GOOD example someone posted: 3) I highly doubt France's high-speed train system is "economical"; more likely, France loses money on it. There is one thing, however, we can learn from France and that is to build more nuclear reactors. I say: Correct. But roads in the US aren't 'economical' either. The government 'loses' money on them to the tune of 80 Billion (Billion!) each year. " This is a thing many indoctrinated in the capitalist myth simply do not internalize. There are interests that use public money all the time. The thing we are sold over and over again is the "efficiency" of the private sector. The reality of how much public money is pumped into that to keep it afloat is beyond the comprehension of many Americans. And the truth is huge parts of the private sector simply could not work without the propping up of public money.
you wrote, "Don't start sucking your own dick just yet. Capitalism is no myth. There is no free lunch in this world. The OP falsely claimed that France's trains were "economical"; you are free to claim that they need not be economical, but a price has to be paid for them, and it has."
You are really brainwashed. The point is that you are not counting all the costs when you look at the "capitalist" system. What you do is not count all the costs so you can deny top yourself that public money is propping up this or that system. And you are not counting the down side costs of pollution and traffic accidents. Are this costs figured into your efficiency model of car driving?
The person said the train was ec·o·nom·i·cal: Prudent and thrifty in management; not wasteful or extravagant.
This is true. You tried to say that you "doubt France's high-speed train system is "economical"; more likely, France loses money on it." but you missed the person's point that when you look at cars as transportation you leave out some of the costs. The person pointed out that our government "loses money" with the highways, you ignored that point. You must since you bought into the Capitalist myth. A true capitalist system collapses, what we have is state-capitalism with massive subsidies to the private sector and the government and the people bearing costs that you overlook.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
"V the K" mocks, "Nothing wrong with equating uncomfortable air conditioning with genocide"
The document said that detainees were left for 24 hours “chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water,” "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more." The memo further described a prisoner left overnight in an “unbearably hot,” unventilated room. “The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night,” the FBI reported.
rmc complains "NOTHING in the above paragraph compares to the horrors of the Holocaust, the gulags or the Pol Pot regime."
Mrc,
You are either dishonest or you need a class in logic 101. Guys like you really damage public discourse when you misrepresent what someone has said. You keep jumping to the Holocaust, and other specifics. What Durbin said EXPLICITLY and SPECIFICALLY was "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control" , "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings.”
And Nazis and Soviets and others have done the same kind of things, not everything done by a Nazi was out and out gas chamber just as not every crime done by an American is out and out mass incineration of tens of thousands of civilians. If you heard about horrible things being done, and Nazis and others have done horrible things to different degrees (not exclusively gassing), then you might assume that the horrible things were done by Nazis or some other oppressors.
There isn't anything unclear with what Durbin said. It is manipulative and dishonest to read into it and insist that only your illogical interpretation is correct and that therefore Durbin has committed an "offense". This is the ugliest of political games playing and it is simply dirty and dishonest tricks.
FBI Agent Corroborates Stories Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Told
"Another detainee, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi of Sudan, an alleged paymaster for al Qaeda, has claimed in court documents that Guantanamo Bay interrogators wrapped prisoners in an Israeli flag." An FBI agent witnessed seeing exactly that, a prisoner wrapped an Israeli flag an ISraeli flag: "In an Aug. 16 e-mail, an FBI agent reported observing a detainee sitting in an interview room "with an Israeli flag draped around him, loud music being played and a strobe light flashing."
"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004, for example. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more." "
Further Detainee Abuse Alleged Guantanamo Prison Cited in FBI Memos By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25962-2004Dec25.html
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
His name is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his motivation for the crime of the 9/11 attacks was his objection to the US foreign policy of supporting Israel said the final report of the Sept. 11 Commission.
"After he was captured in Pakistan in early 2003, he told his interrogators that although he had developed no special complaint about America in his years here, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ] felt strongly that U.S. support of Israel was wrong and could be corrected by attacking the United States,"" reports Los Angeles Times writer Terry McDermott.*
"... in an early version of the Sept. 11 plot, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ] proposed flying one of the hijacked planes himself, landing it in the United States and, after killing all the men aboard, making a speech urging America to change its Middle East policies."
9/11 Motives shared by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who thought up the idea and directed the plan for the 9/11 attacks, and Mohamed Atta, the man who was the ring leader of the teams that committed the 9/11 terrorists attacks.
The ring leader of the September 11th suicide hijackers also held the same grievance. Mohamed Atta coordinated the other 9/11 terrorists and he was a pilot who flew into the WTC. Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta, is quoted as describing Mohamed Atta as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
The two terrorist pilots who crashed the two planes into the WTC shared the same motivation. Mohamed Atta was the pilot who crashed into WTC1 and Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted,"How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"" - page 162 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
This motive is shared by the terrorists who first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. The terrorists sent a letter to the New York Times after attacking 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."
That 1993 attack was led by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. Inspired by the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers, Mohammed later allied with Ramzi Ahmed Yousef "in a plan to blow up as many as a dozen American airliners over the Pacific Ocean." 1 That plan was never successfully executed but Mohammed then conceived of using Airliners to attack targets in the US. "It was then that he sought to interest Bin Laden in an operation to attack the United States from the air." 2
"Bin Laden approved funding for Mohammed's plot in late 1998 or early 1999." "In an early version of the Sept. 11 plot, Mohammed proposed flying one of the hijacked planes himself, landing it in the United States and, after killing all the men aboard, making a speech urging America to change its Middle East policies. Bin Laden eliminated that flourish from the attack plan." 3 Bin Laden no doubt assumed that the public declarations of war that he made more than once demanding that America change its Middle East policies had made it crystal clear why the attacks were being made. "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999
After the 9/11 attack, bin Laden once again made a statement to make the motive clear: "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
Bin Laden had underestimated the power of special interests to deceive large numbers of the America public about why the US was being attacked. After the lies that Bush and others told about why America was being attacked, bin Laden once again made an attempt to make the motives clear by pointing out that Bush is hiding the truth: "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
1 New Plot Details Emerge, By Terry McDermott, LAT July 23, 2004* 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.
* When reporting on the September 11th Commission's report, only the Lexington Herald-Leader dared go with a headline that reflected the main point: the motives for the crime:"U.S. policy on Israel key motive"When Terry McDermott's Jul 23, 2004 article was published in the LA Times, it didn't have the headline "U.S. policy on Israel key motive".
Suppressing the Motives for the 9/11 Attack is Disgraceful. We need funds to promote the truth. Please Click on the Link and Donate so We Can Free Ourselves from this Hell. Please Donate to Representative Press with Amazon.
US reporters are not reporting these things, there were reporters in the room, I haven't seen any reports about this question being raised. Please Donate and give us the power to fight for the truth. http://tinyurl.com/o2ph2 U.S. Policy On Israel Key Motive for 9/11 Attacks
We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices
"Muslims do not hate our freedoms, but rather they hate our policies," a September 2004 report from the Defense Science Board on Strategic Communications concluded.
"Among the policies that Muslims resent, it added, are what they see as "one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights" and long-standing support for what Muslims "collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.""
The Defense Science Board on Strategic Communications is a 40-member task force made up of diplomatic, military, academic and business experts, which advises the Pentagon on policy matters related to defense.
"Furthermore, the advisory group said when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, it is seen as "no more than self-serving hypocrisy" in the United States' national interest and "patronizing ... at the expense of Muslim self-determination."" Iraqis Hate U.S. Policies, Not Freedom
Also, the final report of the Sept. 11 commission, issued in July 2004, concluded that U.S. policy supporting Israel was a key motive for the 9/11 attacks. "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."
When reporting on the September 11th Commission's report, only the Lexington Herald-Leader dared go with a headline that reflected the main point: the motives for the crime:"U.S. policy on Israel key motive" When Terry McDermott's Jul 23, 2004 article was published in the LA Times, it didn't have the headline "U.S. policy on Israel key motive".
Terry McDermott writes in his article "New Plot Details Emerge Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lacked the resources, so he took his plan to Bin Laden.", Mohammed was born in Kuwait to parents who had emigrated from Baluchistan, a sprawling, rugged region that lies across the intersection of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. He came to the United States for college, earning an engineering degree from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in 1986. After he was captured in Pakistan in early 2003, he told his interrogators that although he had developed no special complaint about America in his years here, he felt strongly that U.S. support of Israel was wrong and could be corrected by attacking the United States."
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived the initial outline of the attack six years before its execution and brought the plan to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden because he thought he did not have the resources to carry it out on his own.
The Sept. 11 report ... adds fresh details about the people who conceived and executed it.
The report contains the fullest accounting of [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed's overarching role from original conception to supervision of details."
"... in an early version of the Sept. 11 plot, he [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed] proposed flying one of the hijacked planes himself, landing it in the United States and, after killing all the men aboard, making a speech urging America to change its Middle East policies. Bin Laden eliminated that flourish from the attack plan."
And the ring leader of the September 11th suicide hijackers also held the same grievance. Mohamed Atta coordinated the other 9/11 terrorists and he was a pilot who flew into the WTC. Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta, is quoted as describing Mohamed Atta as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [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." These three grievances are the motives listed in the 1998 Fatwa for al-Qaeda's attacks:
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
3. U.S. support of Israel.
see 1998 Fatwanote that I point out that the WHY is suppressed and I expose a specific example (see the1998 Fatwa link!)
"If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC), is quoted as describing Mohamed Atta as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might.
A deceitful person responded to this info with this: "Gawd, I can't keep track of these Jew hater's positions. The other says Al-Quaeda attacked us, but only because we support Israel. Both blame the Jews. ... that's part of the Anti-Semitism disease. "
What you are doing is unacceptable. You should not be allowed to post libel against those that post the truth. The fact is the motives for the 9/11 attack are straight forward. Even when referring to the motives you refuse to be honest. I did not say we were attacked by al-Qeada "only because we support Israel", I listed all the motives, US support of Israel is half of the reason. You are a dishonest person and you engage in ugly practice of libel in order to suppress the facts about why we were attacked. You really ought to stop wronging other Americans in order to serve the interests of a foreign nation. People need to flag your post, libel is not free speech. See: The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
Someone responded to me with,, What a cheezy SPAM that was. They're selling anti FOX anti-Bush propaganda.
Holy crap, you are sad. It had nothing to do with Bush you fool. What it had to do with is a coroporation bowing to pressure not to report harmfull heath effects of a drug injected into cows. We drink milk that is getting contaminated.
Someone responded to me with, "Never heard of those two losers who Fox Fired. Don't care."
You are dumb as shit. "never heard of them" and yet you won't look into it. It is an issue that impacts all of us, why don't you make an effort you clown? ANd why the hell are you calling them "losers"? This warning is "for anyone who drinks milk or consumes other dairy products…and depends on the news media to report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly. " NEWS OF LAWSUIT EXPOSING MEDIA COVERUP OF SUSPECTED DANGER IN MILK
What happends to a good reporter at Fox? They get fired. Read about Jane Akre, Whistle-blowing Fox reporter and Steve Wilson, Whistle-blowing, fired Fox reporter Monsanto and Fox: Partners in Censorship After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... courts later reversed the jury ruling and basically said that network news can lie, can insist that their reporters lie, and that they can get away with it.
Why the hell don't you take the chip off ypour shoulder ans start acting like a thinking human being?
Friday, June 17, 2005
Buy the movie The Corporation if you want to see exactly how reporters were pressured to present lies as news or to not report it at all
The MSM is really reluctant to deal with the "Downing Street Memo," and some reporters go as far as saying Downing Street Memo Activists are "Wing Nuts," "Paranoid" Read the article: "Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley opted for sarcasm over serious discussion." (this is the newspaper you guys scream has a "liberal bias")
Read Kinsley's excuses! The MSM doesn't want to cover this story. Explain why the "liberal media" must be pushed so hard to cover this. And you guys never explained why the MSM worked so hard to sell the war.
"The "Downing Street Memo" drum beat is starting to echo outside the blogosphere. As media coverage ticks up, House Dems held a forum to demand more information from the White House on the decision to go to war. " -from AOL News Blogzone "Renewed War Debate Centers Around British Minutes" Why is it MSM must be pushed to cover this story? Why does it have to "tick up"? Why wasn't it big when it was uncovered, why has the MSM been dragging their feet? PDA Supports Conyers Hearing, Rally on Downing Street Memo Why are media talking heads talking nonsense to get out of covering it? Thy say crap like, "this is not new". We heard about Clinton's oral sex over and over and over again. The story about how it is we were manipulated into starting a war with Iraq is a hell of a lot more important than oral sex.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Sharon,
You LIED when you said MSM reported that the CIA helped put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place. The media DID NOT REPORT THIS yet you claim that they did. You are so incredibly dishonest it is unreal. THAT is the problem. This "everyone knows" crap is a typical way of playing things like that off. I wrote a reporter from Newsday and asked him when he was going to report that Bush's planned war on Iraq was illegal. He said "well, people know. When I say without UN authorization, people know" I pointed out that most people do not know! He thought about it and said OK, he would point it out explicitly in his next article. The next day I got an email form him saying that his editor would not let him.
We have a duty to keep our public officials from committing crimes agisnt humanity. The actions of the US are our responsibility, THAT is why a citizen must speak up and condemn actions that are wrong. The media covers for powerful interests. You are DELUSIONAL if you think crimes by foreigners are not condemned enough in popular culture. Truly delusional. The crimes are condemned all the time and those condemnations are used as a tactic to hide the crimes of US officials. What do I hope to accomplish? I hope people will finally admit that these crimes have happened and continue and that the media is covering for powerful interests and that we can stop these crimes. You said that the media informed the public about how the Ba'ath party got into power, YOU LIED. (and you never post proof of your claim, we are all waiting)
You are extremely ignorant of economics as it impacts average Americans. We have had a 30 year decline in real wages adjusted for inflation. Wages peaked in 1973! The real wages of working people have declined for 30 years and they fell again in 2004. Your ignorance is yet more proof that MSM is simply not performing as you assume, they are not making the general public aware of the situation.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Chomsky on Anarchism by Noam Chomsky New Book!
Chomsky Movie:Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause
-
No response? You guys can't deal with the facts. You really don't understand how mainstream media is behaving. Even your "democracy" claim is a rewrite of the recent events. You absorb what you are expected to and you don't notice it contradicts the facts. The Bush administration was fighting against elections if you remember. (for God sakes guys, you like in an Orwellian world and you are totally unaware of it) You seriously don't remember that the Bush team was resisting elections in Iraq?
"beneath the layers of encomia to the Bush administration’s commitment to Iraqi democracy lies the buried history of how the first free elections in Iraq’s modern history actually came to be. From the very start, the administration was determined to install its handpicked favorites in positions of power in Baghdad and to exclude Iraqis with broader public support." You don't remmeber that "the Bush administration found itself locked in a tenacious rearguard action to prevent democratic elections and ensure that political power would be wielded only by its trusted Iraqi lieutenants."? Defeated by Democracy Reported as triumph, Iraq elections were really Bush team’s nightmare
Friday, June 10, 2005
Ben Stein is bitching about a New Yorker article called 'The Spy Who Loved Us," by Thomas Bass, about Pham Xuan An.
I will go to the library and check out the article but I should point out that Ben Stein is an ass. The "liberal" media has not made clear the enormous wrong that US policy makers inflicted upon the people of Vietnam, we had no right at all to do what we did to those people.
We violated the basic principle of democracy by undermining the will of the Vietnamese people.
The 1954 Geneva agreements did not "partition" Vietnam but separated two military zones by a temporary demarcation line that "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," pending the unification elections of 1956 that were the heart of the accords. Elections were supposed to be held, unifying the country. The Geneva agreement divided into two zones, not two countries; our government lied about this. The US backed Diem who refused to go through with the 1954 provision calling for nationwide elections in 1956. THIS is going against democracy! Why did Diem refuse? Because he knew as did others that he would lose the election, President Eisenhower said that Ho Chi Minh would win 90% of the vote in a free election. The CIA supported the repressive Vietnamese ruling the South--who were not only repressive but were also greedy. WE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS! (The Vietnamese have a right to govern themselves and vote for the system they want!) We blocked elections in Vietnam because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh was going to win there. The Kennedy administration escalated the attack against South Vietnam from massive state terror to outright aggression in 1961-1962. We were not 'defending' South Vietnam. As Chomsky says, "I have never seen in thirty years that I have been looking carefully, one phrase even suggesting that we were not defending South Vietnam. Now, we weren't: we were attacking South Vietnam. We were attacking South Vietnam as clearly as any aggression in history. But try to find one phrase anywhere in any American newspaper, outside of real marginal publications, just stating that elementary fact. It's unstable."
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Black Jack writes, LAT always looks the other way when evidence of Clinton's crimes surfaces.
brutal conquerors, occupiers, suppressing another people.
Israel's Mr. TV Criticizes Occupation of West Bank & Gaza In Israel, one of the country's best known television personalities is making headlines for his criticism of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories. The man -- Haim Yavin -- is known in Israel as Mr. TV. He was the longtime anchor of the news on Israel's Channel One. Until this week, most Israelis had never heard him express his opinion on political matters. But that has all changed this week with the broadcast of a new film he personally shot about settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. During the film, Yavin says "Since 1967, we have been brutal conquerors, occupiers, suppressing another people." The New York Times reports that the film has been so controversial that Yavin's own employer -- the state-run Channel One -- refused to air the film. Instead it is airing on the commercial Channel 2. Israel's Mr. TV Criticizes Occupation of West Bank & Gaza
Monday, May 30, 2005
Letter to President Bush Concerning "Downing Street Memo"
As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible. 1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document? 2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time? 3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate? 4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq? 5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states? - from Representative John Conyers, Jr's letter to President Bush sign the letter now:Write Bush about the Downing Street Memo
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Guys, this isn't a game. Bolton is a threat to our security.
PLEASE! REPUBLICAN Voinovich is pleading that you don't subject America to a Bolton confirmation.
Stand up and support a man who is opposing a wrong based on principle. Voinovich is a Republican and obviously he is concerned about the harm that Bolton can do. Voinovich said in his letter, "In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations.
"I worry that Mr. Bolton could make it more difficult for us to achieve the important U.N. reforms needed to restore the strength of the institution." He said Bolton's lack of interpersonal skills, tendency to abuse people who disagree with him and propensity to stray from his mission made him unsuitable for the job.
write the media and tell them to show this video of Bolton for God sakes!! (WHY isn't the media showing this video of Bolton?)
Write your Senators!! Also write Senator Voinovich ans support his efforts!!
Dear Senator Voinovich,
Please confront the mainstream media for not showing all the dirt on Bolton. The mainstream media is keeping the public ignorant of just how dangerous Bolton is by not showing them.
Ask the media why they aren't showing America the examples of Bolton in action (see the clips below) Mainstream media is simply not showing all of Bolton that needs to be shown. Seantor, please confront the mainstream media and demand that they show America what you already know. Demand that the media aloow the public to see ow exxtreme Bolton is. The clips are available, WHY AREN'T WE SEEING THEM ON TV?
Senator Voinovich, you can amplify out efforts to defeat a Bolton confirmation by issuing a press statement asking why the media is shielding the public from these dramatic clips of Bolton.
Over at "Oh, That Liberal Media!" Black Jack responds to the facts with this: "I looked at it ... I just took a second look and came to the same conclusion: Viscous anti-American twerps smear our troops with bogus charges"
Black Jack, now you are really embarrassing yourself. Do you have absolutely no respect for yourself at all? Are you lying when you said you looked at it twice? Otherwise you are showing readers here that you are mentally challenged.
You are making it crystal clear that you simply cannot be reasoned with. If you have this extreme a problem, why the hell don't you see a doctor instead of annoying people who are trying to have a logical discussion?
In case you missed it: Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said, "Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item."
Red Cross Says It Told U.S. in 2002 About Alleged Mishandling of Koran "The International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday that it repeatedly expressed concern to the U.S. government in 2002 and early 2003 about a series of credible detainee allegations that military guards at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba had mishandled and shown disrespect to the Koran."
"Contrary to White House spin, the allegations of religious desecration at Guantanamo such as those described by Newsweek on 9 May 2005 are common among ex-prisoners and have been widely reported outside the United States. Several former detainees at the Guantanamo and Bagram airbase prisons have reported instances of their handlers sitting or standing on the Koran, throwing or kicking it in toilets, and urinating on it.
One such incident (during which the Koran was thrown into a pile and stepped on) prompted a hunger strike among Guantanamo detainees in March 2002. Regarding this, the New York Times in a 1 May 2005, article interviewed a former detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, who said the protest ended with a senior officer delivering an apology to the entire camp. And the Times reports: "A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans." (Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt, "Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay," New York Times, May 1, 2005, p. 35.)
"More than any other newspaper, the New York Times influences how policymakers, journalists and the general public understand important issues. Unfortunately, Times' news reporters continue to misrepresent the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by failing to acknowledge the broad international consensus that Israel's settlements and West Bank Wall violate international law. Times' reporters instead present Palestinian and Israeli views using a 'he said, she said' formula, without an appropriate framework to help readers evaluate competing claims." International Law Not Fit to Print: The New York Times and Israel/Palestine
Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is aggressively pressing PBS to correct what he considers "liberal bias."
About the the Newsweek Quran desecration story, I don't think it is accurate to say "the source recanted"
I think "recanted" is what the White House and Mainstream Media want the public to think, the details get ignored. It is actually the case that the source is not sure the evidence is in the particular report that Newsweek cited but that "it might have been in another document"
I think this is how information gets twisted or ignored to fit what powerful interests want. The media is playing along with powerful interests. The fact is the MSM has not made it clear. This is what I found in an AP report: "Whitaker added that the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document."
From the same AP article: "...a review of the military's investigation concluded "it was never meant to look into charges of Quran desecration."
There are facts there that undermine the entire premise of the "liberal media". Brent Bozell has exposed the fact that his (and your) premise is wrong since mainstream media didn't effectively report the Army's own reports about the homicides. Bozell was ignorant of the reports and he is supposed to be the top guy in analyzing mainstream media for "bias"! Not only that, Bozell has access to the media an is spreading disinformation.
Once again Brent Bozell displays his ignorance:
JENSEN: But in the context of the proved abuses by U.S. officials in these prisons, not just in Guantanamo, but in others, Abu Ghraib and, of course, in Bagram, we have a repeated record of up to and including homicide in these prisons. So is it so hard to believe...
BOZELL: Oh, come on. Just stop that. Just stop that.
(CROSSTALK)
JENSEN: No, the record is clear.
BOZELL: Just stop that.
JENSEN: So, if you want to talk about what the United States news media had and has not done, my argument is—would be, it has not been aggressive enough.
Now, did “Newsweek” perhaps represent a source‘s words improperly? Yes. Should it be corrected? Yes. But it doesn‘t go to the question of this pattern of abuse in U.S. facilities, both in Guantanamo and in the Middle East and Central Asia.
SCARBOROUGH: Brent Bozell, respond.
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: Let me put you on the record right now. You cite me the evidence of American soldiers murdering people in prisons. (Bozell's denial is incredible. It also highlights the fact that the mainstream media is not performing as Bozell insists. Here is just one citation: US Army says prison deaths are homicides )
JENSEN: Well, these are in reports that...
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: No, don't give me reports. You give me the evidence.
JENSEN: No, the evidence is from the Army's own reports. There have been homicides in these prisons. We have photographic evidence of the routine sexual humiliation of prisoners.
BOZELL: I'm didn't say about routine sexual humiliation. I talked about murders. You're accusing the American military of murder. If you don't back it up, back off.
(CROSSTALK)
JENSEN: Well, I'm not at my computer. I'll send you the sites tomorrow, Brent. You might want to put them up on your Web site.
BOZELL: In other words, you can't do it?
JENSEN: No, I can. If you want to talk about the—if you don‘t believe the government's own reports about homicides in these prisons...
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: I'm saying, don't make allegations you can't back up on national television.
JENSEN: I'll back them up to you tomorrow, Brent. Give me a call.
BOZELL: Send it tomorrow.
JENSEN: The point is that there's a pattern of this kind of abuse. And to pretend that this story about the Koran is sort of fanciful I think is to ignore reality.
I also think that you're willfully distorting the reality of these protests in places like Afghanistan. These are not simply a reaction to this. These are not simply spontaneous protests. There's a political process going forward in Afghanistan. And many people, not just ex-Taliban or al Qaeda, but many people, disagree with the U.S. occupation. They disagree with long-term presence of U.S. military troops.
And this event is being used - yes, it's being used to whip up people's opposition, but that opposition is real.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. I'll tell you what, Professor. I invite you back tomorrow night. If you could get us those names.
Brent Bozell is one of the biggest mouths that scream about a supposedly "liberal media" On Scarborough Country of May 16 Bozell and Scarborough continue the suppression of the fact that the Army has said that soldiers have committed homicides. and gave the false impression that it didn't happen! (note mainstream media has basically not reported the story or severely under-reported it.)
Not only is Brent Bozell wrong, his ignorance shows that the mainstream media did not report this story effectively where he would know about it. Remember, an entire trend of not reporting, a clear bias in the direction of hiding evidence of homicides that the US Army itself has admitted.
David Ben Gurion's quote was posted on Craigslist: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" *SEE NOTE BELOW:
You asked, "I have tried to find the source for this "quote" ... Please can somebody tell me where"
I posted: David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), p. 99. *NOTE: Full quote is here: Conversation between David Ben Gurion and Nahum Goldmann 1956 from The Jewish Paradox
You responded to the source of the Ben Gurion quote with: ""the jewish paradox" hahaha ... you just made my point!!! A whole book dedicated to maligning Jews .... and I am supposed to believe the quotes contained therein? Tell me When and where Ben Gurion said this statement, and in what context. Surely the ORIGINAL text must exist somewhere besides a jew hater book or website ... or maybe not? DBG NEVER made those comments or anything resembling them ....."
You really are an obnoxious fool. You never read the book and know nothing about it, so stop with your BULLSHIT! Do you even know who the author of the book is?
"Together with Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion, Nahum Goldmann is one of the truly towering figures of modern Jewry and has often been called one of the architects of modern Israel." (from the front flap of The Jewish Paradox)
Also "in 1934 Goldmann and Stephen Wise laid the foundations of the World Jewish Congress. ... Between 1956 and 1968 Goldmann combined the presidency of World Jewish Congress with that of the World Zionist Organization." The Jewish Paradox p2 Introduction by Leon Abramowicz
OK guy? You don't know what the hell you are talking about, so stop with your hahaha's. Yes, David Ben Gurion said the quote, he said it directly to Nahum Goldmann in 1956. In the copy of The Jewish Paradox I have right in front of me the quote is on page 99.
$8.8 Billion dollars is missing, the Coalition Provisional Authority doesn't know where the money went. $8.8 Billion dollars The US was the main power controling the Coalition Provisional Authority and $8.8 Billion dollars is missing.
“At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.”
$8.8 Billion in Iraqi Funds Missing What in God’s Name is Going On? Al Franken writes, "The Sunday morning after the White House Correspondents dinner, I ran into Senator George Allen at a brunch thrown by John McLaughlin and his wife. Allen had never heard of the missing $8.8 billion, or at least that's what he told me. And he's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
By Griff Witte Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 5, 2005; Page A22
Investigators have opened a criminal inquiry into millions of dollars missing in Iraq after auditors uncovered indications of fraud in nearly $100 million in reconstruction spending that could not be properly accounted for.
The money had been intended for rebuilding projects in south-central Iraq. But auditors with the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that of $119.9 million allocated, $7.2 million could not be accounted for at all, and $89.4 million in reported spending could not be backed up with sufficient documentation, according to a report released yesterday
Delete or dot, dot, dot
More of media's service to Zionism. (this kind of stuff goes on all the time)
Latest example, MSNBC had quoted Galloway's comment, "“I want to turn the tables on this neocon, pro-Israel, pro-war, Republican lynch mob.” on their page about Galloway's testimony but has now removed that sentence.Check the link to see what MSNBC did (I will put a copy of this page at my web site because it won't stay forever at Google News.)
Also, Reuters felt it necessary to use an ellipsis to replace the word "pro-Israel" in the lead, quoting Galloway this way: "neo-con … pro-war, Republican lynch mob"
My letter to Reuters:
Regarding Sue Pleming's May 17, 2005 article about British MP George Galloway.
An ellipsis was used to replace the word "pro-Israel" in the lead. Pleming, quoting Galloway, wrote: "neo-con … pro-war, Republican lynch mob"
Why was an ellipsis used in the lead? In the third paragraph, Galloway's unedited sentence was used: "I want to turn the tables on this neo-con, pro-Israel, pro-war, Republican lynch mob."
No answer from Reuters yet.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Someone on craigslist is claiming that no women were abused at Abu Ghraib Prison! The denial is increadible, did they read the Taguba report?!? It clear states, "A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee"
Also, Senior US military officers who escorted journalists around Abu Ghraib on Monday admitted that rape had taken place in the cellblock where 19 "high-value" male detainees are also being held. source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html
Also, Professor Shaker, a political scientist at Baghdad University, recalled her abuse, "He pointed the laser sight directly in the middle of my chest," said "Then he pointed to his penis. He told me, 'Come here, bitch, I'm going to fuck you."
Chomsky points out how our economy really works, most Americans are ignorant of this fact. I was flipping through the channels and just happened to catch a mention of something called the "National Nanotechnology Initiative" for a few seconds on the History Channel. It said that the budget was $961 million in 2004. I thought "holy crap", yet another example that puts a lie to the "Capitalist economy" that the public is brainwashed with.
I looked up the "National Nanotechnology Initiative" on the Internet and found it was yet another example of government money being given as a gift to the private sector. The average American is fed the story that we are a Capitalist economy and that companies invest in their business and reap the returns. The reality is that huge amounts of taxpayer money is used to keep big companies in business, welfare for the rich that many Americans are unaware of.
From the Funding page of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, this paragraph is very revealing: "The Federal government historically has funded R&D where there is potential for a technology to greatly impact the national economy, but where adequate private investment is lacking due to early stage technical risks. The success of this investment strategy is reflected in papers supporting recent patents, nearly two-thirds of which cited federal support for the relevant research."
This violates the basic logic of our so called "Capitalist System"! The average American is sold the story that Capitalists take the risks with their money, that they invest in business and that they deserve the huge returns because they risked their own money. The above sentence is another example that exposes the fact that the big boys play by different rules.
"Federal funding for nanotechnology R&D has increased sixfold, from $116 million in 1997 to an estimated $961 million in 2004. The 2005 budget request that President Bush has sent to Congress calls for a total NNI budget of $982 million, which represents an additional 2% increase." Funding THis now at a time when the little people are told that they must tighten their belts yet the super rich get their handouts increased.
Keep in mind that the Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is just one of the federal R&D programs that pump taxpayer money into private pockets. Chomsky explains, " It’s not simply the subsidies to agribusiness and the protection, that’s a small part of it; the major part is that there is a dynamic state sector in the economy which is the core of economic innovation and development. Research and development takes place mainly in the state sector. Take the entire new economy, computers, telecommunications, the internet, now biotechnology and so on, the costs are largely socialized through various mechanisms such as the institution we’re now talking in (MIT) which is part of the system. Costs are socialized, risks are socialized and if anything comes out decades later it’s handed over to private power"
Isn't the real story that a senior government source "got it wrong". And why are so many people so quick to believe that this senior government source actually "got it wrong" and not that he changed his story because of all the negative reaction. Notice that the detail about where the story came from is not made clear in most of the mainstream media.
Why are so many people willing to believe the story was false? Isn't it more likely that the senior government source has simply backed away from the story because of the pressure?
Keep in mind what Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker has said the information about the Quran desecration came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source,"
DINO HAZELL Associated Press Writer Dino Hazell writes, "Whitaker says that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.
But on Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told the magazine that a review of the military's investigation concluded "it was never meant to look into charges of Quran desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'not credible.'"
Whitaker added that the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document."
Note that the senior government source isn't saying that the story is false!Is the mainstream media making this clear?
Like I said, this isn't the first report of this kind of thing. There have been verified reports of abusing Muslims.
Verified: "An FBI agent saw a prisoner draped with an Israeli flag, accompanied by loud music and flashing strobe lights."
(The "New York Times story on the FBI documents neglects to mention this torture-by-Israeli-flag" )
Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker also said, "Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item."
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
This quote is another example of the continuing insult to the American people: "If our nation’s cultural underpinnings are in conflict with religious dogma and values that are intent on replacing or even eradicating them, should not children and their teachers be made aware?"
It is disgrace that there are people and organizations duping fellow citizens about why we are targets of terrorism.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Lie after Lie after Lie for Israel
In the article, The Case Against Alan Dershowitz Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Dershowitz, Regan Boychuk exposes more of Dershowitz's lies in the service of Zionism. Boychuk writes, "In the course of arguing that Israeli authorities no longer torture Palestinians, Dershowitz claimed he had a long conversation with the Israeli human rights organization, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), in which PCATI not only conceded that there was no longer any torture for them to investigate, but that they refused to change their name because it helped them attract media attention. Although organizers of his lecture wore shirts arrogantly proclaiming, “Dersh knows more than you”, I decided to check his claim." And Boychuk finds that Dershowitz is lying, "PCATI was still reporting that “Instances of torture, abuse, prisoners held incommunicado and excessive violence against [Palestinian] detainees continue to grow in both numbers and severity”, while “interrogators and perpetrators of torture, their commanders and superiors enjoy impunity.”
Finkelstein documents the fact that apologists for Israel contrive controversy. "Whenever Israel comes under international pressure, another media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is mounted." "The core analysis of Beyond Chutzpah sets Dershowitz's assertions on Israel's human rights record against the findings of the mainstream human rights community. Sifting through thousands of pages of reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, Finkelstein demonstrates that Dershowitz has systematically misrepresented the facts."
"A very solid, important and highly informative book. Norman Finkelstein provides extensive details and analysis, with considerable historical depth and expert research, of a very wide range of issues concerning Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S."--Noam Chomsky, author of Hegemony or Survival America's Quest for Global Dominance also available at Powell's: Hegemony or Survival
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Bush Fascists Remove Citizens from Town Hall
ALEXANDER YOUNG: Well, on Monday, March 21, at an event billed as a “conversation on saving Social Security,” I and two friends, Leslie Weise and Karen Bauer, decided to go down and participate in this dialogue. Unfortunately, we were evicted before the President arrived by an as yet unnamed man, because of the content on the bumper sticker of my friend's car. That bumper sticker said, “No more blood for oil.”
AMY GOODMAN: And so, you went from the car, what, a parking lot?
ALEXANDER YOUNG: Right. We were parked in the parking lot, stood in line for a half an hour or so, went and sat down in the audience and then were forcibly ejected by a person who was posing as a secret service agent.
AMY GOODMAN: Why did you think he was a secret service agent?
ALEXANDER YOUNG: Previous to our entry, he had pulled aside a couple of friends of mine. Leslie and Karen were pulled aside and were told to wait for the secret service to arrive. And this man appeared and started threatening them, telling them that they would be sent to prison and arrested if they pulled anything while they were inside.
AMY GOODMAN: And then?
ALEXANDER YOUNG: And then, this is the same individual who came and grabbed us from the audience and started pushing and shoving us out of the hall.
A Craigslist poster writes, "The arab nations have been in a declared state of war with Israel since her establishment in 1948"
WAIT A MINUTE!!
It is misleading to say "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. To put it in plain English: Zionist Jews had already attacked by the time May 1948 rolled around and Zionist Jews "declared Israel" (33% of a population insisting something upon the majority of the people, what right did they have to do this? That was not democracy, it was a violation of the rights of 67% of the people in Palestine. ) The attack by Zionist Jews was already under way and had been for months by the time some of the Arab nations responded.
The Craigslist poster also wrote, "The "Palestinians" are as much a part of that antagonistic arab polity as any."
Your comment is literally delusional. You are either ignorant or you are intentionally spreading falsehoods in order to serve Zionist Israel. know
"antagonistic" are you nuts? It is the Zionists that plotted to ethnically cleanse Palestine and they executed that plan!You think non-Jews in Palestine should have been happy to be oppressed, slaughtered and ethnically cleansed? You think the Palestinians should be happy that you deny their very existence with your smart ass habit of putting the word Palestinians in quotes. England referred to Palestine DECADES before Zionist Israel existed and the people that come from a place have a name. If you are from Africa you are an African, what a disgusting and racist Zionist tactic you use by putting the word Palestinians in quotes. Zionism is truly disgusting. You are as sick as a KKK member or an racist white South African citizen posting on craigslist and mocking Black people. Oh and that is an explicate example of a comparison between South Africa and Israel which you asked for. Survey: Israel yet to grasp concept of democracy The craigslist comments are such ugly propaganda of the same arguments spread by what is called "hasbara"
A Craigslist poster responds, "Hey buddy, I think you are losing it there!!! I see you reposted the same historically distorted shit that you always post."
Put up or shut up. Don't just make a claim, back it up with something for God sakes. You are not presenting ANY facts to support your delusion, shouldn't that make you think?
A Craigslist poster responds, "You can use loaded phrases like "ethnic cleansing" and "Zionists on the attack" but it does not change the fact that you are distorting and twisting history."
Again, don't just make a claim, make an attempt to present a shred of evidence to try to dispute what I have posted.
A Craigslist poster argues, "there would not be a single "Palestinian" refugee if the arabs have not been seeking to annihilate the Jews since 1948"
Are you actually retarded? What did I just spell out to you? It is the Zionists that are the aggressors, THEY are the ones that pushed into Palestine with the intention of driving out non-Jews,. They are extremist racists and they were doing their dirty work BEFORE 1948. Can you get that into your head? Did you even read what I posted? The Zionists were systematically targeting people because they were the "wrong" religion, they weren't Jewish so they had to be pushed off their land. What kind of fanatical Zionist zealot are you that you stupidly go back to 1948 when I already pointed out to you that Zionists had already been attacking well before that? And it is disgusting the way you distort what was happening. What happened was a response in the form of armed struggle against a racist regime that had ethnically cleansed 300,000 non-Jews and was continuing to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands more. It was not "seeking to annihilate Jews", it was a military response to the Zionist terrorism that was killing, injuring, violating and ethnically cleansing them. It is clear that you dishonestly attempt to play off the Holocaust to distort what the Zionists were doing. It is especially disgusting because the Zionists have absolutely no right to invoke the Holocaust to justify anything that they have done or are doing. With respect to the Holocaust, the Zionists contribute to the ongoing wrong where Shlomo Morel continues to escape justice. Israel and many Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies Intellectuals should be ashamed of themselves. They are hypocrites! SEE: Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity and "The facts are true" "The facts are right" "The facts are iron-bound."
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Faurisson petition
MrMyke asks about the Faurisson petition and provides a link to the text of the petition, "... have you read the petition Chomsky signed? In it Chomsky by signature calls Faurisson "respected” cites his "extensive research" and uses the words "strongly support". Hardly seems "misleading" then merely to say Chomsky supports Faurisson, yes?"
Text of petition:
“Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the ‘Holocaust’ question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives. We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him. We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ”
MrMyke, thank you for the link to the text. Reading the petition can you not see that your characterization of what the petition says is inaccurate and unfair? In the context of what you call "Holocaust Denial" you complain that "Chomsky by signature calls Faurisson "respected." But that is extremely misleading. Reading the petition we see that "respected" refers to Faurisson's work at the University of Lyon-2.
See: "Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professorof twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. "
You complain that the petition cites Faurisson's "extensive research." Actually the petition refers to "extensive independent historical research" in a separate sentence. A fair reading of it means it is not referring to Faurisson's work at the University of Lyon-2 which is what the word "respected" was restricted to. The word "independent" makes that clear. The sentence reads, "Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the "Holocaust" question." Omitting the word "independent" is misleading, is it not? Note that you are not the only one that I have seen drop that word. In fact Werner Cohn (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html) omits the word and Rachel Neuwirth (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4157) cites Cohn's version.
If we apply the standard you seem to want to apply to others, for example David Irving, should you, Cohn, and Neuwirth be banished forever from public discourse because of your dishonesty?
And you complain that the petition "uses the words "strongly support"". The final sentence makes it clear what is supported in the petition: "We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ”
Note that Rachel Neuwirth also omits the final sentence that I just quoted! (see http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4157) The sentence that explicitly states what it is that is being supported, "Professor Faurisson'sjust right of academic freedom, and it demands that officials of the university and government "ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."
Chomsky writes about Cohn, "That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects."
This is great, I am on a roll. This Friday I am going for the First Prize level, wish me luck.
The details of the Irving/Lipstadt Trial are a lot more complicated than most people realize.
For example, Lipstadt did indeed spread a false report about Irving. Lipstadt writes in her current book, "After my book was published I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"
Lipstadt is still misleading people about basic facts. At her talk at Barnes & Noble she talked about a Dachau survivor being grateful to her for fighting Irving in court. This gave the false impression that Irving denies Dachau! And to claim, as Lipstadt does, that Irving says "some Jews may have died, but just a few" is a malicious lie. Irving said on day 2 of the trial, "whether it was of the order of millions or not, I would hesitate to specify, but I would say it was certainly more than one million, certainly less than four million"
Lipstadt has a pattern of untruth. She pulled the comments off her blog complaining that some people were saying "that Irving did not lose the trial". Now that is just stupid, the woman distorts things. NO ONE posting comments on her blog said Irving didn't lose, what was said was that Irving should not have lost the trial. See the difference? Lipstadt's version is as dishonest as her term "Holocaust Denier"
There is such an immature, arrogant and dishonest approach by Lipstadt and others to this entire thing. On page 107 of her book we learn that one of her lawyers at her trial, Rampton, dishonestly acted like he could not remember the name of the Institute for Historical Review. Like a child Rampton asks Lipstadt, "Did it scare you when I could not remember its name?" Pretending not to remember is Rampton's game he reveals to Lipstadt, "this was my way of showing how insignificant an organization I think it is."
Lisptadt's campaign against C-SPAN is vicious and dishonest. She writes on her blog, " Finally, I was not trying to deny Irving a right to speak. I was simply refusing to be pushed into a debate which is no debate and with someone who is a proven liar. How can you debate a liar?"
First of all, C-SPAN was not asking her to debate Irving. Second, her damn book is about the trial with Irving, there is nothing wrong with C-SPAN wanting to show Irving talking about the trial too. All C-SPAN was trying to do was give its audience a chance to hear Irving's version of the trial. For God sakes this vindictive campaign against C-SPAN (the best thing on TV) is disgusting AND it is also hypocritical: In her book's notes p 312, Lipstadt writes "For Irving's version of his youth and his legal travails, see www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/PQ17Libel/Background220170.html" There are even more links to Irving's web site in the notes of her book, here is another from page 315: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Inner/Circle.html
Troy writes, "yes, calling Irving a racist is a fair cop IMV; but Irving sued Lipstadt on more than just this"
It may be fair to call Irving a racist but not with regard to the libel trial because Irving didn't sue Lipstadt for calling him a racist. Irving sued over specific things Lipstadt had written, he didn't mention "racist" and I don't think she wrote that in her book. (she may or may not have but since Irving wasn't suing about it, it should not have been an issue at the trial and it was not fair to use it in the decision)
In fact in Irving's "Statement of Claim", "The Words Complained of" does not mention "racist" but the first thing Irving mentions in his complaint is the part of the book where Lipstadt writes that he had agreed to appear at that conference. Irving explains "The Natural or Ordinary Meaning of the Words Complained of" is that he was "agreeing to appear in public in support of and alongside violent and extremist speakers including representatives of the violent and extremist anti-Semitic Russian group Pamyat and of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and of the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas" and that a false report claiming he did libeled him.
The fact is Lipstadt was wrong on that point. She admits in her latest book, "I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"
Why the Judge did not find in his favor on this point is beyond me. I think the Judge felt pressure with all this "history on trial" nonsense. The case was not about that but rather if Lipstadt had libeled him. Introducing this "racist" stuff when Irving was not suing about that was unfair in my opinion. Even racists can be libeled. Being a racist or not has nothing to do with if one has been libeled or not on the points Irving raised.
And what the hell does Lipstadt's term "dangerous" spokespersons for Holocaust denial supposed to mean? What exactly is "dangerous" about it even if he was denying the Holocaust? The woman is reckless.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
American Mainstream Media is avoiding reporting on the AIPAC Scandal
A shake-up in the Jewish lobby (article from Haaretz which is an Israeli newspaper): "The Web site of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Israeli lobby in Washington, bears a quote from The New York Times, testifying that this is the most important organization in its influence on American's relations with Israel."
I was going to point this out too.
The Haaretz article continues: "In academic and political literature in the United States, as well as in the world media, AIPAC is usually referred to as the pressure group with the greatest influence on foreign policy in the U.S. capital, and as a model for lobbying activity in Congress and in the U.S. administration.
In spite of the sense of crisis in the wake of the ongoing FBI investigation of the leaking of security material to Israel, and the temporary dismissal of two senior workers, the lobby is attempting to broadcast an atmosphere of business as usual. "
and the media is playing along with that plan. As I pointed out, mainstream media is clearly reluctant to report on this scandal. Someone posting comments over at Media Matters resents my use of the term "scandal." In fact, the guy (or gal) resorts to calling me "nothing but a neo-nazi sympathizer in a $1.99 Chomsky fright mask" My crime, apparently, is using the term scandal "even before it rises to the level of a credible accusation." The guy ignores the fact that the Israeli press is reporting it, (and some American Jewish press like "Forward" and "The Jewish Journal")?and the fact is credible accusations have been made, that is what the grand jury is about! "Top officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have appeared before a grand jury and two senior staffers have been placed on paid leave" but the libelous commenter at Media Matters ignores these facts.
Another Haaretz article points out: AIPAC Probe / AIPAC works to preserve clout in U.S. "In the seven months since Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was accused of passing classified documents to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby has been struggling in two arenas: First, to extricate itself from the investigation without any indictments being issued, and second, to preserve its political clout in Washington's corridors of power.
The second arena is the more problematic one. "AIPAC has lost a lot of its power," says a Capitol Hill source who follows AIPAC closely. But the fact that the source refused to be identified by name means that AIPAC is still a force to be reckoned with in the capital's political industry."
Well exactly. This is an honest reporter, reporting the facts. Notice that this isn't an American news outlet but an Israeli one. In Israel, a reporter can report on these kinds of things. I would point out that the fact that mainstream media is reluctant to report on this scandal shows there is "still a force to be reckoned with" that influences what mainstream media covers. That should be obvious from a google news search of AIPAC. ( I will put the archived search results on my web site to illustrate the situation) And this isn't the only example of this servile reporting (or non-reporting in this case.) The AP article is written conforming to an Israeli government agenda. The settlements are illegal regardless of what the Israeli government says.
"Maybe somebody could explain how this is "conservative misinformation." I'm failing to see the problem."
Media Matters apparently has an agenda beyond that. Notice that Media Matters apparently can't see a major defect of mainstream media, namely the servile reporting when it comes to Israel. Mostly it takes the form of not reporting things. A dramatic example of the way the media behaves is the current AIPAC scandal. Check this out: search AIPAC and notice that American mainstream media is avoiding this, notice how foreign press and Israeli press covers it but American press isn't. I have been searching this and finally the fine newspaper the Christian Science Monitor dared to report about the FBI probe of AIPAC but of course the rest of the media is avoiding it. Want to see something dramatic? Search AIPAC at the NEW YORK TIMES web site and notice that they haven't reported what is going on. Seems Media Matters suffers the same blind spot that the NYT does.
Media Matters has made themselves look bad by jumping on C-SPAN like this. C-SPAN is the BEST thing on TV, it is a shame that Media Matters-is doing this. C-SPAN did nothing wrong. It is outrageous for Lipstadt to think she can write a book about a trial between her and Irving and to insist that C-SPAN cannot show Irving talking about the trial too if they want to show Lipstadt. Lipstadt is dishonest when she refers to what C-SPAN wanted to do as a debate. C-SPAN was not asking Lisptadt to debate Irving.
Lipstand's term "Holocaust Denier" is a propaganda term, she knows damn well she is misleading people about what Irving actually thinks. In America we are supposed to value free speech. Media Matters, for God sakes, C-SPAN is the best thing on TV, would you please have some decency and leave it alone? And by the way, is everyone going to let someone actually accused of crimes against humanity get away with it because people are afraid to confront a certain agenda?
Posts
