from newshounds's article "Duelling Translations of bin Laden"

Here's the Al Jazeera translation which agrees with the ones broadcast on CNN and other media outlets:

"Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

Here's the MEMRI translation:

"Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

Comment

MEMRI surfaces whenever the Bush administration has need of a more favorable interpretation of Arabic texts and/or attitudes.

Here's an excerpt from an article on MEMRI by Brian Whitaker in The Guardian, August 12, 2002. Some of his observations are no longer the case (I've made the appropraite notations), but the rest of the excerpt is factual:

(Begin exceprt.) Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media"

Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address. [N.B. There is now some contact information on the site.]

The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).

This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.

The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. - Duelling Translations of bin Laden

Ashley, it is too bad you were impressed with "the sophist". He was using devious argumentation.

"the sophist" invented the devious notion of a "legitimate motive" when there is no such thing. A motive is nether legitimate nor illegitimate, it simply the impulse that acts as an incitement to action. He is once again engaged in the underhanded tactic of trying to paint me as someone who approves of the horrible 9/11 attacks. The guy is a sleaze.

His whole post was disingenuous and it should have been clear that it didn't merit a line by line response. I already pointed out he was a very dishonest person.

My posts and links made my position clear.
Come one, how can anyone read what I wrote, "In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?
and "You guys need to understand what motives are and what that means." and "You guys are like the people in the 1800's who refused to admit that a US policy was wrong." and not get what I am saying?
The analogy should make it clear that the wrongs of slavery were not just the opinion of Nat Turner but were a grievance shared by millions of others.
Sophist is devious little creep ignoring what I have said and trying to position the grievances shared by millions as the whims of a few terrorists. These grievances are shared by millions and that makes it all the more dangerous. Sophist is deviously blurring the concept of motive and grievance. What honest and reasonable person could seriously think that I would be arguing "kill them all'? Come on Ashley. Could I possibly be arguing that we should continue wrong polices if I describe them as such?

I'm assuming that Tom believes that if Tenet and others didn't omit whatever it is that they omitted

Aren't you cute? "whatever it is they omitted"? I told you what it is they omitted. see the damn link

You are very dishonest person. You want us to believe that you didn't know what was omitted? Can you read?

Now, this is where things get hazy for me

And you can't bring yourself to say if we are being lied to about why we are being attacked or not? What kind of game are you playing? By the way, a report came out very recently that confirms what I have been saying for years (well before 9/11).
The Defense Science Board Report says that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

"There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies - except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends."

In the eyes of the Muslim world, the report adds, "American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering."

The report also says: "The critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world is not one of 'dissemination of information' or even one of crafting and delivering the 'right' message. Rather it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none - the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam."

Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, said the report had elevated the debate within the Defense Department, but he said no formal decisions had been made about reorganizing how the Pentagon and military communicate.
"We're wrestling with this," Mr. Di Rita said. "But it doesn't change the underlying principle, at least with respect to the Department of Defense. Our job is to put out information to the public that is accurate, and to put it out as quickly as we can." - from the article "U.S. Fails to Explain Policies to Muslim World, Panel Says" By THOM SHANKER November 24, 2004

From your references pertaining to "Palestine" and 1800 you obviously have no clue as to the history of that entire area...

Are you ignorant of when the term "Palestine" was used?
Herzl mentioned Palestine.
"... Argentina has a very GOOD SOIL and the conditions for agricultural labour are MUCH BETTER better than in Palestine, but in Palestine they work with enthusiasm and they succeed. " -The Father of Zionism 1902

The Balfour Declaration mentions Palestine
... "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..." -Balfour Declaration 1917

Note Britain had no right dictating anything upon a foreign people but even Balfour's letter doesn't say a "Jewish State" and it didn't say all of it: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" and like I pointed out it didn't OK the violations of the rights of non-Jews, it explicitly said their civil and religions rights were not to be violated but that is exactly what the Zionists were planning to do and did.

I wrote you, "I thought your assessment of the Abu Ghraib, "In itself, it was the stuff of hell night a Phi Kappa Sigma when I lived across the quad from their house at Dickinson." was the result of the media successful
underplaying the torture scandal."

You wrote, "No, it wasn't. That was a cheap shot, but I allowed you to make it. The revelations at Abu Ghraib came out piecemeal."

You refuse to see the point. You and the media are the ones that mischaracterized what happened at Abu Ghraib and you are the ones responsible for the revelations coming out piecemeal. The Taguba Report which was available at the time you were writing "it was the stuff of hell night a Phi Kappa Sigma" and the mainstream media was playing the same game.
The first day the news hit I was able to find the Taguba report online.
It detailed things like:

"Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time"

"Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture"

"Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee"

"Threatening male detainees with rape"

"Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell"

"Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

You wrote "I was addressing the moment in time." But the point is the Taguba Report was available when you were "addressing the moment" and downplaying what happened.

Not wanting to get into the details I just laid out (I wanted to get back to it later) so I wrote you, "I want to focus on the topic of 9/11 motives and put the other points off to the side for now."

You replied like an asshole with "How convenient."

See that Doug? You are the one with the problem. It is a bit much the way you play it like you are some kind of reasonable person on your blog. You don't want to be reasoned with and you like to play this game of jumping to say you have been offended.

"You wrote, "First, I would to commend this person, for attempting to discuss these matters. That is unusual and commendable. "

Thank you.

You wrote, " Unless I am missing something, you are arguing that Osama Bin Laden is not motivated by hatred of America, but rather is opposed to policies of America."

Correct and some US officials are lying to us about why we are targeted. But the truth came out in a recent report: report-says-that-muslims-do-not-hate us because of our freedoms

You wrote, " If I follow what you are saying, your argument is that Bin Laden is correct to oppose these policies -- because you think they are wrong -- and that he is correct to use terrorism to combat the policies, because they are so evil."

No you are not following what I am saying at all.

My first point is I don't want to be lied to about why we are being attacked. I point out what the motives actaully are. Second, I do point out that the grievances are legitimate. But I do not and have never said that he is "correct to use terrorism"
I have never said this or anything close to it.
I have used the Nat Turner example as a way to make this crystal clear. I point Nat Turner's motives and explicitly state that Turner's terrorism was not justified. I explain it is an example of two wrongs, Slavery and Turner's terrorism.

Maybe these posts will clear things up:
letter
read over my blog for more details: representativepress and webiste representativepress

I posted this on another blog:

" You guys seem incapable of admitting what the motives are. Incapable of understanding that motives does not mean justification. I painstakingly tried to spell that out for you. The US policy of slavery was wrong. AND the terrorist attacks by Nat Turner were wrong. I really think you guys live with such an absurd world view that you can't bring yourselves to admit this.

This thread started in reaction to the lies being told about why we were attacked. My position is that terrorism is wrong.

I think I see the problem with you guys. You guys are terrorists at heart and if you think you are wronged then you think terrorism is justified. I can see why you can't admit the US polices are wrong: In your simple minded world if a person reacts to a wrong then that reaction must be right. Is this the basic problem here? That you feel compelled to lie about why the 9/11 terrorists attacked because if they attacked because of a legitimate wrongs then in your minds the acts must be right. I think this is what is at the heart of your mental blocks. I thought that the Nat Turner example would spell that out but you guys REFUSE to be reasoned with. "

Even when the cause was stopping slavery, I do not believe that killing innocent civilians was justified

I agree. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that pointing out motives means you agree with the crime.
about Nat Turner:
"Nat Turner convinced several other blacks to engage in terrorism, killing dozens of whites. It would be dishonest not to admit the role slavery had in motivating these blacks to do what they did. It was an example of two wrongs" link

link 2

The question to ask is if a people are being wronged.
Playing this game of pointing to terrorist acts and using it as a way to dismiss all legitmate grievances is disgusting.
this is the game that was used against the South African blacks.

Yep, the US called these blacks terrorists too.

Dick Cheney voted against a House resolution calling for Nelson Mandela's release from prison!

Something to keep in mind when the Zionists here in America scream about "the terrorists" while ignoring Israel's greater terrorism record and the reality of the racist Zionist agenda.

Oh, and of cource we have liars today like O'Reilly who try to whitewash what Dick Cheney did. O'Reilly lies again

"So the US and Israel control Mecca and the Temple Mount, eh? "

Darleen, is there some sort of problem I should know about with you? Do you have a mental block or something? Israel occupies the territory and the US backs the un-elected Saudi Government, what part of that don't you understand? The call is a call of defense. You don't have to agree that Muslims need to defend themsleves but don't BS other Americans about why we are being attacked.

Again, what does the 1998 Fatwa actually say? You ignore all the statements and you invent things that are not there. The people MOTIVATED to attack us are not being told "hey, let's establish a worldwide Muslim State and dominate the world"

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

What are you trying to pull with this crap that the 1998 Fatwa is a call for a Muslim state of the entire world. Over and over again it has been made clear that they are reacting to specific US foreign policies.
Osama is almost begging the US to leave the Muslim people alone, "You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences." "Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."

Can we at least establish what the 1998 Fatwa actaully says? You have not acknowledged this basic fact.
You deny that what motivates the terrorists is the specific foreign policies. And why not talk the time to look into these policies. Why is it just to force hundreds of thousands of people off their land in the name of ethnic purity? By the way, was being against slavery "blaming America"? Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that US foreign polices can't possibly be wrong since they are US policies.

Someone agrees with me about the arson attacks, " but to attack innocent people, regardless of their religious belief, is an atrocity."

I reply that if we can apply that universally we can make progress. Did you notice that the motive for the arson attacks is mentioned right away? On 9/11 and the days after, can you find ANY instance of the media even using the word "motive"? Notice that the article mentions possible motive in the first paragraph (when the terrorism is directed at Muslims), in the American media most articles and TV news reports never get around to mentioning motives when the terrorism is directed at Americans. post Notice how on 9/11 and the immediate following days that the media instinctively knew not to utter the word motive? Here is another example where the press shows it can mention motive when it wants to: again-motive-is-mentioned

More examples of when other crimes occur the media OFTEN refers to motive: "cops still looking for a motive", etc? Here is one recent example, look how the media is reporting the Kansas plant shootings:

Sixth person dies after shooting at Kansas plant
KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP) — A sixth person shot in a rampage at a meatpacking plant died Saturday, and investigators said they still have not determined the gunman's motive.

Victim wounded in Kansas plant shooting dies
Police say they don't know why employee opened fire
Police Chief Ronald Miller told reporters. "Obviously, there's a motive for this. Why exactly, or what pushed him to do this, we really don't know."

Six dead in Kansas workplace shooting
Authorities still don’t know gunman’s motive
Police did not offer a motive for Friday’s 10-minute rampage, but said there appeared to be nothing random about the killings at the Kansas City, Kan., ConAgra Foods Inc. plant.

And of course before 9/11, motive was talked about too. See this older story from 1999:
Shooting spree motive vague; suspect kills self
A white supremacist driving a hijacked van took his own life as he was being sought in a series of drive-by shootings that targeted blacks, Jews and Asians in a deadly Independence Day weekend rampage in two states, authorities said Monday. A specific motive for Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's three-day shooting spree was under investigation.

Some people think they know what the media is doing and what the bias is. The truth is the bias is towards powerful interests.

Darleen, can we establish what the 1998 Fatwa actually says and what it doesn't say? I really have to wonder how brainwashed someone has to be to look at the 1998 Fatwa and insist that the grievances listed are not the motives. It explicitly lays out what they object to
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
3. U.S. support of Israel.
and says what they want to do
"to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
This part of the sentence is omitted by Tenet and others.
Darleen, you ignore what the Fatwa says, you invent what you want it to say and you ignore the evidence I show you that US officials are manipulating the public by omitting the reason why when they quote from it.
What gives? Instead of dealing with the main point you want to run off on tangents and also sink to calling people "anti-Semites" for daring to point out the truth.

Carlos, Chomsky is not an apologist for terrorism.

You continue to play your games by avoiding the very first point I made on this thread. Can you answer it or not?
In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. (do you deny this? Does admitting this mean one is an "apologist" for terrorism?) Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?
I notice no one dealt with the very first point I made.

"to try to distract us from the real dangers of Islamofascism". that you even use the term "Islamofascism" shows that you are ignorant. Fascism is not the political system that they call for. What is mainly called for is resistance to policies that the West has imposed upon them. The little political structure that bin Laden has discussed involves consultive councils, not fascism. The bottom line is what motivates the attacks and you are in denial if you think the attackers are motivated by something other that resisting our policies. (how many times does the facts have to be laid out? Even the 1998 Fatwa which was quoted by Darleen says explicitly why they attack, she and others attempt to take a line that is quoted in it and with total abondoment of logic try to argue that it means they are motivated by a dessire for a "worldwide Caliph". The games being played here have an obvious motive. If you can convince yourself that what the terrorists are motivated by is "unreasonable" then the US foriegn policies need not change.

"desperate attempt to prove that the US is always to blame for whatever goes wrong"
NOT always wrong, wrong where it is wrongs. Was slavery wrong? The slave owners had people like you who bent over backwards making excuses for slavery.
The US backed the most extreme elements in the Middle East. Both the religious Jihad and Saddam, so don't tell me the US has not done wrong. And the more I think about it, can you guys READ? What does the 1998 Fatwa say? It explicitly says to other Muslims WHY the fight is being waged. And I showed you, I showed you how people like Tenet take the key sentence and chop of the second part in order to suppress the reason why. The 1998 Fatwa is a message to fellow Muslims and it says why and it doesn't say what you guys claim. And US officials quote from it and omit half of the key sentence, "in order to ..." In order to what? If it was in order to "establish a worldwide Caliph" why the hell doesn't it say so? (remember this is a message for Muslims) You guys are so over the top ridiculous it is unreal. For God sakes I am walking you guys through each step and showing you the facts, stop crossing your arms and refusing to think. Are you saying you can't even be reasoned with?

Carlos, you seem content on define other people's political movements and goals for them. You write, "Bin Laden is a political leader, not a religious one, and is therefore not qualified to make theological pronouncements. His "fatwa" to which you refer is one of many statements of his political position, which is the imposition of Muslim law in any country where Muslims live, including those in the West. That is the essense of the Islamist political program."

That is not what it says!! Very convenient for you to ignore what Osama has said over and over and over again. Yes it is a political agenda (It is others that insist this is only about religion, so what are you arguing?) It is about responding to the assaults on Muslims. (I am not saying the response is just)
1831 Americans played the same game of pretending Nat Turner and his men had other motives or none at all but killing. This is a common tactic of those that want to protect polices that are at the root of terrorism.

That is crystal clear. You invent the "imposition of Muslim law in any country where Muslims live" crap in order to distort what has been clearly stated for years."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 is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." see motives for 9/11 OK? Atta and others never said to their friends anything about what you claim is the motive. So what is your opinion actaully based on? You can't dictate what motivates others, it is what they want, not what you claim.

Did you notive that Tenet and others omit key things in order to hide the motives?

wg, you have so many misconceptions and avoidance of facts.

"which we put troops into AT THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA"

an undemocratic government that is run by royalty against the wishes of the people. The US is a country that fought to free it self from a king and you think you made some sort of legitimate argument? Propping up oppressive regimes frustrates the crap out of MOST of the people in the MIddle East, not just those that resort to terrorism. Are you blind to this fact? We are ignoring the wishes of the people, not a think to do id you really respect democracy.

"enforcing resolutions laid down by the UN
this is absolutely delusional. I really don't know what to say, you are brainwashed. By what Orwellian logic is ignoring and violating UN rules construed to be "enforcing UN resolutions"?? None of the UN resolutions gave the US the right to bomb Iraq for years! The fact that you don't know this should make you rethink your opinion about the media.

" In short, we're the big dog, and we make the rules. That's a historical constant.

and now you admit and justify the unlawful and immoral actions that have been taking palce all along! you are too much.

McChesney's book, "The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century" explores the impact of media ownership and what that does to popular democracy in America. "The direct link and control over the media and control over the society is self-evident." The Problem of the Media, p16-17

it is about supporting Israel which is violating the rights of non-Jews

"Ah! Judaphobia!"

Darleen, you are seriously lacking in mental ability if you can take my sentence and think that it means I have a phobia about Jews. You are deliberately or ignorantly engaged in ugly slandering of a person that does not have anything against Jews. What you are doing is wrong Darleen. Let me spell this out for you. If a person thinks the actions of OJ Simpson were wrong, it does not mean the person is a racist. This can't possibly be too difficult for you to grasp. Is it Darleen?

"Obsession with the State of Israel as the central rationale for Islamist terrorism, check."

Guy, what are you trying to pull? "as the central rational"?, Jeff, you clown, for MANY in the Middle East it is the central rationale! if you give a damn about the safety of Americans then you deal with the top reason why people in the Middle East object to US actions in the Middle East. Are you in denial or are you intentionally doing this? The rest of your post is such warped logic it is incredible. "double standards"? what kind of game is this? Could any wrong be addressed and ended if the perpetrators can jump up an down claiming they are being singled out? God, the racists running South Africa could have used people like you, attack those speaking out against South Africa right Jeff? South Africa apologists could have simply claimed that the critics were "anti-white".

Darleen, did you understand my post or not? Did you see how officials OMIT the part that says "in order to ..." Did you see that or not?

Mohammed Atta did not fly a plane into the WTC in order to establish a global Caliphate. Yours is a self serving lie designed to protect the unjust policies. and no wiseass, it is not about women voting, it is about supporting Israel which is violating the rights of non-Jews and it is about propping up oppressive regimes. I lived in NYC on 9/11 and I really find what you are doing extremely offensive. The 9/11 motives are consistent with the motives 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." Atta talked with friends and this is exactly what he talked about. Take away motive and you dramatically increase the security of the US. This has to do with what we do to people in the Middle East not how we live our lives here. stop playing games!

"in order to" what? Bin Laden says explicitly and US officials and talking heads OMIT IT often. The sentence you quoted is often chopped off. What are they hiding? The part that says why. The part after "in order to liberate ..." please read my page the exposes the deception: Tenet avoids informing the reader about the motives for bin Laden's terrorism

Darleen, what are you trying to argue? That we should continue with the unjust policies?

Very recently bin Laden and Zawahri have again made it crystal clear. See See Osama has said, "Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated." and Zawahri Calls for Cooperation with Respect Based on Mutual Interests

Over at the "oh that liberal media" website they are still going on about the display turkey. Apparently to the guys at the "oh that liberal media" website when an article described it as a "fake Thanksgiving turkey" that somehow was not simply a technical mistatement but an example of "liberal bais" I posted over there:

How is saying "fake Thanksgiving turkey" an example of a liberal bias?

It was an actual turkey but it was for show. I can see how a "just for show" turkey can end up getting reported as a "fake Thanksgiving turkey". The bottom line is it was not the real meal, it was just a symbol. I don't think what was reported was incredible and certainly not "liberal" Actually you could read it as a fake Thanksgiving turkey since it was actually a display turkey and not actually a meal turkey. Not that big of a deal, you can see how someone hearing that the turkey is not actually intended to be eaten by the troops could assume that it was no only a display but a fake. The was displays of food are in the windows of some restaurants in NYC. The bottom line is it should be pointed out that the troops did not get to eat that turkey. Not saying so gives the impression that the meal was more fancy than it actually was. Guys, you really think the story was "liberal" bias? Because the person wrote "fake" instead of "display", "show" or "example" turkey?
Check this post out about how the media really is (it really gets to the issue of ownership): The saga

'Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War.'

'And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.' http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/1207terrorhype.htm

but but the reports said that Iraq had weapons you clowns cry. NO THEY DIDN'T, these assholes REMOVED key parts of the intelligence reports. "Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped" ( http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=229724 ) Meaning that it wasn't certain, but the motherfucker Donald Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were!

"there's no good reason they shouldn't be accurate within statistical limits"
Rob Zaleski: Prof. says vote numbers don't add up

AGAIN motive is mentioned

Five die in Ohio heavy metal band shooting

CHICAGO - A man opened fire on a heavy metal band during a performance at a crowded bar in Columbus, Ohio on Wednesday night, killing four people and wounding two others before he was killed by police, officials said. Sgt. Brent Mull, spokesman for the Columbus police, said the motive for the shooting was not known.

Once again a news story mentions motive,I have seen thsi in story after story reported in the media. but not in the case of the 9/11 attack If you look at the coverage of that day and the days after there was no mention of motive. The above story was reported the same day as the shooting and it mentions motive. Look at the reporting on 9/11 and tell me if any reporter utters the word motive.

see this too:

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A baby girl who was cut out of her murdered mother's womb and taken from the crime scene has been found alive in the possession of a Kansas woman who police charged with kidnapping resulting in death.
The motive for the bizarre crime remained unknown, investigators said on Friday, though local media in Kansas City reported that the alleged kidnapper had suffered a miscarriage.

In July 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a 500-page unanimous report setting out a long list of instances where the CIA or its leaders made statements about Iraq's WMD and, to a lesser extent, links to al-Qaeda which were significantly more certain than the underlying intelligence reporting and more certain than their earlier findings. In fact, the first overall conclusion on WMD in the SSCI report is that "Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."
from speech Levin Supports Bipartisan Intelligence Reform Bill Despite Key Omissions Strengthening Congressional Oversight
have these facts been adequately reported and made clear to the public?

You wrote, "Israel disavowed terrorism only when it proved no longer useful or viable."

That is not true. The Zionists still use terrorism and they have killed more civilians and injured way more civilians than the Palestinian resistance. Please don't fall into the trap of spreading Zionist lies.

The willingness of Zionist to use terrorism:

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...” - Yitzhak Shamir Israeli Prime Minister

And the fact is that Zionist terrorism continues TODAY by Israel:

Physicians for Human Rights USA which investigated the high number of Palestinian deaths and injuries in the first months of the Intifada, concluded that:"the pattern of injuries seen in many victims did not reflect IDF [ Israel Defense Forces] use of firearms in life-threatening situations but rather indicated targeting solely for the purpose of wounding or killing."

[Source: PHR USA, 22 November 2000]

This finding was based on "the totality of the evidence" the investigators collected about:

"the high number of gunshots to the head; the volume of serious, disabling thigh injuries; the inappropriate firing of rubber bullets and rubber-coated steel bullets at close range; and the high proportion of Palestinian injuries and deaths."

The findings of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm this pattern. Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has documented and condemned the targeted use of violence against Palestinian civilians and has found evidence of systematic torture of thousands of Palestinian detainees, including children.

What has been confirmed by human rights groups has also been observed directly by journalists.

In October 2001, Harper's magazine published the "Gaza Diary" of journalist Chris Hedges. Hedges' entry for June 17, 2001 provides even more shocking evidence of the wanton and deliberate killing of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers at Gaza's Khan Yunis refugee camp.

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004/04/good-on-you-for-pointing-this-out-pej.html The above proves Israeli terrorism continues today, witnessed by journalists and confirmed by doctors.

Here is "the characterization of General Gur’s remarks by Israel’s most distinguished, and quite hawkish military correspondent Ze’ev Schiff, keeping to Lebanon (though the atrocities Gur cites go far beyond)":

“In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it…the importance of Gur’s remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously…the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets...[but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck.” Ha'aretz, May 15, 1978 see Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, p. 181 http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/refuting_horowitz_and_collier/

Also someone made the claim that "the Palestinians always rejected peace", that is a lie. Palestinians have accepted peace plans and offered plans several times. In mainstream media this fact is suppressed. The popular version of history omits the fact that Arafat had been agreeing to peace, Israel and the US refused. The Security Council resolution of January 1976, calling for a settlement in terms of UN 242, was backed by virtually the entire world, including the leading Arab states, the PLO, Europe, the Soviet bloc, the non-aligned countries -- in fact, everyone who mattered. It was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby removing it from history. The US veto, repeated later, excluded the Security Council from the diplomacy. The General Assembly continued to pass near-unanimous resolutions in similar terms (the US and Israel opposed); a negative US vote amounts to a veto. The US also blocked initiatives from Europe, the Arab states, the PLO and others. Subsequent and similar initiatives from the Arab states, the PLO, and Western Europe were blocked by the US, continuing to the present. That includes the 1981 Fahd plan. That record too has been effectively vetoed from history, for the usual reasons. http://www.sunship.com/mideast/info/draftres.html#11940 http://www.alternet.org/middleeast/12956/

Basic facts are being suppressed. The suppression of the fact that Sadat offered peace in 1971 is another example. "in its two-page obituary after Sadat's assassination, The Times not only suppresses the actual fats but explicitly denies them, sating that until his 1977 trip to Jerusalem Sadat was unwilling "to accept Israel's existence as a sovereign state." Newsweek refused even to print a letter correcting outright falsehoods on this matter by their columnist George Will, though the research department privately conceded the facts. (Chomsky spoke by telephone with the research department and admitted Chomsky correctly pointed out the facts, which were reported back in 1971 even in Newsweek. But the game is to suppress them now so they did) The practice is standard." See page 31 of "Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World"

The outright fraud continues and people unwilling to deal with it continue to suppress it.

Iraqis had been used to having their whole lives decided for them by an autocratic government."

Just curious, do you know what country helped but the Baath party into power, twice?
Did you ever hear that detail mentioned in the mainstream media?
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/">

Dear Josef,

Keeping an open dialog is a good way to arrive at solutions. By all means take care of the pressing issues for you and then give the issues I raised the time they deserve.

There seemed to be only one question in your email, the others were accusations with question marks after them. In the interest of civil discourse I will turn them into questions:

Q 1: Do you defend the Palestinian terrorists?
A: No.

Q 2: Do you justify what Osama bin Laden has done?
A: No.

Q 3: What, you deny 11 September was anything less than an atrocity?
A: No, it was an atrocity. Thank God it was not worse, which is what I was expecting. I was familiar with the background and of course only someone ignorant of recent history did not know about the 1993 attack. I remember in the years leading up to 2001 I thought about how we would get attacked again. I remember telling an Israeli I was friendly with that the US was going to get hit and it could be big. He said he knew and his Jewish friend agreed. I had been fearing a nuclear bomb the size of the "nuclear suitcases" would be set off in downtown Manhattan, the direction my window faced (I could see the downtown sky from my courtyard level window but not any of the buildings.) Sometimes I thought about how a white light could fill my room extremely rapidly and then it would be over. I was in my apartment on 8th street when the attack happened but I didn't know it had happened since I was asleep at that time in the morning. I awoke to my sister calling to me urgently through the answering machine telling me to wake up. I got on the phone and she blurted out that the World Trade Center had been destroyed. She worked downtown and was one of the many people running scared across the Brooklyn Bridge crying. The instant she told me the WTC had been destroyed, I knew what it was about. Another attack that I had been dreading had happened and I knew why. I went outside and walked to the corner to see that where the Twin Towers once stood they no longer did. My sister had told me two planes had crashed into them so I also knew how it happened.

You can't make the claim that justice is served when you kill and injure innocent civilians. I think you should agree that terrorism is unjust and by definition that it is not justified. Some people don't apply this rule universally. Some make the claim that terrorism can be sometimes justified, I say that justice is not served when innocents are killed or injured.

This isn't the first terrorist attack on Americans. In 1831, Nat Turner and his fellow terrorists killed some 60 white people. The terrorist attacks involved killing men, women and children. According to one account I read that was written at the time, all the victims were decapitated. Other accounts don't mention this but do detail horrific acts such as the insurrectionists knocking the brains out of the white children's heads. We can see that this is another case of two wrongs. What Nat Turner and his followers did was wrong and so too was slavery. Not a difficult concept really. Interestingly, this point did not register with the newspaper man I mentioned. I sent him an email in which I explicitly stated that what Nat Turner did was wrong and yet his next response to me accused me of thinking Nat Turner's terrorism was justified! Apparently it is extremely difficult for some people to get out of certain ways of thinking. I did not find him particularly sympathetic to the plight of the slaves and I personally think that accounted for his view. He clearly had a chip on his shoulder and was eager to pigeon hole me as someone that thought Nat Turner's actions were justified. A woman that I mentioned the 1831 attack to and who I found to be very sympathetic to the plight of the slaves could not accept my characterization of Nat Turner's acts as terrorism. She was outraged that I called Nat Turner and his followers "terrorists." And by the way, Patriotic Americans reacted in a rather piss-poor fashion to the terrorist outrages of 1831 too.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

a post on craigslist explians, "Progress on our campaign to win hearts and minds (highlights)":

- American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

- Muslims do not "hate our freedom," but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

- Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that "freedom is the future of the Middle East" is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World -- but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

- Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

- Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack -- to broad public support.

- What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of "terrorist" groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam

posted at josef-a-k.blogspot.com:
Josef, in case the email I sent you was lost, here it is posted at my blog:
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004/11/dear-josef-i-hope-you-have-had-time-to.html

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004/11/i-dont-think-you-invented-it.html

I hope you take this seriously, there are horrible wrongs that continue and it appears that many of them continue because of lack of character and integrity on the part of some people. You initiated the dialog, I hope you don't abort it because you don't like the facts that are being revealed.

Zawahri Calls for Cooperation with Respect Based on Mutual Interests

Al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri gave America advice in a videotaped statement, The choice for America is to end the polcies that steal from Muslim lands and violate sanctity or to change to polices based on mutual respect. He says the attacks will continue until the United States changes its policies toward the Muslim world.

"We are a nation of patience and we will continue fighting you (United States) until the last hour ... Our final advice to America, although I know they will not heed it: You must choose between two methods in dealing with Muslims. Cooperate with them with respect and based on mutual interests or deal with them as free loot, robbed land and violated sanctity," he said.

abs-cbnnews.com

This book, The Gun and the Olive Branch, has a lot of good info. David Hirst has added facts about 9/11 and other recent events.David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 pp. 283-284

Just posted this over at stevegilliard.blogspot.com: "Our entire existence in this Arab region was justified, and is still justified, by our suffering" That is nuts. As far as the killings and humiliations, if you know the ruthless background none of this should come as a surprise. Zionists can't possibly claim the high moral ground and it is perverse to claim they are defenders of Judaism or are "victims" collectively. Zionists murdered Jews that they labeled as "traitors" to the Zionist ideology. As early as 1924 these sick racist Zionists killed Jews because they stood in the way of their racist plan. Even a religious Jew was targeted by Zionists as he left his synagogue. The Holocaust has been exploited to the max but it is important to remember that the Zionist agenda started decades before it and has no right to claim it as some sort of excuse for Zionist activities."

The info about the June 1924 murder of a religious Jew by Zionist Jews comes from page 165 of Fateful Triangle. "a religious Jew organizing among the largely anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitants of Palestine" was assassinated by two Haganah agents "as he left the small synagogue in the 'Shaarey Tsedek' hospital." (Hagana was a Jewish terrorist group) Chomsky points out "the official history of the Haganah describes this "special activity" matter-of-factly, justifying the order "to remove the traitor from the land of the living" on the grounds of his "pathological character"" Chomsky makes the point that this very same kind of thing, killing a person as they leave their house of worship (for example the assasination of King Abdullah of Jordan) is supposed to prove the "inveterate evil" of Arabs which is supposed to be so different from the fabled "purity of arms" of the Jewish Zionists.

"The report says that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."" - from "U.S. Fails to Explain Policies to Muslim World, Panel Says" By THOM SHANKER Published: November 24, 2004
This article is referred to in Ted Rall's 11/29/04 cartoon: Rall Cartoon The man in the second panel reads the info he got that now explains what the US policies are about: "The U.S. arms Israel as a strategic bulwark against oil-rich Arab states in order to keep oil prices low. It is not our fault that Sharon's goons destroyed your home rather than the suicide bomber's house next door, as intended."

report mentioned at new post

Dear Josef,

I hope you have had time to look into the points I raised. You wrote about supposed "conspiracy theories" on my web site. May I suggest that the term "conspiracy theory" is simply a way to avoid looking at the facts. I have seen it used by people who want to abort discussion of things they don't want challenged. I am not suggesting a conspiracy and I do not write about conspiracies at my web site. The facts I point out are not presented for the most part in mainstream media and popular culture not because of a conspiracy but rather because of the way individuals are inclined to act. Inclined to conform the way people do, ideas that challenge the status quo get marginalized or suppressed. And people not inclined to conform are weeded out by simple factors of selection by hiring or rejection because of incompatibility of views.

I can give you a specific example that points out not just Thomas Friedman's dishonesty but how the example gets suppressed and not because of a conspiracy. What I am saying is I gave this specific example to a Mr. Doug Harper ( http://dougharper.blogspot.com/ ) and he omitted it from the email that he quoted on his blog. See how that worked? Friedman lied and this guy Harper is in effect covering for him. Harper doesn't like the fact and so he omits it, he didn't conspire with Friedman or someone else. Harper doesn't like a fact so he omits it and doesn't deal with it.

Here is the example: Friedman writes in his latest book "Longitudes & Attitudes" that Osama bin LAden had not mentioned Palestine until AFTER 9/11. Here is what I pointed out to Mr. Harper: Thomas Friedman is one of the people deceiving the public. Friedman writes, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street." (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and "Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world." (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
I also have to wonder how in this invented scenario Friedman knows what bin Laden "sensed" about the Arab street.

The above is another example of Friedman's manipulative lies. What does Harper do when he quotes my email? He leaves the above info out. You could contact him yourself and ask him why he does this. He gets very defensive when his assumptions are challenged, a trait I have seen many people have. As far as how certain facts end up suppressed, George Orwell explained it is not an official ban, facts are kept out of the press "not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact."

I hope that gives you an idea how suppression of facts works for the most part. Friedman suppresses the fact that Osama bin Laden has mentioned Palestine several times before 9/11 by outright lying. Harper does so by omission. He is obviously sympathetic to the same agenda Friedman is and he doesn't want to help expose Friedman so he omits the facts. No central command told him to do so, he wants to keep a lid on it so he does so. Notice how this contributes to the ongoing suppression, once again an opportunity for the truth to be spread is squelched. And no, I don't think Friedman "innocently made a mistake" when he wrote that bin Laden never mentioned Palestine until after 9/11. He has been exposed to too many facts and has easy access to bin Laden's interviews and writings as anyone with an Internet connection does.

I think some people know and "play the game" and others are ignorant and conform with the prevailing views because they are under the impression that they are true. Again, I am not putting forth a "conspiracy theory" as you claim.

So much misery could be ended if people made more of an effort. A critical part of the effort has to be a willingness to examine the assumptions we hold. There are people that see particular wrongs and there are people that can't see them for some reason. If you do the research and take an honest look at the facts, I think you will see that there is a problem.

text of Orwell's Preface to Animal Farm Make sure you buy a copy of Animal Farm with the preface. "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. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." CLICK HERE: This copy does include Orwell’s proposed but unpublished preface to the original edition

Chomsky has explained (see p 112 of Understanding Power" ) "So take Tom Wicker at the New York Times: when you talk to him about this kind of stuff, he gets very irate and says, "Nobody tells me what to write." And that's perfectly true, nobody tells him what to write-but if he didn't already know what to write, he wouldn't be a columnist for the New York Times." Chomsky explains that people are either in those positions because they have internalized the understanding that there are certain things not proper to say so they "play the game" automatically or of course sometimes there are people who consciously "play the game."

Latest post to Doug Harper:
Did you figure out the motive for the attacks on about a half-dozen Muslim sites yet? Or can you not admit to yourself that there was a motive?

Will he stubbornly delete it and refuse to deal with the facts again?

“I don't think you invented it.”

So you have looked into it? If you have then you have discovered that people like Thomas Friedman are deceiving the public. As Tanya Reinhart, an Israeli scholar has pointed out, “It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have ben the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians from the start.” Israel/Palestine by Tanya Reinhart P25
“My question to you is then why didn't Arafat take the 2000 Camp David deal?”

Because it was grotesquely unfair. see link And it is incredible how sleazy the Israeli side was, nothing was put in writing and you may have noticed that “maps were carefully avoided in the US mainstream” medialens. See Reinhart’s book Israel/Palestine Robert Malley revealed, after waiting a year, that the 2000 Camp David offer was not as it has been presented in the mainstream media. He pointed out that “strickly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer ... The Israelis always stopped on, if not several, steps short of an offer” Reinhart quoting Malley p25 Israel/Palestine see “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors” The New York Review of Books August 9, 2001 And there were supposed to be more negotiations, it was the Israeli side that refused to continue the talks.

“And if you want right-of-return so bad, don't you realize that'll kill the Jewish state?”

I think the melodrama and manipulation of using words like “kill” has got to end. As far as a Jewish State, could there be anything more unjust to be imposed upon non-Jews? The whole concept violates basic human rights and is against basic American values. We don’t accept such injustice here in America, we should not be financing it abroad. A state should be of it citizens, not of a privileged class. Do you think Jews in Israel have some special right to set up a discriminatory state? Do you realize Zionists consider equal rights to be “the destruction of Israel” by definition? This is too fanatical an opinion to indulge. All people deserve equal rights regardless of the fact that they don’t belong to a certain religion. At the time the father of Zionism plotted to ethnically cleanse non-Jews, the non-Jews were over 90% of the population of Palestine. In 1947 when the Zionist started the massive ethnic cleansing, non-Jews were approximately 67% of the population. Do you realize that now in America, Christians make up over 76% of the population and Jews less than 2%? But setting up a “Christian State”would be unjust.

"Interesting".

More than interesting I think. Very sad for several reasons. I take no joy in knowing facts that are intentionally omitted or not know because of someone's ignorance, willful or not. It is sad that such misery has continued because of the US veto and it is sad because people are suppressing this fact.

"I read the resolution."

Josef, don't you feel manipulated? The story line that is pushed by those in power isn't true.

"Friedman's point wasn't a silly resolution."

I hope you rethink that. "silly" is an extremely inappropriate thing to say. I can only lay out the facts, I can't make you take them seriously. You are trying to dismiss something that is deadly serious, it isn't silly at all. Josef, what would you have had Arafat do? He agreed to terms considered reasonable by virtually the entire world and accepted peace, and that wasn't the only time he agreed to peace yet had it thrown back in his face. I can't make you change your mind. I could start listing example after example. I can back up my claim that Friedman is a propagandist and liar but if everything I present is dismissed as "silly" where does that get us? If you want to put your hands over your ears and insist that you can't be reasoned with, then obviously you will never admit the facts. Back in pre-civil war days I think abolitionists encountered the same kind of stubbornness with the same kind of patterns of behaviors.
I have other examples about Friedman but to deal with Friedman's claim that "all Arafat did" was "express aspiration." Friedman is lying to his readers. Accepting the terms of a peace offer is not expressing an aspiration, it is agreeing to make peace, it is taking an action that is seen by nearly the entire world as just. It is the US action that prevented peace. Note that this fact is intentionally suppressed in the mainstream media in the US. This is part of a pattern. Friedman lied in 1987 when he wrote that the PLO "refuses to negotiate." He wrote that three years after Arafat issued several calls for negotiations leading to mutual recognition, "eleven years after the PLO supported the Security Council resolution calling for a settlement based on UN 242 modified to include a Palestinian state, alongside Israel, not to speak of the record through these years - all safely buried."

The New York Times is withholding facts from the public. "when Yasser Arafat issued the calls fro recognition in 1984, the NYT refused to print not only the facts but even letters referring to them." When "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 various US rejectionist proposals." see Chomsky, "World Orders Old and New" pp. 241-242

Josef, I went to the library to check if this was the case. I have the photocopy right in front of me, it is incredible, just as Chomsky described it. If you aren't willing to do the work and be willing to challenge your assumptions then I don't know what to tell you.

Josef, Friedman is a liar and a propagandist. Friedman asks, "What did he[Arafat] do with all that attention after that[1974]? Very little" That is a gross lie. What Arafat did was accept the Security Council Resolution of January 1976 which "was backed by virtually the entire world, including the leading Arab states, the PLO, Europe, the Soviet bloc -- in fact, everyone who mattered. It was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from history.  The Resolution called for a political settlement on the internationally-recognized borders "with appropriate arrangements...to guarantee...the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders" -- in effect, a modification of UN 242 (as officially interpreted by the US as well), amplified to include a Palestinian state. Similar initiatives from the Arab states, the PLO, and Europe have since been blocked by the US and mostly suppressed or denied in public commentary." US-Israel-Palestine by Noam Chomsky Full Text of 1976 Security Council Resolution

"Secondly, you quote Ze'ev Schiff completely out of context, even for the Chomsky article it comes from. Even in Chomsky's context, it's clear that the problem is terrorists using human shields, not Israel aggression. Please find the original Schiff quote, and a link to the original source. It's your job to substantiate your research, not my job to track down every half-truth and semi-quote you manage to dig up.

No it was in context, you are lying. See Chomsky, Fateful Triangle p181. "In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they desserved it. ...the importance of Gur's remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. ...the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian[from military] targets. ..[but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck."

T.M.K., what you are doing is outrageous. You are acting like the Zionist Jews have not committed terrorism and that their terrorism has not been on greater scale. Commenting on the PLO's resort to terror, Noah Lucas observed, "There is no escaping the analogy with Zionism in the late forties."

You should know Zionists did not constrain their terrorist attacks to the 1940's, they used terrorism before and after. In addition to Jews killed as a result of Zionist terror against the British and Arabs, Zionist terrorists killed other Jews who dared speak out against their immoral plans. Zionists can't possibly claim the high moral ground and it is perverse to claim they are defenders of Judaism. Zionists murdered Jews that they labeled as "traitors" to the Zionist ideology. As early as 1924 these sick racist Zionists killed Jews because they stood in the way of their racist plan. Even a religious Jew was targeted by Zionists as he left his synagogue. Zionist terrorist groups killed Jews and non-Jews. From the beginning of the Zionist agenda, terrorist force was planned for and used. "In the single month of July 1938" Zionists killed more Arabs "than Arabs had killed Jews in the whole of that year so far." The terrorist bombing of the Arab Melon Market in Haifa was just one of the Jewish Zionist attacks that inflicted horrific casualties and injuries. The explosion set bodies flying through the air, the bodies "dead, maimed and injured." "Among the blood-spattered human remains were the mangled bodies of three horses, several mules and donkeys which had brought the villager's produce to the crowded market." A Jewish terrorist planted the bomb in the same area where another bomb had been set off just three weeks earlier which had killed 18 Arabs. This bomb killed 53 Arabs and 1 Jew.

"Quoting Chomsky. Game. Set. Match."

Joshua, you have got to be kidding if you think that is a rebutal. Zionist historian Dr. Noah Lucas, in the Jewish Quarterly, London, Nos. 3-4, 1984 wrote "Good luck to the reader who may succeed in refuting any of the facts or assumptions or conclusions presented by Chomsky. It will not be accomplished by anyone who approaches the matter as an issue of propaganda or public relations for Israel, but only by the student who matches research with research."
Your little quip refutes NOTHING. Try dealing with the facts.

Israel certainly had a legitimate causus belli under international law in the closing of the Straits at Sharm-el-Sheik.
no it did not. And your attempt at trying to paint only the Arab side as engaged in killing civilians is really dishonest. As Israeli military analyst Ze'ev Schiff summarized, "... the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously" In adittion to that sttlers target and kill civilians too. Stop trying to deny this.

A graduate student at Princeton, Norman Finkelstein, exposed the Peter's book as a hoax. It has been show by others too that Peters fabricated the history. Finkelstein "was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He's a very careful student, and he started checking the references — and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked." power
Arnold, stop making acusations agianst people, you are seriously ignorant and need to educate yourself. You link to a book that has been exposed as a fraud 20 years ago. Claiming that people "hate Jews" just because they are pointing out facts about Israel's history is a low life tactic. You need to stop wronging people this way.

"Did you just accuse Jews reclaiming their property in a war Egypt and Syria started of being criminals?"

That is absolutely ridiculous. That people actaully spread such extreme falsification of history is absolutely ridiculous. "seriously misinformed" or intentionally lying, something is very wrong when you deny history and turn an Israeli attack into an Egyptian attack. To spread such outrageous lies is really shameful. "It is not even controversial that in 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. Jordan and Syria entered the conflict much as England and France went to war when Germany attacked their ally Poland in 1939. One might argue that the Israeli attack was legitimate, but to convert it into an Arab invasion is rather audacious -- or would be, if the practice were not routine." dd Notice too that a supposedly "liberal" media caters to the distorted version of History that Zionists prefer.

Is terrorism wrong or not?
Kudlow was on Scarborough Country and when Israeli terrorist acts were mentioned, he claimed that it was taken "out of context".

Whn the terorism comitted by Jews is pointed out to Mr. Kudlow, he responds, " But some wars are just.  That‘s the point you are missing.  Some wars are fought on democratic principles.  That‘s the point you are missing. "

So terrroism is justified if Jews are doing it. (Kudlow simply lies when he claims that the Zionist cause was "fought on democratic principles". That is like saying slavery was based on the principle of freedom and equal rights.)

The Zionist agenda from day one was undemocratic. The father of Zionism plotted to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of people because they were not the appropriate religion. He wanted "purity". Zionism is not simply Jews wanting to live somewhere, Zionism is an ugly system off discrimination that positions anyone no a Jews as a second class citizen. It is racist by definition. To these Zionists, Israel by definition means that Jews must dominate, it is plain and simple an ideology of Jewish supremacy.

We have come a long way in America an white supremacy is see for the ugly reality it is by many but there is a dirty underhanded tactic of labeling people who speak out against Zionism. They are called "anti-Semites". Notice Kudlow tries to be really slick when he says "And the kind of discussion that you are engaging in, which is present in your book and which is unfortunately present in some of your recent writings, comes dangerously close to anti-Semitism."
"Close to anti-semitism"? Would thinking OJ Simpson was guilty of a vicious double murder be close to an anti-black sentiment? No. And what Kudlow is doing is really devious.

"If you want to continue the conversation, come over to LGF."

I suggest that if you do post over at LGF, don't expect any intelligent conversation. What happens is you are angrily attacked and then banned from posting when they can't respond to things they can't deal with.

"where I am violently active"

Whatever collection of political view points a person may consider or hold to be their own, people should not be issuing threats. This immature behavior throws up road blocks to debate and examination. I have seen it too many times. These guys are very quick to jump to playing victim of some "insult" and then they decide they have a right to refuse to respond or to threaten violence. This is as foolish as tolerating a debate participant to show up wearing brass knuckles and saying "he might" hit the other person. It really is a sign of anti-social primitive thinking. Another one of the non-thinkers is this guy "Callimachu" who says things like it was "anti-American" to have been against slavery. When he is proven wrong by a posted comment he simply deletes the comments.

Your version of history omits the fact that Arafat had been agreeing to peace, Israel and the US refused. The Security Council resolution of January 1976, calling for a settlement in terms of UN 242, was backed by virtually the entire world, including the leading Arab states, the PLO, Europe, the Soviet bloc, the non-aligned countries -- in fact, everyone who mattered. It was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby removing it from history. The US veto, repeated later, excluded the Security Council from the diplomacy. The General Assembly continued to pass near-unanimous resolutions in similar terms (the US and Israel opposed); a negative US vote amounts to a veto. The US also blocked initiatives from Europe, the Arab states, the PLO and others. Subsequent and similar initiatives from the Arab states, the PLO, and Western Europe were blocked by the US, continuing to the present. That includes the 1981 Fahd plan. That record too has been effectively vetoed from history, for the usual reasons. http://www.alternet.org/middleeast/12956/

Callimachus writes some more stupid bullshit at vernondent.blogspot.com

Callimachus, are you putting us on or what? You can't comprehend what the article said? "Suspected arsonists set an Islamic elementary school on fire Tuesday amid a string of attacks following the killing of a Dutch filmmaker by an alleged Islamic extremist."
It is painfully obvious that the terrorism was in all likelihood motivated by the murder. What in God's name is with you and your mental block?

Notice that the article mentions possible motive in the first paragraph (when the terrorism is directed at Muslims), in the American media most articles and TV news reports never get around to mentioning motives when the terrorism is directed at Americans. How can you possibly not see this?

AGAIN this article is an example of two wrongs. Are you telling me you can't understand this? Does the murder of the Dutch filmmaker make the arson attacks OK? No. Does the attacks mean we can not condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh? No, saying the murder of Van Gogh was wrong would not be "justifying" the attacks. (you REFUSE to see this when it comes to the 9/11 attacks)

Whoever is behind the attacks on a half-dozen Muslim sites most likely are putting your kind of thinking into action. You thought it was great for someone to say, "All three Abrahamic religions received his wrath, rightly or wrongly. But only one broke out the koummya and sliced his throat."
Guy, the Muslim religion did not slice a mans throat, an individual did. The people that set the fires probably viewed it the way you viewed the "great post" and felt motivated to attack the "only Abrahamic religion" that "broke out the koummya and sliced his throat" . You contribute to misery Callimachus.

Big Business Fucking You as Hard as They Can

Companies Sue Union Retirees To Cut Promised Health Benefits

Firms Claim Right to Change Coverage, Attempt to Pick Sympathetic Jurisdictions
The Process Server Pays a Call

When a deputy sheriff came to his door with a court summons, George Kneifel, a retiree in Union Mills, Ind., was mystified. His former employer was suing him.

The employer, beverage-can maker Rexam Inc., had agreed in labor contracts to provide retirees with health-care coverage. But now the company was asking a federal judge to rule that it could reduce or eliminate the benefit.

Many companies have already cut back company-paid health-care coverage for retirees from their salaried staffs. But until recently, employers generally were barred from touching unionized retirees' benefits because they are spelled out in labor contracts. Now, some are taking aggressive steps to pare those benefits as well, including going to court.

In the past two years, employers have sued union retirees across the country. In the suits, they ask judges to rule that no matter what labor contracts say, they have a right to change the benefits. Some companies also argue that contract references to "lifetime" coverage don't mean the lifetime of the retirees, but the life of the labor contract. Since the contracts expired many years ago, the promises, they say, have expired too.
This Modern World

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110003711129469246,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus">

Callimachu writes this about the latest bin Laden tape, "What the hell is he talking about? Or was this, too, something I missed by not seeing "F9/11?"

Are you kidding me? 9/11 is too serious for you to play games like this. It is extremely immature of you to try to link it to Moore's movie. What bin Laden said is crystal clear. You have a severe mental block about admitting what the motives were for 9/11. When I pointed out Nat Turner's motives and explicitly stated that Turner's terrorism was not justified you could not see the words right in front of you and assumed I had thought Turner's terrorism was justified. Two wrongs, get it? "aggressive foreign policies" are going to anger a lot of people and some of them will resort to violence. This cannot possibly be too difficult for you to grasp.

I pointed out to you that people like George Bush to Thomas Friedman are lying about the 9/11 motives. Bin Laden's latest tape once AGAIN says that Bush is lying. I showed you where Friedman outright lies by claiming that bin Laden never mentioned Palestine until after 9/11. (you can easily verify for yourself that bin Laden did indeed mention Palestine as early as 1996 and perhaps earlier) You so don't want to accept the truth that you edit out of my letter the part that exposes Friedman's lie. Also, I show you how George Tenet and others chop off the second part (the part that states the motives) from a key sentence from the 1998 fatwa when they quote it. link We were attacked because of the foreign policies, what is with you that you won't admit this? The attempt to exploit the bin Laden letter by claiming that al-Qeada is saying it would not target individual states of the United States is absurd. It shows the ridiculous lengths you and others are willing to go to deny and distort the facts. Clearly bin Laden means if a Nation State doesn't attack them they won't attack a particular Nation State. Do you realize just how ridiculous MEMRI and you are? All the game playing to avoid the main point that bin Laden makes about the real causes. And he mentions the 1982 Israeli terrorist assault on civilians. As Israeli military analyst Ze'ev Schiff summarized, "... the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously" People in the Middle East live this reality and it leads to, as bin Laden has said, "reactions and reciprocal actions"

Fair Media

(at what liberal media they think they found another example of "liberla media) I reply: What is "liberal" about the column? You think people should not be allowed to ask questions like these? Do you know that Douglas J. Feith was cherry picking inteligence and making his own inteligence estimates? (inteligence estimates are supposed to be done by the Inteligence services not by political hacks) Do you seriously contend that these guys were not pushing for the war? DO you seriousl contend that the war agaist Iraq was necessary or legal? Do you seriously contend that what is happening is not in Israel's interests and that things like a pipleline to Israel is for Israel and not what a majority of Iraqis would support. The media hasn't even told you about the Israeli pipleline talk have they? Have they?! READ:

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.

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"

U.S. and Israeli policy makers don't plan on democracy for Iraq. (these facts are kept from the American public. The plans for this "bonus" have gone unreported. Reporters know what is "proper" to report and they know that facts like these should not be told to the American public)

"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". What is ignored is the the will of the Iraqi people, democracy for them is another crule joke.

Sharon writes,
We had a story last week saying that 380 tons of weapons that can be used in nuclear bombs was missing & that it was the Bush administration's fault (that story has since been refuted & the real number is more like 3). So, were there WMDs in Iraq or not?
And I think the people of Israel would argue that we put their interests above America's. It seems like it was only 4 years ago we had an American president pressing the Israelis to give the Palestinians everything they wanted (short of dismantling Israel), including sharing Jerusalem, but that wasn't enough for those nice Muslims who have always loved America.
And as for this "Iraqi people" deciding every decision in the country, I don't think the government in the U.S. asks "the American people" every time it makes a business deal either. But I'm not "disenfranchised."


So, were there WMDs in Iraq or not?

No for God sakes you guys are so ignorant it is increadible. There explosives are not what are termed "WMDs" which clearly meant nuclear, biological or chemical. Come on, do you pay atttention at all? Bush supporters are EXTREMLY IGNORANT (no one has explained to me why a supposedly "liberal media has refused to report these findings:) link

It seems like it was only 4 years ago we had an American president pressing the Israelis to give the Palestinians everything they wanted

WRONG and you think this because you are ignorant and the media helps make that happen: see FAIR LINK and Israel is seen correctly as a racist and oppressive country, most Arabs don't like it. How dare you play off what the Zionists are plotting with their pipeline as a "business deal". In America, the government SHOULD reflect the will of the people, you have a disgusting attitude about what this country is supposed to be.
These things need to be heard and there was NOTHING wrong with the article, you guys are really ridiculous.


ed writes Actually Tom is right Israel is a racist society. In fact Israel should immediately start treating the Israeli Arabs and Palestinians as well as the Jews are treated in Saudi Arabia. Oops, there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia. Make that as well as the Jews are treated in Oman or Jordan. Oops, there are no Jews there either. Maybe all the Jewish members of the Egyptian or Libyan Parliaments can help us out. Wait, no Parliaments or Jews in the govermenments in either of those countries.

disgusting ed, really disgusting. you are attempting to make excuses for a racist government by pointing to others? you are really a fanatic. So I guess white racists never had to feel guilty for their wrogns because they could always point to others. whay differance does it make how other countries behave? The KKK could have always pointed to Africa and bitch about their internal problems. What kind of freak are you that you think this excuses people that do such horrible wrongs against others.
Jew and non-Jews lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was when the Zionists moved in with a plan to ethnically cleanse and set up a descriminatory state that these wrongs started. ed, how about starting to act like a human being?
Clearly it is not what one would expect from an "ombudsman". If the Post wanted to publish this, the best place for it would have been the commentary or editorial page -- not under Getler's usual banner.

Sharon writes, You know, Tom, as stupid, repugnant and ridiculous as your posts are, I have never bothered to attack you personally. I am a Republican because I have looked at the immorality, gross twisting of the law and the ignorance shown by Democrats. You want to disagree, fine, but leave your rantings to some other site. The comment about WMDs was rhetorical. I know the difference between WMDs and explosives, but the materials that were supposedly taken could have been used in WMDs. Democrats constantly say there were NO WMDs, therefore we should have left Saddam alone to rape and kill his own people (oh, I guess that would have qualified as doing the will of the Iraqi ppl to you since Saddam got 90% of the vote there). As for your anti-Semetic crap...give me a BREAK. You think that pointing out the oppression by Arab states doesn't justify Israel protecting itself from its neighbors? Quit bitching about Israel being a country. It's been 60 years and the Israelis have won every single war brought to them by their "peace-loving" Arab neighbors. Palestinians are free to live in Israel if they don't want to go blow themselves up in markets and schools. I don't find that particularly oppressive. Your vitriol has gotten worse the closer the election comes. What a pathetic little man.


You know, Tom, as stupid, repugnant and ridiculous as your posts are, I have never bothered to attack you personally

Sharon, I am not going to dance around the fact that you are ignorant. I would like to add dishonest to that. You played a game that the explosives were "WMD".

The comment about WMDs was rhetorical

yes I realize that sweetheart, and you are being ignorant or deceptive.

As for your anti-Semetic crap

This has got to stop Sharon. I want you to apologize right now. HOW DARE YOU PULL THIS CRAP. all I did was point out the truth. You have proven yourself EXTREMELY ignorant (and that is being polite, you may actually know the facts and are being a devious liar)

To claim that Israel is above criticism because to criticize means someone is "anti-Semitic" is a tactic that is underhanded and disgusting.


Sharon writes, No Tom, I am not ignorant. You are a blowhard idiot who likes attacking people you disagree with. Neither am I a liar. You are anti-Semitic when you pull the crap you did, you bigot. You didn't pull out the truth. Other people have already refuted your "truth." You pulled out the same tired old BS you've pulled in every single thread you've posted on on this site. First you scream and holler about Vietnam, but you can't get anymore heat from that, so you move to a different entry, trying to spread your filth & hatred. Why don't you go find some other like-minded lying jerks to talk to instead of attacking people on this site? It's not "underhanded and disgusting" to call you anti-Semitic when you have accused the Israelis of ethnic cleansing and setting up a "descriminatory state" (get a dictionary while you are at it, idiot). Setting up a Jewish state was not "descriminatory." The Arabs are the ones who want the total annihilation of the Israelis. Thanks for making it crystal clear what a numbskull you really are. I love the way you attack me and call me stupid or a liar, when you are the one showing your total lack of intelligence and civility.

Sharon, you resort to the most dishonest and manipulative tactics you can. I am making it clear that what you are saying is just plain false. If you want to act like a two year old and claim doing this is "attacking" you, that is really pathetic. I thought it was you conservatives that argue all the sensitivity whining was supposed to be an affliction of liberals. It is not an "attack" to point out you are either ignorant or dishonest. Your statement on the WMD was manipulative or ignorant. You tried to play us for fools.

Now you are concocting what MY motives are for presenting information? Knock it off. You are using the most low life tactic of smearing people with very serious accusations in order to cover for your agenda. YES, Israel ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of people because they were not Jews The father of Zionism himself plotted to remove non-Jews from Palestine, he wrote about this in 1895. who they hell are you trying to fool by denying this? And if you set up a state that denies equal rights to people because they are not a certain religion, then that is discriminatory by definition. How brainwashed or fanatical are you that you can't see this basic fact? Setting up a state around a particular religion is certainly not the American way. It is blatantly unjust. The bottom line is that Zionists consider equal rights for non-Jews to be the "destruction" of Israel by definition. This is the ugly little fact that many in this country are blind to. America had a horrific system of slavery in its midst for DECADES, it was denial that allowed it to continue.