"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
"RY" writes, the word "massacre" was over-doing it
Now you are making me repeat points I posted? Did you read this thread before you interjected your comments? The Battle is known as "The Massacre at Wounded Knee" that is why Reuters thought it was "safe" to use the word "massacred"
"RY" writes, However...it is interesting that someone is still alive from the time of the American Indian wars.
Well yes, that is it exactly. That is why it was picked for the story, it was also the most dramatic thing that happened that year. There is nothing wrong with the Reuters story, the complaints here are evidence of an extremely unhealthy mindset. As for the Shah, forcing people to live under a King is despicable, Undermining their efforts at democracy is a crime. The Shah was guilty of the deaths of many Iranians and the misery of many more and they had a right to overthrow their King. For God sakes, freeing oneself from a King is so basic to our American principles, it is the fundamental act our Founding Fathers! How the hell can you be so blind? Arguing with you is like arguing with Americans of the 1830's who couldn't see that slavery was wrong in spite of the fact that liberty was a fundamental principle upon which our country was founded. You are unreal in your disregard for the rights of people in foreign lands.
There is a simple rule you should learn, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Once you grasp, that you will see that US foriegn policy in the Middle East has been immoral.
"So, Tom blames the U.S. for doing what any other nation in history does, look out for their own best interests. Pathetic."
You are so brainwashed that you are an apologist for the massive wrongs of horrifically immoral foreign policies. Saying "other people have done it" as an excuse for imposing so much misery and suffering and death upon people is perverse? Any murderer can claim that "others have done it" and yes there have been other murderers. OJ can claim that others have murdered people too, that doesn't make it right! He and his lawyers didn't try to get away with that excuse, instead choosing the denial tactic.
All the crimes of US foreign policy makers you are excusing with the most despicable rationalization. And to deny or minimize the enormity of the wrongs with a euphemistic " look out for their own best interests" is disgusting. Any thug and criminal can claim that! The question is are we a moral people that are a nation of laws? Any one that wants to engage in immoral activity can always point to others like them in history. Would you want someone wronging you even if they had an excuse that others have wronged people in the past? What you are doing is simply grotesque and it puts us at greater risk."Greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."
Central Motive for anti-American Terrorism, Suicide Terrorism, and Catastrophic Terrorism
WARNING: "Greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."
The July 18, 2005 Issue of The American Conservative has an interview with Robert Pape " a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American." "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism" I received an email recommending the interview in "The American Conservative" with Robert Pape: "Looks like we may be trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline over it. Send this to all you know, especially those who fully support Bush's policies. It is rare to come across an analysis that might ring true for all of us."
From the article: "Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us." "The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."- Robert Pape
Saturday, July 09, 2005
"Lighten Up" ... "Get a Grip"
Over at the smart-alecky titled "Liberals against Terrorism" blog a fool calling himself "Stygius" reponds to my posts with "Um ... RepPress: Lighten up." and "Um ... RepPress: Get a grip." That's it, just those two sentence in the two posts, NOTHING of substance. Below are my responses to this bastard:
You insult all the victims with a comment like that
Stygius writes, "Um ... RepPress: Lighten up."
Hey guy, my life is on the line because of these lies. I live in the real world and I have to live with these threats every day and be insulted by politicians and people like you? What the hell would possess you to write such an asinine comment as "lighten up"? What in the world do you think you are contributing with such a comment?
This is about terrorism and human lives and you what me to "lighten up"? People are getting killed, our politicians are LYING to us about why and you think people shouldn't be "too serious" about it?
What is you agenda that you would write such a disgusting comment as "lighten up" in response to a post about the fact that our politicians are lying to us about why we are attacked? I am just supposed to play along with the big lie to please you? Let me guess, you resent the fact that I am pointing out why we are actually be attacked. You resent the fact that I am pointing out that our politicians are LYING to us.
Next time you feel the craving to post a 4 word quip, don't. Your intellectually dishonest comment is an insult to all the victims of this political conflict.
Mocking Americans who demand an end to lies and terror
Stygius writes, "Um ... RepPress: Get a grip."
Stygius,
You are really desperate to divert attention away from the fact that our politicians have lied to us about why we are being attacked You hope your mindless quips will make some readers here discount the facts I presented? This is your goal, to manipulate other people?
You resort to mocking in order to cover for the false premises of the so called "War on Terrorism." You can't argue with the facts so you are employing the most immature and deceitful tactics you can.
Your replies lack any substance at all, all they are is derisive and nothing more. Again, what is you agenda? You think smart ass quips serve to nullify all the points I posted? I am trying to inform my fellow American about the truth and to get us out of harm's way, what you are doing is extremely vile. You hope people will read you 4 word quip and then dismiss what I have posted? What you are doing increases the likelihood that more Americans will be killed and die as double victims, of the violence and the lies. " Lighten up" about the fact that we are being lied to about why we are getting killed?? That is you contribution to this forum?
If you can't dispute a single fact I presented then shut up. But you can't stand that other Americans could get the chance to see through the lies that you hold so dear so you feel compelled to ruin the discourse. You want to undermine attempts at setting the record straight and freeing my fellow Americans from the threats and the lies. I am making an effort to present the truth and to back it up with sources and facts. By what delusion do you see yourself as a "progressive" or "liberal"?
Where do you live that you can take the terrorist threat so lightly? I lived in New York City and was there on 9/11, and so was my sister who was running for her life in tears across the Brooklyn Bridge. After the 1993 WTC bombing, I was saying we were going to get attacked again for years. I was pointing out even then that politicians were avoiding saying what the motive was or lying to us about the motives. I resent bastards like you doing what you are doing to fellow Americans.
"The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." - Michael Scheuer is a former senior intelligence analyst with the CIA and oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden.
Sharon makes the claim that a quote from any Muslim is proof that the motives of the 9/11 terrorists are different than the ones they have been stating for years. She wants people to believe that if we "stop doing things which make them hate us" it won't stop them hating us. She claims this because someone somewhere made a comment about a goal they desire which has not been stated by al-Qeada.
Sharon, that is such specious logic. You once again post a contrived argument, obviously to serve as a means to keep the foreign policies from being focused on. There are millions of Muslims in the world, it is dishonest of you to try to deny the 911 motives by claiming that something said by any Muslim is what determines the motivation of the terrorists.
It makes no more sense than to quote Ann Coulter as proof of the real motives for the US attack on Iraq. Ann Coulter said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", is this what Christian Conservatives actually want? Bush declared “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” Will anything less than forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity satisfy the Christian Conservatives? Would it be honest of me to insist this is what attacking Iraq was really about? You cannot take comments from just anyone and make the claim that that is the motive of the participants on either side of the so called "War on Terrorism."
What motivates the terrorists is the grievances. I listed several quotes from terrorists who were responsible for attacks going back to 1993. What motivates them are the grievances that have been stated by those running the terrorist organizations. What motivates them is what the terrorists themselves have said, not the nonsence you quote. 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."
It is the grievances that are used to recruit the terrorists, not the nonsense you quote. 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
Friday, July 08, 2005
Michael Scheuer, (author of "Imperial Hubris"): We're not winning because we continue to misidentify the enemy.
America has never had an opponent who has been more clear on why he is fighting us, what he intends to do, and then follows up by doing it. He is motivated by religion. He is not, as we continually say, a criminal or a gangster.
Chris Matthews: Right.
Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris"): He has no intention of destroying our way of life or our liberties or our freedom. He has focused the Muslim world on about six specific U.S. policies which are universally disliked in the Muslim world, whether or not the same proportion of Muslims support bin Laden. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
Michael Scheuer is a former senior intelligence analyst with the CIA and oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden. On the Lou Dobbs show, Scheuer said : " ... unfortunately the politicians are very comfortable with preaching the idea that this is a very small group of people who are opposing us, and that they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people.We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."
If we really want to stop terrorism then we must take away the motives. You should give this serious thought, the fact is US policy makers have inflicted real wrongs upon many people in the Middle East and that is the motive for the 9/11 attacks. The Senior CIA Intelligence Analyst who oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden said: We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world.
For God sakes, stop ignoring the points. KB pointed out that he saw finally saw ONE person on TV telling the basic truth which the left has known about for years. You ignored this point and jumped to more of your nonsense. Your simplistic category of "the left" includes Carter and Clinton and Chomsky!?! That is simply ridiculous. When is it going to sink into your head that you can't lump all Americans into two category and claim that these categories are homogenous?
We already had discussed 1979, how the hell can you claim that Carter's actions were "liberal" and lump that together with people on the left that say propping up the Shah was wrong? How can you claim that "the left" and Carter are one in the same when people adhering to leftist principles of justice say Carter's actions with the Shah and Iran was wrong? I had pointed out that the US actions during the last year of the Shah were despicable, you know that was under Carter so why do you write such nonsense?
Clinton also lied about why terrorists attacked us. Much of Clinton's actions conflicted with basic liberal principles. You are in denial if you think Clinton actually represented "the left". The two major political parties in the US actually serve a narrow range of interests and others, including "the left" for the most part, are not represented.
Your comments look particularly foolish in light of what KB pointed to on the Lou Dobbs show. Michael Scheuer is a former senior intelligence analyst with the CIA and oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden. On the Lou Dobbs show, Scheuer said : " ... unfortunately the politicians are very comfortable with preaching the idea that this is a very small group of people who are opposing us, and that they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."
If we really want to stop terrorism then we must take away the motives. You should give this serious thought, the fact is US policy makers have inflicted real wrongs upon many people in the Middle East and that is the motive for the 9/11 attacks. The Senior CIA Intelligence Analyst who oversaw all CIA operations involving Osama bin Laden said: We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world. Sharon, stop lying to yourself and people here.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Craigslist comment: " Bin Laden might well claim other causes if he couldn't claim the ones he's got, but it's a real mistake to think that the societal response to him would be the same. He's picked causes that wide swaths of people share, and it doesn't really matter whether he believes in them or not, so long as the people who support him (both actively and passively) share the views he is presenting. If we work to take away the grievances, we undermine his support."
There is no evidence that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the specific foreign policies he complains about.
It is extremely unlikely that bin Laden didn't actually object to the specific foreign policies that he complains about, millions and millions of other people object to the same policies, by what "logic" would it be that bin Laden would be in a extremely small minority that "doesn't care" about the policies or thinks they are fine?
There is no logical reason to think bin Laden would not be in agreement with Abdallah Azzam, who was born in Palestine and was an "early spiritual mentor" of Osama bin Laden, about Palestine. (see page 2 of "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke )
Contrary to the insistences of some people who deny that specific US policies have nothing to do with why we are getting attacked (they also don't want the specific US policies to be stopped), there is no evidence that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the specific foreign policies that he and others have complained about and have clearly stated for years. Specific foreign policies that wrong millions of people in the Middle East and which millions of people in the Middle East object to even if they may not share the same fundamentalist interpretation of Islam or even follow basic Islamic practices at all. Also a grievance shared by millions of people who think it is wrong to respond to the policies with the use of terrorism. It would actually be extremely unlikely that bin Laden didn't actually object to the specific foreign policies that he complains about, millions and millions of other people object to the policies, by what "logic" would it be that bin Laden would be in the extremely small minority that "doesn't care" about the policies or thinks they are fine? The claim that bin Laden isn't actually angered by the US foreign policies is a contrived argument obviously to serve as a means to keep the foreign policies from being focused on. Nearly everyone in the region thinks the US policies are wrong, why in the world wouldn't bin Laden share the same greivances? It makes no sense to insist bin Laden isn't actually angered by the same policies nearly everyone else is. (unless of course you are trying to dupe the public into thinking the policies have nothing to do with why we are being attacked)
I agree with you that the if we take away the grievances by ending the specific foreign policies we undermine the support for attacks that bin Laden has repeatedly said are carried out with the intention of ending the specific foreign policies. It is important to point out that US officials serve special interests that want the foreign policies to continue so they feed the public a lie that the attacks are about anything else but the specific foreign policies. It is the shared grievances that are the motive for the attacks.
"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 LA Times writer Terry McDermott.
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."
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."
So how successful is the "fly paper" theory for the Iraq War?
Did the illegal war on Iraq do Britain any good? OR did it increase the threats and attacks to Britain?
I certainly don't feel safe on public transportation here in the US. Why the hell must my life be put at risk for the sake of specific foreign policies? How much longer are we going to allow our politicians to put our lives at risk because of their unjust and immoral policies?
I am watching CNN and they are talking about how we must now be watching out more as we travel the trains. For me it means the Long Island Rail Road and then the NYC subway.
I really resent the fact that their are people in America that are intentionally lying to the public about why we are being targeted. These foreign policies are not worth more than our lives and the American people have a right to know why their lives are being put at risk. I posted this at my blog yesterday: The threat we face can be removed if we look at the situation honestly and fix what is wrong.
roublen,
The threat we face can be removed if we look at the situation honestly and fix what is wrong. You start out with claiming that "you know" bin Laden's motives and that "you know" his stated motives are not real.
You then claim that stopping the US policies he complains about would not change his behavior. That is a convenient theory, I see it as simply a claim that shields the specific US foreign policies from being examined, questioned or changed. I suggest you have been manipulated by people whose agenda is to keep the specific US policies going by inventing scenarios where the policies are not an issue.
If you address the points I raised I think you will find that your view is incorrect. First of all, it isn't just bin Laden's motives, his motives are shared by the others that have attacked us and plan to attack us. Also the same grievances are shared by millions of others. This isn't just about bin Laden and won't stop with bin Laden.
Your reply doesn't address the fact that when George Tenet quotes the Fatwas he omits the motives. Others do this too or they substitute some other motive, this substitution serves the function of insulating the specific US foreign policies from questioning doesn't it?
Doing these things, suppressing the stated motives and insisting that the motives are anything else but the stated motives, serves an agenda. That agenda is of keeping the specific US foreign policies from being challenged. I have never talked with someone who held the view that it really isn't about the US foreign policies that didn't also think that the policies aren't that bad or shouldn't be changed. The theory is convenient for those that don't want the policies to be changed.
I am trying to explain to you that people are intentionally manipulating you about what the motives are. Did you see what George Tenet did in the example I gave you?
George Tenet isn't alone in trying to deny why we are being attacked and lying about the available facts. President Bush lies about why we were attacked. Thomas Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives too. Friedman claims, " the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998 I also have to wonder how in this invented scenario Friedman "knows" what bin Laden "sensed" about the Arab street.
So know I have given you three specific examples of lies. Think about this. If you start going through the evidence you will see a pattern.
Your comment about the Palestinians is simply inaccurate and history proves this. Perhaps you are unaware of this because people are lying about the basic facts. You base a lot of your opinion simply on hypotheticals and baseless assumptions.
It is propaganda to suggest that the Palestinians have been rejecting peace. You have been manipulated, you are not getting the whole story. For example, in 1976 Arafat accepted the 1976 peace offer (the acceptance of the Security Council Resolution of January 1976 backed by virtually the entire world, including the leading Arab states, the PLO, Europe, the Soviet bloc -- in fact, everyone who mattered. ) The Security Council Resolution of January 1976 was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US. Remember this was a Security Council Resolution. The US vetoed it, killing a peace offer backed by virtually the entire world. Today THIS fact is effectively kept from the American public by mainstream media by now acting like it never happened. For examples of how these rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see the games played by Thomas L. Friedman, "Seeking Peace in Mideast," New York Times , March 17, 1985, section 1, p. 1 (chronologically listing U.S. and U.N. Security Council proposals, but ignoring all of the Arab proposals prior to those that led to the Camp David Accords of 1978)
"So in 1976, the United States became the chief obstacle to a Palestinian state, very simply. The Security Council of the United Nations debated a resolution calling for a two-state settlement, a Palestinian settlement, a Palestinian state alongside of Israel, both states having all the rights guaranteed in the international system. This was in accord with a very broad international consensus that was supported by the Arab states, backed by the PLO and just about everybody. And in fact by then it had crystallized as an overwhelming international consensus. The U.S. vetoed. It was vetoed. The U.S. veto, incidentally, is a double veto. It vetoes the resolution and also vetoes recording in history. So it's out of history but it happened." Democracy Now
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
You claimed, "How do you tell people of goodwill versus people of badwill? Well, mainly by the fact that people of goodwill really, really hate killing people, and don't do it unless there is a really good reason, and even then only as a last resort. "
I think you should rethink your premise, I will explain more below but I thought this was relevant: Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq said, "Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."
You write, "People of badwill either like to kill people, or they don't dislike it very much. Also, people of badwill don't kill for good reasons, or even if they do have a legitimate cause, they kill heedlessly, and not as a last resort. "
And you decide who has "bad will"?
You write, "We are trying to unite all people of goodwill, all across the world, regardless of nationality, religion, race, or political system, for the somewhat narrow, limited purpose of defeating all people of badwill, all across the world. "
I could not disagree with you more. You simply don't understand the motivations of the people the US is fighting. I think you have the so called "War on Terrorism" totally wrong. The argument you make only serves propaganda purposes and does not reflect reality. If we really want to stop terrorism then we must take away the motives. You should give this serious thought, the fact is US policy makers have inflicted real wrongs upon many people and that is the motive for the 9/11 attacks.
Crimes Against Humanity and Ugly Hypocrisy. Can Israel Sink Any Lower?
Israel won't extradite Polish Jew accused of WWII genocide Solomon Morel, aka Shlomo Morel, ran to Israel in 1994, after the accusations against him surfaced. "Israel has refused for a second time to extradite to Poland a Jewish man accused of crimes against German prisoners just after the end of World War II, prosecutors said Wednesday." "Morel commanded a communist-run camp for German prisoners in southern Poland in 1945 after Soviet troops had occupied the country. Polish authorities accuse him of genocide by seeking to exterminate German prisoners by starving them to death, depriving them of medical care as well as carrying out torture and sanctioning torture by his subordinates. Polish prosecutors charge that Morel is responsible for the deaths of at least 1,500 prisoners in the Swietochlowice cam" Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against HumanityAt 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." "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 "From 1945 to 1949, we suffered starvation, beatings, mass murders and slave labor." -Testimony of Survivor Elisabeth Walter
Monday, July 04, 2005
Another fool (V the K) complains that Reuters is "anti-American" over at "Oh, That Liberal Media"
I explain to him: You think what you do because you are ignorant or in denial. I searched on Google for "Reuters anti-american "
The very first story returned is from "AIM" and it claims "Reuters Anti-American Bias " "AIM" complains about how Reuters covered Jessica Lynch's homecoming but AIM is WRONG!!! The "AIM" story complains "Reuters used the event to replay allegations that the U.S. military had hyped Lynch's ordeal and rescue into a "story of U.S. heroism under fire."
Turns out the allegations were true. The fact is when we finally heard from Jessica Lynch herself, she said the same thing about the US military! Jessica Lynch Says Military Manipulated Her Story " Former prisoner of war Jessica Lynch has accused the military of using her capture and dramatic nighttime rescue to sway public support for the war in Iraq. Lynch said she’s bothered by the military’s portrayal of her ordeal in Iraq. She said the U.S. military manipulated the story of her dramatic rescue — and shouldn’t have filmed it in the first place."
Yeah, I read that article V the K. More proof how off the wall the opinion's of the WSJ are. They bitched, just as AIM did, that the article was "anti-American", IT WAS NOT.
First of all, the WSJ admits that the byline thing is not an issue, "Now, wire-service stories often are collaborations between many reporters and writers; a single byline doesn't necessarily mean the putative author is responsible for every word of the story. If Reuters had stuck to simply reporting the news, this would not be a scandal."
WSJ 's beef is that Reuters included in the story what media critics said about "U.S. government propaganda and credulous reporters." WSJ wanted the article to be typical clueless BS that doesn't point to the culprits with a vague line that the Deanna Wrenn wrote: "reports vary about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her ordeal in Iraq."
"reports vary"?!? So the government didn't create propaganda? Its all a "misunderstanding," the fault of no one in particular? Typical American reporter BS.
Not only was Reuters right, when we finally heard from Jessica Lynch herself, she complained about the propaganda!
So there is your "Ahem" V the K. Reading comprehension is not your forte. The US government lied and they lied about Tillman too. When the hell are you going to wake up?
Sunday, July 03, 2005
BadLiberal,
Has MSM reporting of the 1979 hostage crisis informed the public about WHY the hostages were taken? This isn't a "snarky" question. Can you answer it?
Insisting that people don't violate the law and that they respect human rights is not "bashing" Holding all Americans to this standard, including US officials, is not "America bashing"
As far as ignorance, the MSM sat on its hands and refused to report the results of a PIPA poll that had startling results: "75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has actually been found."
Notice how the media played along with the idea that Kerry "accused" US troops of committing war crimes in Vietnam. what the media didn't make clear is that Kerry said "They told the stories at times they had personally ..." The soldiers were the ones saying war crimes were commiteed, but the media played along with the swift boat crap that Kerry was the one claiming it. And when in early 2004 evidence of the war crimes was published in the The Toledo Blade, the MSM sat on their hands again, refusing to inform the American public the war crimes chronicled in the US Army's own documents! The documents made available in the National Archives back up what Kerry had said and put the lie to his critics but MSM didn't report this to the American public! You can hunt for the info or be lucky enough to happen to read the Toledo Blade article that day or the Village Voice article but over all the MSM fails to report truths that you assume they would, truths you assume would be readily available for people to learn about. You assume that truths like these "would be" reported by the MSM and thus be made apparent to you but the fact is they overwhelmingly are not.
WHY were the hostages taken?
The US media overwhelmingly sweeps US crimes under the rug, many don't realize how much the US media bends over backwards to sweep these things under the rug. Notice the US propaganda right now about Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Notice how the media avoids saying WHY the hostages were taken? It is off the wall how in the past and still today the majority of MSM refuses to say WHY the hostages were taken.
What the hell right did the US have to refuse to hand over the Iranians' own former leader?(the US did not want to send a message that we don't protect our puppets ) And sure enough, the MSM basically hides these facts when reporting on the events of 1979. Notice that the perfectly responsible demand of a sovereign people to hold their own (supposedly) leader accountable was refused by US leaders and suppressed by overwhelming degree by US media. We are a nation that fought to free ourselves from a king yet this is the ugly hypocritical "dirty business" that US policy makers were willing to do to foreign peoples. Truly disgusting, and it is despicable that MSM works so hard to serve this agenda and suppress this "dirty business".
There has been such extreme suppression of the facts of US policy that you are totally unprepared when one fact slips through in a story. You guys really are pseudo-patriotic indoctrinated totalitarian-minded folks. One little fact (from 115 years ago for God sakes!!!) slips into a story and you guys go bananas? You guys really have problems.
Sharon continues to complain that Reuters wrote "Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee." She complains, "it seems odd to me that a feature story with international circulation wouldn't include events that might be better KNOWN by the Europeans."
Sharon,
The fact that the US military fought Indians is a well known fact in Europe, when an artilce says "the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee." it is not an unknown concept.
I explained this to you in detail:
The massacre at Wounded Knee is considered the last battle between white soldiers and Native Americans. It is known as "The Massacre at Wounded Knee" that is why Reuters thought it was "safe" to use the word "massacred"
The woman is so old that she was alive when the US was still fighting Native Americans.
The reference is fine and only can be an issue with those that insist that only favorable events must be referred to if they relate to the US, even a US government of 115 years ago. The reference puts her birth in a DIFFERENT ERA because it is considered the last battle between the US troops and the Native Americans, it closes a ERA, it is very significant, and thus emphasizes her age. Your examples of a sports game or yet another State being added does not put her birth outside a particular era. Three states were added the year before, two states added in 1890 and another added in 1896, not really dramatic, not closing an era, not life and blood.
The mere fact that it is something that doesn't cast the US government of 1890 in a good light makes you guys go bananas. There really is a problem with rational thought here. To argue that only "innocuous" events must ever be referred to in stories is simply a fanatical position.
You resorted to lies once again. The MSM did not discuss the reason WHY "ad nauseam". But that wasn't even my question . The question was if the MSM was making the public aware NOW. NOW, Sharon, not in 1979.
And you could have watched tons of programs on the main channels and not hear WHY the hostages were taken. Today, you can watch tons of reports mentioning the hostage crissis and not hear about WHY the hostages were taken.
Sharon, you lie once again about how the media behaved.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
The thing with many Republicans is they have such an extremely disorted view of reality. For some reason this guy thinks he has some point to make about the USS Cole bombing and Clinton's response to it. He wrote, Here's a link to Clinton's address where he uttered these words ... Harrumph."
This was 3 months before the end of his term. A plan of finding out who was responsible and of going after them was developed. It was presented to the incoming Bush administration, they rejected it and did not finish making their plan ready until a day before 9/11, 8 MONTHS later, 11 MONTHS after the attack on the USS Cole. I have found no mention by Bush of the USS Cole in the first 8 months of his term. NONE.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Facts about 9/11. Not Fantasy. Sean P writes, "Oh, and your claim that Bin Laden's attack was soley based on American foreign policy revealed what a delusional subchomsky drone you really are. "
Sean P, you seriously need to do some research, people are manipulating you. People in power, serving special interests who want the foreign policies to go unchallenged, deceive the public about why we are being attacked.
For example when George Tenet quotes the Fatwas he omits the motives, the clear statements about WHY the war is being declared. For example, from the 1998 Fatwa, Tenet quotes "The ruling to kill the Americans ..." but he chops off the end of the sentence that explicitly states WHY the ruling has been made: "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."
Look at George Tenet's Written Statement for the Record of the Director of Central Intelligence Before the Joint Inquiry Committee 17 October 2002. George Tenet makes the claim that bin Laden "In a series of declarations, he made clear his hatred for Americans and all we represent." and in order to support this lie he omits what the series of declarations explicitly say. The fact is the series of declarations Tenet refers to do not make clear bin Laden's hatred "for Americans and all we represent", what bin Laden's declarations actually make clear is the specific grievances that he states explicitly.
"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq."
" The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance."
"The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places "
"the Zionist-Crusader alliance resorted to killing and arresting the truthful Ulama and the working Da'ees ... They killed the MujahidSheikhAbdullahAzzaam, and they arrested the MujahidSheikh Ahmad Yaseen and the MujahidSheikh Omar AbdurRahman (in America). By orders from the USA they also arrested a large number of scholars, Da'ees and young people - in the land of the two Holy Places- among them the prominent SheikhSalman Al-Oud'a and SheikhSafar Al-Hawali and their brothers; ... We, myself and my group, have suffered some of this injustice ourselves; we have been prevented from addressing the Muslims."
"From here, today we begin the work, talking and discussing the ways of correcting what had happened to the Islamic world in general, and the Land of the two Holy Places in particular. We wish to study the means that we could follow to return the situation to its' normal path. And to return to the people their own rights, particularly after the large damages and the great aggression on the life and the religion of the people. An injustice that had affected every section and group of the people; the civilians, military and security men, government officials and merchants, the young and the old people as well as schools and university students. Hundred of thousands of the unemployed graduates, who became the widest section of the society, were also affected.
Injustice had affected the people of the industry and agriculture. It affected the people of the rural and urban areas. And almost every body complain about something. The situation at the land of the two Holy places became like a huge volcano at the verge of eruption that would destroy the Kufr and the corruption and its' sources. The explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging as a result of the sever oppression, suffering, excessive iniquity, humiliation and poverty."
"The inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years. The crusader forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition, particularly in the economical aspect of it due to the unjustified heavy spending on these forces. As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil industry where production is restricted or expanded and prices are fixed to suit the American economy ignoring the economy of the country. Expensive deals were imposed on the country to purchase arms. People asking what is the justification for the very existence of the regime then?"
LIE: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04 LIE: “The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03 LIE: “Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03 LIE: “You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02 LIE: “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03 LIE:: “There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Jim, what part of this don't you understand? "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.” Americans have tortured to death some of the prisoners in other locations. Don't tell me that torture to death is "less" bad than every specific action done by others that had no concern for human beings. Maybe you are not aware of the horrible crimes including homicides because the MSM did such a poor job informing the public? US Army says prison deaths are homicides Iraqi, Afghan detainee cases documented By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times | March 26, 2005 "WASHINGTON -- The Army has concluded that 27 of the detainees who died in US custody in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2002 were the victims of homicide or suspected homicide, military officials said in a report released yesterday. The number is higher than Pentagon officials have previously acknowledged, and it indicates that criminal acts caused a significant portion of the dozens of prisoner deaths that occurred in US custody." MSM basically suppressed these facts. those that insist that the media is "liberal" simply do not know what doesn't get reported (and the biggest mouths ( Brent Bozell ) that insists that the media is "liberal" DENIED these facts on TV and then suppressed the info when he was made aware of it)
Some idiot posts this: "NPR was wringing its hands the afternoon of 9-11, pondering the awful things we had done to the poor Arabs that they behaved so impolitely. "
"that they behaved so impolitely."? Don't be a smart ass, no one I heard said it was anything less than horrific. And just because something horrible has been done to us does not mean that the US policies in the Middle East are OK. can you guys get the concept of two wrongs into your head?
According to your guys logic, we should never have ended slavery since slaves carried out terrorist attacks against us. We could never ask if slavery was wrong since we suffered such horrible attacks.
Are you guys going to answer this or not?: why do all you guys think it is OK for Bush and others to lie to us about why we are being attacked.
And why do you think these foreign polices must be defended at all costs? Bush and others LIED TO US in order to serve special interests that want the foreign polices to continue, we owe them NOTHING.
"liberals" were not saying that we should "offer therapy" for the terrorists.
Why the hell do you put the word "understanding" in quotes? Another sleazy tactic of twisting the meaning of the word from knowing the facts into sympathizing with the tactic of killing civilians. You are a sleaze. Bush lied about why we were attacked, he said we were attacked because we are the "brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity" that is a lie! We were attacked because of polices that you admitted to. (many people don't even get to this step) So now we know it has do do with propping up oppressive regimes like Israel and other countries in the Middle East, why must we continue these policies? They are immoral, THAT IS WHY BUSH LIED ABOUT WHY WE WERE ATTACKED, because the policies are so wrong that he needed to pretend it wasn't really about them.
Another sleazy tactic is morphing the specific foreign policies into "America" itself. So when you don't like a specific policies, you are simply criticizing politicians or policy makers. When Idon't like specific policies I am, according to you, criticizing America itself. You are so manipulative it is unreal.
No one was saying we should offer therapy to the terrorists. Period. and you didn't answer the question. Do you think Nat Turner's killings were justified?
Also, bin Laden is not waging a campaign "against everything the West represents". He is reacting to specific foreign policies which are indeed horrifically wrong. more importantly, the people carrying out the attacks are reacting to these polices. "The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks 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," Denying this is typical.
So now I must go through explain why these policies are wrong because you are so ignorant that you don't know? IS that it? you don't know that discriminating against people because they are not Jewish is wrong? You don't know that ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of people because of their religion is wrong? You don't know that stealing people's land and killing and maiming people is wrong?
discussions of the so called capitalist system
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
Posts
