Chomsky replies re Allawi executes six

Prof. Chomsky,

Do you have any comment on the Sidney Morning Herald article shown on ZNet today claiming that Iyad Allawi exectued six suspected insurgents in an Iraqi police station?

Would you say that ominous positive reaction throughout Iraq is mainly due to the incredible lack of security provided by the occupying forces? In other words, this barbaric act was welcomed as a positive step when all the people know is constant violence?

Thanks,
James O'Shea

Posted: 24 Jul 2004 02:27 PM

Reply from NC,

I read the article, and it looked convincing. There hasn't been a particularly convincing denial. It wouldn't be particularly surprising. Just check his background: Saddam's secret police, British intelligence, CIA, alleged terrorist acts against civilians in Baghdad.

Assuming press reports to be generally accurate, the most ominous part is that the stories about the execution seemed to elicit a fairly favorable reaction in much of Iraq.

Noam Chomsky

----------------------

It seems some want to use a level of proof higher than is commonly used for news stories. The report looks profesionally researched. I think there is solid reason to at least report the allegation. The US press has not done so. The reporter was interviewed about his report:

MAXINE McKEW: Paul McGeough, thanks for joining us.

Paul, as you've also made clear in your article, Prime Minister Allawi has flatly denied this story.

Why then is the Herald so confident about publishing it?

PAUL McGEOUGH, 'SYDNEY MORNING HERALD' AND 'AGE' FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well it's a very contentious issue.

What you have is two very solid eyewitness accounts of what happened at a police security complex in a south-west Baghdad suburb.

They are very detailed.

They were done separately.

Each witness is not aware that the other spoke.

They were contacted through personal channels rather than through the many political, religious or military organisations working in Baghdad that might be trying to spin a tale.

And they've laid it out very carefully and very clearly as to what they saw.

MAXINE McKEW: You haven't identified these witnesses but why have they felt free to talk about such an extraordinary story?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Well, they were approached through personal connections and as a result of that, they accepted assurances.

They were guaranteed anonymity, they were told that no identifying material would be published on them and they told what they saw.

MAXINE McKEW: And just take us through the events as they were accounted to you?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Well, I'll take you through what the two bits of pieces of what the two witnesses said to give you the full chronology as I understand it.

There was a surprise visit at about 10:30 in the morning to the police centre.

The PM is said to have talked to a large group of policemen, then to have toured the complex.

They came to a courtyard where six, sorry seven prisoners were lined up against a wall.

They were handcuffed, they were blindfolded, they were described to me as an Iraqi colloquialism for the fundamentalist foreign fighters who have come to Baghdad.

They have that classic look that you see with many of the Osama bin Laden associates of the scraggly beard and the very short hair and they were a sort of ... took place in front of them as they were up against this wall was an exchange between the Interior Minister and Dr Allawi, the Interior Minister saying that he felt like killing them on the spot.

It's worth noting at this point in the story that on June 19, there was an attack on the Interior Minister's home in the Sunni triangle in which four of his bodyguards

Iraq's interim PM executed six insurgents: witnesses

passserby claims, "Btw, these allegations were ignored not only by the US media -- they were ignored by everyone -- if you google for "allawi shot prisoners" the only hits you'll get will be coming from "activist" sites like counterpunch, repeating the allegations in the australian paper (but almost always as facts though -- a rather telling detail.) No solid media outlet reported that though."

That isn't true. United Press International reported it, The Washington Times picked it up and Newsweek also reported on the allegation.
In Scotland, the award-winning Sunday Herald ran its sister-publication’s copy, as did the New Zealand Sunday Star Times, the Irish Examiner and Canada’s Toronto Post. The London Daily Mail and South Africa’s Sunday Mail (same ownership) ran a story with a similar lead, although the denial comes right up front. Greetings From the Memory Hole: Our Media kills a Troubling Story that the Rest of the World Saw
Allawi began his career in the killing business in the 1960s on behalf of Saddam Hussein; but in 1978, he switched to the CIA after Hussein tried to kill him. In 1991 Allawi co-founded an anti-Saddam, CIA-front organization, the Iraqi National Accord (INA), which the New York Times described as “a terrorist organization.” A number of European papers routinely refer to Allawi as a “former assassin,” or in similar terms.

tep·id: Lacking in emotional warmth or enthusiasm; halfhearted

Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East

You wrote, Turkey is not part of the Middle East. It is considered Asia Minor.

don't play these fucking games. It is very common to consider Turkey part of the Middle East.

Middle East: Geographical area without clear borders, with its centre in the eastern Mediterranean basin. The most limited version of what the Middle East includes is set to Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan.

An equally often used version of Middle East, includes Cyprus, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt.

An even larger Middle East includes Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen middle_east.htm cache http://i-cias.com/e.o/middle_east.htm

Look, Zionists are fucking manipulative liars that are making excuses for horrific wrongs and extreme racism because they have a fanatical devotion to their perverse interpretation of Judaism which to them means the State of Israel.

Zionists have Americans repeating the phrase "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" like Pavlov's dogs. The thing is just propaganda. Turkey is a democracy and so is Lebanon. The manipulative thing is this "Israel is a democracy" thing is thrown out as a way to paint Israeli in a positive light which it doesn't deserve. "Democracy" has several connotations that are taken for granted by Americans. One of them is equality. One of the definitions listed for democracy is indeed: "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy&r=67 but that isn't true of Israel, the propaganda is intended to obscure that fact.

Turkey is a democracy and Lebanon is a democracy if we consider Israel a democracy.

You wrote, " Now this part of the post is the one I that make me smirk. Where has this poster been for the last 30 years? Lebanon is a puppet state of the Syrians, who maintain a troop presence of 16,000 in its borders. ... The Muslims are solidly in control of the nation, and the Syrians routinely assassinate Druze and Christians. Sure, Lebanon was a democracy....in the 70's! "

You want to pretend that Lebanon is not a democracy. What you are doing is being critical of how good of a democracy it is. If we want to get into how good a democracy is then Israel fails too. The fact is there are parliamentary and municipal elections in Lebanon. It is a democracy even today. And this is why the Zionist propaganda about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East is false.

IS the Lebanese democracy flawed? Yes, BUT THE ISRAEL DEMOCRACY IS FLAWED TOO.

So it is DISHONEST to on one hand talk about Israel being a democracy but to deny that Lebanon is.

There are problems in Lebanon, the Lebanese people have only a limited capacity to choose their own government. And there are problems in Israel , non-Jewish citizens in Israel have a a limited capacity to choose their own government. The reason is there are laws that restrict what a candidate's platform can be and the platform cannot be what we take for granted here in America. Non-Jews are discriminated against because they cannot vote for who they want to vote for. By Israeli law, a candidate cannot run on a platform that calls for equal rights for non-Jews.

The point is this talk about "democracy" doesn't mean much. The attempt is to make it seem like the government of Israel is fair, it isn't.

So the way Israel is a democracy is talked about here in America is VERY MISLEADING. To take just one recent example, when was the last time in Israel that the Israeli police shot 13 Jewish Israeli citizens protesting in Israel? Never? In the year 2000, in Israel, Israeli police shot 13 Arab Israeli citizens protesting in Israel.

The thing with Zionist propaganda is that often it is a bald face lie. There is a history of lies like this in the Zionist movement. Another one is "a land without a people".

In response to Two Ways to Tell a Story Thursday, August 12, 2004 at http://dougharper.blogspot.com/
Dear Mr. Harper,

Believe it or not but I still have the email you sent me and am still trying to think of a response. At first I was asking myself "why is he doing this?" but now I ask myself, "why can't he see this?" At first I thought you were intentionally trying to avoid the points I raised (actually in your blog post and response to me you omit my strongest points) and I thought that this was a deliberate thing you were doing. But as I read your blog, I think this must be subconscious and that you just keep introducing your slant unintentionally.

I now think, "why can't he see this?" this goes to the point Chomsky makes about news editors and reporters sincerely believing what they are saying. If you want to see how the media really functions, understanding that may be key.

I assume you did not intend on deliberate deception when you posted "Two Ways to Tell a Story". But the fact is the news headline from the Oregonian was "Ordered to just walk away", it was the U.S. version of the AP story that slanted the story, not the German version. They were ordered to just walk away by US officers.

So if you go to the source, "The Oregonian" it is clear that the US version of the AP story is the one that slants it away from the main idea of the US allowing the human rights abuses to continue by ordering the US soldiers to walk away. It is the German version that more faithfully represents what the original Oregonian article actually said.

You wrote "Note, too, that the vague "were ordered to return the prisoners" of the back half of the U.S. lede becomes prison abuse that "was tolerated by U.S. commanders" in the German story." and "If you trace the story back to the "Oregonian" version". This is what get me, I traced it back also and the headline of the "Oregonian" version" was "Ordered to just walk away", I really am amazed that you can just ignore that. The Oregonian story's focus was indeed that the human rights abuses were tolerated by U.S. commanders! That is what "walk away" means in that context. That point is not in the back half of the Oregonian story, it is the headline of the story. So it should be the lede of the AP story. In the German AP story it is, in the US AP story it isn't.

You wrote, "Note the date of the incident: it occurred after sovereignty was transfered to the Iraqi government." "Sovereignty"? NOW sovereignty matters? One of the excuses of our violating Iraqi sovereignty going into Iraq was that "we had to stop the human rights abuses because Saddam is so bad." It actually is now used as the main excuse. But NOW we can tolerate it? (after we got what we wanted.)

I along with others had argued that the premise about concerns for human rights could not possibly be taken seriously as a reason for invading Iraq because of how the US tolerates and contributes to human rights abuses all over the world in nations we support. Now the premise IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN since US officials are willing to let human rights abuses continue regardless of the "moral imperative" to stop them when we are right there with the power to easily stop them.

It is actually worse than this, the US media has suppressed the shocking story of actual killing of six prisoners at the hands of none other than our man, Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi.

AFTER Iyad Allawi was appointed PM, there have been reports about Iyad Allawi executing six suspected insurgents in an Iraqi police station! The story, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, is that six prisoners were handcuffed and blindfolded, lined up against a courtyard wall and shot by the Iraqi Prime Minister.(1) I haven't seen the reports in American media, looks like the media is up to there usual games of suppression. Reminds we of the period when the US supported Saddam, the media wasn't eager to talk about his evils THEN. These facts should mean something to anyone that is thinking about human rights. To spell it out: talk of human rights concerns was just an excuse to invade Iraq.

Concerns about democracy cannot be a reason either I explain why I call Iyad Allawi "our man" below) and by the way, the same Oregonian story had a great quote: "We did not generally put good people in." (and the media can be counted on to suppress this fact, both the fact that we put Allawi in and that he is a brutal murderer.)

The actions of the US show contempt for democracy and an unwillingness to help a true democratic process emerge. Iyad Allawi, the PM of Iraq, was selected by the men we selected, the Prime Minster was one of the people the US selected to be on the Iraqi Council.(2) The men we selected to rule Iraq "jumped the gun" when they appointed the Prime Minister. Apparently the UN envoy was actually supposed to select. "A United Nations spokesman has said UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi - who was charged with choosing the interim government - "respects" the nomination."(3)

Allawi is one of those we hand picked originally for the governing council and his placement into the new Iraqi government into the position of PM didn't even respect the agreed upon process. Did the mainstream media make the American public aware of these facts?

Also check out Iyad Allawi's background: Saddam's secret police, British intelligence, CIA, alleged terrorist acts against civilians in Baghdad.

(1) abc.net.au
(2) representativepress.org
(3) news.bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

German AP story
American AP story
Original Oregonian story

The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg

Cheryl A. Rubenberg gives readers an accurate picture of the conflict in her 450 page paperback packed with information. The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace is a book of great research and logic. She points out the truth that "perceptions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are so deeply imbued with biases and stereotypes-typically unrecognized as such-that we often do not grasp the fundamental issues." Simply put, if you get this book you will grasp the fundamental issues.

Her central focus is the so called Oslo "peace process" but she covers the whole of the conflict from the beginning to the present with powerful examples that go under-reported to unreported here in America and includes in her endnotes other startling facts that never get exposed in mainstream discussions. Her thesis is brutally honest: Israel never intended to withdraw from the Occupied Territories based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 and Israel never intended on permitting a genuinely independent Palestinian state.

Facts that pro-Israeli and some pro-Palestinian writers leave out she doesn't shy away from. Readers will learn things that might shock them if they have relied on the dishonest sources and media presentations that dominate public perceptions. With the book you will get the full picture. You will learn not only what Israel has been up to but also how the Palestinian Authority, with its corruption and repression, "has contributed significantly to the deterioration of Palestinian society."

It is important for Americans to learn the horrific examples of Zionist cruelty. This book is really well written and gives a good sampling of events PLUS the endnotes contain even more cases of barbarism that may just open the eyes of some willing to act like a human being and not a robotic apologist for the "Jewish State."

The examples of what one can find in her endnotes are really shocking and she exposes attempts to suppress it. Read about Irgun's savagery in details you may never have heard before, this is what Menachem Begin's Zionist terrorist group did at Deir Yassin: "... on April 9. 1948, Menachem Begin's Irgun massacred 254 people-mostly old men, women, and children-then mutilated, raped, disemboweled, and paraded their corpses through the streets of Jerusalem." (from endnote 51) She notes that this was not an isolated incident.

And she points out that Begin bragged about this "triumph" when he wrote about it in his book published in 1951 but he removed reference to it in a revised edition of his book in 1977.

For those who thought it was only the Palestinians who fled and were refused entry back into Israel that lost property and land without reparations, this book is a wake up call. In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (from endnote 67)

If you want to know what you are talking about when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this is the book for you. Rubenberg spells it out clearly, buy The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace today.

You wrote, " ... I had a positive contempt for Bush's ignorance, his social conservative agenda, and the general way that he ran his campaign. ... What happened between now and then? Let me see if I can find the right words:
Sept. 11, 2001."

Oh for God sakes. Bush reaching for a children's book after being told the second plane had hit the WTC impressed you? Bush sitting in the classroom for over 7 minutes after being told a second plane had hit the WTC impressed you? We now know that Bush was briefed just a month earlier about Osama bin Laden being determined to strike the United States. Bush sitting there is not the actions (actually inactions) of someone we want as our President.

That same night Bush went before the American people and lied to them about why we were attacked, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." That is a lie. By the way, the 9/11 Commission has agreed with what the evidence shows and I have been saying for years.
Nearly all of mainstream media refused to report this fact. Here is the rare exception:
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."
kentucky.com

You wrote, "I have learned that the world would be so much better off without the Jews. Am I wrong?I mean after all .... arent they responsible for everything."

Always with the melodrama, always jumping to "what, you mean kill Jews?" The point isn't that Jews are "responsible for everything", the point is specific Jews are in fact responsible for specific horrific wrongs and it has to stop. Is that so God damn difficult to understand?

You wrote, "I have found that only the Jews EVER do anything wrong. So my conclusion is that we should just get rid of the Jews. Anybody disagree?"

How original, a Jew posing as a non-Jew posting over the top anti-Semitic nonsense. You couldn't just post something about finally ending the racist system and living as other civilized people in the world are expected to live, could you? You couldn't call for an end to the racism and land grabs, could you (even when you are posing as someone else)?

Once again someone has posed as an anti-semite in order to serve the Jewish State. How fucking sick is it that so many times the alleged "anti-Semitic" expressions turn out to be from someone Jewish who poses as a non-Jew? AGAIN! You twisted little freak, you have done it again. I am sure you thought you were clever with this stupid post.
I know you think your "satire" is clever. what it actually is is very revealing. you once again continue the trend of a Jew posting anti-semitic messages.

The point is not that Jews are always wrong but if you read the posts, no matter how much evidence is provided, some Jews refuse to believe Jews are ever wrong.

The father of Zionism plotted to ethnically cleanse non-Jews from Palestine. When Zionists had the power, they did just that to hundreds of thousands of non-Jews.

Now look at the denial of so many Jews, they refuse to admit what they did. We see "thank you, thank you, thank you" to posts that deny that Zionists forced non-Jews out of Palestine.
We see the sick-minded bullshit that "arab leaders told them to leave so that they could come back after the Jews were killed". Here is a quote form a Jew with honesty and class:
"since the birth of the refugee question, Israel i propaganda has steadfastly held that, in response to Arab radio broadcasts urging flight to clear the field for the invading Arab armies, the Palestinians departed of their own volition-indeed despite Zionist entreaties that they remain in place. This claim was conclusively demolished by British scholar Erskine Childers and Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi as far back as the early 1960s" Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition pp56-57

And yet we still have rabid Zionists that insist on Zionist propaganda which has been proven false. AND ON TOP OF THAT, when it is pointed out that it is indeed false, we have assholes like you that whine about imaginary arguments that "Jews are always wrong" and post anti-Semitic crap posing as a non-Jew. does the sickmindedness ever end?

You wrote, " You were kind enough to quote me above but, alas, you failed to quote me in full or even to indicate to our reader that the quote was partial by the usual method of "..." No doubt a slip of the fingers on the key board to which we all prone. "

The quote I used was not misleading, I quoted you and your clear indication that you think or thought the Gaza Strip had nothing to do with occupied status.

So your question reveals your ignorance. In addition to that you think you have some great point? you ask what would happen to Mr. and Mrs. Cohen and their 2.5 children, would they live 1 week, 1 day or 1 hour if they stayed in "Gaza City"? It is almost certain that the very first thing that would happen is Mr. and Mrs. Cohen and their 2.5 children would be told to leave. Moving populations into occupied territories is illegal. If they for some reason moved into an are controlled by the PA then they would also no doubt be asked to leave, illegal immigrants in most any country are asked to leave.

your question ignores the fact that these illegal settlers are moving in with the intention that the land they move into will become part of Israel. You are extremely dishonest or embarrassingly ignorant if you don't know this. And I don't buy your claim that you meant and that you "knew" Gaza or parts of Gaza were occupied. The context gives that away, I am not a fool. You clearly didn't understand the Gaza Strip is subjected to the same kind of occupation and illegal settlements.

OK, what would happen to these illegal settlers if they for some reason insisted on staying (again this would be bizarre, they would not stay if they accepted that the land they were on would never be part of Israel. It undermines the whole point of the ethnically cleansing of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews so that "demographic purity" could be established in Israel. ) In your unrealistic scenario, if they refused to leave the PA would probably forceable remove them if locals don't hurt them before that.

And that should come as a surprise? Your question is OBNOXIOUS. Settlers are there for a VERY UGLY REASON and you are acting like it is all innocent, that is really fucking OBNOXIOUS. You think it would be odd that people would take out their frustrations on members of a group that had wronged AND STILL WRONG them? You think it is some kind of joke that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Palestinains are STILL prevented from returning to their homes and MOST of the land is taken for a racist agenda? You think given the fact of these outragous ongoing violations that illegal settlers should be welcomed with open arms in the little bit of land the Palestinains have left? Guy, you are really OBNOXIOUS.
You are delusional. What the hell is your deal with Israel anyway? The ideas you express are so off the-wall and ignorant that something must be wrong here. Do you make up excuses for other agendas that are clearly wrong?

Zionist Terror Tactics
Akiva Orr, who is Jewish, was born in Berlin in 1931, served in the Israeli army in 1948. Orr relates the story about speaking at a conference in England in 1970:

"I explained that the conflict between Israel and the Arab world was essentially a conflict over lands and independence between Jewish immigrants and the indigenous Palestinian population.  Until 1948 Palestine was populated by an Arab majority which was expropriated, exploited, and partially expelled by the Zionist immigrants from Europe.  The immigrant settlers transformed the indigenous majority into a minority discriminated against in its own country, and imposed upon it a discriminatory state apparatus, namely a 'Jewish state'.  No wonder the natives were restless.  This came as a total revelation to the audience of some 500, who were used to apologetic versions of the Palestine conflict, in which Israel was presented as a small, democratic state created by the Jews who escaped from Auschwitz, a state that made 'the desert bloom', and that was beleaguered by the surrounding Arab states for the sheer fact that it was Jewish.

A lively session of questions from the audience followed.  Suddenly someone at the back of the hall stood up and shouted, emotionally: 'Israel expelled the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 as a response to the Jews who were expelled from the Arab states.  This amounted to a "population transfer", which had occurred more than once this century and was a legitimate, if cruel, way of settling minority problems.'  I replied that in 1948 Jews were not expelled from countries like Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, but induced to leave by Zionist emissaries from Israel who often used dirty tricks like throwing bombs into synagogues to create the impression of anti-Jewish persecution to stampede the Jews to Israel.

This answer outraged my heckler even more, and he shouted in an agitated voice: 'You are a liar, no Jew ever threw a bomb into a Jewish synagogue.'  The audience weren't used to seeing someone denounce a speaker as a 'liar'.  Being British, they assumed such an accusation was based on solid information capable of withstanding a libel charge.  The ball was now in my court, but having encountered this charge many times before I was well prepared.  I had copies of the Israeli weekly Ha'olam Hazeh (of 20 April and 1 June 1966) with me, which published details, with photographs, of these events.  Some Iraqi Jews who had become disabled as a result of the bombs thrown by Israeli agents into the Mas-uda Shemtov Synagogue in Baghdad had sued the Israeli government for damages, in Israel.  The government had preferred to settle out of court and pay damages, but the legal exchanges had reached the Israeli press and had been published by some magazines.  When I read out the details of the case from the Israeli magazine all eyes turned back towards my adversary.  I demonstrated convincingly that I was not a liar.  What would he say now?

There was a moment of silence and then he blurted out: 'You see, unlike the Arab countries Israel is a democratic state.  You can publish everything in the press there.'  The audience burst into laughter; I didn't." - Akiva Orr, Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, London and Boulder Colorado, 1994, pp. 5-6Akiva Orr, Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, Pluto Press, London and Boulder Colorado, 1994, pp. 5-6

Details about how Zionists terrorized Iraqi Jews into leaving Iraq for Israel and the Israeli weekly Ha'olam Hazeh that Akiva Orr mentioned in his talk with the agitated Zionist:

"The astonishing truth-that the bombs which terrorized the Jewish community had been Zionist bombs-was revealed in the summer of 1950" Zionists victimized Jews in Iraq both emotionally and physically. "It happened outside the Mas'uda Shemtov synagogue, which served as an assembly point for emigrants. That day in January the synagogue was full of Kurdish Jews from the northern city of Suleimaniyyah. Outside a Jewish boy was distributing sweet meats to curious onlookers. When the bomb went off he was killed instantly and a man standing behind him was badly wounded in the eyes."

The plot was exposed after Yehudah Tajjar, an Israeli member of the Zionist underground group called "The Movement" which carried out the terrorist bombing operations, was recognized by a Palestinian refugee in Baghdad.

"It was Tajjar himself who first broke Jewish silence about this affair. Sentenced by the Baghdad court to life imprisonment, he was released after ten years and found his way to Israel. On 29 May 1966 the campaigning weekly magazine Ha'olam Hazeh published an account of the emigration of Iraqi Jews based on Tajjar's testimony."

The calculated manipulation of fears and the creating of false instances of "anti-semitism" are tactics used cynically by Zionists. The fanatical drive to fill Israel with Jews using anti-Semitic slogans was advocated shamelessly by, "a columnist in Davar, influential voice of the Israel trade union movement", he wrote:

"I shall not be ashamed to confess that if I had the power, as I have the will, I would select a score of efficient young men-intelligent, decent, devoted to our ideal and burning with the desire to help redeem Jews-and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and plague Jews with anti-Semitic slogans such as 'Bloody Jew', 'Jews go to Palestine' and similar intimacies. I can vouch that the results in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel from these countries would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries who have been preaching for decades to deaf ears." - David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 pp. 283-284

posted to mediamatters.org/comments

It is disappointing to see people post messages who say they are fans of O'Reilly. The bottom line is (and seems some here miss it) that O'Reilly was caught in a lie. Media Matters For America documented the lie. Krugman pointed out O'Reilly's lie. O'Reilly's first response was to emphasize the Radio Factor. SO WHAT O'REILLY, you lied on your radio show, does that make it less of a lie than lying on the cable show? then O'Reilly said fine but a few minutes later O'Reilly asked "And where'd you get that little evil quote" what difference does it make who went to the trouble of listening to O'Reilly 's crap show? O'Reilly was caught red handed lying so all he could do is scream about MMFA. The bottom line is MMFA caught him lying.

Unfortunately some viewers are too simple minded to pick up on this. Krugman did ask O'Reilly is he could dispute it. O'Reilly could not and instead ranted about "do your own research" But seriously, that is not even a valid point. thank goodness MMFA staff can sit through O'Reilly crap shows, I would not want to.

I guess to drive the point home that O'Reilly lied, Krugman should have started screaming you were caught lying you liar and MMFA proved it. He should have screamed "prove them wrong, prove you are not a liar" and "I am not going to sit through your crap show, MMFA does that for me, you liar."

Apparently that's what it takes with the WWF crowd that misses the points and only is impressed with tantrums and volume. Like John Fitzgerald above. John, did you miss the point that O'Reilly LIED and was caught LYING? Being a "balanced website" does not mean you ignore lies John. MMFA nailed the lying liar O'Reilly.
Peter Hart and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting ( FAIR ) do a good job exposing this asshole. But the book!

I would like to receive some information about Six Day war 1967, esspecially, Oren's book — Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East

Norman Finkelstein has a whole section of his book devoted to Oren's book. The Appendix is called Abba Eban with Footnotes: A critical review of Michael Oren's Six Days of War.

You can get it here, it is really good:
Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition

" I made *no* mention of settlements in the west Bank. I asked how Jewish families would be treated in the *Gaza Strip* which is Palestinian"

The Gaza Strip is occupied territory.

If the Palestinians Negotiated instead of Starting and Losing a War...
Then there would have been peace decades ago. The Zionists were willing to compromise by accepting the UN Partition plan in 1947.

what a load of shit. From day one the Zionists wanted to impose a "Jewish State" where non-Jews would be forced from the land or be made second class citizens in their own land. We have the words of the top Zionists (read below), stop trying to bullshit us here. The facts prove that the Zionists had no intention on ANYTHING reasonable and were not going to "negotiate". "Negotiate"? The Zionists pulled string to get an OFF THE WALL UNFAIR PLAN suggested by the UN. The plan was a suggestion, it wasn't something legally binding (against the wishes of over 67% of the population by the way, every hear of something called democracy?) "Negotiate"? once the UN plan was anounced the Zionists started theri ethnic cleansing operations, this is MONTHS before MAY 1948.

The Zionists pushed an extremist policy upon the people of Palestine. It is bullshit to claim that Zionists would have been satisfied with the UN plan. remember the UN plan did not call for ethnic cleansing hundreds of thousands of people, yet they started doing it well before "Israel" was declared. The plan was what many Jews were pushing: for dividing up Palestine on the basis of religion as a tactical step. The UN proposal was unfair, yet still not as extreme as the criminally unjust plans of the Zionists. It is really not accurate to say that the Jews “accepted” the UN plan when they did not abide by it even before May 1948.

AND no person in the world thinks it is fair for less than 33% of a population to grab MOST of the land! Yet this is the BS proposal that Zionists insist the Arabs "should have" accepted. No people on Earth would accept such an outrageous injustice (that is why the basic facts are suppressed) If Americans knew the facts they would be shocked

What the UN plan proposed was dividing Palestine into states the way states are divisions within a country. The UN partitions called for “A constitution of an Economic Union between the two states: custom union, joint monetary system, joint administration of main services, equal access to water and energy resources. “ That is not what the Jews accepted so saying the Jews accepted the UN partition is not accurate. And to claim that the Jews actually intended on sticking to the UN partition plan is to ignore the historical evidence and the words of the top Zionists.

The Zionist agenda is of ethnic cleansing and racism and that goes back its beginnings. The father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, plotted the removal of the Palestinians as early as 1895.

In 1919, President Wilson's King-Crane Commission reported that ' the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine ' and estimated that the latter - ' nearly nine-tenths of the whole ' - are ' emphatically against the entire Zionist programme '.

ANd who the f*** would be for such a "Zionist programme" who the **** says "please violate my rights, make me a second class citizen in my own land. the whole idea is ****. How blind or racist does someone have to be not to see this?!?!?! Who the **** thinks it is strange that ANYONE would want to resist this being done to them?

This was an immoral plan that violated the rights of 9 out of 10 people in Palestine. The author of the Balfore declaration admitted in 1919 that “in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the forum of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American [King-Crane] Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism “ Clearly it was wrong, it was immoral.

You don’t have a grasp on the basic facts. Even Israel’s Ben-Gurion stated, "who- ever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist ".

It is dishonest to claim that the UN plan was something the Jews were really going to accept. It is clear that the Jews would not have been content with what the UN plan had suggested, they intended on getting even more. Of the debates Zionists had about partitioning Palestine, Ben-Gurion in a press interview said bluntly, “The debate has not been for or against the indivisibility of Eretz Israel. No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of Eretz Israel. The debate was over which of the two routes would lead quicker to the common goal.”

One route was rejecting partition proposals, which the Zionists did in 1937. But they kept open the option of publicly declaring acceptance of a partition plan, which they did in 1947. What was to be publicly agreed to was privately discussed as only a tactic to get more.

In 1938 Ben-Gurion said to other Zionists, “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Sure enough, after the creation of the state in 1948, Menachem Begin made clear how serious the “Jews accepting the UN partition” was in reality, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“.

The UN partition plan DID NOT call for ethnic cleansing but after the UN partition plan was announced, Zionists ethnically cleansed 300,000 Palestinians and had grabbed land well beyond the area of the proposed Jewish State, These deeds were committed BEFORE they declared "Israel" in MAY of 1948. In reality there wasn't an acceptance of the UN partition. In fact there wasn't adherence to the cease-fire (violation of cease-fires has been a standard Zionist practice) that was supposed to end the 1948 war. In keeping with Zionist plans and tactics, "Immediately after the armistice agreements of 1949 , Israel began encroachments into the demilitarized zones along with military attacks with many civilian casualties and the expulsion of thousands of Arabs”

Are you an American? Why are you defending a grotesquely anti-democratic (less than 33% of a land imposing their will on over 67%) and an incredibly racist system? (the "Jewish State" is by definition and in practice a racist system that discriminates against people because of heir religion.) The very idea is a violation of BASIC American principles, why the **** are you making excuses for this madness?

 The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

"But you failed to answer my question as to the likely treatment of Jews in the Gaza strip. It's a simple question; compared to Arabs in Israel, would they be treated better, the same or worse? Come along now, Thomas, no shilly-shallying otherwise our reader might think you're avoiding an answer! "

What the **** are they even doing there? For God sakes, are there one set of rules for Zionists and another for the entire world? You know damn well that under International Law the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. You want to insist on barring Arabs from returning to their homes in Israel (the Right of Return that Israel dishonestly stated it would uphold) AND AT THE SAME TIME insist that Jews should be allowed to violate International Law by settling in the occupied territories. Are you guys trying to win the biggest assholes of all time award? You think people shouldn't be anrgy towards people who are doing this shit? You find it strange that someone would be angry at people that do this to them?

I take your point, Thomas, that Arabs in Israel may not receive quite the same treatment as Jews.

I would think at some point you would be embarrassed to have Jews create so much human misery in the so called "Holy Land." Why in God's name do you Zionists insist on doing this? Seriously, you sit like an ass in England obnoxiously insisting on a "Jewish State" in Palestine. How primitive are you? Do you realize how many lives people like you have ruined and how many lives you have ended all for this fanatical racist agenda? Is it so horrible to be expected to live as others are expected to live, respecting the civil rights of others and not imposing a religious nightmare upon them?

Your fellow Zionist ruthlessly ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of people (refusing for decades to let them back to their homes) because they were the "wrong" religion in order to create the "demographic purity" of an overwhelming Jewish majority.

THEN ON TOP OF THAT you sickminded freaks insist on moving into predominantly Arab areas which are the occupied territories??????? You killed and injured God knows how many people to make the population "acceptable" to Jewish Zionist sensibilities yet not satisfied with that, and undermining the whole God damn premise of the Jewish majority you insisted on, you miserable shits insist on moving Jewish families INTO the occupied territories! ****! What the **** is wrong with you?

It is like a **** spoiled brat from hell that is compelled to be as nasty and unreasonable as he possibly can. Aren't you embarrassed by this behavior? What kind of person are you? And what kills me is Americans are paying an enormous price for this bullshit. 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 is not enough for you?

The settlements in the occupied territories are illegal.

"the civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with these limits on Israel's authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide orderly government of the territories"

"Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, provides, in paragraph 6: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

"Paragraph 6 appears to apply by its terms to any transfer by an occupying power of parts of its civilian population, whatever the objective and whether involuntary or voluntary"

"The Israeli civilian settlements thus appear to constitute a "transfer of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" within the scope of paragraph 6"

"It has been suggested that the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply in the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories. However, those principles appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if any, until settlement of the conflict"
Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Declaring that Israeli Settlements are Inconsistent with International Law, April 21, 1978

YES, the word racist does apply to Israel.
Definition of the word "racist":
racist adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.

You wrote this sickminded dishonest Zionist shit:In the known history of this planet, there has never been a nation, land, political body, or even city called "Palestine."

It speaks volumes that you deny a basic fact of history. Of cource there was a Palestine! Iit is even referred to in The Balfour Declaration you lunatic. You are too much. At some point shouldn't the outragous lies told by Zionists tell you something? This is up there with The Myth of a 'Land Without People for a People Without Land"

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/balfour.htm

"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], "The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Palestine/conflict2.html

For all you Bush apoligists and Republican robotic sheep, did you forget how the White House treated the American people?

For all you clowns that insist that US policy makers don't screw over people in foreign countries: LOOK HOW THEY TREAT FELLOW AMERICANS!:

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

This story was underreported. Why didn't we hear more about this? Think it is a game to have New Yorkers tricked into breathing in asbestos? And no action has been taken after we find out about these outragous actions!

NO INVESTIGATION OF WHITE HOUSE DOCTORING GROUND ZERO AIR QUALITY INFO: After 9/11, the White House intervened to force the EPA to downplay toxic dangers at Ground Zero, explicitly ignoring a top federal scientist who warned in a memo against the re-occupation of buildings in lower Manhattan because of dangers from asbestos and other toxins. Just seven days after the attack, the White House had the EPA delete words of caution and add reassuring language in a release that told New Yorkers the air around Ground Zero was safe. Republicans in Congress have launched no investigation into the White House's doctoring of information and endangerment public health. [Sources: New York Daily News, 10/28/03; Knight Ridder, 9/12/03; NYT, 10/28/03]

"In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves. ... The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact." - text of Orwell's Preface to Animal Farm Make sure you buy a copy of Animal Farm with the preface. CLICK HERE: This copy does include Orwell’s proposed but unpublished preface to the original edition

Get the book that enthralled the President on 9/11! He picked this up AFTER being told a SECOND plane had hit the World Trade Center.
Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1

Moore’s film got the book's title wrong when Moore called it “My Pet Goat”. The correct title is “The Pet Goat” and it is not a stand alone book, it is part of a workbook called “Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1”

Own a part of history, see what captivated Bush on 9/11.
the pet goat
A girl got a pet goat. She liked to
go running with her pet goat. She
played with her goat in her house.

She played with her goat in her yard.
But the goat did some things that
made the girl's dad mad. The goat ate
things. He ate cans and he ate canes.
He ate pans and he ate panes. He
even ate capes and caps.

- from the story “The Pet Goat” from the workbook “Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1” (the book Bush reached for and read for 7 and a half minutes after being told a second plane had hit the WTC)

Confused man reviews Imperial Hubris
Reviewer: Larry Hobson (Palmdale California)
"This book is nothing more than trash and any one that would buy and listen to this author has the same idiot mind as Micheal Moore does. Muslims are a different breed of people, with far different views than America was built on.

My response to Mr. Larry Hobson:
Dear Mr. Hobson,


I read your review of "Imperial Hubris". Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror Michael Moore does not advocate a full out assault to kill massive amounts of Muslims, the author of "Imperial Hubris" does. How you can say that Moore and the author have the "same idiot mind" is beyond me. In all seriousness did you read the whole book? It is towards the end of the book that the author suggests the massive military assault on the Middle East, perhaps you didn't see this?
I think Moore has a flawed outlook but I won't get into the specifics. The main thing the author of "Imperial Hubris" does get right is the motives of the 9/11 terrorists. I have been saying this for years Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (and so has several US intelligence services if you look closely, just one example: Federal Bureau of Investigation - Congressional Statements).


By the way, haven't you noticed that the 9/11 Commission has confirmed that the motives for the 9/11 attack are indeed what the author of Imperial Hubris has said?


Your comment "Muslims are a different breed of people " is plain racist. Muslims have various views. The Muslims that carry out terrorism do it because of specific policies. They share the same motives 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 ."

You claim that  "they" simply don't  like AMerica because they have "far different views than America was built on" is plainly false. In fact, Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for America, 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.  ( see  Motives )

The US has teamed up with the most extreme elements in the Middle East. The US organized, funded and trained the same agendas that attacked the US in 1993 and 2001.

The very fact that the US supported the same agenda as it carried out terrorism against targets within Afghanistan and the Soviet Union should tell you how depraved US policy makers can be.

The bottom line is the immoral and unjust US foreign policies must end if we want to avoid being targeted be terrorists.

UPDATE Aug 2, 2003:

Looks like Mr. Hobson removed his review from Amazon (someone did, it isn't there. I think it was Hobson that removed it since plenty of dopey reviews of other books remain on Amazon.com ) below is what he review looked like (I retrieved it from google cache ):

7 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

Imperial Hubris, July 31, 2004
Reviewer:L. Hobson (Palmdale California)- See all my reviews
  
This book is nothing more than trash and any one that would buy and listen to this author has the same idiot mind as Micheal Moore does. Muslims are a different breed of people, with far different views than America was built on. Muslins are out to take over the world and they have the ACLU helping them get rid of all that America's believes in. President Bush is right on and any one that thinks differently I know will be voting for both Johns and put this country right into the toilet. This book isn't worth the money or the time to read.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE HOW EXTREME THE LYING AND MANIPULATION THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO REALLY IS!! Chomsky has documented many lies the NYT and Friedman tell in order to serve Israel:

"As the newspaper of Record, the New York Times has had to be more careful than most to safeguard the preferred version of history. To cite a few additional (and typical) examples, one priority has been to preserve the image of the United States and Israel as moderates seeking peace, faced with the terror and unremitting rejectionism of their Arab adversaries, particularly the unspeakable Palestinians. Accordingly, public PLO support in 1976 for Israel's "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" and its "right to live in peace within secure and recognize boundaries" is down the memory hole, even more deeply than Sadat's "famous milestone" of 1971. Similarly, when Yasser Arafat issued several calls for negotiations leading to mutual recognition in April-May 1984, the Times refused to print not only the facts but even letters referring to them. When its Jerusalem correspondent Thomas Friedman reviewed "Two Decades of Seeking Peace in the Middle East" a few months later, the major Arab(including PLO) initiatives of these two decades were excluded, and discussion was restricted to the official "peace process": various U.S. rejectionist proposals."

p241 World Orders Old and New

and it is the Israelis that not only started it, It is the Israelis that took it "to new levels of brutality, nihilism and depravity"

Israel has killed more, injured more and permanently crippled more civilians.



The media is not presenting a accurate picture of what Israel has done and continues to do.

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/db.php?tid=27

In America you don't hear most of what Israel does.

Activists say Border Police held boy, 13, as human shield

By Reuters and Ha’aretz Service (did US mainstream media report this?) I just learned it by visiting http://www.ifamericansknew.org If Americans Knew

April 22, 2004

When older Palestinian boys started throwing stones at Border Police officers in the flashpoint West Bank village of Biddu last week, 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan went along to watch.

He ended up on the hood of a Border Police jeep, at least one of his arms tied to a wire mesh screen that blocks the windshield from incoming stones, according to a photograph of the purported incident distributed Thursday by local group Rabbis for Human Rights. These Rabbis are decent moral Jews who are exposing the depravity ofIsraeli actions. (I know you wouldn't even belive the story if it was just Palestinians who were telling it. That is how extreme the racism is of Israel supporters in America)

“He was a shield for them,” Saeed Badwan, a 34-year-old laborer, said of his only son. “When I saw him on the hood of the jeep, my whole mind went crazy... It’s a picture you can’t even imagine. He was shivering from fear.”

Police said Muhammed’s case was sent to the Justice Ministry for investigation. Security forces insist they do their utmost to avoid civilian casualties and accuse Palestinian militants of routinely using non-combatants for cover.

The Supreme Court barred the use of Palestinians as human shields in 2002 after an incident in which soldiers forced the neighbor of a suspected militant to knock on his door and deliver their ultimatum to surrender. The militant shot and killed the man.

A left-wing Israeli rabbi who said he too was detained as a human shield when he tried to intervene to free Muhammed Badwan last week said he planned to press charges.

“It is very depressing and very sad to see that we have come to this position where this is what we do. There is disbelief,” said Rabbi Arik Ascherman, head of Rabbis for Human Rights.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/child-shield.html
visit http://www.ifamericansknew.org

http://nchomsky.meetup.com/ Come and meet other Chomsky fans and discuss issues. Chomsky exposes the truth. For example there are the false claims, like that of Netanyahu's claim that the PLO "invented" the hijacking of airplanes and even the killing of diplomats. As is much of Zionist propaganda, it is a lie. The fact is the first airplane hijacking in the Middle East was Israel?s hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent ?to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus,? who had been captured on a spy mission in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the ?factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice.? In October 1956, the Israeli air force shot down an unarmed Egyptian civilian plane, killing 16 people including four journalists, in a failed attempt to assassinate Field Marshall Abdul Hakim Amar, second to President Nasser, at a time when the two countries were not in a state of war. This was a preplanned operation, thus unlike Israel?s downing of a Libyan civilian airliner with 110 killed as it was lost in a sandstorm two minutes flight time from Cairo, towards which it was heading. This February 1973 action took place while Israeli airborne and amphibious forces were attacking Tripoli in northern Lebanon, killing 31 people (mainly civilians) and destroying classrooms, clinics, and other buildings in a raid justified as preemptive. All of this was (and is) dismissed as insignificant, if even noticed. The reaction to Arab terrorism is quite different.

As far as killing of diplomats, in 1948 Zionists killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte.

See page 73 of Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896086852/ref=nosim/representativ-20 , also see http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/books/WesternStateTerrorism.html#IntlTerr http://nchomsky.meetup.com/<

Friday Kirk hands out his new flyer at his class reunion.
reunion flyer

do people understand that the US has been exposed as having undermined democracy in foreign countries? Actually the actions of US policy makers have been admitted to.

Interestingly AT THE TIME, the NYT editors praised the overthrow of a democratically elected PM and the installing of the Shah: "The basic themes of internal planning sometimes reach the public, as when the editors of the applauding the overthrow of the parliamentary Mossadegh regime in Iran, observed that "Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."

And we know it has been admitted to publicly.

"In Iran in the early 1950's the CIA, under President Eisenhower's instructions, helped overthrow the Mossadeg government and re-install the Shah. Given what's happened in Iran since 1979, Mossadeg looks pretty good by comparison. " admits James Woolsey who was director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency


His next sentence I nominate for understatement of the century:

"In retrospect it would have probably been a better idea to let Iran take its own course then -- there might not be so much resentment against the U.S. there now if we had kept our hands off."

OK, so we know the ugliness of US policy makers, why the hell do people say this stupid bullshit about being "anti-AMerican" for pointing out these kinds of facts? They deny that these things are done and attack the people that talk about it with the terms like "un-American".

The bottom line is "In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt. "

The U.S. involvement in the fall of Mossadegh was not publicly acknowledged until very recently although many have know for years. In a New York Times article in March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted that "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."

Given this, don't people who use the term "anti-American" feel stupid? What does it take for people to understand that the US has done some EXTREMELY UGLY, ILLEGAL AND UNDEMOCRATIC things? It is not "anti-American" to insist that US policy makers don't **** over people around the world. We don't want Americans inside the US to screw over fellow Americans, why should we excuse these things when it is done to foreigners?

If the example of screwing over Iran isn't good enough, what the hell would it take? I swear, these people like JG, who INSIST that US polices are motivated by noble respect for the rights of others and of fellow Americans, must have their heads up their asses.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/year/year-c02-s02.html

Nominate me, please. www.washingtonpost.com/bestblogs. www.washingtonpost.com/bestblogs.

You wrote, "..media reform, do me one favor, as you are the al qaeda expert, do you think they are worried that democracy will succeed in Iraq and afghanistan or not ? "

I don't think al Qaeda thinks the US is actually intending on establishing true democracy in Iraq, nor should they think that. I don't think there is a reason for anyone to think that the US actually intends on helping to establish real democracy in Iraq.

To believe it you have to believe that it is true that America has "changed course" and is now actually going to help democracy as opposed to helping destroy it which it has for more than 50 years in the Middle East. We already have evidence that US policy makers don't intend on real democracy for Iraq. You can see that US policy makers talk about long term military bases in Iraq.

US policy makers must stop thinking about establishing "the first secure military bases in a client state at the heart of the world's major energy reserves, a powerful lever of world control, as has been understood for sixty years, and a means to subordinate the region more fully to US interests--and the prime motive for the invasion"(1) Establishing military bases is in defiance of the will of Iraqis.

I think it is doubtful that al-qaeda would be any more willing to actually believe the bullshit about the US establishing democracy in Iraq than the average Iraqi. Only 1% of Iraqis actually believe that the goal was to establish democracy and only 5% thought the goal was to help Iraqis.

The actions of the US show contempt for democracy and an unwillingness to help a true democratic process emerge. Iyad Allawi, the PM of Iraq, was selected by the men we selected, the Prime Minster was one of the people the US selected to be on the Iraqi Council.(2) The men we selected to rule Iraq "jumped the gun" when they appointed the Prime Minister. Apparently the UN envoy was actually supposed to select. "A United Nations spokesman has said UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi - who was charged with choosing the interim government - "respects" the nomination."(3) Check Iyad Allawi's background: Saddam's secret police, British intelligence, CIA, alleged terrorist acts against civilians in Baghdad. AFTER he was appointed PM, there have been reports about Iyad Allawi executing six suspected insurgents in an Iraqi police station! The story, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, is that six prisoners were handcuffed and blindfolded, lined up against a courtyard wall and shot by the Iraqi Prime Minister. (4) I haven't seen the reports in American media, looks like the media is up to there usual games of suppression. Reminds we of the period when the US supported Saddam, the media wasn't eager to talk about his evils THEN. These facts should mean something to anyone that is thinking about actual democracy.

Instead of how the current leaders in Iraq being selected the way they were, which even involved ignoring the agreed upon method, there should have been elections. Even if we accept the idea that elections were not possible, they could have used polls. Polls can come VERY close to what the population of Iraq would vote for. It would be a VERY close approximation of direct elections. It should have been used as the method to select the rulers of Iraq. This is so obvious I don't know how people could not see this.

The selected men are going to use their influence to move the government from true democratic desires and toward the interests of the powerful. Money and power will be used to manipulate the elections in Iraq. what people effectively get o know will be limited as much as the powerful can limit it while keeping some appearances of a "free and open" public forum.
(1) http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040524&c=6&s=forum
(2) http://www.representativepress.org/IraqisWeIdentify.html
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3757431.stm
(4) http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1155990.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3062897.stm

Hug Noam Chomsky
Ahmed Nassef: As a Jew who has also lived on a kibbutz in Palestine, have your views changed at all over the years regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

Noam Chomsky: My views have not changed. The only thing that has changed is that my views back in the 1940’s were labeled Zionist, and today they are labeled anti-Zionist. Although my views back then did not represent the majority of Zionist Jews, the idea of forming a democratic state for both Jews and Arabs in Palestine was still considered within the mainstream of debate. Now, any talk of a democratic secular state is considered anti-Zionist.

Ahmed Nassef: Many supporters of Israel demand from others that they recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist before engaging in any further discussions. What’s your view on this?

Noam Chomsky: The whole question of recognizing the right of a state to exist was invented solely for Israel. People, on the other hand, have a right to exist. So the people who live on the land—Israelis and Palestinians—have a right to live in security and peace.

You wrote, "But, the fact remains that nobody, not the FBI and not the 9-11 Commission, knows, let alone is able to prove, who was really on those airplanes"
It depends how unreasonable you want to be about what counts as proof. Do you want to be as absurd as the OJ Jury and dismiss DNA evidence?
Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified
LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified
Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.
Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified

Fact is, the hijackers had motive and opportunity and some of their remains have been identified. We see some of them going through the airport on the video just released. Denying that Arabs were on the planes depends on you continuing to dismiss evidence. There should be some internal logic applied to this case. We even have an audio tape of Mohammed Atta as he is hijacking the plane. By our absurd level of proof, nothing could ever be proven.

RE: if you have not read the 9/11 report yet
You wrote, "media reform, this is a reason why you AND the president can BOTH be right about the "reasons why we were attacked"

That is not correct and in I think it is intentional deception on the part of many people perhaps even the person that created the fraudulent letter that has been attributed to bin Laden, I will explain below.

I have been reading bin Laden's words for years and the grievances have been spelled out clearly and are widely shared. This notion that "they say" America "must be converted or destroyed" is a lie.

That part of the report you quote said "As we mentioned in chapter 2" and Chapter 2 is part of the report I have already read and I know what they are referring to: the alleged "binLaden's letter to the American people". (it could be no other source since no other source contains the idea of "convert or be destroyed") says in Chapter 2 the 9/11 Commission writes "Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture"

You should look at that, the Commission report is saying that Bin Ladin's reaction to specific U.S. polices "quickly became" something else, something they call "far deeper". "quickly" is obviously false, bin Laden has been talking about these grievances and reacting to them as early as 1991. If we are to believe that his grievances "became" something else then it was plainly not "quick" since the change supposedly happened in 2002. Bin LAden's grievances supposedly "became" something more a year AFTER 9/11. But that all depends on accepting a letter that appeared on the Internet a year after 9/11 was actually written by Bin Laden. One shouldn't simply accept it just because someone gave the letter the title "Bin Laden's letter to America." The letter is a fraud and one that may have been crated to mislead the public about why we are being targeted.

You should wonder why it is just accepted as fact that Bin Laden changed, he has been interviewed for years and has not said such things like you must convert to Islam or be destroyed. Bin Laden has made audiotaped and videotapes statements for years, none of them say anything like this. He has never said anything like this in the years before this mystery letter appeared on the Internet and in the years since. for example an audio tape he made in 2003 (after his supposed change) clearly sates the motives again and of course there is no mention to this idea of "convert or be destroyed": " ... 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."
and he continues to explicitly state that the evil is the actions of US foreign policies in the world:
"... 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. Upon seeing this, the Mujahideen decided teach them a lesson and to take the war to their heartland. On the blessed Tuesday 11 September 2001 , while the Zionist -American Alliance was targeting our children and our people in the blessed land of Al-Aqsa , with American tanks and planes in the hands of the Jews, and our people in Iraq were suffering from the America's sanctions upon them, and the Islamic world was very far away from establishing Islam properly." - Osama bin Laden ,February 14 ,2003

U.S. Investigators have nearly a decade of statements directly from bin Laden that state the motives for the attacks on the US and US interests. Bin Laden has been interviewed by western journalists and has for several years repeatedly broadcast a common list of grievances, which he cites as the reason for his jihad . Most of these statements have been confirmed as those from bin Laden but at least one hasn't, a letter , purporting to be written by bin Laden, which appeared on the Internet in Arabic. It was reported in a November 24 ,2002 article in The Observer , in an article that cites no intelligence-agency estimates about the likelihood of its authenticity, only using journalists' beliefs that it is really a letter from bin Laden explaining the motivations for the attacks.

Reasons to question the authenticity of this particular letter include:
* a style different from all the interviews
* a strange intro to the letter that acts like the motives have not been stated before.
* lack of any other source that includes as motives either
* "debauchery of Western Civilization " or
* a "call for conversion to Islam of the infidels."

The letter has other obvious problems that indicate it is a fabrication which at point is extremely amateurish. Does anyone take the following seriously?: "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?" Who ever actually wrote the letter got carried away. And what is this Islam that the writer of the letter "calls us to" "And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language. " But Bin Laden is a fundamentalist Islamic, this letter talks about "total equality" "without regard" to even sex? Who ever wrote the letter was really having fun at that point. The letter, in an outline format that bin Laden has never used, supposedly asks us to do in numbered several things and now "stop supporting Israel" is pushed down to number 4? Come on. The whole style of the letter is a different from everything that is know to have actually come from bin Laden.
(note, I added some of these points to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack

excerpt from transcript of 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for July 22

CHRIS MATTHEWS interviewes "ANONYMOUS", the former head of the CIA unit assigned to track Osama bin Laden and author the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
"ANONYMOUS" spent hours testifying before the 9/11 Commission.

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): Yes, sir. You would have to ask them the question.

Again, it comes down to the fact that the first consideration is not protecting Americans.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I find this amazing. Can you bottom-line this, sir? I know you want us to buy the book. And that's fair enough. Let's buy the book, "Imperial Hubris." But what is the bottom line here? Why are we not winning?

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): We're not winning because we continue to misidentify the enemy.

America has never had an opponent who has been more clear on why he is fighting us, what he intends to do, and then follows up by doing it. He is motivated by religion. He is not, as we continually say, a criminal or a gangster.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right.

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): He has no intention of destroying our way of life or our liberties or our freedom. He has focused the Muslim world on about six specific U.S. policies which are universally disliked in the Muslim world, whether or not the same proportion of Muslims support bin Laden.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, why does the president continue to blame-say that the motive for this hell that hit us in 2001 is some sort of, I don?t know, some culture clash, when in fact, it is an attack on the United States for some specific policies, keeping troops in Saudi Arabia, backing Israel, all these policies which we clearly accept in this country? (see Bush lies about 9/11 motives)

Some of them I think we could drop, like the Saudi - putting all the soldiers in their holy land. But why doesn't the president clearly state the reasons they're fighting us? Why does he keep mucking it up with the evil ones and they don't like our way of life and all? What good does that do?

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): Well, it hasn't done any good, sir, in the sense that no political leader in this country over the last 15 years has been willing to engage on the issue of policies.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes.

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): Americans have a hard time believing that they're perceived as anything else than kind and benign.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Oh, come on. Well, let me tell you something. Sitting here, I know there are a lot of our policies which are changeable, correctable and probably wrongheaded, like putting all those troops in Saudi Arabia in a way that was a sacrilege to the people of the country. Why did we do that?

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): We needed on a short-term basis. I thought we probably believed we weren?t going to be there 10 years.? But now we?re in the unfortunate position of occupying the first most holy place in Islam in Arabia.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right.

ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris"): The second most holy in Iraq and the third most holy in the Israelis' hold in Jerusalem.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I know.

Well, a lot of that is intolerable on their side and fixable on our side. Some of it isn't fixable.

Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. ANONYMOUS (author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror") .

"An attack of greater magnitude, said Thomas Kean, the Republican chair of the panel, was possible and even probable. "

What is the bottom line? The 9-11 Commission's conclusion is an attack of greater magnitude than the 9/11 is possible and even probable.

Is that really a point the experts agreed on? Yes.
"Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable," the panel's Republican chairman, Thomas Kean (search), said. "We do not have the luxury of time."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126753,00.html

Why is another attack possible and even probable? Because the policies of supporting Israel and propping up other oppressive regimes in the Middle East are more important than the lives of the American people.why does Bush and others lie about the 9/11motives?

So if you are not in favor of Israeli policies you are not a Jew?
Nader ponted out what you are doing too, "ignoring the Israeli peace movement, which is very substantial"
You omit what Nader said about particular Jews that you want to pretend don't exist, "the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement.
"
Mike, your arguemnet rests on ignoring very substancial facts like the fact that there are many Jews that are in agreement agianst the Israeli policies. Clearly you are so fanatical you don't concider them Jews. By definition Nader is not saying "the Jews" do this and that when you makes the point more than once of talking about Jews you prestend don't exist.

Pat Buchanan: Let me start off with foreign policy—Iraq and the Middle East. You have seen the polls indicating widespread contempt for the United States abroad. Why do they hate us?
Ralph Nader: First of all, we have been supporting despots, dictators, and oligarchs in all those states for a variety of purposes. We supported Saddam Hussein. He was our anti-Communist dictator until 1990. It’s also cultural; they see corporate culture as abandoning the restraints on personal behavior dictated by their religion and culture. Our corporate pornography and anything-goes values are profoundly offensive to them.

The other thing is that we are supporting the Israeli military regime with billions of dollars and ignoring both the Israeli peace movement, which is very substantial, and the Palestinian peace movement. They see a nuclear-armed Israel that could wipe out the Middle East in a weekend if it wanted to.

They think that we are on their backs, in their house, undermining their desire to overthrow their own tyrants.
Pat Buchanan:: Then you would say it is not only Bush who is at fault, but Clinton and Bush and Reagan, all the way back?
Ralph Nader: The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. Until ’91, any dictator who was anti-Communist was our ally.
Pat Buchanan: You used the term “congressional puppets.” Did John Kerry show himself to be a congressional puppet when he voted to give the president a blank check to go to war?
Ralph Nader: They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer comes to Washington, the puppets prance.
Pat Buchanan:: Why do both sets of puppets, support the Sharon/Likud policies in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and leaders in Israel?
Ralph Nader: That is a good question because the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement.
The answer to your question is that instead of focusing on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state elections and as sources of funding. They don’t appear to agree with Tom Friedman, who wrote that memorable phrase, “Ariel Sharon has Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.”

Virtually no member of Congress can say that, and so we come to this paradoxical conclusion that there is far more freedom in Israel to discuss this than there is in the United States, which is providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html