"The genocidal barbarism of the Nazi forces has been well documented. What hitherto has been little known is the fate of fifteen million German civillians who found themselves at the mercy of Soviet armies and on the wrong side of new postwar borders. All over Eastern Europe, the inhabitants of communities that had been established for many centuries were either expelled or killed. Over two million Germans did not survive."

"One night in April 1945 soldiers burst into our home awakening my family. They grabbed my mother and tore her wedding ring and earrings off. With nothing but the clothes on our backs and a few small bundles under my mother's and grandmother's arms we were driven into the dark. I was petrified as I clung to my grandmother and we joined the large crowd in the middle of the street. The whole town was taken in this manner and herded out of Karlsdorf to the airport just outside the town. We were put into hangers, which were surrounding by a high barbed wire fence. We slept on the bare, cold and damp dirt floor. No heat was provided, so that condensation from the people breathing would rise to the ceiling and in the morning, as it cooled off, it would drip down on us like rain.

Throughout Yugoslavia , all ethnic Germans were put into concentration camps and became prisoners of the state. We lost our citizenship and all our property was confiscated. I, too, at the tender are of four, was considered a political prisoner and a threat to the security of Yugoslavia. From 1945 to 1949, we suffered starvation, beatings, mass murders and slave labor." -Testimony of Survivor Elisabeth Walter

But Deborah Lipstadt insists that this woman did not survive a holocaust!

Deborah Lipstadt insists that the more than 2 million people who died because of the starvation, beatings, mass murders and slave labor did not die in a holocaust. Deborah Lipstadt insists that the more than 2 million people, who were targeted and who died because of what ethnicity they were, did not die in a holocaust.

(For more of the Testimony of Survivor Elisabeth Walter, see p100 of A Terrible Revenge : The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans )

I asked Lipstadt about signing a petition to help bring Shlomo Morel to justice. I mentioned to her that Morel was responsible for the deaths of Germans who died in concentration camps (under the conditions survivors like Ms. Walter have testified to) It was Lipstadt who brought up the question of whether I thought they died in what could be called a holocaust. I said yes. She was making the point that it wasn't a holocaust. In fact, several minutes later, when I was talking to someone about the 2 million ethnic Germans that died after WWII, Lipstadt felt it necessary to interject, "Two million Germans did not die after World War II." I called her a "denier."

There were others who attended her talk at Barnes & Noble who totally denied that Jews had murdered Germans in camps! Note that they didn't dispute how many Germans were murdered at the hands of Jews, they totally denied that it had happened at all!!! The irony and hypocrisy is incredible. What is commonly referred to as "Holocaust Denial" is actually a dispute about specifics of the Holocaust, what we have here is actual denial. A denial that is total and not simply a dispute over specifics, numbers, methods, intent or scope.

There are people who share the blame for keeping so many people in ignorance about the enormous, horrific reality that the German civilians, men, women, children and babies suffered after WWII. Lipstadt is one of them. Lipstadt calls John Sack's book An Eye for an Eye "not a good book." When I said it had been coroberated by 60 minutes, she scoffed at the idea that that should mean something. The woman is in denial. An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by 60 Minutes and they found eight eyewitnesses in addition to the eyewitnesses John Sack had found. An Eye for an Eye was fact-checked by three major magazines and a paper whose editor said, "It may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism." An Eye for an Eye was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."

When John Sack worked seven years on the book that exposed the details a holocaust that many want to suppress, he anticipated an extremist might resort to calling him a "Nazi." He expected that exposing crimes against humanity committed by Jews would result in some sort of slander "from the extremities." But he didn't expect the tactic from eminent Jewish intellectuals.

"Never in my wildest speculations did I suppose that an eminent intellectual on a TV network would refer to "A man called John Sack" and another intellectual would say, ""Well first of all, these people are anti-Semites, second of all they're neo-Nazis."" John Sack, An Eye for an Eye p.173

"The eminent intellectual was Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, the other intellectual was Deborah Lipstadt, the author of Denying the Holocaust, and the program was The Charlie Rose Show of December 16, 1993." John Sack, An Eye for an Eye p.235

"When I wrote An Eye for an Eye, I hadn't guessed that people would call it a monstrous lie. A lot of it, afterall, had been fack-checked by three major magazines and a paper whose editor said, "It may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism." A lot of it, after all, had been fact-checked by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses who I hadn't, so I hadn't guesses that the titles of some reviews would be False Witness and The Big Lie. "

".. the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.

Please! Much of An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland." And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."

"It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound.

... The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama.""

Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity

At the end of World War II, thousands of Jews set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians -- German men, women, children and babies. There Jews beat, whipped, tortured and murdered the Germans. "Why, then, for fifty years did people suppress the news of Shlomo Morel? I'd have thought that a man who commanded a concentration camp, who Jews and Germans testified killed thousands of prisoners, who was wanted in Poland but who fled to the Middle East - I'd have thought that Shlomo's story was well worth telling, but Shlomo's not German but Jewish, he didn't flee to Syria but Israel, and for almost fifty years not one American newspaper mentioned him." p 176 "An Eye for an Eye" John Sack But still to this day, there are people in positions of influence and power who sit on their hands and do nothing to help bring Shlomo Morel to justice. What did you know and when did you know it Ms. Lipstadt? Poland is demanding the extradition of Shlomo Morel. Israel continues to refuse, the hypocrisy is disgusting. Why are people in Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies doing nothing about this man who is accused of crimes against humanity, a Jewish man accused of the deaths of hundreds of Germans in a postwar detention camp? This is happening now: "Morel, 86, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland, many of whom perished in "barbaric" circumstances." - January 3, 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald John Sack also exposed the ugly fact that many acted to suppress the book An Eye for an Eye. It got even uglier for John Sack.

"People say they'll sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia."", John Sack reveals.

This isn't the first time I have heard about Jews doing this to Americans, threatening with the use of Israeli force to silence Americans. This vicious tactic some Jews have used against Americans in order to scare them into not talking. Threats of violence or death if they dared talk about things that Jews think puts them in a bad light. In fact, communicating on Craigslist, someone made a similar threat to me about contacting the Mossad. Another time, for daring to point out historical facts about Israeli hijacking, someone emailed me threatening to cut off my fingers. I forwarded that email to the FBI.

Talking with people I get a sense that these manipulations and threats have made an impact on American society with respect to what Lipstadt would call "moral authority." I have talked with people who think Jews simply would not commit crimes against humanity as opposed to other groups that would! Average people deprived of the chance to hear about certain facts, like the horrific concentration camp crimes of Shlomo Morel, end up with a distorted view of the world.

This is the threat I received: "i will be there soon... and soon you shall not have fingers to type with... see you in a few. "
That threat emailed to me was for posting this information:
"The first airplane hijacking in the Middle East also falls outside the canon: 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." Israeli terrorism

Read about another death threat, this one targeting a journalist by the name of Alison Weir. Libelous accusations were made as well.

davi wrote, " it makes you wonder why irving resists people labeling his hatred of Jews as anti-Semitism."

It doesn't make sense. The "Holocaust Denial" label is a manipulative propaganda tactic Lipstadt uses, an honest look at the facts shows this to be the case. But some people don't want the facts aired.

davi wrote, "since Irving has been convicted of libel"

No, he wasn't convicted, he lost his libel suit against Lipstadt. Irving wasn't on trial for libel, he was suing for libel. A Judge unwilling to take an honest look at the facts sided against Irving in Irving's suit against Lipstadt that she libeled him.

You really don't have a grasp on the basic issues yet you are so sure you know the facts. You don't know the facts and it is a disgrace that such ignorant people take swipes at C-SPAN.

It is a disgrace that Media Matters participates in a vicious campaign against C-SPAN and of libeling David Irving. It is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest to use a propaganda term like "Holocaust Denier" to describe Irving. Media Matters is now attacking the best thing on TV.

You and Media Matters should support C-SPAN's efforts at fairness, they happen to be correct because most people are not getting all the facts. It would come as a surprise to many, I am sure, to learn that Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz so the term "denier" is simply slander.

Has everyone forgotten the OJ trial? Just because OJ was not convicted does not mean he was not guilty. Just because Libstadt was not convicted of libel does not mean that she was not guilty.

The woman simply twists things into untruths in order to serve her agenda and she doesn't want people heard that expose her dishonesty. Case in point, she has just removed all the comments from her blog because she claims, "most of them filled with drivel trying to prove all sorts of absurd things, e.g. Irving is not a denier and he did not lose the lawsuit."
This is a perfect example of how she deceives readers. The fact is no one argued that Irving "did not lose the lawsuit", what was argued was that Irving should not have lost the lawsuit! This is yet another example of Lipstadt dishonestly portraying a situation so that she can win her ideological battle. What as shame people don't look into the facts before they trash the best thing on TV. Read the links at my blog, they go into more detail.

"debunking the idiots" wrote, "But look at it this way. If I said that only fourteen people died at the Battle of Gettysburg, although explicitly pointing out that those fourteen people died miserably, while claiming that all the other deaths were part of some historical conspiratorial fraud, wouldn't you be justified in calling me a "Gettysburg denier" for having denied the central facts of the battle?"

I wrote, "Fourteen people!?! You have totally distorted the whole thing, and proved my point."

"debunking the idiots" asked, "How about pointing out the distortion, instead of merely making a claim?"

debunking the idiots, when you use a number extremely low like fourteen as an example of a "Gettysburg denier" you prove my point. 14 out of the total deaths at Gettysburg? (there is not complete agreement on the total deaths but we could use the total of 10,000) " At least 10,000 soldiers were killed or mortally wounded in the three-day Battle of Gettysburg." -Killed in Action:  Eyewitness Accounts of the Last Moments of 100 Union Soldiers Who Died at Gettysburg

Lipstadt must have given you the wrong idea of what Irving thinks the total number of Jews is who died in the Holocaust. You can't think it is fair to equate 14 out of 10,000 to something between 1,000,000 out of 6,000,000 to 4,000,000 out of 6,000,000. Come on! Lipstadt clearly has libeled the man if you think that the percentages between those comparisons are anywhere close. Take what Irving said the number of deaths were at the least: 1,000,000. Do you realize that you are saying that 17% of the total is about the same as estimating 0.14% of the total? Using that percentage, you think Irving thinks only 8,400 Jews died in the Holocaust????

Clearly, the term "Holocaust Denier" libels Mr. Irving. An honest look at the facts shows this to be the case. It is dishonest and manipulative to call Irving a "Holocaust Denier. " Clearly people are deceived about what Irving actaully says about the Holocaust. This person calling themsleves "debunking the idiots" posting on Libstadt's blog makes the comparison of a "Holocaust Denier" with that of a hypothetical "Gettysburg Denier". In the example, the hypothetical "Gettysburg Denier" thinks only 14 people died at the Battle of Gettysburg!! Do you see how extremely unfair that is to Mr. Irving? Do you see that Lipstadt has libeled Irving since this is the false impression people are getting when they hear Lipstadt's term?

"The most "insidious" forms of Holocaust denial, Lipstadt suggests, are "immoral equivalencies": that is, denying the uniqueness of The Holocaust. This argument has intriguing implications." p70 The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering
by Norman Finkelstein

grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

The vicious attacks on David Irving and C-SPAN

As I pointed out, a vicious campaign is being waged that is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Ms. Lipstadt is defaming Irving and she is gloating over her power fight with C-SPAN. Ms. Lipstadt is a game player, she cannot honestly say that people are not being deceived when she uses the term "Holocaust Denier" and that it is causing unnecessary anguish for many people.

I am sure many people hearing about the "Holocaust Denier" would be SHOCKED to learn that it is actually Lipstadt's outragous lie.

I am sure people would be shocked to learn that
Irving said at the Libel Trial, "I do not deny that there was some kind of gassing at gas chambers in Birkenau, it is highly likely that there was." (Emphasis mine. For the layperson it should be explained with regards to the words "Birkenau" and "Auschwitz" that it is often refered to as "Auschwitz-Birkenau" or the "Auschwitz camp at Birkenau") and keep in mind that Irving said this at the trial with Lipstadt, the very trial Lipstadt's book is about!

Not Libel?

As evidenced on Lipstadt's own blog, people do get the wrong idea because of Ms. Lipstadt's use of the term "Holocaust denier."

As I pointed out on her blog, Ms. Lipstadt has made people think that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. For example, the "Jewish Press Online" compared Irving's opinion to "denying that African-Americans were enslaved." You can see how outrageous that is, Lipstadt has succeeded in libeling the man.

And not wanting to be libeled by Ms. Lipstadt is not the same as trying to "silence Lipstadt".

And to compound the wrong of giving people the idea that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps, Ms. Lipstadt tries to keep him from getting a fair hearing which could clear it up! (so people can continue to get the false impression) If not her intent, will Ms. Lipstadt issue a press release that clears it up for the people who are mislead by her term? Will Ms. Lipstadt issue a press realize that says, "Just to be clear, Irving does not deny that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps." If not, why not? It is wrong to knowingly label a man so that many people think he denies that that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. Ms. Lipstadt is a game player, she cannot honestly say that people are not getting the wrong idea when she uses the term and that it is causing unnecessary anguish for many people. As evidenced in this blog, people do have the outragous notion Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps and that is Lipstadt's doing and it is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

Lipstadt seems to be enjoying her dirty work, she writes with childish enthusiasm, "AP Wire and bloggers catch the C-Span-Spin Wave!"

Trying to explain it to Richard:

Richard, as I have tried to explain, what Deborah Lipstadt is doing is wrong .

Irving is a man that believes that Jews were killed in great number and has documneted specific conversations of Germans talking aout the shootings. Irving is a man who believes that the Jews died in concentration camps. Irving is a man who believe that Nazis not only killed Jews with mass shootings but also killed Jews in concentration camps.
Now does that sound like a "Holocaust Denier?

If your first reaction to what I am writting is that I must be wrong about what Irving thinks then you prove my point that using the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

Irving wrote, "If this biography were simply a history of the rise and fall of Hitler's Reich it would be legitimate to conclude "Hitler killed the Jews." He after all had created the atmosphere of hatred with his speeches in the 1930's; he and Himmler had created the SS; his speeches, though never explicit, left the clear impression that "liquidate" was what he meant. For a full-length war biography of Hitler, I felt that a more analytical approach to the key questions of initiative, complicity, and execution would be necessary. Remarkably, I found that Hitler's own role in the "Final Solution"-whatever that was-has never been examined." -David Irving London, January 1976
and January 1989

What Deborah Lipstadt is doing is wrong, she is CREATING the false impression that Irving and others think that Nazis did not kill Jews. She has done harm, causing unnecessary anguish with her arrogance and dishonesty.

and Richard's "Lipstadt caliber" response:
"Representative Press, it is amazing that you alone have discovered that Mr. Irving is not a Holocaust denier. And it is even more amazing that you sent Richard Cohen an email telling him that. Pray tell us how you managed to do that when there has never been an email address for Mr. Cohen posted on the Washington Post website. I guess your imaginary email is as accurate as your imaginary discovery about Mr. Irving. I don't know what you are smoking, Representative Press, but it can't be good for your heath. " comment on Roger Simon's misguided article (the result of Washington Post's Richard Cohen's inaccurate article March 17, 2005: "Fairness" at C-SPAN

example of Mr. Cohen's innaccuracy: He writes that "To Lipstadt's statements about the Holocaust, there was Irving's rebuttal that it never happened -- no systematic killing of Jews, no Final Solution and, while many people died at Auschwitz of disease and the occasional act of brutality, there were no gas chambers there." Now simply look at what Irving wrote above, Irving mentions the Final Solution! Look at what Irving said at the Libel Trial, "I do not deny that there was some kind of gassing at gas chambers in Birkenau, it is highly likely that there was." (Emphasis mine. For the layperson it should be explained with regards to the words "Birkenau" and "Auschwitz" that it is often refered to as "Auschwitz-Birkenau" or the "Auschwitz camp at Birkenau") and keep in mind that Irving said this at the trial with Lipstadt, the trial Lipstadt's book is about!

Attacking C-SPAN

emails and posts regarding the attacks on C-SPAN:

Dear Mr. Maoz:

Bellow is a copy of an email I sent to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. It applies to you as well:

Dear Mr. Cohen:

C-SPAN is the best thing on television, you should do some research before you start attacking and slandering a great resource.

C-SPAN is doing a terrific job and it is wrong of you to try to intimidate the people working there.

C-SPAN's decision to allow David Irving to be heard was fair, not a "cockeyed version of fairness" as you described it. It is not "mindless" to give the C-SPAN viewers the chance to hear the facts some people are ignorant of or unwilling to let others know.

C-SPAN viewers might discover that use of the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz. Withholding these facts is journalistic malpractice. What you and Deborah Lipstadt are doing is wrong. You and Ms. Lipstadt owe C-SPAN an apology. I hope to see a correction in your paper.
--------------------------
my post over at Lipstadt's blog:

You gloat, "Methinks they have been inundated with protests." Ms. Lipstadt, what you are doing is a disgraceful, how dare you try to intimidate C-SPAN.

Your use of the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz.
You don't make these facts clear to people.

You do such harm to public discourse and now you have the nerve to attack C-SPAN.
--------------------------
my email to C-SPAN:

Dear Ms. Doebele:

Ms. Deborah Lipstadt is now gloating about people criticizing C-SPAN. She writes on her blog, "Methinks they have been inundated with protests."

I hope you don't let people that want to suppress free speech intimidate you.

I support you and C-SPAN's efforts at fairness and with regard to Mr. Irving, you are correct again. Those not wanting Irving to receive a fair hearing are using manipulative and dishonest tactics. It would come as a surprise to many, I am sure, to learn that Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz so the term "denier" is simply slander. Lipstadt's game only works if people don't get to hear these facts which is why she goes to such lengths to keep Irving from being heard.

You wrote, "In reality, the Arab states shouldn't have invaded to try to destroy Israel"

Wait a minute, we need a reality check here. The dominant Zionist agenda going back to the father of ZIonism was an extremist racist agenda of ethnic cleansing and Jewish supremacy. Herzl, the Father of Zionism wrote, "Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy" as early as 1895 as he plotted the removal of non-Jews for Palestine. The Zionists are the ones that pushed to divide up the land but clearly as a step towards taking over all of Palestine. In reality the Jews did not accept Partition because they immediately violating the terms starting months before May 1948. 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. he 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." he declared.

Keep in mind, the UN partition plan was a proposal and was not binding, it is off the wall to insist that the Palestinians "should have accepted" it. It violated the will of 67% of the people in Palestine, why the heck "should" they accept it? What happened to the principle of democracy and self determination?

Critical facts are often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the UN proposed Jewish State. What happened between Nov 1947 and May 1948 was already an attack on the part of the Jews. Jews who were 33% of a population had no right to "declare" that they were dividing up the land! And Arab armies moved in to areas that had been proposed for the Palestinian State because it was clear the Jews were grabbing it all. And keep in mind that the Zionists were not sincere about allowing the UN proposed Palestinian State to emerge, the Zionists conspired with Jordan to prevent it and that is what Jordan and Israel did.

The "right to exist" think is a propaganda ploy. What it masks is the reality of what Zionists consider "existing" which means to them a system of discrimination against non-Jews and Jewish supremacy. That is like asking blacks in the early 1800's to accept the US's "right to exist" and insisting that without slavery America didn't "exist" so you are in effect asking blacks to accept the "right" of slavery to exist.

It is not unreasonable to insist that Jews in Israel live as we expect Jews to live in America, which means without a system of discrimination against non-Jews.

You wrote, "If France and Japan will not agree to allow unlimited Arab immigration it's time to end both states. ... Any country which does not allow unlimited Arab immigration is inherently racist"

No one is calling for unlimited Arab immigration. What is called for is upholding the right of return. The people who were terrorized out of their homes and from their land have the right to return with their families. These people were pushed off their land because the racist Zionists deemed them the "wrong" religion.

Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Israel stated it agreed to comply with the Right of Return but after it got itself into the UN it refused to honor it. (another example of the devious and outrageous actions of the "Jewish State".) [another example that Americans are ignorant of]

And what about the thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave and yet still had their homes and land stolen? 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." (see endnote 67 The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg )

What is the root problem of the Israel and Palestine conflict?

The root problem of the Israel and Palestine conflict is that the Jews running Israel are unwilling to allow non-Jews to have equal rights. That is the fundamental problem and cause of the conflict. These Jews are Zionists with the agenda to continue the Jewish supremacy in that land. That is the cause of the conflict and why it continues. What the Zionists basically demand is that non-Jews must accept permanent second class status, continued discrimination and unresolved thefts and ethnic cleansing.

You wrote, "All this shows is that Israel should have gotten rid of all of them when they had the chance. Israel was attacked. "

That is ANOTHER Zionist lie. the lie is that "Israel was attacked" when the fact is that the Zionists had already attacked from Nov 1947, that is MONTHS before MAY 1948.

You push the Zionist lie that it is wasn't the Jews who attacked FIRST. let me explain this to you, The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked."

The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State. This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. n practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine. http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

you can't use terrorism, drive 300,000 people from their homes and seize most of the land and claim that that is not an attack!!!!! WHAT the Jews did WAS AN ATTACK! Stop spreading lies that Arabs were the agressors, what the Jews did was a massive act of agression and they struck FIRST. Got that? LOOK at the history, you act like all the events from Nov 1947 to May 1948 never happened!!! During those months Zionists were commiting horrific crimes of rape, massacre, theft, torture, and ethnic cleansing.

"Rape, massacre, theft, torture, ethnic cleansing: these are not crimes which nations can defend with ease - especially when unearthed by their own historians. Israel recently faced this most troubling predicament. Combing through declassified state archives, Israeli scholars of the past twenty years have discovered their nation was founded upon the mass expulsion and deliberate destruction of the native Palestinian people. Israel, it turned out, was far more Goliath than David. Since this presented somewhat of a public relations problem for a state still engaged in brutalizing Palestinians and stealing their land, a new self-justifying rationale needed to be authored. " http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7378

The self described liberal going by the name praktike complains, "Do we really need a big report to determine this?"

praktike is complaining that people would want to do a report to determine "the potential influence exerted on the intelligence community, and possible manipulation of intelligence itself, by the Bush administration."
praktike apparently is so subservient to power that he is annoyed that anyone would dare examine how the powerful manipulate the system.

I explained to praktike that we don't want these kinds of things to continue endlessly. You really don't want to confront the wrongs of US officials, you really love sweeping things under the rug.

praktike wrote,"thinking, c'mon, is there anyone who genuinely does not believe that the Bush administration hyped the threat, went beyond the intelligence, etc.?

I reply:
You really distort things for yourself. Yes there are MANY people that don't get it.
And it is important to point out that the intelligence was distorted because "Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped" MOST people think that people simply got it wrong as opposed to an intentional distortion and omission of the intelligence reports. There was so much pressure to find an excuse for the war that original intelligence assessments were removed from final reports.

and even if there were WMD, the war was illegal! We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Why are so many people ignorant of these basic facts? Well it is largely because the so called "liberal media" didn't report the fact that the US violated laws which we are bound to uphold by our own Constitution. Our Constitution makes it clear, those that rush to support the Iraq war ignorantly violate the fundamental basis of America. The sad fat is that the thousands that swore oaths to the US Constitution have violated that oath. Yes folks, we signed the UN CHarter which is an international treaty and the Constitution explicitly states that treaties become law of the land. (those serving power sweep this fact under the rug)

Most Israeli apologists regurgitate the lie that it was the Palestinians' own fault that their homes and land were stolen because "they decided to leave" as part of some sort of an organized Arab plan. This has been exposed as another Zionist propaganda lie decades ago. But even one of the premises of that propaganda is a lie. The premise is that Palestinians that did not leave and instead remained in what became Israel did not have their homes and land were stolen. This is a false premise and has been exposed as well:
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) The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg

From the excellent article Racists Feel “Intimidated” Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing at Columbia:

"Enter the “new anti-Semitism.” This doctrine turns reality on its head, declaring criticism of Israel’s racist behavior to be itself racist – “anti-Semitic.” Empathy for Palestinians being beaten, bullied, and bulldozed out of existence, the doctrine goes, is nothing but some disguised expression of Jew-hatred. Goose-stepping Germans and uprooted Palestinians are portrayed as part of the same unbroken line of anti-Semitism, even though those inhabiting concentration camps today – the largest ever to exist,” says Israeli historian Baruch Kimmerling - are the Palestinians themselves. (2) But no matter. Abusing the memory of Holocaust victims to shut down criticism of Israeli crimes – crimes unearthed mostly by Jewish historians - may be obscene, but it is also effective."

"For the next five months, Stewart must wear an electronic anklet so authorities can track her every move. She'll be allowed no alcohol, and can only leave for 48 hours, for so-called "gainful employment," reports CBS News Correspondent Joie Chen" - http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2005/03/04/national/main678022.shtml


"only"? I don't quible with the wording really, the amount of hours is really surprising. House arrest does not sound that bad at all. For many Americans 48 hours comes close to the amount of hours they are out of their house anyway.

I posted this over at a web site called "liberals against terrorism" They ask, What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist?

There is a short hand answer to what terrorism is:

If they attack us, it is terrorism.
If we attack them, it is not terrorism.

Most of the arguments about terrorism are simply arguments trying to conform with the above definition. Twisted logic is used because any honest definition of terrorism exposes the ugly reality of what "we" are doing. What must be avoided is any conclusion that exposes what "we" are doing is terrorism or what they are doing isn't terrorism. "Terrorism" and "terrorist" are politically charged words used for propaganda purposes, that is why it is so contentious. People defining the word "terrorism" know the goal is to conform to the short hand definition I mentioned above, the only question is what "reasoning" needs to be used to get there.

We all agree that ending the killing of civilians is our objective. It is time then to admit that saying you "had to" kill civilians does not change the facts on the ground. Facts that people have imposed on their lives and facts that result in the deaths of others. Saying that you "had to" kill civilians does not absolve you of the crime. I agree with the point that "Any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation" The UN definition is fine but it does mean that the US is engaging in terrorism.

I don't see how the the attacks on the Cole could be considered terrorism since civilians were not targeted at all. Also, not all of those that are fighting against the specific US foreign policies are willing to kill civilians nor do all of them approve of killing civilians. Mir Aimal Kasi went to the CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia and shot CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside in 1993. Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocents were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might. Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

Alison Weir exposes more of the media's game playing to serve the Israeli agenda:

(emphasis mine-Tom)
"The LA Times' notion of "relative calm"
Alison Weir, The Electronic Intifada, 25 February 2005 Alison Weir is Executive Director of If Americans Knew.

Well, I just got hung up on again. This time by an editor on the Los Angeles Times foreign desk. He didn't give me his name.

I had called and attempted, as politely as possible, to give him a correction for the story on the Times' website tonight. This will probably be their front-page lead news story tomorrow morning.

The trouble is, their headline and lead paragraph are just plain wrong. And now, of course, they'll stay wrong in the paper tomorrow.

The headline proclaims: "Palestinian Suicide bomber Shatters Calm of late." The lead sentence then goes on to state that this bomber "shattered a months-long period of relative calm..."

The fact is, however, that the truce and this "calm" were shattered long before this. The last suicide bombing against Israeli civilians was Nov. 1, 2004. It took three Israeli lives. Since that time, while Israelis have basked in "relative calm," 170 Palestinian men, women, and children have been killed.

During this LA Times' "relative calm," another 379 Palestinian men, women, and children were injured and maimed. Anyone who has been to the West Bank or Gaza knows what this means: leg bones splintered, intestines torn open, teeth shattered.

Also, of course, during this "calm" over 8,000 Palestinians have been sitting in Israeli prison cells, routinely abused and grotesquely humiliated; over 300 of them children.

None of this mattered to the editor I talked to. He explained that the story said relative calm. When I tried to question this adjective, he hung up the phone. So I guess I'll just have to explain this word for myself.

Maybe he means that relative to 7 Israeli deaths, 170 Palestinian deaths are insignificant. Maybe he means that relative to Israeli grief, Palestinian grief is basically unmentionable. Maybe he means that relative to the weeping of Israeli mothers and fathers, the weeping of Palestinian mothers and fathers - multitudes more of them - is negligible.

Maybe he means that relative to his power, my attempt to set the record straight is laughably feeble.

Over all, I guess what he means is relatively obvious:

That he can run what he wants, distort what he desires, lead with his lies. I guess he means that facts don't matter, truth is irrelevant, and deceit the order of the day.

I guess he means that Americans are pawns, readers are sheep, and people will just keep swallowing whatever the media choose to dish out.

I hope you'll tell him he's wrong: 800-528-4637 / readers.rep@latimes.com
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3638.shtml

This isn't the first time that the newspapers have distorted the basic facts about the Israel/Palestine conflict. see Anti-Zionist Notes
Courageous Journalist Alison Weir

You wrote,"Um, how about relying on a NEUTRAL investigative team before you accept the word of former Saddam administration officials. Who knows where his loyalties lie? "

That fact is that this is the current Iraqi government which was established under US influence.
The fact that these allegations have been made is a story in itself. that should be reported

It should have been reported as "Allegations made by ... etc." (the fact that this is what the Iraqi Health Ministry is reporting that the US has done these things is news itself. Any way you slice it, it is news in itself (unless you instictively serve state power and are want to sweep things under the rug)

The media is unwilling to report the allegations. You can make any excuse for why the allegations were made by the Iraqi Health Ministry but the fact that they have said these things is news in itself. Think about it. This is the problem with the people who have it in there heads that "the media is liberal" and "they would report things critical of the government". People who believe "the media is liberal" don't realize that what gets reported is selected and that there are things that the media decides not to report.

Your response ignores the fact that the Iraqi Health Ministrymade these allegations and that is news in and of itself. THINK. Are the allegations true or not? If not and things are made up by someone with "loyalties to Saddam" then that is news! Think about this, if you want to claim that someone in the new Iraqi government is fabricating war crimes against the US then can we say that US efforts to create a model of a desirable Middle East government have failed to some degree? It is a serious charge, ignoring that the charge has been made is not a valid response. (people wonder how crimes could< happen like this. It happens because when allegations are made, the media is UNWILLING OR RELUCTANT to report them.)

You wrote,"Try verifying with multiple sources BEFORE saying something is possible."

No, that would be going towards proving something happened, it is not necessary for saying something is possible. given the track record and the fact that the US possesses these weapons and has a history of using weapons like this is enough to give it some serious thought. apologists for state power are unwilling to do this.

The media has shown that it is not eager to report these things, first of all they would have to make an effort to try to find out things the military doesn't want known. Look at the fact that the allegations were made and yet mainstream media is unwilling to mention this allegation. The fact that Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli held a press conference in the Health Ministry building and reported that these things is news itself, why didn't mainstream media suits think so?

As far as reliable stories of war crimes, the US military concluded that they did occur with regard to Vietnam has the mainstream media made this clear? when we heard the constant bashing of Kerry about his testimony why didn't the mainstream media report that the US Army has verified ever single allegation that Kerry had listed. Everything that Kerry said the Vietnam Vets had told him turns out to have happened! "John Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers—not just a few "rogues"—were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics." - Nicholas Turse, "From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities" SEE LINK: villagevoice.com

WHY DIDN'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT THAT? Also see: Denying Facts and Mmbracing Myths

War Crimes:  Iraqi Medical Team Reports that US Forces used Poison Gas on Fallujah

(With the track record that US officials have, this should be seriously investigated.)
"Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli, a representative of the Iraqi Ministry of Health who was authorized to assess health conditions in al-Fallujah after the end of the major battles there, announced that the surveys and studies which a medical team did in al-Fallujah and subsequently reported to the Ministry confirm that US forces used substances that are internationally prohibited -- including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals -- in the course of its attacks on the city." Iraqi Health Ministry confirms use by American occupation forces of internationally prohibited weapons in its attacks on al-Fallujah Mafkarat al-Islam (David Irving's newsletter linked to the story and points out: Not in your local newspaper? Iraqi Health Ministry says American occupation forces used nerve gases and poison gases in attack on al-Fallujah )

"[The US government] has been compelled to accept elections, to accept the defeat of its chosen favorite, to allow Iraqis to write a constitution. The state of the outrageous and illegal economic conditions imposed by the CPA is uncertain. A leading plank of the winning Shi’ite alliance was a timetable for withdrawal of the US-UK forces. Both Washington and London flatly refuse, and the US has already announced that its forces will stay into 2007. The elected leadership is under plenty of pressure to accept what the Wall St Journal calls “vague promises” of eventual withdrawal. But it’s uncertain whether the US can sustain it’s long-term plan to keep Iraq under US military control, by means of a dependable client state.

The main factor that has caused the US to back down is mass non-violent resistance, including huge demonstrations, Sistani fatwas, etc. It should be regarded as a triumph of non-violence, I think. The “insurgents” are not a major problem for US planners. The US has such overwhelming reserves of violence that in that arena it will never have much trouble. But nonviolent resistance is a different matter." - Noam Chomsky Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

No shame at all

Dirty and dishonest, the agenda Bush serves does it again.

"some of the Republicans behind the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that challenged the war record of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry are now targeting AARP, an advocacy group for people age 50 and older, for opposing President Bush's plan for Social Security reform.
The group, called USA Next, claims AARP's real agenda is anti-military and pro-gay marriage. An Internet ad featuring such claims was the opening salvo in a $10 million campaign to support Bush's policy and discredit its opponents."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=539132&page=1
http://www.socsec.org/

America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy Of American Nationalism

"On the Middle East, both of the American parties are, frankly, crippled above all by their inability to confront the question of America's relationship with Israel. Indeed not just to confront it, but even to mention it, as we saw in the presidential debate." - Anatol Lieven see Interview with AsiaSource. Mr Lieven addresses the urgent foreign policy issues confronting the United States

American lives have been lost for this shit: Israel 'To Build More Than 6,000 West Bank Homes' (and we will lose more American lives because of this extremist agenda)
Israel planinng more than 6,000 new homes in West Bank

"The Israeli government is planning to build more than 6,000 new homes in the West Bank this year, and to legitimize some 120 illegal outposts, the Yediot Ahronot daily reported Friday, citing the Israel Land Administration's 2005 working plan." -AP

Note that the AP takes the Israeli viewpoint! The fact that Israel's actions are illegal is not reported. You may argue that the news doesn't report on whether something is illegal or not. But this is not the case! Look at the story, it mentions "120 illegal outpost." The article says "illegal" but "illegal" according to who? Illegal according to the Israeli government which likes to determine what settlements can be set up in the West Bank and those not authorized by the Israeli government are "illegal" according to Israel. But the fact is ALL the settlements are illegal according to International Law, regardless of if Israel "legitimizes" them or not. The AP article omits this fact and distorts what is legal and illegal. The AP article is written conforming to an Israeli government agenda. The settlements are illegal regardless of what the Israeli government says.

does the President support efforts to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount?

White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan
Tuesday, February 1, 2005 12:15 PM
Mokhiber: Scott, on the Middle East - many evangelical Christians in the United States are supporting right-wing Jews in Israel who want to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They (Evangelical Christians) believe this is a prerequisite for Christ's return to earth.

They believe that when Christ returns to earth - they call this the rapture - he will take back with him the true believers. And the rest - the non believers - Jews, Muslims - will be left behind to face a violent death here on earth.

My question is, as a born again Christian, does the President support efforts to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount?

Scott McLellan: Russ, we can sit here and talk about religious issues. I will be glad to take your question, and if there is more, I will get back to you on that.

Mokhiber: Is he a born again Christian?

Scott McLellan: Thank you. (McLellan abruptly ends the press briefing and walks out.)
http://www.commondreams.org/scottie/120604.htm

You wrote, "I respectfully disagree with you based on historical precedent and common sense. Whenever anyone has ever capitulated to terrorist demands, the terrorist demands *increase*."

WHAT "historical precedent"?!? The facts of history prove that when legitimate grievances are addressed that the terrorist violence stops. Look at South Africa. THe US called Mendela and his group terrorists.

The bottom line is that wrongs must be stopped. Two wrongs don't make a right. What the terrorists did on 9/11 was wrong but that doesn't make what the US has been doing right!!

Terrorists like Nat Turner attacked and killed whites, that didn't make slavery OK. Can you get that? And ending slavery DID end that terrorism.

the bottom line is you are trying to shield specific foreign policies form being debated and changed.

Our lives are not only on the line, the ugly fact is our lives are on the line for horrible and unjust and immoral policies. That really makes it doubly horrifically sad. Stop trying to dupe the victims and targets of terrorism into risking their lives further over policies that are wrong.

What you are doing is devious and wrong. We Americans do not deserve to be treated the way you are treating us. http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

Z Magazine

If you are interested in examples of censorship regarding Israel, the following books are recommended. See this page:
Killed, Censored 2005, Tell Me Lies

You wrote, " NO.. I want to save my own money. I want out of the system. I will take responsibility for my own future, thank you.
Why can't I have it? And why should my taxes go up to fund it? Screw everyone, it is my money and I want to do with it what I want, whether bonds or stocks or widget futures. Cut me off now. They did it in a town in Texas and it works. They did it in Chile and it works. Now do it here. "

look you selfish creep, we have a society and we intend on having a decent and just society. We are not going to dismantle society because you are greedy (one of the seven deadly sins but that is forgotten by many.). Seems many of the loudest mouths talking about "morals" have a "screw everyone" attitude. Truly disgusting and anti-social. You have problems.

The bottom line is a human society should consist of people participating decently and morally. As a good people we want a fair society that isn't callous and shitty. "Screw everyone" is an extremely ugly attitude.
"They did it in Chile and it works." What the hell is wrong with you?

BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | January 27, 2005, Thursday

Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall In Private Plan

By LARRY ROHTER (NYT) 2142 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 2

"Chileans find that pension privatization plan launched 25 years ago, which Pres Bush has cited as model for his plans to overhaul Social Security, is falling far short of what was originally advertised under authoritarian government of Gen Augusto Pinochet; under program, millions of people have been paying 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they control; many lower-paid workers' contributions were not large enough to ensure even minimum pension of $140 a month; others--those working in underground economy, self-employed or working only seasonally--remain outside system altogether; even middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts--burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as third of their original investment--are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received under old system; government continues to direct billions of dollars to safety net for those whose pensions are below minimum" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A13FC3C5F0C748EDDA80894DD404482

It is only our "democracy"

Prominent Statisticians Refute 'Explanation' of 2004 U.S. Exit Poll Discrepancies by uscountvotes.org
February 01, 2005

http://www.uscountvotes.org

Press Release:

Monday, January 31, 2005

Prominent Statisticians Refute 'Explanation' of 2004 U.S. Exit Poll Discrepancies in New Edison/Mitofsky Report and Urge Investigation of U.S. Presidential Election Results


President Bush won November's election by 2.5% yet exit polls showed Kerry leading by 3%. Which was correct?


"There are statistical indications that a systematic, nationwide shift of 5.5% of the vote may have occurred, and that we'll never get to the bottom of this, unless we gather the data we need for mathematical analysis and open, robust scientific debate.", says Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes' Vice President.


The study, "Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report," was co-authored by a diverse group of professors and academicians specializing in statistics and mathematics affiliated with University of Notre Dame, Unversity of Pennsylvania, University of Utah, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, Southern Methodist University, Case Western Reserve University and Temple University. Their study does not support claims made by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International that exit poll errors were to blame for the unprecedented 5.5% discrepancy between exit polls and official 2004 election results.


According to this analysis by a group of senior statisticians, the new data just released by the exit-pollsters shows that the possibility that the overall vote count was substantially corrupted must be taken seriously. "Now we have statistical evidence that these reports were the tip of a national iceberg. The hypothesis that the discrepancy between the exit polls and election results is due to errors in the official election tally is a coherent theory that must be explored," said statistician Josh Mitteldorf.


Their paper titled "Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report" notes that the Edison/Mitofsky report offers no evidence to support their conclusion that Kerry voters "participated in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters". In fact, the data provided in the Edison/Mitofsky report suggests that the opposite may have been true: Bush strongholds had slightly higher response rates than Kerry strongholds.


The statisticians go on to note that precincts with hand-counted paper ballots showed no statistical discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results, but for other voting technologies, the overall discrepancy was far larger than the polls' margin of error. The pollsters at Edison/Mitofsky agreed that their 2004 exit polls, for


whatever reason, had the poorest accuracy in at least twenty years.


USCountVotes, a nonprofit, non-partisan Utah corporation was founded in December 2004. Its mission is to create and analyze a database containing precinct-level election results for the entire United States; to do a thorough mathematical analysis of the 2004 election results; and to fully investigate the 2004 Presidential election results.


USCountVotes actively seeks volunteers and accepts donations to help make this unprecedented civic project a reality – visit uscountvotes.org

Who replaces FCC's Powell? It's up to

Michael Powell is quitting. Good riddance. I just sent a letter to President Bush, asking him to appoint a new chairperson who will represent the public interest, not just corporate moguls. It only takes a few minutes. You should send one, too. Go to newFCCchair
Add this to your email:
Please add a fee based on revenue to broadcast licences. Please shut down VOA and use the money towards a Fair Media. http://www.FairMedia.org

1932066047 The Benefits of Full Employment: When Markets Work for People

Buy
The Benefits of Full Employment

with Amazon

or

Buy The Benefits of Full Employment

with Powell's

Too Late for Regrets

Rice Lies

Rice is at it again. She lied about the insurgents' motives. Keerry pointed out that the US hasn't paid the former employees of the Iraqi government and that they are angry and part of the insurgenscy. Rice lied when she claimed that the insurgesnts are not attacking because they didn't get the money ( money that the US had promised to give)

A few web pages have been updated:
The promotional Items now have their own graphic and it is not linked to the Representative Press Cafe Press Shop Promote the Truth
Get the word out to your fellow citizens.
This is one of the pages that has been updated: Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives Why Lie

Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq by David Miller (Editor) Contributors include John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Edward Herman, Mark Thomas, Mark Steel, Phillip Knightley, Tim Llewelyn (BBC Middle East Correspondent), Abdul Hadi Jiad (Iraqi journalist sacked by the BBC before the war), David Cromwell and David Edwards (Media Lens), Mark Curtis, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (PR Watch, and co-authors of Weapons of Mass Deception and Toxic Sludge is Good For You), Pat Holland, Norman Solomon (columnist and director of the Institute for Public Accuracy), Nancy Snow (California State University, Fullerton, author of Propaganda Inc. and Information War), Doug Kellner (UCLA), Julian Petley, Yvonne Ridley (Aljazeera.net and author of In the Hands of the Taliban), Tim Gopsill (Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom), Faisal Bodi (UK Guardian, Aljazeera.net), Alistair Alexander (Stop the War Coalition), Greg Philo (Glasgow University Media Group), Steve Dorrill, Andy Rowell, Granville Williams and cartoonists Steve Bell, Steve Caplin and Polyp.

Rich writes, "but I can't help but wonder who the ACLU would have sided with had the Tshirt said "I'm Christian and I'm proud.""

For God sakes Rich, could you make an effort to examine your assumptions?

It literally took me 5 seconds to find this: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

Why in the world would you have something against a group that fights for citizens' civil rights?

The Smoke Eater asks, "How is is possible that if ALL LIFE came from the same single celled organism, and started at the same time, that humans have evolved so far and dogs haven't? "

Evolution doesn't actually mean that things get "more advanced", it really means that things change. Changes that increase the likelihood that a living thing will survive to create another generation is what evolution is about. Dogs can have puppies, they aren't going to just disappear automatically. If a particular dog gains a characteristic, it doesn't automatically mean that other dogs suddenly die out or even slowly die out. The others will live as long as they are able to survive and have offspring.

"Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency." What is evolution?

The media didn't make this clear although the AP sent it out: "No Alabama Air National Guard records have surfaced showing Bush did any duty there. Former commanders and other members of the 187th in 1972 and 1973 say they don't remember ever seeing Bush there"

Didn't you notice the supposedly "liberal" media didn't make this clear to the public? As far as the memos, the content did check out. Many of the claims about why the memoes were fake turned out to be wrong, including claims that the "th" superscript did not exist. The bottom line was Bush didn't show up when he did and others confirm that the content of the memoes is acurate.

You seem to think the media is "liberal". Here are two examples that should make you rethink your simplistic world view.

The "liberal" media Violating International Law refused to report the war was illegal nd they no fly zones played along with the "no fly zones" there-is-big-problem don't assume the media "would tell you" about things like this CBS Bush documents Media Should Have Probed Bigger Questions About Bush's Record

This link goes into detail: mediamatters.org "Media Matters has extensively documented the substantial and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical for as-yet-unexplained reasons, that he was grounded from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge anyway."

Rich,
Are you ever going to get around to addressing the serious points that I raised? Anyone can cover their ears and scream or run away when confronted with facts they don't like, it takes character to question what you assume and to examine what you think you know. Instead of running off on a new topic, why not at least try to understand the issues already raised? Issues that are a matter of life and death. comments

As far as evolution, I think you have fallen for the theory vs fact canard. Creationists play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory".

"...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." Evolution as Fact and Theory

Anonymous libels, "Tom your anti-semitism is showing."

Typical tactic directed at those pointing out the truth. You should be ashamed at yourself.

Anonymous plays games and asks, "What exactly does Israel have to do with ..."

Who the hell mentioned most of the things you listed?

Anonymous claims, "in Laden in his 98 Fatwa ... LIED. And said that Clinton supported the Serbians in killing Muslims."

No he didn't, you are the liar. Readers here can ascertain for themselves who the liar is by checking the source. Check the 1998 Fatwa and see if "Anonymous" is lying or telling the truth. (he is lying but check for yourself)
Readers may be shocked that people like "Anonymous" have the chutzpah to lie as they do but sadly this is how it is. As the Israeli Professor Tanya Reinhart has written, “It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have been the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians from the start.”

As far as the ugly tactic of libeling people "anti-Semitic" who tell the truth about issues related to Israel, I point to Shulamit Aloni, former Knesset member to explain what that tactic is about: "well it is a trick, we always use it"

And Anonymous' claim that the US has "pushed for peace between the Palestinians and Israel" is disgusting. The US has blocked peace and has vetoed peace agreements for decades. I can see why many readers would find this difficult to believe because these facts get suppressed in the US. To give one example, the 1976 peace offer, backed by virtually the entire world and accepted by the Palestinians. "It was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from history." Powerful interests can suppress major facts in order to distort the history.

MEMRI is a Zionist front group. For example it pushed a bullshit translation of one of bin Laden's latest speeches in order to serve their agenda. (MEMRI wanted you to believe that bin Laden was talking about individual states of the United States!! Come on!)newshoundss-article

What Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others want has been made crystal clear. Don't give me this bullshit about what they say in private. The US has supported outrageous crimes against the people in the Middle East. Bush and others are lying about why we were attacked. When Tenet and others quote the 1998 Fatwa they omit the key part in order to suppress the motives" THIS PART: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." That is the motives OK? NOT "in order to establish an "Islamic world"". LOOK at the fact that US officials omit the part of the sentence that mentions motives, they are manipulating the American public because they serve agendas that don't want to change the policies in the Middle East. What do Jihadists say to recruit others? They don't say "do you want to set up an "Islamic world?"" what they say is "do you want to do something about the injustices that America has caused?" Look:

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

I'm tired of jihadists who have determined that this world is not big enough for them and me

Please! Rich, please consider researching the facts and challenging your assumptions. The jihadists have made it crystal clear that they object to specific foreign policies. This is not about the world being big enough for them and you.

I lived in NYC on 9/11 and my sister was way too close for comfort to the WTC. When I heard about the attack I knew instantly what it was about since knew the background and had been expecting an attack for years. This post is relevant: dear Josef keeping open dialog is good Please read over my web page and blog, I have posted a lot of facts that I have researched.

Sean,

The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" is diplomatic language for authorizing use of force. Those were the words used in UN Resolution 678 which did authorize war. The words were intentionally removed from the 1441 draft because Security Council members France and Russia did not want to authorize war. It is a shame that I have to do the research for you. The above facts wEre enough for you to do your own follow up if you really thought it was necessary. Read this: Law Unto Themselves and this: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 Does Not Authorize Force

Kevin writes, "You're splitting hairs and you know it. "

Kevin, I am not splitting hairs at all. These facts are glaringly obvious to anyone that takes an honest look at them.

Kevin writes, "For 12 years the UN sat on its hands while reaping millions of dollars in pay-offs for the oil-for-food program."

The oil for food program wasn't even in existence for 12 years. This is the problem with mainstream media and the general public's ignorance. It is extremely tedious to have to explain every single point to people unaware that that they don't know what they are talking about. The oil for food program was set up after 500,000 children had already died under sanctions. Children's deaths that Madeleine Albright thought were "worth it." The deaths and misery caused by the sanctions is one of the reasons bin Ladin is angry with the US.

The oil for food program was set up in late 1996. And UN oil-for-food blame is shared

By the way, the US violated International law every step of the way during the last 12 years. To suggest that the US was upholding the law is grotesque.
From the illegal no fly zones to violating the very premise of the UN sanctions! "While the sanctions were supposed to be removed when Iraq disarmed, both the Bush I and Clinton administrations repeatedly said we would not allow them to be lifted until Saddam was ousted, whether or not Iraq disarmed." That undermines the entire thing!!!!!! You can't possible think what the US has done is on the level. And by the way, how did the Ba'ath party get into power in the first place? Notice mainstream media was unwilling to report this?

Updating the T-Shirts I only make 50 cents on the shirts, the rst goes to CafePress. I just want to get the word out

Basic morality and rule of law have been violated by Bush.

In all seriousness, Rich, have you been made aware of basic facts surrounding the war on Iraq?
As a soldier you swore to uphold the Constitution. I would hope that you took that oath sincerely and take it seriously. Unfortunately I think you have been duped into betraying your oath. The cowards way out is to dismiss what I am saying without giving it thought. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and we are supposed to be as good as our word. There are creeps in the media (like Doug Harper) who lie to the public. I think you are a victim of these liars.
Please see Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law and The Iraq War was Illegal Mr. Kamm

Sean said...
"Let's see if I have this straight. As an example I'll say:
I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat and get some facts there, Tom. See, now that was the kind of judgment that Jesus doesn't want us to make. I did not simply disagree with Tom, I denigrated his intelligence by implying he wears a tinfoil hat - which is a common insult meaning the wearer suffers from serious delusions bordering on insanity. However accurate that description may be, it is wrong. That is where absolute morals come in. Because God says "judge not lest ye be judged", we know the hard and fast rule against judging other people - which is not the same as opining on their arguments. However, without God telling me that, I can say "judge not lest ye be judged" is simply a flawed argument. Once I declare my hostility to the directive I can go on and call Tom a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon because I am not bound by another person's flawed argument or assertion. But God has given me that directive against judging, so calling Tom a tinfoil-hat-wearing-loon would be wrong. So I won't do it. I'll simply disagree with his arguments and point out they are fatally flawed by the simple fact that the U.N. had itself threatened "serious consequences" for violations by Iraq of numerous Resolutions. Given 12 years of sanctions, there can only be one definition of "serious consequences" - yep, you guessed it. A curfew and no television for a month. No silly, that was a joke - military intervention is the only "serious consequence" available to the U.N. and the U.S.

My reply to Sean:

You said, " I'll simply disagree with his arguments and point out they are fatally flawed by the simple fact that the U.N. had itself threatened "serious consequences" for violations by Iraq of numerous Resolutions. Given 12 years of sanctions, there can only be one definition of "serious consequences" - yep, you guessed it."

Sean, you should spend less time being a wiseass and more time educating yourself about facts which you are ignorant of. The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" was the wording used in UN Resolution 678 that authorized the Gulf War. The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" was removed from the first draft of UN Resolution 1441 so that it would not be an automatic authorization for war. The words "all necessary means" were replaced "with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation"" Resolution 1441 was written without the wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" (which is diplomatic language for authorizing use of force) so that it would not be an authorization for war. UN Resolution 1441 not a call for war

There is a big problem with many people who are so ignorant that they don't understand basics about current event. They sit in front of their TVs assuming that the media "would tell them" what they need to know.

The bottom line is the media hasn't been hard on Bush, in fact they have allowed him to get away with being AWOL by not reporting the basic facts or underreporting them.

For the guy under the delusion that there is evidence that Bush showed up when he was supposed to, wake up and smell the coffee:

No Alabama Air National Guard records have surfaced showing Bush did any duty there. Former commanders and other members of the 187th in 1972 and 1973 say they don't remember ever seeing Bush there. AP reports on Bush's record

Bush was AWOL

ANd like I said, many people are ignorant about the basics: No Fly Zones

The US attacked Iraq because Saddam might have given WMD to terrorists?
Such a pathetic excuse to start a war. What specious logic. Nazis were hung for doing the exact same thing. A "dagger pointed at the heart of Germany" or a "madman might give WMD to terrorists", what is the difference? Nazis hung for starting a war "to protect themselves" and US leaders are not?

Beheadings.

I am watching the History Channel and they just said that the order to deliver bin Laden's head on a silver plater was taken literally. Dry ice was ordered in order to deliver the actual head to the White House.

"One scene reveals a previously unreported fact. Before the first CIA team of secret paramilitary soldiers was sent into Afghanistan, Bush signed an intelligence order on Sept. 17, 2001, authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden and al Quaeda leaders.
Cofer Black, head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, tasked the team leader, identified only as "Gary" by Woodward, with very direct orders. "Go and find the al Quaeda and kill them. We're going to eliminate them. Get bin Laden, find him. I want his head in a box."
Gary asked Black, "You're serious?" Black responded, "Absolutely," repeating that he wanted bin Laden's head in a box. "I want to take it down and show the president."
The CIA team took Black's order literally, and after landing, Gary sent back a cable to request these items: "heavy-duty cardboard boxes and dry ice, and if possible some pikes."

Remember that many in the US love to point to the beheadings in Iraq as evidence of their savagery. What does that make us? 'Bush at War' reveals a young President's passion

Israel welcomes Germany's plan to limit Jewish immigration

 
Israel welcomes Germany's plan to limit Jewish immigration 
BERLIN, Jan. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- Israeli Ambassador to Germany ShimonStein on Friday welcomed the German government's plan to limit Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union.

    Israel holds there could not be any true Jewish refugees because Israel was the homeland of all Jews, German News Agency DPA quoted Stein as saying.

    The German government's move to restrict Jewish immigrants conforms to Israel's view, Stein said.

    Israel complained that Germany's virtually unrestricted Jewish immigration regulation has attracted many Jews to settle in Germany instead of Israel.

    The German government is seeking to draw up new rules over Jewish immigrants with Germany's 16 federal states and the country's Jewish groups.

    German Interior Minister Otto Schily earlier pledged to consultthe Central Council of Jews in Germany (CCJ), which opposes the change of the rules, in this regard.

    The interior ministry said some 190,000 Jews have settled in Germany from former Soviet Union since a regulation encouraging Jews in former Soviet Union to move to Germany took effect in 1991.

    The government is considering changing rules for Jewish immigrants as it has proven difficult to integrate some of the Jewish immigrants.

A Columbia professor writes this?!?: “Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned. Get the hell out of America. You are a disgrace and a pathetic typical Arab liar.”

The Columbia professor sent the letter to Joseph Massad who is also a professor at Columbia.

A propaganda film put out by the David Project smears critics of Israel. But the Jewish Week article "Controversial Film Roils Columbia" in researching the claims made in the David Project's film wrote, "a much different picture emerges than the one seemingly portrayed on screen"

Pressure Tactics, Intimidation

Statement in Response to the Intimidation of Columbia University
"The major strategy that these pro-Israel groups use is one that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. But the claim that criticism of Israel is an expression of anti-Semitism presupposes that Israeli actions are “Jewish” actions and that all Jews, whether Israelis or non-Israelis (and the majority of world Jews are not Israelis), are responsible for all Israeli actions and that they all have the same opinion of Israel. But this is utter anti-Semitic nonsense. Jews, whether in America, Europe, Israel, Russia, or Argentina, are, like all other groups, not uniform in their political or social opinions. There are many Israeli Jews who are critical of Israel just as there are American Jews who criticize Israeli policy. I have always made a distinction between Jews, Israelis, and Zionists in my writings and my lectures. It is those who want to claim that Jews, Israelis, and Zionists are one group (and that they think exactly alike) who are the anti-Semites. Israel in fact has no legal, moral, or political basis to represent world Jews (ten million strong) who never elected it to that position and who refuse to move to that country. "

Well Said

"Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy."
Post 9/11 Conspiracism (Democracy Now folowup)

Post 9/11 Conspiracism

dubious claims made in the book "The New Pearl Harbor"

Chip Berlet's Review of "The New Pearl Harbor"
The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks
Transcript of the the Democracy Now Program of May 25, 2004 on claims in the Griffin Book, both David Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet debate

Help Representative Press get the word out: PLEASE DONATE

I put what I think are the top three books to read on Israel and the Palestine on the new web page:Recommended Books on Israel and Palestine

Here is the first one:



The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East by David Hirst


Visit Recommended Books on Israel and Palestine to see the others.

I started to work on the The History of Israel and Palestine page. Clearly there is a need for a detailed history. I am working on the page now and will be adding to it in the coming weeks. Check it out: The History of Israel and Palestine

Steven, By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had already stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, "Israel" was attacked by its neighbors. What the Zionists had done was an attack and it came first. (from my older page on some of the background History of Israel )