think powerful Americans scheme to get our country into wars. If you look at the content of public discourse broadcast by mass media, the very idea that there would be people working for underhanded reasons to get us into wars is simply not represented or so infrequently represented that it is basically not at all. But take a look at what the father of the Constitution said about this, notice he isn't saying we can chalk the war drive up to simply people trying to do the right thing!:

"War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s15.html

Footnote 1:  "The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House"   "Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" on 1/30/01 [Date the public knew: 1/10/04] see leadup iraq war timeline 

And don't over look the fact that the Bush Administration dismissed warnings of a bin Laden attack and if your read the excuse for dismissing the warnings it is clear that the agenda of starting a war with Iraq was why they dismissed the warnings of a bin Laden attack, see for yourself:  http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html (and the agenda was so dirty that they STILL won't release all the PDBs Bush received before 9/11! Look for yourself) (STILL NOT MADE PUBLIC!) "That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

Sunday, September 08, 2013

Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama!

Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers! 


Obama, & Kerry's devious & dangerous contempt for our Constitution. See their depraved disregard for basic honesty! Obama & Kerry are brazen liars, lying to justify their wars. See Kerry making a bizarre excuse for Obama violating the War Powers Resolution when he continued the war on Libya without Congressional authorization by saying it was the fault of Congress for not authorizing Obama's war.

PayPal Donate to Advertise NoObamaWar.com Videos

Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria & Weapons Inspectors

The timing of the alleged chemical weapons attack was ODD  because "The area is controlled by the Jabhat al Nusra, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, but the majority of those killed were Alawites, the sect to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs. The incident on August 21 happened soon after a United Nations investigation team arrived in the Syrian capital to probe a chemical weapons attack that occurred in Aleppo in March. The Syrian government granted permission to the U.N. team, confident in the belief that its investigations  ... Logically, it would make very little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a time, particularly given the relative close proximity of the targeted towns [to the U.N. team]," Charles Lister, a security analyst with Jane's Defence Weekly, observed."
NOTE: "The rebels' fear that the U.N. investigating team would expose their complicity in the use of poison gas in Aleppo could have been another motivating factor for the latest accusations against the government forces." - FRONTLINE

"The statement said the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team had examined Syrian soldiers injured in the March attack and said that no reaction to the more recent alleged chemical account should be considered without also considering that the rebels, too, have used chemical weapons.

"It is obvious that any objective investigation of the incident on Aug. 21 in East Ghouta is impossible without considering the circumstances of the March attack," the statement said. Ghouta is the area near Damascus where the Aug. 21 attack took place." - mcclatchydc.com
Russia releases 100-page report

"He questioned the "logic" of claims that his forces carried the August 21 attack." Assad said, "Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic?" Bashar-al-Assad-interview

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report. AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO ASSOCIATED PRESS

"This is the United Nations' decision and my decision. The mandate of this team is to determine the use of chemical weapons -- whether there was or not the use of chemical weapons. It's not to determine who has used against whom." - Syria Chemical Weapons Inspector Mandate NOT WHO! 

"Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway."  - Glenn Greenwald

"To make matters more complicated, Obama's aides made clear that the President's search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection." http://goo.gl/wEZFpL

Impeach Obama for Syria War Plan NOW! http://goo.gl/lUrPFH

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-president-obama-congress-faces-questions-war-powers-act/story?id=13642002

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/opinion/la-oe-schell-war-powers-20110621

U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report. AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO ASSOCIATED PRESS


Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers!