Dear Mr. Kamm:

I read a review you wrote of Chomky's article ( http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/chomsky_on_fore.html ) from his latest book in which you wrote, "The Anglo-American liberation of Iraq was grounded in Saddam's defiance of the cease-fire terms that obtained at the end of the first Gulf War. He violated UN Security Council Resolution 687, which codified those terms, and 16 others; his overthrow was an assertion of the integrity of international law in an anarchic world order." Your claim that the overthrow of Saddam was "an assertion of the integrity of international law" is disturbing because attacking Iraq was a violation of International Law.

The US and UK can not legally decide what is enforcement of a UN resolution and on their own "enforce" a UN resolution. The idea that they have the legal right to do so is plainly wrong, both the United States and the United Kingdom have signed the UN Charter and agreed to abide by it. UN Security Council Resolution 687 does not authorize Member States to attack Iraq if Iraq violates the provisions of 687.

UN Resolution 687 says clearly that the cease-fire is effective when Iraq gave notification of its acceptance of the provisions. There is absolutely no provision for an automatic authorization to attack Iraq if violates any of the resolution's provision. And 687 makes clear that the Security Council will "take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution".

By the way, Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, professors at the Centre for International and Public Law at the ANU, make the same points I just made: "It is inconsistent with the clear terms of resolution 678 and indeed the whole structure of the UN charter to argue one or more states could decide for themselves when and if the authorization could be revived." "The position that individual member states can respond to claimed violations of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the UN without the consent of the Security Council is inconsistent with the role of the council and is an unsustainable view of international law." - No, this war is illegal By Hilary Charlesworth, Andrew Byrnes http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770379.html

I would have no right to pick a British law and decide that you are in violation of it and go about holding you accountable even if I claim it is my assertion of the integrity of the law to do so.

You wrote, "he mentions not once – he does not even allude to – the character of Saddam's regime." This is not the case. Chomsky writes, "But there is rarely any shortage of elevated ideals to accompany the resort to violence. In 1990, Saddam Hussein assured the world that he wanted not "permanent fighting, but permanent peace . . . and a dignified life"

You wrote, "There could scarcely be a starker illustration - morally, politically and intellectually - of the difference between President Bush and Professor Chomsky. Bush analyses political conditions carefully before alighting on a course founded on moral principle and strategic necessity." Mr. Kamm, you cannot be serious. Bush violates International law and thinks it's a joke. He responded to concerns about violations of International Law concerning Iraq contracts with this: "International law? I'd better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."

I agree with you when you wrote, "Clearly I ought to wait to read Chomsky's book in full before making a definitive judgment." I was wondering if you did eventually read it, I have and it is terrific.

I am waiting for the transcript of the Senate Committee Armed Services hearings "To receive testimony on U.S. policy and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan." so I can quote Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz mentions a UN resolution as the excuse we will use to keep our troops in Iraq. Remember, the lie is that we are going to allow democracy. Now if most Iraqis want us out and we are supposed to hand over sovereignty, then how can we keep our troops there against the wishes of the Iraqi people. Simple, we use a UN resolution as an excuse. I don't see a Resolution that actually gives us this authority but then again the US claimed it has UN authority because of UN resolutions for the "no fly zones" and there was no UN resolution for that either.

The US media has once again kept most Americans in the dark.

"The assassination of Sheikh Yassin certainly harmed the US
in Iraq, quite directly.  Though the media are keeping
pretty quiet about it, the murder of the four US security
contractors in Fallujah appears to have been retaliation
for the Yassin assassination; responsibility was taken
immediately by a previously unknown group in Iraq called
"Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin."

You can learn alot from Chomsky. Yes the US media has been keeping pretty quiet about it. It really is amazing watching how American reporters conform to powerful interests, in this case the interests of Israel and it's supporters.

Australia's media managed to report it:
"A previously unknown group has claimed responsibility for the the gruesome killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, western Iraq.

It said the action was in revenge for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

"This is a gift from the people of Fallujah to the people of Palestine and the family of Sheik Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by the criminal Zionists," said in the statement from the "Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin".

"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," said the statement obtained by AFP.

The statement, entitled "Fallujah, the graveyard of the Americans", claimed the group's fighters killed "members of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Zionist Mossad", referring to Israel's intelligence agency.

It said the "blind violence" of Fallujah residents resulted from an increasing hatred of the Americans and was also in response to the "US aggression, raids on mosques and homes, the arrests, the torture of clerics and the terrorising of women and children."

Yassin, the spiritual leader of the hardline Palestinian militant group, was killed last month in an Israeli air strike as he left a Gaza City mosque.

The four US security contractors were killed in an ambush in Fallujah on Wednesday as they were escorting a truck carrying food supplies to a nearby military base.

Two of their charred bodies were then dismembered and paraded by angry residents."
The Sydney Morning Herald

"A PREVIOUSLY unknown group overnight claimed responsibility for the the gruesome killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, western Iraq. It said the action was in revenge for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

"This is a gift from the people of Fallujah to the people of Palestine and the family of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by the criminal Zionists," said in the statement from the "Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin".

"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," said the statement obtained by AFP.

The statement, entitled Fallujah, the graveyard of the Americans, claimed the group's fighters killed "members of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Zionist Mossad", referring to Israel's intelligence agency. " NEWS.com.au

"A hitherto unknown group, the Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin, has claimed responsibility in reprisal for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," the group said in a statement.

Yassin, the spiritual leader of the hardline Palestinian militant group, was killed last month in an Israeli air strike as he left a Gaza City mosque." Special Broadcasting Service

Here is Noam Chomsky's full post:
"I don't think lobbies, or the love affair with Israel after
1967 on the part of many intellectuals, are marginal.  They
are often a swing factor, and very influential when no
major power interests are involved, as is often the case. 
But I don't think they've been decisive in the past, and
don't think anything has changed in that respect. 

Israel is probably perceived as more valuable as a
"strategic asset" than before.  By now it is virtually an
off-shore US military base and high-tech affiliate. 
Relations are so close that one of Israel's leading
military industries (Rafael, Israel Armament Development
Company) is moving a large part of its development and
manufacturing to the US, so it can integrate more closely
with US firms and the military market here.  Israel claims
to have air and armored forces larger and more
sophisticated than any NATO power (US excepted), and the US
is now beefing these up by sending over 100 of its most
advanced jet bombers, with the very prominent announcement
that they can fly to Iran and back and that they are an
updated version of the US planes Israel used to destroy an
Iraqi reactor in 1981 (incidentally, thereby initiating
Saddam's nuclear weapons program, though that's kept
quiet), and equipped with what the Hebrew press calls
"`special' weaponry." Whatever the purpose of all this,
it's doubtless intended for the ears of Iranian
intelligence, perhaps to rattle the Iranians and provoke
them to some action that can justify US "retaliation," or
to destabilize the country internally.  In this and many
other ways a rich and very powerful client state, closely
allied to the other regional military power, Turkey, and at
the edge of the world's major energy resources is of no
slight value.  Probably more than before, when Israel was
seen as one of the guardians of the dictatorships that
govern the oil producing states.

The assassination of Sheikh Yassin certainly harmed the US
in Iraq, quite directly.  Though the media are keeping
pretty quiet about it, the murder of the four US security
contractors in Fallujah appears to have been retaliation
for the Yassin assassination; responsibility was taken
immediately by a previously unknown group in Iraq called
"Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin." And we see what that set
off.  Though some reaction was anticipated, I doubt that
anything like this was.  And even though Sharon used US
helicopters sent with the foreknowledge that they'd
continue to be used for such purposes as assassinations, I
doubt very much that the Yassin assassination was
explicitly authorized by Washington.  About the "Arab
street" elsewhere, the assumption for years has been that
the local allies can handle anything that comes up, and
that's been well enough verified so that it's
understandable -- if not necessarily correct -- that US
planners should not consider it a major problem.

Israel aside, the US quite often undertakes actions on its
own that planners know will arouse rage and retaliation in
the Arab and Muslim worlds.  Take the invasion of Iraq, for
example.  It was expected to have that effect, and did.  As
also predicted, support for al-Qaeda networks increased
substantially, as did terrorism worldwide.  But it was
considered worth it anyway.

One could certainly argue that these longstanding
commitments are harmful to US interests.  Many do, right
within the establishment.  And sometimes plans have been
reversed when that is recognized.  There are famous cases. 
E.g., in 1971 Kissinger backed Israel's rejection of an
Egyptian offer of a full peace treaty (not under the
influence of lobbies or articulate opinion, who probably
knew nothing about it), but was compelled to reverse course
after the 1973 war made it clear it was a serious mistake,
leading to the Camp David agreements of 1978-9, where the
US-Israel accepted the 1971 offer (basically)."

See my new post ( August 17, 2005) : One of the Reasons for the War on Iraq

I am glad others can see that the emperor is naked.
Tom Tomorrow's post about Bush:
"Oh god

He's so awful. He just flounders around until he can dredge up a marginally appropriate sound bite--and when the question doesn't allow for that, he's just utterly lost."
thismodernworld.com

My book is almost finished, you can pre-order it now: click here

Dear Richard,

In your article "Franken on Donahue" you write "But Lofton smacks Franken back nothing that "For openers, Mikhail Gorbachev, the author of perestroika, was a communist!" and says that the June 11,1990, issue of Time magazine quotes Gorbachev as saying, " I am a communist, a convinced communist ." But, ignoring Gorbachev's self-proclaimed communism, Franken seems to be arguing that when the Soviet Union was communist there were no serious shortage"

You miss the point which Franken spells out in his book. The point is Chancellor was not making excuses for Communism but Bernie was arguing in his book that Chancellor was. Bernie wrote, "his absurd observation that the problem in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism, but shortages"

The point Franken made was that on August 21, 1991 is wasn't the old Soviet Union under communism any more. By that time big changes over several years had already taken place. It wasn't the old Soviet Union any more. Changes were underway since 1985. By February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party had even agreed to give up its monopoly of power. As Franken explains in his book on p30, "Chancellor was saying that Gorbachev couldn't use communism as an excuse because, by that point, he had completely dismantled communism in the Soviet Union."

Bernie tried to make Chancellor appear to be an apologist for communism when the fact is the old communist system was really over at that point. Do you understand?

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

For the President Only
Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate (Osama) Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America".

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(edited)... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told a ... (edited) ... service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation.

Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.

Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qaeda members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks , including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related.

The CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

i got this email "among wire simple brick"
with this content:

" business eye make sky secretary of meal through different net agreement female angle slip view plane peace jelly person plough

V I C O D I N and X A N E X C I A L I S
pastpaymentwager.com

apple jump credit wool interest so match judge space scale selection goat kettle digestion card complete deep potato make test cork unit conscious possible roll narrow drink second who system government invention safe normal still change simple shake solve able look send government trousers hook manager mist as night jewel tree coat grain"

So now they just send gibberish to sell drugs? Is this target marketing to people that are on something when they read their email? I don't remember getting this sort of thing before. I recall tricks like emails with subject lines like "Hey" and things like that but I haven't seen this.

And I sometimes get email that is not my email address. It looks like it was sent to someone else but I got it. They were ads too, I never got one that was a regular email. Is this also kind of guerilla marketing?

research Scarborough and the dead aide

"On July 21, 2001, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the body of Lori Klausutis, 28, was found in the office of U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough, 38, for whom Klausutis worked as an aide. Police on the scene said there were no indications of forced entry or physical struggle and "no signs of trauma to the body." The official medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland, then conducted an extensive autopsy - more than 80 hours - before announcing his findings last week.

Berkland said Klausutis died from a blow to the head, probably caused when she fainted and fell to the floor after an attack of a previously undiagnosed "valvular condition of the heart." Klausutis, an avid runner and member of the Northwest Florida Track Club, had never evinced heart problems before - but such things happen, Berkland said. He also admitted that authorities had previously lied about her fatal wound in order to forestall media inquiries into the case. "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury," he told the Northwest Florida Daily News." -makethemaccountable.com
Many more links to LOCAL FL Newspapers at this link:
allhatnocattle.net

Does anyone need any more proof that the media is crooked?

Fish Talk

An AOL article "7 Rules to Stop Worrying About" Mentions the don't "Drink Red Wine with Fish" rule. They write "Choose wisely and these heretofore anathematized combinations will not ruin a meal. A light red, such as a Pinot Noir or a Beaujolais, works well with "meatier" fish, like tuna, salmon, and swordfish." It is good to know the rational about the rule and how lighter red can work better since I don't like white wine and never concidered getting it just to go with my fish. it is good to know that this has nothing to do with getting cancer and dying.

A more serious fish related topic is the deal with farm raised salmon. That apparently does have to do with getting cancer and dying. I like salmon but now they say the farm raised salmon, the kind most Americans eat (Farmed salmon now makes up 80 per cent of fresh salmon sold around the United States), isn't safe, "The study concluded that consumers should not eat farmed salmon from some regions more than once a month." globeandmail

The weird thing about the coverage of this is the matter of fact nature with which it is reported. Specifically the matter of fact nature with which the fact that people have so poisoned our enviorment that restrictions of the consumption of some food are being issued. This is just seen as a given?

The PCBs get concentrated in the feed that is given to the farmed raised slamon. The bottom line is the polution is in our evoroment and that is how it gets into the feed whcih is given to the salmon. Do we have to live with these poisons in the source food forever?? The reports I have read don't deal with it as far as I can see. I don't see any sort of reporting to the effect of "look what these companies have done to our envioroment", like I said the PCBs are seen as a given and I don't see anyone in the reports saying that it is a travasty that our enviornomet is poluted with them REGARDLESS OF THE DEGREE. Isn't living in a world that says don't eat too much of something becasue it could give you cancer kind of crazy? Becasue we have contibuted to poisoning the enviorment it is unsafe to eat someting more than once a month?

The LA Times article described it this way "Levels of contaminants are higher than in wild fish. Industry officials dispute conclusions." This is the emphasis? The concerns of Industry officials! This is from the LA Times which I am told is "liberal".

healthfinder.gov actaully warns that with some salmon the "don't eat window" should be four months: "Using the EPA standard, "to avoid an excessive risk of cancer, one should reduce consumption of farm salmon," Carpenter says. "On average, one meal of farmed salmon a month is what one should not exceed," he adds. "And some European farmed salmon should be eaten only once every four months."" healthfinder.gov

Chomsky mentions in this article that "Marginalization of the superfluous population takes many forms. Some of these were the topic of a recent Business Week cover story entitled “Why Service Stinks” (Octember 23). It reviewed refinements in implementing the 80-20 rule taught in business schools: 20 percent of your customers provide 80 percent of the profits, and you may be better off without the rest. The “new consumer apartheid” relies on modern information technology (in large measure a gift from an unwitting public) to allow corporations to provide grand services to profitable customers, and to deliberately offer skimpy services to the rest, whose inquiries or complaints can be safely ignored. The experience is familiar, and carries severe costs—how great when distributed over a large population, we don't know, because they are not included among the highly ideological measures of economic performance. Incarceration might be regarded as an extreme version, for the least worthy."

I think the article is interesting because it goes against one of the big myths of capitalism, namely that capitalism is what is best for us because the drive for profits translates into greater efficiencies which are supposed to benefit all of us. From the article, "... most consumers feel they're getting squeezed by Corporate America's push for profits and productivity. The result is more efficiencies for companies--and more frustration for their less valuable customers."

I was never excited about Dean's campaign. I walked aroung the Dean rally in NYC with a sign critical of Dean. Dean Come CLean It featured a quote from Dean about Bush:
"The President (Bush) deserves praise for rallying the spirits of our people after September 11 and for some of the measures he and others in his Administration have taken since. I know they are sincere, and that they want what is best for our country and the world. "-Howard Dean 2/17/03

Bush lied to America about why we were attacked, he doesn't deserve praise for God sakes!  Dean intends on continuing the corrupt foreign policies that serve the same special interests that Bush serves. The same special interests that Bush lied to American for. That should make everyone really think.

When I did talk to some Dean people at a "Dean meetup", some people got what I was saying. One woman turned to her friend and asked, "would you ever say that about Bush?" (the positive comment that Dean said) Well for most people agaisnt Bush the answer is no, so who was Dean really representing?

Being agianst a war that already happened does not mean much. If you looked forward and compared what Dean wanted to do and Bush wanted to do, Dean was more of a hawk wanting MORE troops in Iraq and to stay LONGER. Whose interests was Dean serving?

Mr. Mahajan writes, "All of this feeds into some desire many people have for not wanting to see the United States as an imperial nation, at least not as a deliberately imperial one -- just one that is misled by Israel.", which strikes me as ironic because I think he may not want to see something: Israel's imperialism.

My take on it is that the Iraq war certainly has already been used for Israel's imperialism with regard to Iraq as well as that of the United States. I think that the same way claims about security are used as excuses for the United States' imperialism, the security talk just masks greed which is often called "interests," another code word.

He mentioned "benefits for Israel like the cheaper oil through the revival of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline and, presumably, the right of Israeli corporations to do business in Iraq." But you wrote, " These are small potatoes compared to the cost of the war and also to the aid Israel already gets from the United States -- and minuscule compared to what ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would make in the long run if Iraq's oil was privatized." I am not sure what he means by this. Surely the people that make profits off of business deals exploiting Iraq are not concerned about the costs of the war. The US taxpayers pay for the costs of the Iraq war and reconstruction, the money is not coming out of the pockets of the corporations that profit from the deals that will be imposed upon Iraq.

I agree that talk about Israel's security isn't serious but I think you miss the point that the talk is cover for Israel's "interests" (meaning Imperial ambitions)

And Mr. Netanyahu is looking forward to it: "It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," Mr. Netanyahu told a group of British investors in London. "It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

Note that Netanyahu does not say "It is a matter for the Iraqi people to decide" what he says is "It is just a matter of time".

On Sunday, August 24, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky vowed to discuss the issue with the U.S. secretary of energy during his envisaged visit to Washington next month.
He asserted that the whole project depends on Jordan's consent, adding that the kingdom would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to flow through its territory.
Note that he didn't say "the whole project depends on the Iraqi people's consent.

So the US plans for "democracy" in Iraq are clear. What is really meant by "democracy" is a government that will do the business deals that both the US and Israel want. Already Israel's greed is evident and they are acting like they are owed something. The justifications for getting what they want are being floated out there. Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon’s government "views the pipeline to Haifa as a ‘bonus’ the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq," according to Haaretz.

And Israel corporations are already getting what they want. Iridium to supply Iraq with $4-5m in public phones
Iridium Satellite (Israel) will also market thousands of mobile phones. globes

Given how the injustices of Israel have outraged many in that area of the world, it is outrageous for Israel to even be involved. (and for the US for that matter) The obvious question not asked is would the Iraqi people want to be giving Israel these deals. Based on opinion polls I have seen of the views of other Arabs in the region I think the answer is no. The idea that we are allowing democracy in Iraq is a sick joke. Background on Israel, visit this link:What Americans Need to Know About Zionism

Turning the Tide

Steve continues, "I'm not being childish, I just don't take you seriously. How old are you, Tom? Chomsky fans are often young, but seldom old."

Steve you have acted like a total asshole. I pointed out that Bush lied to America about why we were attacked on 9/11.
The CONTEXT is Bush lied to the nation about why we were attacked. I pointed out that I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices. And you claim the problem is I am being an "obtuse pain in the ass".
No, that isn't the problem Steve. You PATHETICALLY tried to act like what Bush said could be the truth. You really don't care how much of an ass you make of yourself do you.

For the last time: As I have pointed out, right here in this thread a person called Ran writes that the terrorists "got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die."

So no the problem is not with me Steve, people are in fact taking Bush at his word and are being fooled.
Clearly you think this is a joke and you like the idea that people are being made fools out of by the president.
I have pointed out that what I am saying is correct and that for example RIGHT HERE a guy named Ran has been fooled by the President.
You can't act like an adult and admit this?
What kind of little shit starts to think up stupid ass excuses for how Bush's lie "could be true". CLEARLY it is a lie and CLEARLY people are being fooled by it.

You are the one being an "obtuse pain in the ass". You then want to play it like IF Bush lied it "doesn't matter." I was living in NYC when 9/11 happened. My sister was running for her life in tears across the Brooklyn on 9/11. I take these life and death matters very seriously. You clearly do not. You think it is a big joke to play along with Bush's lie?

You have no respect for people or the truth. I even gave you the chance to hear Truman's own voice give a big lie to the American people. The problem with you is you can't admit you are wrong. Instead of being so resentful of people that know more than you, why don't you educate yourself? Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a disgrace!

In 1963 President Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled, as he did on several other occasions, that in July 1945 he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: “... I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
And if you start to do some research you can see that this was indeed the case. Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Mike writes "I see you chose not to attempt a rebuttal of my quote from the fatwa which absolves the Muslim rulers in the Middle East of complicity with the Americans, even though it directly contradicts you."

No Mike, you don't understand what a puppet government is. That is what Osama bin Laden says of Saudi Arabia for example.

Mike pathetically tries to claim I "lied" because my main point is that Bush lied about 9/11 motives. What does a five year old do? Simply turn it around and accuse the messenger of the same thing.

Here is the pathetic argument he refers to: "Bin Laden contradicts you Tom. He doesn't claim the U.S. is propping up corrupt puppet states. No, he argues the rulers are opposed to the U.S., but helpless to resist them. Tom, I think you “ lied. "

Mike a puppet is helpless to resist the puppeteer. Saying a government is helpless from the US is not a contradiction with the idea that it is a corrupt puppet government. You don't have a grasp of basics and you are trying desperately to contradict me. You are acting like a child.

What bin Laden says does not contradict what I have written and it doesn't contradict what is said in the 1998 fatwa. Here he explains the same idea in an interview the same year as the fatwa: "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control." usama interview john miller abc

chris writes: "The omission by the poster doesn't really change the context of which Kerry made these assertions in '71.  Additionally, these assertions have since been disproven"


The omission very much changes the context. The actaul quotes reveals that it is others who are saying these things happened an not Kerry.
As far as the assertions, they happen to be true. why do you say they are not?

An earlier investigation had been closed in 1975, even though it had established that members of the unit had committed war crimes.

Soldiers told the newspaper they had severed ears from the dead, stringing them on shoelaces to wear around their necks, and had dropped grenades into bunkers where children and women were taking refuge.( THEY ADMITTED THIS TO THE NEEWSPAPER JUST LAST YEAR!!)
But a Pentagon statement said the case was more than 30 years old and there was no new or compelling evidence to justify reopening it. BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | US shuns Vietnam war claims

An official investigation, which was opened in 1971 at the instigation of an outraged soldier, found evidence of 20 war crimes, said the spokesman, Joe Burlas.
The allegations included murder, rape, mutilation and failure to report a war crime. But commanders concluded there was insufficient evidence to try the case successfully before a court martial, and the investigation was closed in 1975 with no charges made, Mr Burlas said.


The US Army has defended its decision to drop investigations more than 30 years ago into war-crimes allegations that its soldiers killed and mutilated civilians during the Vietnam War.
A spokesman, however, said the army was looking into statements by veterans of the unit who were quoted over the weekend by the Toledo Blade, an Ohio newspaper, as admitting having killed civilians.Vietnam war-crimes probe resurfaces - www.theage.com.au
War Crimes

[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve

I replied, "As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale."

[ There you go again with ignoring the context. ] -Steve

Steve, for God sakes you had just made the point that the context doesn't matter! You said "stated motivations don't matter " when it is on a massive scale and the target is civilians. You made the point that deliberately targeting civilians on such a scale shows that the cause "has gone beyond reason."

But now you want to make excuses for it. Osama bin Laden has excuses for his attacks too.

An interesting point is the level of dishonesty when dealing with US crimes against civilians. You mentioned Truman and MacArthur. Truman apparently was in denial (or incredibly IGNORANT to the point of absurdity) about the fact that he was targeting civilians. President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children." Truman lied about what really happened, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Hear him lie.
The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."
And the "need" for dropping the bomb is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.
"... there was no need to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan. If we had offered Japan the kind of peace treaty which we actually gave her, we could have had a negotiated peace."- Leo Szilard


As far as Nat Turner, the media was no more honest about his motives than they are about terrorists today. When Nat Turner and fellow terrorists attacked in American in 1831, the press played the SAME GAME of denying what was behind the terrorism. Describing Nat Turner in 1831 the Richmond Enquirer wrote, "He was artful, impudent and vindicative, without any cause or provocation"
WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR PROVOCATION!

[The Nat Turner rebellion was a slave rebellion.]-Steve
So? And you can see how the press reported it at the time. You ignored my point, Nat Turner killed civilians: does that mean we never should have ended slavery? Was what Nat Turner did wrong or not, you really didn't make that clear.

As far as Israel, ethnic cleansing is wrong. From the beginning key Zionists plotted to remove non-Jews from Palestine. The Jewish Zionists used terrorism and the Jewish Zionists even killed Jews who objected to their agenda. Why should a small minority be allowed to discriminate and impose their racist agenda upon the majority? This is what happened when they sought to impose partition of land that wasn't theirs. Do you believe in democracy and human rights or not? You may be interested to know the background of the May 1948 unilateral declaration by 33% of the population, imposing their will on 67% of the non-Jews. In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and had amassed much more arms. By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed, (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. IsraelHistory What Israel is doing is about imposing a racist state upon people, it isn't about "security". You don't move Jewish families into the territories if your concern is "security". It is more of the land grab, those that accept the excuse of "security" are naive to say the least.

[The question is: Can Tom Murphy actually repond to this, or will he avoid answering again?]-Steve

Steve, you are the one that said " I really don't care what you say."

As far as Bush's lie and what the motives are, other readers can see that I pointed out in a previous post that I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.

Here is a quote in which bin Laden addresses Bush's lies:

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

The motives been made clear for years. Bush and other lie in order to serve special interests that prefer the public don't focus on the specific foreign policies for which they are targets.

Basic freedom means the right to know why you are in harm's way and not to be lied to about matters of life and death.

[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve

that is garbage. First of all, there were three symbolic targets. Clearly the intent was not simply to kill civilians but rather to hit these targets. You don't hit THE SYMBOL of US MILITARY POWER if you simply want to kill civilians. US policy makers would call the civilians "collateral damage"
As far as actually targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale. When the terrorists attacked, it did not make our foreign polices just.

The bottom line is there is no right to continue unjust polices even if a small handful of people has responded to them in a way you don't like. By your rational we could never have ended slavery since Nat Turner and others killed all those civilians.

There are other people involved and it is evil to insist that you have a right to continue unjust polices because some terrorists responded to them. Continuing the unjust polices continues to wrong people and to drive others to do things like acts of terrorism.

You clearly want specific foreign policies to continue AND THAT WAS WHY BUSH LIED: To rob the American people of the chance to decide for themselves if they want to continue to be put in harm's way because of these policies.

[The question is: Can Tom Murphy actually repond to this, or will he avoid answering again?]-Steve

Steve, you are the one that said " I really don't care what you say."

As far as Bush's lie and what the motives are, other readers can see that I pointed out in a previous post that I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.

Here is a quote in which bin Laden addresses Bush's lies:

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

The motives been made clear for years. Bush and other lie in order to serve special interests that prefer the public don't focus on the specific foriegn policies for which they are targets.

Basic freedom means the right to know why you are in harm's way and not to be lied to about matters of life and death.

[Stated motivations don't matter with crimes like those committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Deliberately targeting civilian for slaughter on such a massive scale shows that the terrorists' cause has gone beyond reason. Groups that display this kind of nihilism can't be negotiated with.] -Steve

that is garbage. First of all, there were three symbolic targets. Clearly the intent was not simply to kill civilians but rather to hit these targets. You don't hit THE SYMBOL of US MILITARY POWER if you simply want to kill civilians. US policy makers would call the civilians "colateral damage"
As far as actaully targeting civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on a massive scale.

The bottom line is there is no right to continue unjust polcies even if a small handful of people has responded to them in a way you don't like. By your rational we could never have ended slavery since Nat Turner and others killed all those civilians.

Q: What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?

Osama bin Laden: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ...
link

[ Steve Meyer rather eloquently fleshes out my disagreement with your “ Bush lied “ obsession. ] -Mike

We obviously have different definitions for eloquent.

[ As I see it, you insist Bush lied because he doesn’t acknowledge bin Laden’s reason for jihad against the U.S., as specifically described in the 1998 fatwa. ] -Mike

No, I say Bush lied because he feeds the public a false reason for why we were attacked. You can pretend all you want what Bush's words mean but the interpretation that many Americans are getting is that the terrorists attack us because they don't like our freedoms here in America and that they want us to force us to convert to Islam. When Bush lied, many Americans were fooled. As I have pointed out, right here in this thread a person called Ran writes that the terrorists "got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." We can see he is still tricked by Bush's lie since he writes, "Tom, sorry lad, but you fail to convince."


[ This is further established in your earliest post, which reads; “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?” ] -Mike

No Mike I am not only talking about the 1998 fatwa.

[ In keeping with your insistence on accuracy, I have pulled some quotes from the fatwa as well. Before I cite them, I’d like to remind you of another claim you’ve made in this thread. It reads as follows:
“In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."
Now, I am confident you see no inconsistency between this statement and what is contained in the fatwa. After all, it is the content of the fatwa that you continually insist on returning to in making your case. ] -Mike

No, I have already quoted from SEVERAL sources and I have provided links to my articles.
Your premise that I am talking only about the 1998 fatwa is wrong.

[ That being the case, here’s a passage for you to chew on. Be sure to take little bites; “ Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. “
Well, isn’t that interesting? In your list of “motives“ attributed to bin Laden, you state it is “ U.S support for Israel’s brutal occupation ” that drives bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to an Israeli/U.S. relationship. Yet bin Laden clearly states in the fatwa that his objection to American support of Israel is that it is “ GUARANTEEING ISRAEL’S SURVIVAL.” Big difference, don’t you agree? ] -Mike

Mike what are you doing? I did not say that "what drives bin Laden's fatwa
" was the specific motives I quoted. I was just listing motives in response to YOUR claim that I "conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S." GET IT? You made a false claim that I "ignore" the motive of wanting troops pulled out. I responded with a quote from the article which I linked to.

In the very thing you quoted bin Laden says "to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there" Yes it is a motive and bin Laden resents the US supporting Israel.

[ Need I remind you again of your earlier remark, “ The 1998 fatwa made specific demands….. These are basic facts and this is about honesty.” You have twisted the intent of bin Laden’s fatwa, as it relates to Israel. Bin Laden clearly demands the United States step aside to facilitate the extermination of Israel. Your comments infer bin Laden demands an end to American support of Israel’s alleged oppression of the Palestinians.] -Mike

You really think your games make sense? Osama does want an end to US support for Israel's oppression. I haven't twisted anything. I have provided links to two of my articles and provided many quotes.

In my article I write, "But the truth was revealed in" and then I mention the things YOU misrepresent as "my list of motives which drive the fatwa". That is not what it was, what it was in the context of my response to you was proof that I am not omitting particular motives. You are the one that twists things.
As far as Israel, you are clearly as ignorant about this. What Israel is is a system of discrimination. Zionists have made it clear that Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights IS the "destruction of Israel".

[ As Steve Meyer has mentioned in his post, American support of a democratic Israel, threatened for decades with race based genocide, definitely qualifies as a defense of somebody’s freedoms, if not “ our freedoms.”
In making such a demand on the U.S., is bin Laden not attempting to deny the U.S. the “freedom “ to formulate its own foreign policy, including such a core element of that policy as the right to support and defend allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia? ] -Mike

You just don't care about the truth do you? I pointed out explicitly what the lie Bush tells is. You want to pretend that what Bush said means something else or "could qualify as" something else. What you wrote is dishonest junk and you know it.

The meaning of Bush's words is clear and Ran's response shows exactly what the meaning of Bush's words is. Ran wrote that the terrorists attacked us because "the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die." And you know damn well that this misconception permeates our society. So stop playing these games Mike.

Basically your game is: gee whiz, did the public get the wrong idea? Didn't they know that by "beacon of freedom and opportunity" Bush actually MEANS specific foreign polices?

At least in the Soviet Union they knew they were being fed propaganda, unfortunately here we have little shits gleefully make up excuses for the propaganda.

And propaganda is what it is. And I gave you two specific examples of others playing along with Bush's lie but you ignored it. Are you now going to tell me that CBS and the CIA are simply trying to inform the public when they omit the section that mentions MOTIVES?
That part is: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."


You have a brainwashed response to the facts. You cannot get it into your head that listing motives is not endorsing the crime?

You don't seam able to grasp this basic point. You explain away Bush's lie by claiming Bush shouldn't list the specific motives. You ask "And why would he? The American public overwhelmingly believes the 9/11 attacks were unjustified mass murder."
Mike, do you HONESTLY think that listing the motives is justifying the crimes?

You write that you agree that the attacks were unjustified mass murder, "I happen to agree, you can choose not to, as many on the far left do."

Again another sick minded lie from you. No Mike, "many on the far left" do not say that the attacks were justified. In fact in the two and a half years since 9/11 I have not come across a single article that makes that claim. Have you ever give any thought to what you are writing?

Steve Meyer wrote, "Your 'Bush Lied' assertion is weak, and misses the point. Bin Laden's fatwa was widely reported when it was issued, and again after each of the terrorist attacks since then. While it was not repeated verbatim on the evening news, I do recall reading it in the paper and on the internet. What Bush has said about the terrorist's motivations is not original - many others have come to the same conclusions. What Bush has said is more of an assessment of the motives rather than a direct quote from Bin Laden."'

No Steve, you miss the point. Bush lied about why we were attacked, Bush lied about the motives. Bush told us why we are being targeted for attack and what he said is a lie, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." President Bush September 11, 2001

Bush tells us, "The war against terror goes on." Bush then tells us a lie about why, "It goes on because we love freedom and we're not going to change and our enemies hate freedom. It goes on because there are cold-blooded killers who have hijacked a religion. It goes on because we refuse to relent." President Bush September 1, 2003

Bush is lying and others are helping spread the lie. I never said that if you searched you couldn't find the complete sentence from the fatwa. I said that what is widely reported is only the first half and that there is a clear pattern of omitting the part that states the motives. I mentioned CBS and the CIA are playing the same game by not mentioning the part with the motive.

You seem to be trying to make the point that the lie doesn't matter since a person could if it occurred to them research the facts and find out what the truth actually is. What I am saying is that the public does not deserve to be fed lie. By not pointing out that what Bush said wasn't true and by omitting the motives when talking about terrorism, people are spreading a lie about why we are being attacked. People are serving powerful interests by "playing the game". I never said there was an actual censorship that made telling these facts forbidden. No, it is a societal and financial pressures that intimidate some and select others who conform out of ignorance. Some people surely know what they are doing when they omit the motives and talk about "our freedoms." The result is many people are fooled by Bush's lie. Are you trying to act like this is not the case?!? My first comment in this thread was met with a sarcastic response which mocked "my thesis". Writing about why the terrorists attacked, this person responded by saying, "I thought it was because a backwards, angry, extremist organization with zero respect for other religions, other sects within their own religion and half of their own population got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die.

Steve writes, "you said:
"I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us."
Most people assume that they are talking to a reasonable person who isn't being an obtuse pain in the ass.
Unfortunately you're a Chomsky fan, so they have to explain every little thing. The foreign policies of the US (and other nations) are in a general sense BASED UPON our common national principles, which include our freedoms."

Steve, you are the one being obtuse. I wrote and you quoted, "people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms"" and you come back with nonsense. Your argument is that people who insist that the motive isn't our foreign polices are not wrong because our foreign polices are our freedoms?
You are tying desperately to spin something out of your nonsense but readers here I don't think will be so quick to play along with your game.

Steve writes, "Lastly, you finish with a perfect Chomskyite sentence:
"It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Break it down, everyone: "It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others..." Ah, the passive voice. So much easier to distort with. With this clever turn of phrase you make the accusation, while still denying that you made the accusation that others insinuated something. 'Others' made it, even though you said it. Sorry if I gave the other readers a headache."

I think you need a course in logic 101. What you are saying doesn't make sense. Others have indeed said it. For example Norma Sherry wrote, "Rumors abounded after 911 ..., that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel. However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." letter

Steve writes, "Continuing with your last statement: "...that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Splitting hairs again. Hatred of US support for Israel is commonly anti-semitic. "

No, it isn't. Although an anti-Semite may hold that opinion, the opinion itself is not anti-Semitic AT ALL.
You can't play the game that a legitimate opinion is "commonly" anti-Semitic.
Just as thinking OJ Simpson is guilty is not racism AT ALL. A racist may have the opinion but the opinion itself is not racist AT ALL. You can't go around tainting legitimate opinions because it suits your agenda. It is an underhanded and dirty tactic.


Steve insists, "Not mentioning this anti-semitism is what people get mad about, since it is so obvious; yet obtuse Chomskyites don't see fit to mention it. Which is why people in general think that someone missing the obvious anti-semitism is also an anti-semite. Not an unreasonable assumption in my opinion, since it would make no sense to appear to be an anti-semite when you're not."

Steve, you are really off the wall and TOTALLY unreasonable.

Mike,
When you assume someone is saying that attacking civilians is justified, THAT is insulting. I spelled this out for you: when the FBI or police give the motives for a crime, are they "justifying it"? YOu wouldn't play that game with them, don't play it with me.

I spelled it out to you: there is such thing as two wrongs.
NAt Turner killing the civilians, including the women and children was wrong. AND slavery was wrong too. Get it? TWO WRONGS.

you wrote, "Your website is heavy on emphasizing American support for Israel as a primary motivation for bin Laden's call for jihad. On one hand, you characterize my pointing this out as " insulting." Then you proceed to trot out a Zionist quote which demonstrates a healthy contempt for Israel and the Jewish race. Where is the insult?"

I list all the motives. A "contempt for the Jewish race," is Zionism the "Jewish race," you really need to go to bed, you sound like a total fanatic. Zionism is not the "Jewsih race." Research the history of Zionism from the killing of Jews by Zionists because they dared speak out against Zionism to the ethnic cleansings and killings. Racism is wrong, even if it is Jews doing it. Not a difficult concept but since you can't grasp the other ideas I have been spelling out for you I can see why you don't get it.

You wrote, "To suggest that Bush is lying as to why the U.S. has been targeted by bin Laden is an abuse of the word " lie.""

Really? We were attacked because of specific foreign policies, but Bush said it was because we are "the brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity in the world." THAT is a lie.

You wrote, "You conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bin Laden has cited the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and thereby desecrating Islamic holy places) as his primary reason for coming after the U.S."

No, you are not reading the info I posted. I clearly list all the motives: "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." In my article about Bush's lie I list the motives "Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel's brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq."

More inaccuracies from you. The point was Hanson acted like the motive about Israel didn't exist (remember he wrote that "have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands " YET those demands included Israel and Hanson didn't mention it and knows that that demand has not been met!)

The motives bin Laden has stated has been mentioned rarely in mainstream media and a false impression is put forth. It has never been pointed out that Bush lied. I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us. It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!

Ran wrote, "So Tom, are you saying that Bush was lying when OBL stated videotaped reasons? Interesting thesis."

And OBL stated videotaped reasons are what I said they are. To quote bin Laden, "We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don't get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live." November 9, 2001
Nov

"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people." Dec 26, 2001 Dec

and so on ... Motives for 9/11

I see the sick game of pretending the 9/11 motives are something they are not continues. The bottom line is Bush and others are lying to us about why we are targets of terrorism.

I notice Hanson's article refers to the 1998 fatwa. Hanson writes "If they believe al Qaeda is a rational interlocutor, they should assume that the U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and cessation of the embargo of Iraq — replaced by massive American aid — have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands and that peace is at hand."

Yet again Hanson as other do, seeks to distort or ignore the motives for the terrorist attacks. DOESN'T ANYONE GET OFFENDED BY THESE CONSTANT ATTEMPTS TO PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS?

The 1998 fatwa made specific demands and Hanson should know or perhaps doesn't care to admit that the demands have not been met. These are basic facts and this is about honesty. Why is Hanson and so many others playing these games?

Here is part of that 1998 fatwa:
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque 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. "
Note that nearly everytime the powers that be quote this section of the 1998 fatwa they only quote the fist part of the sentence and leave of the part that starts with "in order to". THAT part contains the motives. And we can see that Hanson has continued the game that many others play by pretending the basic motives don't exist.

In fact when I say the powers that be don't quote that sentence fully I mean the powerful interests and those that serve those interests. So when CBS's 60 Minutes did a report just last Sunday they omited the part "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque 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. " When The CIA's George Tenet quotes the same sentance he too leaves out the part that contains the motives. http://www.representativepress.org/Intelligence.html

What motivated the nineteen terrorists on  9/11?

The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam.
Note that Osama bin Laden has said why repeatedly and he says that the attacks will continue UNTIL specific foreign policies are stopped. He doesn't say "until you believe in Alah", none of the terrorists have ever said this. It is dangerous to spread false reasons for why 9/11 happened. Please read the follow for the motives for 9/11 attacks:

"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998

"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized " - Osama bin Laden May 1998

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

"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

A German friend of Mohammed Atta(the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

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.

The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."


Abdullah Azzam authored Join the Caravan and he writes, "We then are calling upon the Muslims and urging them to proceed to fight, for many reasons, at the head of which are the following:" Then he listes 16 reasons. NONE of them state that the reason is just for the sake of attacking non-believers.In fact the first reason is: "1. In order that the Disbelievers do not dominate.""Do not dominate" Note that he does not write "just because they are disbelievers" or "in order to make them believe." NONE of the 16 reasons say "fight to make disbeleivers into Muslims"

In fact Osama bin Laden addressed the lying about motives for 9/11:

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

in that same statement Osama bin Laden once again listed the motives: " ... in 1995 , the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that region displaying their rejection and opposition to the American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year, another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their bases from the cities to the desert . Then in 1998 , the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah , smashed them with two mighty smashes in East Africa . Then again America was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow to the face of the American military and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as American agents, similar to all the countries in the region." -Osama bin Laden February 14, 2003

<< That theory falls apart when you understand that the Arabs were massacring Jews and other non-Muslims in the region long before the State of Israel became independent in 1948. >>

And Jews were massacring Arabs, Muslims, non-Muslims and Jews before 1948. It is important to be aware of this. These facts are generally suppressed in the US so I can understand why you would not mention them. Unfortunately you have drawn wrong conclusions with your exclusion of the above fact.

Research Jewish groups Hagana, Irgun and LEHI(Stern Group) if you want to see. For starters I recommend "Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky.
" ... in the single month of July 1938, the Irgun killed 76 Arabs with bombs in market places and the like" p165 "Fateful Triangle"

But I suspect (I hope this isn't true) that no matter how many instances of Jews killing Arabs civilians are presented, you can always explain it away. But what About killing other Jews?
Killing Jews is seen by some as the ultimate evil above killing of any others so I will focus on that. Jews were killing other Jews long before 1948 in order to advance their racist agenda of Zionism. Here is one example: A Jew was murdered by the vicious Zionist group Hagana(a Jewish group) in June 1924 as he left the small synagogue in the 'Shaarey Tsedek' hospital. Why? Because he dared organize other Jews who opposed the racist Zionism.

<< Turkey was the last entity with sovereignty over Palestine until their empire dissolved after losing in WWI. Turks aren't Arab. >>

Did you forget Britain?

<< In 1948, the Arabs were offered by the U.N. a 22nd Arab state on the Western side of Palestine (Jordan was the 21st Arab state on the Eastern side of Palestine). The Arabs rejected it and waged a war of extermination against the Jews that has continued to this day. >>

you have a very distorted view of history. If you believe in democracy, tell my why less than 33% of a population has the right to dictate such a partition? (I would love to hear it) Also, the Jews did not accept the partition, they grabbed MORE than the suggested partition BEFORE May 1948 and they also ignored the international zone around Jerusalem. Don't be naive, key Zionists saw "accepting" the UN partition as a ploy to advance their agenda of racist domination. The record is clear, the Jews didn't accept the UN partition, they IMMEDIATELY SEIZED AREAS BEYOND THE SUGGESTION AND THEY FORCED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION BEFORE MAY 1948

The father of Zionism, Herzl, called for ethnic cleansing back in 1895 "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl (The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)

<< When Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967, it's significant and highly informative that there was absolutely no movement at all by the Arabs to set up another Arab State on those territories. >>

History matters. I can see how you can draw wrong conclusions.
what is really significant and highly informative is that you don't know that Jordan regarded Palestinian independence and its leadership as a primary enemy. Israel and Jordan working in a secret agreement divided up Palestine. The King of Jordan was assassinated by a Palestinian in 1951. The PLO was formed in 1964. To suggest that there wasn't resistance to what was done to them is incorrect.

The dominant forces in the Zionism movement succeeded in imposing their racism system upon the Palestinians, If you believe in democracy how the hell can you see what was done as legitimate? For the partition see: http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
Note that the facts about population and land are no often presented to American audiences. Again: if you believe in democracy, how in God's name can you make excuses for less than 33% of a population to impose their will of more than 67%?

The history of Zionism is one of murder and terrorism in order to impose a system of discrimination and injustice. The dominant forces wanted to ethnically cleans the Palestinians and did to an enormous extent.

In 1919 President Wilsons's King-Crance Commission reported that "the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine"

Israel has practiced ethnic cleansing aand Israel Violates the Conditions for Admittance into U.N. http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html

If you are not a racist, why make excuses for Zionism and Israel?

 The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

"I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?"

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
Bush's record is exposed and the press secretary can't answer a straight question.

I think the media hasn't show the public how pathetic Bush's Press Secretary Scott McClellan is. (and how WEAK the Bush defense is for his National Guard record). I am watching the Tuesday press briefing on C-SPAN and it is really tense, awkward and embarrassing. You need to see it, hopefully the link is still at whitehouse.gov It really is interesting and very powerful, at one point a reporter gets so frustrated with Scott McClellan that he says, "I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?" The video is difficult to watch, McClellan is really squirming. His responces are evasive and lame.
I am sure the media isn't communicating this story to the public and how lame the answers are for the really tough questions. The press conferences can really be interesting in how they differ from the final slant that is presented in the reports that make it to TV and print.

Scott McClellan's performance was so pathetic that a reporter felt compelled to make a little speech in support of Bush in the form of a question!! This right wing freak tosses away the idea of journalism and decides to blurt out, " Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting? What was he doing after he was honorably discharged? " This reporter is such an asshole. What a clown! You need to see all this for yourself, check it out: Whitehouse . (the Feb 10th briefing) The text is here but I don't think you can get all the emotions and craziness from it: Press Briefing by Scott McClellan http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040210-3.html I think everyone should see that even high drama like this gets suppressed by the media. By the way, if this snowballs then Bush could really be hurt on this because he simply does not have an answer for this: The records indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973.

Bush is still nuts and the media has really ignored it. TWO TIMES now Bush insanely insited that Saddam didn't even allow the inspectors in so that is why we attacked him. The media is really hiding crazy stuff from Bush:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, Dave.

Q Mr. President, but how do you describe and account for the difference between what you claimed prior to the war about what he possessed and what he was capable of, and what the intelligence said he possessed and was capable of in terms of a nuclear weapon within the decade, and the fact that David Kay says the intelligence was inaccurate and wrong, and nothing has been found? Don't you owe the American people an explanation?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think the Iraq Survey Group must do its work. Again, I appreciate David Kay's contribution. I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.

I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger, that's what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now. And as Mr. Kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security.

Q -- visas for Polish tourists coming to the United States?

Q Visa. Visas -- do you offer anything on the visa policy for the Polish people?
whitehouse.gov

and the time before:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dana, one last question.

Q Mr. President, back on the question of Iraq, and that specific line that has been in question --

THE PRESIDENT: Can you cite the line? (Laughter.)

Q I could, if you gave me some time.

THE PRESIDENT: When I gave the speech, the line was relevant.

Q So even though there has been some question about the intelligence -- the intelligence community knowing beforehand that perhaps it wasn't, you still believe that when you gave it --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

Thank you.

whitehouse.gov

This is how the Washington Post understated it back in July of 2003 the FIRST time he said such a crazy thing. The article is written so matter of factly. If Bush had entered the press conferance naked would the reporting be a brief mention in the middle of the article that Bush "apeared not to be clothed" and then skip along like it was nothing?


President Defends Allegation On Iraq
Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address


By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

<< Did you see all that dancing and celebrating in the streets?!?!?!? Did you see all those smiling faces and happy Iraqis?!?!!?? >>

There were isolated incidences which were small. Pulling down the Saddam statue was staged. I didn't see anything on the scale of what was claimed was going to happen when we went in as "liberators."

Aslo as Chomsky points out, the Iraqis are not as happy with us as you seem to believe. MOST think we are occupiers not liberators and MOST want us to leave.

"Turning to another poll where this question was asked recently. How do you regard the coalition forces? Are they an occupying force or a liberating force? By five to one, they were called - an occupying force. Should the coalition forces leave? By five to three, Iraqis wanted them to leave. That's a remarkable figure, because about 95% of the population also reports that the security situation is much worse than it was before the invasion. And the only thing that's keeping any kind of a lid on it is the occupying forces. But nevertheless, by a very substantial majority, they want them to leave." -Noam Chomsky


Nearly all the Iraqis hated Saddam. only a very very small amount of people actually chose to work with such a man. in that small group is US policy makers who made the decision to work with this man. When will these people be held accountable? Yes, I know Iraqis that dealt with him will be held accountable but what about the US policy makers that worked with this man?

<< It must really drive MR nuts that Egypt suggested that Israel and Egypt set up an economic trade zone for their mutual benefit as well. >>

The danger to our lives is that it will drive others nuts. Answer this: why should 35% of a population get away with imposing a discriminatory system against the wishes of 67% of the people? Can you answer that or not. Your assumption that Israel is wonderful is based on ignorance or stubbornness you can't tough the question because it exposes the fundamental injustice of Israel.

Message 1 of 2 Subject 6 of 50
Subject: Re: YES it was illegal (and Richard Perle has even admitted it now)
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 11:55 PM
From: MediaReform
MsgId: <20031130235555.03386.00066088@mbs-r11.aol.com>


<< Media:You just don't want to admit that the President lied to you about why America was attacked.


To me someone who wants a Taliban style Government in Afghanistan or any other country is an enemy of freedom. That simple. >>


Boy you are jumping through hoops trying to get your guy off the hook.
The fact is WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY "HATE FREEDOM" are you two years old? And what is your leap of "logic" between wanting a Taliban style of government and attacking the US? Are you pretending the motive is not objection to US polices or are you admitting it but trying to invent a sleazy excuse for why what bush said isn't a lie?

It really is sad that you are so intellectually dishonest that you would attempt such BS just so you can avoid the fact that Bush lied. And your "enemy of freedom" crap is too much. You are brainwashed. And you try desperately to twist things to conform to the official line. But of course people that wanted a Taliban style of Government in Afghanistan were "freedom fighters" when it suits the propaganda goal. So we had Reagan calling the same agenda a fight for freedom and claiming the Mujahideen were "freedom fighters", and you lap it all up because you obediently mouth the party line. what more do you need to see that you are brainwashed? you can pat yourself on the back all you want for making up excuses for your glorious leader but all you really are doing is making a fool out of yourself and hurting this country.

and you are wrong about the "they are nuts" theory. this has been discussed by experts and the terrorists were not "nuts". first of all we have had Americans willing to carry out a suicide mission so stop acting like it is so odd. second, if you want to lessen the likelihood that Americans are going to become targets then you remove the motivation of the people attacking the US. not doing so shows you are either a fool or you have some agenda.
you should look into Nat Turner and the history surrounding that. you can dance around all you want insisting that all of Nat Turners accomplices were "nuts" and that they attacked for no reason (which a newspaper at the time insisted! not much has changed has it?) the point is even if Nat Turner was saying things that were very religious and spoke of visions, the bottom line is that it was wrongs against the blacks that motivated the followers of Nat Turner to attack.
So it was the polices that really gave the motivation.
The same holds with those that carry out bin LAden's fatwa.
what I see is these guys focusing on the polices, I haven't even seen any terrorists statements fixating on setting up an Islamic State, what I have seen is them obsessed with the policies.

A German friend of Mohammed Atta quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."


The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."

When Nat Turner and his followers attacked, it was about objection to unjust polices, it did not make the policy of slavery OK. If you really cared about lessening the chance that dozens of blacks would from black terrorists groups to kill whites then yes ENDING THE UNJUST POLICES WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. Is the Nat Turner analogy to complicated for you?

you for some reason feel an obligation to continue to put America in harm's way so that special interests can continue their unjust polices. Bush and others have lied to us, we are under no obligation to continue with these polices. George Tenet half quotes bin Laden in order to avoid mentioning the motive! He left this out (it was part of the same sentence he quoted from, he so wants to deceive the public that he chops up the bin Laden sentence he quotes from leaving this out: "... in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." are you frightened to admit that these people are intentionally deceiving the American people about why we were attacked?

WHAT THE HELL DOES IT TALE FOR YOU TO GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD THAT THEY ARE LYING TO US? WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO BE A MAN AND INSIST THAT THESE PEOPLE DON'T MAKE FOOLS OUT OF US!

<< I'm pro-life, yet I find people who kill in the name of stopping abortion to be just as crazy as Osama. >>
would reporting that some "Christian terrorists attacked freedom" be legit? no mention of abortion or the circumstances, just reporting that these Christian terrorists "hate freedom," you don't think that would be really dishonest and manipulative?