You wrote, "You scream about Halliburton and Bechtel but bury stories about the UN oil-for-food scandal. I read stories complaining about the fact that 500,000 children had died due to poor malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of sanctions, and now we find out that the "braintrust" of the United Nations was on the take and Saddam was pocketing the kickbacks. So...WHOSE fault is it that a half a million children lost their lives due to malnutrition and lack of medicine? "

You may think you are making some great point but you are not, you are ignorant of the facts. The 500,000 children died BEFORE the oil for food program was even instituted.

The stringent economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq in August 1990. In August 1995 the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reported that there had been a fivefold increase in child mortality in Iraq since the imposition of sanctions. It is a 1995 UN report that is the source of the info about the 500,000 children dead.

On the show 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright about it:

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

The first Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food Programme was exported in December

1996 and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997
http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

Some one calling themselves "JG" writes, ""I can respect you sticking to your beliefs, but how far will you take that ?
At what point would you be willing to consider the possibility that you may have been wrong ? On both sides of the issues, we all become too locked into our first feelings, we all have to be able to rethink things, every time someone on CL is presented with information that doesn't match their pre set notions, they dismiss it, it came from the wrong website... it's a vast right or left wing conspiracy, it's all a ploy by the saudis or by al franken, its a by product of the polarization that is gripping this country, and I have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, it is not good.
So I'll ask you directly, when will you be willing to consider the possibility that it this invasion is NOT about oil, or land grabs, that whatever you feel about the outcome or the methods, the motivation was sincere ? When US troops leave Iraq ? when a new Iraqi government is elected ? When Iraq steps up and votes against us in the UN security council in 50 years, those falafel eating surrender monkey ingrates ?"
I responded: G, here are the facts:
On May 22 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1483, abolishing sanctions against Iraq and recognising the United States and United Kingdom as the country's occupying powers. The resolution called upon the US-UK authority to "comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079563,00.html
The US and UK have already violated these Conventions. what the hell is your deal, you don't understand this or know about it? you expect our mainstream media to spoon feed you the facts? The media didn't report to the American people how the CIA helped put the Baath party into power in the first place. They didn't report how the CIA handed over the names of thousands of people to be killed by the Baathists. The media continues the game by not reporting the violations the US is doing right now in Iraq.
when the **** are you going to wake up?
are you putting us on with this bullshit of yours that the US is simply trying to help the Iraqi people, that the "motivation was sincere"!?!, are you a **** two year old? Are you really this God damn ignorant or naive? You ignore 50 years of the US **** over the people of the Middle East.

Now that you see that the US has clearly shown its true colors (again) with the violations of the rights of the Iraqis (this is happening RIGHT NOW!) with the illegal imposing of business deals upon them, are you going to finally wake up or not?

JG ignored the above.
He posted the following in responce to some other topic:

I am not saying school prayer is some sort of be all and end all, but I do think that laws, a system of crime and punishment, will never be enough to prevent people from doing bad things, there has to be some underlying morality , be it religious, or just a sense of right and worng, thats missing from society today. If the only deterrence of a crime will be "can I get away with it or not " then we are all in trouble. This is nothing new, when the Romans stopped revering (and fearing) their gods, the moral code fo their society collapsed. Its a basic formula, am I saying everyone needs to start going to church, but I do think a godless, faithless society is asking for trouble. Whats this guy was is that if these two murdering teens had a real faith, and a sense fo right and wrong, this tragedy would have never happened.

Too many of our young men and women today are growing up without souls, heartless and cruel, if religion is no longer strong enough to provide a model for thought and deed, and the collapsing family not noi longer able to provide it, then who or what will ? the government ? hardly ! public opinion ? yeah right. Every society is built and runs on 4 pillars, Religion, Family, Law, and Public Opinion, I don't need to tell you how shaky our table has become.

So I wrote, "JG you write things like "If the only deterrence of a crime will be "can I get away with it or not " then we are all in trouble. "
yet you don't practice what you preach. you are complicitous with crimes in the Middle East.
you write as if you live in a mke believe world. you say things like we can wait and see if the US in honest about what it is doing in Iraq. But I have pointed out to you that we do not have to wait. I showed you the facts and you ignore them.
I am talking about this:Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pillage is forbidden LINK>>>> http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/32258349.html

JG responed: "I think it was pericles who said " a state can not be moral as the people must be, it's first last and only goal must be preservation and welfare of the state "

or something like that, someone google it for me.

Every government has to act solely in it's own interests, don't be childish and asume that any nation on this planet acts in any other way besides it's own self interests. All I need my government o do is look out for me and my fellow citizens, thats harsh, but true. It has no responsibility to any other master besides it's own citizens."

I responed:
You wrote, "I think it was pericles who said " a state can not be moral as the people must be, it's first last and only goal must be preservation and welfare of the state " or something like that, someone google it for me."

JG, you really should give more thought to your opinions. You may think you are dressing up your immorality but it doesn't hide the fact that it is immoral. OF COURCE A STATE CAN BE MORAL AND SHOULD BE MORAL!! A human being has the goal of preservation of him or herself, that doesn't mean they can disregard morality! What an evil concept that you can simply disregard morality because the state "gotta do what it gotta do" That is the philosophy of a thug.

You write, "Every government has to act solely in it's own interests, don't be childish and asume that any nation on this planet acts in any other way besides it's own self interests. All I need my government o do is look out for me and my fellow citizens, thats harsh, but true."

Two points: First of all, a government has to act morally or we should end it. Second, who is being naive? when you talk about the internets of a government you aren't serious when you include the interests of the average citizen are you? The interests served by this government are those of the powerful. And that is why they want you to disregard morality, they are THAT greedy.

But the thing about you is that you are really twisted. Are you now going to tell me that you are serving the interests of the state by being deceptive here on Craigslist? YOu made a big point about "the motivation was sincere" as far as the US toward Iraq. Yet you don't think the US has to be sincere, it only has to "do what it gotta do". You write, "It has no responsibility to any other master besides it's own citizens" Why are you on here trying to get people to believe that the US is sincere when your philosophy is that the US has no responsibility to be sincere at all? You are going to argue that the US by some fluke happens to be sincere when the US has no responsibility to be so? You are bullshitting your fellow citizens for whose benefit? The state? America is supposed to be a government of the people, so you miss the point of what America is supposed to be about.
What is you contribution to America? Trying to trick Americans into thinking their government is acting morally while AT THE SAME TIME (actually after it is made clear to you that the US is not acting morally) insisting that the government has not responsibility to be moral?
When do you finally come clean and stop acting like a shit. People are suffering and dying because of the kinds of games people like you play.

An Example Of What Should Be Considered a Newsworthy, Significant Contribution to the Counterterrorism Debate

William Kaminsky quotes J. Cofer Black, the director from 1999-2002 of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center on his blog.
Here is a key point:
"At the more strategic level, the only way to address terrorism is to deal with the issues that create terrorism, to resolve them where possible, and where that's not possible to ensure that there is an alternative to violence"

Mr. Kaminsky makes a good point: "Politicians from both sides of the aisle would do well to heed this." I could not agree more with Mr. Kaminsky. Have you noticed that the specific foreign policies are worth more than our lives? Where is the discussion about these specific policies and why aren't people questioning if we should continue with them and continue to put out lives at risk because of them?
Here is my web page about Bush's lie: http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

Dear Mr. Burke:

I read your review of Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival. I thought
it was interesting because I am finishing my book and I want everyone that
reads it to "get it". Here is my article that focuses on the central argument
I make in my book. I was hoping you could read it and tell me what you think:
http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

I can answer any questions you have. These are matters of life and death
so I think you will agree it is important to address them.

Below I try to address the concerns you raised in your review and also
in a post I found at Burke on Chomsky
In your post you write, "Likewise, more contentiously, I'd say putting
Hussein and Ba'athism way down the list of things that explain Iraq prior
to this war (or prior to Gulf War I) is an error of equal proportions, because
it leaves Chomsky or a similar critic as blind to the motors that drive history"
But Chomsky is not blind to the motors that drive history. The US is the
most powerful motor on earth so it is important to focus on the US, I don't
know how you measure "way down the list".

I read the first mention of Saddam in his book, Hegemony or Survival
p31, and I think it addresses your concern about where on the list to put
Hussein and Ba'athism. Yes Saddam's record was horrendous but the US supported
him during the worst of it. Simply listing Saddam's crimes without mention
of the US role would be wrong. The "motor" of the US is the most powerful
one and is one for which we are responsible for. But the history shows that
we bear enormous responsibility for Saddam too. We knew he was a murderer
when the CIA was supporting him decades ago (before the 1980's). We supported
him even after the Gulf War. Chomsky explains in detail about Saddam and
US policy on his CD ( http://www.representativepress.org/listentothis.html )

As far as discussing crimes that we can control and the importance in
doing so, Chomsky makes a good point here: "But take a look, say, at the
book Edward S. Herman and I wrote on this topic. We discussed three kinds
of atrocities. What we called "benign bloodbaths", which nobody cares about,
constructive bloodbaths, which are the ones we like, and nefarious bloodbaths,
which are the ones that the bad guys do. The principle that I think we ought
to follow is not the one that you stated. You know, it's a very simple ethical
point: You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions.
You're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's
actions. The most important thing for me and for you is to think about the
consequences of your actions. What can you affect."

The point that we supported Saddam is rarely mentioned in the media
and the hypocrisy of this I have rarely seen addressed. Chomsky talks about
this on his CD. I have seen a few mentions of the support but here is something
interesting, talking heads from the Administration and think tanks list Saddam's
crimes using the statement that "Saddam? attacked his neighbors" (neighbors
plural)! So they include the attack on Iraq! But that is the war that we
supported him in! NEVER have I seen a reporter question these talking heads
about why Saddam's attack on Iran is listed as a wrong act by Saddam even
though the US helped him do it. How can the very same act be wrong for Saddam
and right for us? (this is an example of the media "playing the game")
I haven't seen Chomsky mention it but I think how the Ba'ath party came
to power in the 60's is very important (see below). I think the media's omission
of how the Ba'ath party came to power is very telling. Don't you agree? The
problem with the games reporters are playing or going along with out of ignorance
is exposing it requires proving two things. The first is that the omitted
thing is in fact true and second? that the? omitted things was in act omitted
and should have been reported. I have people tell me that "oh the media doesn't
give a history" but that simply is not true. Specifically, I have seen the
media a few times mention the 1980's and US support and I have seen media
talking heads justify it as the "lesser of two evils". But notice that the
60's coups and the handing over of hundreds of names to the Ba'ath party
is NOT mentioned in the media. I am talking about effective reporting in
the media, not a single mention somewhere like the? OpEd in the Times written
by . In fact a NYTs OpEd written by author Morris that did talk about the
1963 coup shows that reporters are ignoring it unless no one reads the OpEds
in the Times.

Here are some details about how the Ba'ath party came to power in the
60's and the US role: US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy
at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked
them". "The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of
the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American
one and you don't get that chance very often.
"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us". http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

The role of the US in putting the Ba'ath party into power should have
been reported to the public, but it wasn't. I have several examples at my
web site the first article that I mentioned ( http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html
) is a dramatic example of the interests of the powerful being served without
regard for the rights of the common man. Maybe I present it forcefully enough
for the reality to be clear to everyone? I think Chomsky understates the
fact that Bush doesn't give the public the truth. About the Bush lie (about
why we were attacked) Chomksy refers to the "comforting story" that is "completely
at variance with everything we know." I think Chomsky is great but he tones
it down too much in this particular case. The fact that Bush lied about why
we are attacked on 9/11 is an outrage.

Another dramatic example of the media playing the game is their refusal
to report that the Iraq War was illegal. ( By the way, I have my correspondence
with a Newsday reporter that? sheds light on how the game is played if you
are interested.) Also the media is neglecting to inform the public that the
US is violating the Geneva and Hague Conventions by imposing business conditions
and changing laws in Iraq. Another dramatic example is ignoring the last
50 years of the US of undermining democracy in the region. The media played
along with the idea that the US intends to see up a democracy. The media
"forgot" to mention that we were lied to to get us into Vietnam. They "forgot"
to report we were lied to in the fist Gulf war. ( Lies About Iraq
)

As Chomsky explains in the movie Manufacturing consent, "the interests of
power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the
needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the
blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing
themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
http://home.twcny.rr.com/heurich/chomsky.html

You asked the question "why isn't Chomsky dead?" (for publishing the
ideas and facts he does). Chomsky has explained this in other publications.
The interests of the powerful in the US are not carried out inside the US
by violence, instead it is by manipulation and propaganda and it is done
largely voluntarily.

This idea was explained by George Orwell in a preface that was intended
for his novel Animal Farm but was not included. Here is part of that preface,
"The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely
voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark,
without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign
country will know of instances of sensational items of news ? things which
on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the
British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general
tacit agreement that ?it wouldn?t do? to mention that particular fact. So
far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press
is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have
every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind
of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in
plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body
of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without
question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but
it is ?not done? to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ?not done?
to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the
prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.
A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either
in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Orwell's Proposed Preface to 'Animal Farm'

Chomsky explains a Propaganda Model: Propaganda Model
Below is another example of? manipulation and lies being told in order
to fool the public. Yes there are people playing games in the world.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example
of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's
1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game",
which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that
powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you
believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants
peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been
presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false
premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants
peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine
is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United
States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process,"
while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking
peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."
This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise.
So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with
Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many.?
Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play
the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky
wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that
Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called Chomsky
to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her
that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman
looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would
run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said
they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
As Chomsky writes, "But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times
and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's
like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

"Russil Wvong" "Noam Chomsky" and "George Kennan" Wvong Wrong

You wrote, "Chomsky is taking a single sentence from the middle of a 21-page
document and arguing that this represents the primary goal of US
foreign policy, ignoring the rest of the documentand numerous
other documents in which it's clear that the primary goal of US<
policymakers was containment of the Soviet Union."

And yet you wrote, "I am *not* arguing that US foreign policy is virtuous and
benevolent, or that Kennan himself has never made any
recommendations which cannot be criticized on moral grounds. In the same document, PPS/23, Kennan recommends that the US encourage the Western European countries to retain, develop, and exploit

their African colonies, as a source of food and raw materials,
with no mention of the interests of the Africans themselves. ... Here, Chomsky definitely has a point. "

You wrote "The US has done plenty of immoral things. But *it shouldn't be
necessary to make stuff up*, and I think Chomsky's quote of
PPS/23 is so misleading that it falls into this category. "
Russil, you see yourself how Kennan wrote in the same document, your
point about "ignoring the rest of the document" is just wrong. I hate to think there are people that will absolutely refuse to concede a
valid point. The fact is Chomsky is correct when he quotes Kennan. Have you
given it more though because I hope if you do you will agree.


I myself have been doing extensive research into the agendas served by US policy makers.

I have made an effort to present the facts as clearly as possible. I was wondering what you think: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives
I was hoping you would read my article and be motivated to purchase and wear one of myT-Shirts. Tell me what you think.

Sincerely,

Tom Murphy
PS my book will be coming out soon, I hope you will consider buying it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html
This is a hell of a lot more than "hazing". NOTE that the media has done a poor job informing the public about these facts, in fact the contribute to a down playing of the horrific events. Many still have a chip on their shoulders and say "big deal". The media has not made it clear that this is a **** big deal. Jesus Christ, you guys are not going to start making excuses for God damn rapists are you? How **** low are you robotic blind leader followers going to sink?

"He pointed the laser sight directly in the middle of my chest," said Professor Shaker, a political scientist at Baghdad University. "Then he pointed to his penis. He told me, 'Come here, bitch, I'm going to fuck you.'"

The incident is one of a number in which US soldiers are alleged to have abused, intimidated or sexually humiliated Iraqi women.

US officials have acknowledged detaining women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information: a strategy that is in violation of international law.

According to the New Yorker magazine the photos and videos so far unreleased by the Pentagon show American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner", and a secret report by General Antonio Taguba into the scandal confirms that US guards videotaped and photographed naked female prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard" is shown "having sex with a female detainee".

my point about the media downplaying the worst part of the abuse is correct. You don't know about the abuse of the women and the rapes. Notice how many people still can say "What's the big deal? Sounds like college kids at a frat." thanks to the way the media has underreported the abuse of the women??

(by the way, even the "liberal" Air America's Al Franken was unwilling to mention the women abuse and rape, as was his co-host who only had the courage to say "and other things")

Please read my post: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/30416569.html (link works on the page)

This is absolutely crazy. We have soldiers RAPING female detainees.
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.

David,

I posted a response to your question: "Can you please explain to me why the US government should take any account whatsoever of other people *unless* it furthers the interests of the US government? I mean, what else is the US government for? In fact can you give me one instance from all recorded history where any national government has ever done anything of real import for another country unless it was in their interest?"

Here it is:
Did you miss the point? US policy makers setback the people of Afghanistan by supporting terrorists in an attempt to destroy the progressive government.

You wrote, "where any national government has ever done anything of real import for another country" The point isn't that US policy makers didn't do anything for the Afghanis, the point is they HARMED THEM.


I have found that people want to deny that US foreign policy makers are willing to harm people to further their agendas. This seems to be what you are doing by not dealing with it and instead acting like the question is between actively helping or just doing nothing. I think I am making myself clear. The point is not that US policy makers aren't doing something of "real import" for the Afghanistan, the point is that the US policy makers were willing to HARM them as they carry out their agenda. I think you are not addressing this point because I can't imagine that you would be arguing that any national government should actually hurt people as they pursue their agenda.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

A reader comments, "you're a racist. let me ask you a question, RIGHT NOW, as we speak, Arabs are murdering blacks by the THOUSANDS in the Sudan, ethnically cleansing them out of the country, where' your outrage, hypocrite?"


Our country isn't SUPPORTING IT! ****, is that such a difficult concept for you to get?

As a citizen of the United States I have a moral responsibility to make sure my government doesn't CAUSE harm. THat is what is happening with Israel. that is what is happening in the Middle East. By the way, I went to the trouble of explaining how US polciy makers fucked over country after country after country in the Middle East. so you are a LIAR when you make your claim that "it is only about Isreal".

I emialed you the following (it talked about US policy makers fucking the people of Iraq, fucking the people of Iran fucking the people of Jordan)

what the hell are you talking about "in order to fight what was a greater threat at the time"? The CIA handed over the names of THOUSANDS of people for the Baaath party to kill, many tortured first. you can justify any evil action by claiming "we had to in oder to fight somethign else" but what did you dream we were fighting when we put the Baath party into power in 1963?
at some point does it ever sink in that there are indeed greedy immoral people that use US polcies to further their agenda?

and when the hell did you think the US "paid for the mistakes"? are you totally clueless?
Do you realize how many times the US has undermined democracy? Why? because greedy men want to expliot the resources and not have the population share in the wealth. this is easily done when you have dictators in charge. Jesus Christ, at some point don't you feel foolish making excuses for these guys?

Deal with the fact that there are indeed greedy people that use American policies for immoral agendas. If you need another example of the dishonesty, look at the case of CIA coup to overthrow Mossadegh. I am told that "everyone" knows about this. In fact it is widely know and has been publicly admitted by former CIA director James Woolsey, "in the early 1950's the CIA, under President Eisenhower's instructions, helped overthrow the Mossadeg government and re-install the Shah. Given what's happened in Iran since 1979, Mossadeg looks pretty good by comparison. In retrospect it would have probably been a better idea to let Iran take its own course then -- there might not be so much resentment against the U.S. there now if we had kept our hands off." Now if you want to see if things are on the level, check the CIA web site: ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html ) where they explain,"Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling shah was forced into exile. " The CIA omits 44 years of history in order to avoid admitting the truth on their web site. For God Sakes, what more do you need to see?


And guy, we supported the Shah, that was the problem. we even allowed the murderer to get medical treatment here. You don't think the Iranians should be angry with the US for imposing the Shah on them. (and at the same time the US pumped money to the mulahs to keep them quite. so we really fucked over the moderates in Iran.) We supported a murderous dictator AND pumbed money to the fundamentalsits.

AS for Jordan, King Hussein responded to public pressure by allowing free parliamentary elections. He was aligned with the British but the people were pro-Nasser. (Nasser was the champion of Arab nationalism) In 1956 he replaced 64 British officers with native ones and "this was followed by free parliamentary elections which produced a pro-Nasser government under Prime Minister Suleiman Nabusli. Briefly king and government worked together, but seeing his royal prerogatives eroded by a government of the people, the former reached for outside help."1 And the outside help that King Hussein reached out to was CIA agent James Russell Barracks.
"In April 1957 King Hussein was twenty-two and the US government had already replaced Britain as his financial backer and protector. ... the US government was determined to reclaim Jordan as a Western sphere of influence. This meant replacing the freely elected government of Jordan and the reemergence of Hussein's royal dictatorship."

The exampes above show US policy makers fucking the people of Iraq, fucking the people of Iran fucking the people of Jordan. do you see a pattern?

what "threat" were we fighting when we enslaved hundreds of thousands of blacks? Slavery in America was about GREED and BUSINESS. has anyone every put in those terms for you?
And sure enough the press explained away the terrorism that was in reponce to slavery by claiming it was "without cause or provocation"
so rather than"paying for mistakes" the elites have lied to the public and gotten away with it. and in large part becasue of people like you.

Chomsky's book is a must have: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)




Learn about "The Zionists, the Oil Companies, and Washington" as she explains it on p27.

It is disgusting how people play this game that we are actaully going to allow democracy in Iraq. What the US is doing is setting up an Arab facade just like the British did.
It is really increadible how so many people play along with the idea that the US goals are noble.

"(We need an) ..Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff.... There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on?. - Lord Curzon on installing the puppet Feisal as King of Iraq

From the start it was clear to many that the Jews had not moved to Palestine to live in peace with the people already living there. Many statements are startling in their fanaticism. I am talking about mainstream Zionist thought. Extremist slogans like "A land for a people for a people without a land" circulated in America without people realizing just how ugly the claim was. First of all it is an outrageous lie. That should give you a clue about how the Zionists intended to treat the native inhabitant. They were denying that they even existed! What about the Palestinians right to exist? The ironic thing is with all the pro-Israel propaganda, it is the Zionists that are the ones denying a "right to exist".
When you hear about "right to exist" what they actually mean is the right to be racist. If you look at the opinions this is the fact. They consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights to be "the destruction of Israel."
Please get this book:
or this book:

Comment from someone, "And the Palestinian terrorism before Sharon was Prime Minister? Arab terrorism wasn't born under Sharon. They killed children on purpose prior to that! Remember a little thing called the PLO?"

And who started the mess? The Zionists moved into Palestine with the intention of moving people out because they were not Jews. This ethnic cleansing was planned from the start. The Father of Zionism plotted to have the non-Jews be "spirited across the border" wrmea

From the start it was clear to many that the Jews had not moved to Palestine to live in peace with the people already living there. MAny statements are startling in their fanaticism. I am talking about mainstream Zionist thought. Extremist slogans like "A land for a people for a people without a land" circulated in America without people realizing just how ugly the claim was. First of all it is an outrageous lie. That should give you a clue about how the Zionists intended to treat the native inhabitant. They were denying that they even existed! What about the Palestinians right to exist? The ironic thing is with all the pro-Israel propaganda, it is the Zionists that are the ones denying a "right to exist".

When you hear about "right to exist" what they actually mean is the right to be racist. If you look at the opinions this is the fact. They consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights to be "the destruction of Israel."

If you are concerned about Jews then you should respect the history of Jews who actually did stand for justice. Some paid with their lives for insisting that racism is wrong. Zionists killed OTHER JEWS who dared point out what I am saying. The Hagana archives contain the names of 40 JEWS who were killed by Irgun and the Stern Group (Jewish terrorist groups). For example an anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitant of Palestine was assassinated as he left his synagogue in June 1924 by two Haganah agents (Jewish terrorists) see Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians pp164-165


What these murdered Jews were resisting was a racist ideology. Racism is wrong, even if Jews are doing it. Far too many Jews are excusing racist policies but not all, for example the Jews I mentioned who were murdered by racist Zionist Jews. Far too many whites accepted slavery in the US but not all and they to suffered for standing up for the right thing. Don't tell me you think Jews can't do wrong and only non-Jewish white people are capable of such things. Right now the Zionist ideology is spreading such misery and injustice. People are people and you need to drop your distorted views. If you are concerned about the hate created by Israeli polices then you need to do some research. How could so many Americans go along with slavery? THINK about it.

From the start the Jews were using terrorism. As I pointed out, even against other Jews who dared speak out against their racist agenda. Terrorism continued as Jews went about implementing the agenda of "demographic purity" (by the way they continue the process but the US Media is unwilling to show it)

there are dramatic examples of stories that go unreported. American TV simply suppressed this video,
I only know about it because of the Internet: CBC News - Israeli army embarrassed by video broadcast Watch the video, the Israeli soldier actually talks about "purification" as an excuse for letting the mother of five bleed to death in front of her children. THIS IS SO CLEARLY NAZI ACTIONS! WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT IN AMERICA IS BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE IT. (Note that this was only on Canadian TV, not American TV.) Here is a picture of one of the woman's children crying as she watches her mom bleed to death. And Israeli soldiers refuse to allow an ambulance to reach her. (remember US TV executives didn't want you to see it, so you didn't)

Some American reporters think "Shit I am not going to touch that story, it could hurt my career." other American reporters simply think Israel should be treated differently. Yes American media treats Israel differently, and they think it is perfectly natural to do so. It has even been admitted openly: "It's not like when you talk about lobbying organizations for say immigrants or the disabled or the Saudi Government for that matter. History, sensitivity and politics make talk of Israel and its supporters different and alot more complicated. I'm John Donvan for Nightline in Washington." -broadcast 4/17/02 ABC's Nightline

The opinions you hold about Israel are the result of you not seeing the realities and not hearing the facts.
The airing of the video itself was a story and it made headlines in Israel. In America, reporters and editorsrefused to show it or acknowledge it existed.

Even when the rare opportunity to confront the media about their omissions happens, they IGNORE it!
At a Center for Communications Forum called “The Press & The Pentagon” on April 4, 2002 NYU
A woman asked five media people about why they never showed the video in the US:
“All four of you ... all five of you actually have discussed how editors
decide what's in the public interest and I really want to know how that decision
is made. I am thinking particularly of coverage right now of what's happening
in the Middle East and I wonder who decides it's not in the public interest
to describe the suffering and the humiliation and the terror of 3.5 million
Palestinian people who are suffering under Israeli military occupation.
I want to know why we’re not hearing those stories. why aren't we speaking
to Palestinians by telephone when possible for example
And I want to know why for example coverage, film footage of a woman, a Palestinian woman, [Huda Hawarjeh], being killed and dying, bleeding to death, in front of her four children which was deemed appropriate viewing on Israeli Television never made it to the United States. That is the first part of my question.”

     “Hold it there”, said the moderator and he then changed the question and asked the media panel a DIFFERENT question. So not only did mainstream media ignore the video, they refused to even respond to a woman that asks them about it.

The fact is facts about Jewish terrorism get suppressed in the US. In fact the first airplane hijacking in the Middle East was by Jews: " The first airplane hijacking in the Middle East also falls outside the canon: Israel’s hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent “to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus,” who had been captured on a spy mission in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the “factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice.” In October 1956, the Israeli air force shot down an unarmed Egyptian civilian plane, killing 16 people including four journalists, in a failed attempt to assassinate Field Marshall Abdul Hakim Amar, second to President Nasser, at a time when the two countries were not in a state of war. This was a preplanned operation, thus unlike Israel’s downing of a Libyan civilian airliner with 110 killed as it was lost in a sandstorm two minutes flight time from Cairo, towards which it was heading. This February 1973 action took place while Israeli airborne and amphibious forces were attacking Tripoli in northern Lebanon, killing 31 people (mainly civilians) and destroying classrooms, clinics, and other buildings in a raid justified as preemptive.28 All of this was (and is) dismissed as insignificant, if even noticed. The reaction to Arab terrorism is quite different." WesternStateTerrorism

From what you wrote I take it you hold broad and common misconceptions about Israel. By giving you examples of lies I hope you can start to see a pattern an eventually to see the truth.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's 1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game", which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process," while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."

This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise. So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many. Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called CHomsky to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
As Chomsky writes, But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

For examples of how rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see 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); Eric Pace, "Anwar el-Sadat, the Daring Arab Pioneer of Peace With Israel," New York Times, October 7, 1981, p. A10 (explicitly denying the facts, and referring to Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 as follows: "Reversing Egypt's longstanding policy, [Sadat] proclaimed his willingness to accept Israel's existence as a sovereign state").

Like I said, this is just one example.

This point never gets made. Here is my web page about it: History of Israel.

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...”
— Yitzhak Shamir
Israeli Prime Minister, Zionist terrorist
in an August 1943 article titled “Terror”, written for Hazit
the journal of Lehi, the terrorist organization he belonged to
Visit my blog

"We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong. We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession." - For Jewish Readers from Jews for Justice

If you do nothing else please search the facts of the 1971 peace offer by Egypt, it could open your eyes to the pattern of misinformation and lies that are spread in service of powerful interests. I know that human nature is such that people form their world view based on what they are exposed to and what they experience. The problem we face is how can I show you that you hold views that have been influenced by deception and omission? If you are sincere about wanting to know about the world you live in and the society you are a member of then please review what I have to say and like I said actually research the facts of the 1971 peace offer. I can't make you change your mind, I can't make you see the facts, only you can do that.

From what you wrote I take it you hold broad and common misconceptions about Israel. By giving you examples of lies I hope you can start to see a pattern an eventually to see the truth.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's 1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game", which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process," while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."

This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise. So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many. Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called CHomsky to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
AS Chomsky writes, But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

For examples of how rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see 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); Eric Pace, "Anwar el-Sadat, the Daring Arab Pioneer of Peace With Israel," New York Times, October 7, 1981, p. A10 (explicitly denying the facts, and referring to Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 as follows: "Reversing Egypt's longstanding policy, [Sadat] proclaimed his willingness to accept Israel's existence as a sovereign state").

Like I said, this is just one example.

If you are concerned about Jews then you should respect the history of Jews who actually did stand for justice. Some paid with their lives for insisting that racism is wrong. Zionists killed OTHER JEWS who dared point out what I am saying. The Hagana archives contain the names of 40 JEWS who were killed by Irgun and the Stern Group (Jewish terrorist groups). For example an anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitant of Palestine was assassinated as he left his synagogue in June 1924 by two Haganah agents (Jewish terrorists) see The Fateful Triangle pp164-165

What these murdered Jews were resisting was a racist ideology. Racism is wrong, even if Jews are doing it. Far too many Jews are excusing racist policies but not all, for example the Jews I mentioned who were murdered by racist Zionist Jews. Far too many whites accepted slavery in the US but not all and they to suffered for standing up for the right thing. Don't tell me you think Jews can't do wrong and only non-Jewish white people are capable of such things. Right now the Zionist ideology is spreading such misery and injustice. People are people and you need to drop your distorted views. If you are concerned about the hate created by Israeli polices then you need to do some research. How could so many Americans go along with slavery? THINK about it. If Americans are supposed to be wonderful and the creation of the US was supposed to be great, why was such evil written into our Constitution and inflicted on so many people? Zionists consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal right to be the "destruction of Israel". It is like when a white racist says a "neighborhood is destroyed" when they think there are too many blacks in a neighborhood or that there are any blacks in a neighborhood.

You mentioned suicide bombers as if that was the end all of everything. You need to know this started in Israel at a eertain time, about six weeks after Baruch Goldstein killed some 29 Muslims as they were praying on February 25, 1994. And after Israel had been supporting Hamas as a way to undermine the PLO and derail political attempts at peace. And they come after decades of murders and human rights abuses. You fixate only on others killing civilians and you overlook Israel's killings and other actions. Killing civilians is wrong but that doesn't make the actions of others right. Israel has killed far more Palestinians and has ethnically cleansed 750,000 people all in the name of the racist ideology of Zionism.

One could harp on the murders of whites by blacks during the years of slavery but that doesn't mean slavery was OK.What would you think of someone that went on and on about the murder of whites at the hands of black slaves in early America? You know of cource that the whites were in the wrong with their slavery even though killing whites wa wrong. Stop using the killings you refer to as an excuse for the original and ongoing wrongs of Zionism.

Think about this from Jews for Justice writing about Israel:
"We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong. We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession." Conclusion I
Origin Introductioncolor="#000000"



I suggest you order thes two books written by decent and honerable Jews: Amazon.com: Books: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
Amazon.com: Books: Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948
History of Israel
Israel violates the conditions for admittance into UN

"The U.S. goal cannot be a free Iraq", -Pipes

Guys, Pipes' ideas and rationalizations should make a little light go on in your heads. Could you think for a minute how ugly and convenient Pipes rationalizations are? THIS is part of the way US policy makers think.

If you really want to understand it: US policy makers rationalize doing anything to other peoples as long as it furthers their agendas. And they know they can get away with it because so many of you guys will fall over yourselves making excuses for them.

Can a total contradiction wake you up? I notice most people here are concerned about fundamentalist Islam and are thinking of ways to stamp it out.

How about this modest proposal: LETS SUPPORT FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM! That's right. Lets help them organize and lets promote the idea of Jihad. Lets identify the most violent and fundamentalist and give them aid.

Do you like that idea? You want to tell me "you stupid so and so" and "what the hell is with you blah, blah, blah" and all the rest of your opinions that my proposal is crazy.

But now lets change one thing. Now I am a US policy maker and I have already implemented this modest proposal as part of US foreign policy. In fact it was the biggest CIA operation of all time. Remember US Foreign Policy. OK now you have to kiss my ass and not criticize this modest proposal because it is "America" and you would be guilty of "hating America". Now you can't tell me it was an insane proposal because it was US Foreign Policy and you would be "blaming America".

I also hope this illustrates the disregard for other people that is a defining characteristic of US Foreign Policy. You probably feel all misty eyed about our safety and protecting America from these fundamentalists. But if it is the US inflicting these fundamentalists on others, things you don't want done to you, then you shut your mouth.

Is it starting to sink in what a serious problem we have with the thinking and implementing of US foreign polices? Don't kid yourself, there are amoral people who manage to get into decision making positions in our government. And they inflicted misery upon the people of Afghanistan, they inflicted fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Don't fool yourself with an idea that it was for the Afghanis' good somehow, US policy makers didn't give a damn about them. Check out the disregard for Afghani human rights:
"The United States's larger interests ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." - from Classified State Department cables, among the documents found in the takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran on 4 November 1979
Afghan

Athos wrote, "I see that stupidity is a virtue - Tom Murphy is still spewing the benefits of representativepress.org while doing his impression of a moonbat troll with a flaming case of BDS."

You know Athos, it is sad if you think you are actually thinking. What is wrong with people like you? Can you dispute a single fact? Can you attempt to discuss any point raised? What the hell are you so afraid of? What kind of a rebuttal do you think you wrote? I fear for this country if there are many people like you. Make an effort will you?

Did you know that the US was supporting the Mujahideen six months before the Soviet troops moved into Afghanistan? Are you too young to remember that we have been told that our government responded to the Soviet intervention? Doesn't it make you THINK for a minute when you learn that this is not the case and that the government actually provoked the invasion by supporting these terrorists? What did you think the Mujahideen were doing? They were murdering progressive Muslims, they were killing Muslims who would never launch an attack on the US. And the US was helping them carry out these horrors on people that wanted progress. We helped them do this to Muslims who were happy with modernity and were happy with sending girls to school.

Did you make an effort to read what former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said? Do you even understand what you are reading? what is the deal with your dopey quips, are you so frightened that you refuse to think?

Zbigniew Brzezinski was asked about the our support of the Mujahadeen. Brzezinski said, "Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul." -Brzezinski

No Soviet troops in the country and the US is helping these terrorists attack the best government the Afghanis ever had. We helped the fundamentalist extremists take over the country and destroy the women rights, the modernity and the progress, "... the cost being measured entirely in non-American deaths and suffering, as the rebels regularly exploded car bombs and sent rockets smashing into residential areas of Kabul, and destroyed government-built schools and clinics and murdered literacy teachers (just as the US-backed Nicaraguan contras had been doing on the other side of the world, and for the same reason: these were symbols of governmental benevolence)." afghan Doesn't that make you think at all?

Laura writes, " It boggles my mind that anyone can still defend bush.
Also if we are to prevent future attacks it is very important to know what mistakes or incompetence lead to the 9/11 attacks. The real issue is do you care more about the country or saving bush's ass?"

Great point Laura. Bush received warnings that bin Laden was determined to attack the US. We now know Bush and his team were more interested in planning for a war with Iraq so they did not act on the warnings. That is not a leader. After the first plane hit the WTC, Bush continued with his plan to go to a children's classroom where he read a book about a pet goat. That is not a leader. After being told about the second plane hitting the WTC, Bush continued to sit in the children's classroom listening to a book about a pet goat.That is not a leader. He just sat there when we were under attack. He sat there for at least 6 minutes and by some reports 11 minutes. That is not a leader.
He fought the attempts to hold a commission and when the commission asked him to testify the shit said he could only give them an hour. Eventually he testified but Cheney had to hold his hand. That is not a leader.

vtrtl writes, "See if you can keep up here... It was once considered wrong (but in the long view we have decided that is was objectively right) to oppose slavery in the United States.
It does not follow that opposition to the United States and its policies is therefore always right under every circumstance and at all times."

And my point is that jumping to this "anti-american" is foolish because you should deal with the facts. Labels such as "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic" are just tools to prevent policies from being examined. As my slavery example points out, how can wrongs be exposed if people like you label those that try to explain things and you refuse to discuss the details?

vtrtl writes, "By the reasoning of disloyal un-American opposition members like yourself, the degree to which people think you are crazy is evidence that you are right."

See this is the crap I am talking about. you think it is "loyal" of Bush to lie to the American people about why we were attacked? Come off it. Bush lies in order to serve special interests that don't want the specific policies questioned by the American people. Bush is not loyal to the American people, he is loyal to the interests he lies on behalf of. For God sakes when America was attacked he was more concerned about covering for the special interests than leveling with the American people.

When Nat Turner killed all those whites, people like you no doubt screamed bloody murder AND REFUSED TO EVEN THINK ABOUT WHY IT HAPPENED. People like you would have been pleased with their newspaper that assured them that slaves attacked "without motive or provocation". Today you can see the media playing the same game of feeding the public lies in order to serve powerful interests.

Why they attacked is called the motive. A sane approach is to look at the situation and where there are wrongs, end them. Bush's tactic (and yours) seeks to avoid having people question the polices.

A hint is that Bush and company feels it necessary to lie about the motives. That should tell you something and if you wake up from your blind obedience you might learn something.

US foreign policy makers in their "wisdom" supported Saddam. The media has reluctantly mentions this but does not give the whole story of the support. In fact US foreign policy makers helped put the Baath party into power. That is something mainstream media has refused to report.

Also US foreign policy makers in their "wisdom" supported the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were murdering progressive Muslims. The support started six months before the Soviet troops moved into Afghanistan. US support for these terrorists was part of a selfish plan of political manipulation, there was no concern for the progressive Muslims that were killed. It is hypocritical to point a finger at the Muslim world when it was the US that has directly supported the very worst elements.
Think about that for a minute. US policy markers managed to support the two of the biggest problems in the Middle East! Excusing this is plain foolishness. The details of course got little coverage to virtually none in US media.

What do you think the Muslim girls in the schools felt like when the US supported Mujahideen killed their teachers? Your fanatical support of these things is shameful.
US policy makers bear enormous responsibility for the radicalism for not only funding, organizing and arming them but for also imposing such enormous injustices on the general populations so that some are motivated to join the forces that target us now.
Don't tell me that Saddam and the Mujahideen were good when they were teamed up with the US and only "became" bad when they no longer served the agendas of US policy makers.
The first step is to be honest with the American people about how this mess started and what it is really about.
"... 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

Problems with Oliver Kamm

Pejman Yousefzadeh points out that Oliver Kamm makes the mistake of claiming a paraphrase from Chomsky is a quote from the New York Times. The actual quote from the NYT was posted in a comment on Kamm's blog but Kamm deleted it:

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together."

A commenter at pejmanesque.com points out "Your point that this was an unjust criticism is therefore even stronger, shouldn't Kamm and Sully correct this?" -Posted by: MaB at November 19, 2003
"At least you are substantially more honest than Mr. Kamm (who not only hasn't made a correction, but has also removed the comments) and Mr. Sullivan." -Posted by: MaB at November 21, 2003 a comment from link

Oliver Kamm wrote, "The dust jacket bears the legend, which one can't be around a Chomsky fan for long without hearing: "Arguably the most important intellectual alive" - The New York Times This very old quotation from the newspaper of record is in fact truncated." Kamm claimed the full quotation was: "Arguably the most important intellectual alive, how can he write such nonsense about international affairs and foreign policy?" Kamm got it wrong. What Kamm quotes is not from the NYT but from a Chomsky's paraphrase.

The fact is Oliver Kamm is wrong and intellectually dishonest because the real quote was, accourding to Mab, pointed out to him in a comment on his blog (and Kamm removed it): "Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together." -The New York Times Book Review, February 25, 1979 zmag

Welll clearly this isn't the first time Oliver Kamm removes comments that point out facts he does not want to admit. I posted a comment that corrected his claim that Israel does not target civilians. HE REMOVED IT. (now I wonder if I am going to get a response to the email I sent him yesterday (see the previous post)) Here is that comment I REPOSTED yet he deleted it again. see here:

Kamm wrote, "When it refers to 'violence against civilians' it means, astonishingly, the party in the conflict that doesn't target civilians in the first place"

This is not true. Look at Yitzhak Shamir's attitude: “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...” - Yitzhak Shamir Israeli Prime Minister

Physicians for Human Rights USA which investigated the high number of Palestinian deaths and injuries in the first months of the Intifada, concluded that:"the pattern of injuries seen in many victims did not reflect IDF [Israel Defense Forces] use of firearms in life-threatening situations but rather indicated targeting solely for the purpose of wounding or killing."
[Source: PHR USA, 22 November 2000]

This finding was based on "the totality of the evidence" the investigators collected about:
"the high number of gunshots to the head; the volume of serious, disabling thigh injuries; the inappropriate firing of rubber bullets and rubber-coated steel bullets at close range; and the high proportion of Palestinian injuries and deaths."

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

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

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

You don't seem to have a grasp on the conflict. Zionists moved into Palestine with the agenda of removing non-Jews and imposing a system of Jewish supremacy upon those within the land they grabbed. And that is exactly what they did and continue to do by force. Israeli land confiscation and settlement of Palestinian land has continued all through the so called "peace process". Is this not understood?

After I noticed that Kamm removed my comment, I posted this question: "I noticed you removed my post, can you tell me why? It violates none of your rules. What it does do is point out facts you refuse to deal with. Is this what a moral person does? When presented with facts of the intentional killing of children you sweep it under the rug because of who the killers are? Mr. Kamm, do you realize what you are doing? You are mocking religious groups for standing up for human rights. What gives?"

Oliver Kamm is a denier. He claims Israel "doesn't target civilians" when the fact is Israel does target and kill civilains.

Dear Mr. Kamm:

I read a review you wrote of Chomky's article ( http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/chomsky_on_fore.html ) from his latest book in which you wrote, "The Anglo-American liberation of Iraq was grounded in Saddam's defiance of the cease-fire terms that obtained at the end of the first Gulf War. He violated UN Security Council Resolution 687, which codified those terms, and 16 others; his overthrow was an assertion of the integrity of international law in an anarchic world order." Your claim that the overthrow of Saddam was "an assertion of the integrity of international law" is disturbing because attacking Iraq was a violation of International Law.

The US and UK can not legally decide what is enforcement of a UN resolution and on their own "enforce" a UN resolution. The idea that they have the legal right to do so is plainly wrong, both the United States and the United Kingdom have signed the UN Charter and agreed to abide by it. UN Security Council Resolution 687 does not authorize Member States to attack Iraq if Iraq violates the provisions of 687.

UN Resolution 687 says clearly that the cease-fire is effective when Iraq gave notification of its acceptance of the provisions. There is absolutely no provision for an automatic authorization to attack Iraq if violates any of the resolution's provision. And 687 makes clear that the Security Council will "take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution".

By the way, Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, professors at the Centre for International and Public Law at the ANU, make the same points I just made: "It is inconsistent with the clear terms of resolution 678 and indeed the whole structure of the UN charter to argue one or more states could decide for themselves when and if the authorization could be revived." "The position that individual member states can respond to claimed violations of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the UN without the consent of the Security Council is inconsistent with the role of the council and is an unsustainable view of international law." - No, this war is illegal By Hilary Charlesworth, Andrew Byrnes http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/03/18/1047749770379.html

I would have no right to pick a British law and decide that you are in violation of it and go about holding you accountable even if I claim it is my assertion of the integrity of the law to do so.

You wrote, "he mentions not once – he does not even allude to – the character of Saddam's regime." This is not the case. Chomsky writes, "But there is rarely any shortage of elevated ideals to accompany the resort to violence. In 1990, Saddam Hussein assured the world that he wanted not "permanent fighting, but permanent peace . . . and a dignified life"

You wrote, "There could scarcely be a starker illustration - morally, politically and intellectually - of the difference between President Bush and Professor Chomsky. Bush analyses political conditions carefully before alighting on a course founded on moral principle and strategic necessity." Mr. Kamm, you cannot be serious. Bush violates International law and thinks it's a joke. He responded to concerns about violations of International Law concerning Iraq contracts with this: "International law? I'd better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."

I agree with you when you wrote, "Clearly I ought to wait to read Chomsky's book in full before making a definitive judgment." I was wondering if you did eventually read it, I have and it is terrific.

I am waiting for the transcript of the Senate Committee Armed Services hearings "To receive testimony on U.S. policy and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan." so I can quote Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz mentions a UN resolution as the excuse we will use to keep our troops in Iraq. Remember, the lie is that we are going to allow democracy. Now if most Iraqis want us out and we are supposed to hand over sovereignty, then how can we keep our troops there against the wishes of the Iraqi people. Simple, we use a UN resolution as an excuse. I don't see a Resolution that actually gives us this authority but then again the US claimed it has UN authority because of UN resolutions for the "no fly zones" and there was no UN resolution for that either.

The US media has once again kept most Americans in the dark.

"The assassination of Sheikh Yassin certainly harmed the US
in Iraq, quite directly.  Though the media are keeping
pretty quiet about it, the murder of the four US security
contractors in Fallujah appears to have been retaliation
for the Yassin assassination; responsibility was taken
immediately by a previously unknown group in Iraq called
"Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin."

You can learn alot from Chomsky. Yes the US media has been keeping pretty quiet about it. It really is amazing watching how American reporters conform to powerful interests, in this case the interests of Israel and it's supporters.

Australia's media managed to report it:
"A previously unknown group has claimed responsibility for the the gruesome killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, western Iraq.

It said the action was in revenge for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

"This is a gift from the people of Fallujah to the people of Palestine and the family of Sheik Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by the criminal Zionists," said in the statement from the "Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin".

"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," said the statement obtained by AFP.

The statement, entitled "Fallujah, the graveyard of the Americans", claimed the group's fighters killed "members of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Zionist Mossad", referring to Israel's intelligence agency.

It said the "blind violence" of Fallujah residents resulted from an increasing hatred of the Americans and was also in response to the "US aggression, raids on mosques and homes, the arrests, the torture of clerics and the terrorising of women and children."

Yassin, the spiritual leader of the hardline Palestinian militant group, was killed last month in an Israeli air strike as he left a Gaza City mosque.

The four US security contractors were killed in an ambush in Fallujah on Wednesday as they were escorting a truck carrying food supplies to a nearby military base.

Two of their charred bodies were then dismembered and paraded by angry residents."
The Sydney Morning Herald

"A PREVIOUSLY unknown group overnight claimed responsibility for the the gruesome killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, western Iraq. It said the action was in revenge for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

"This is a gift from the people of Fallujah to the people of Palestine and the family of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by the criminal Zionists," said in the statement from the "Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin".

"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," said the statement obtained by AFP.

The statement, entitled Fallujah, the graveyard of the Americans, claimed the group's fighters killed "members of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Zionist Mossad", referring to Israel's intelligence agency. " NEWS.com.au

"A hitherto unknown group, the Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin, has claimed responsibility in reprisal for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," the group said in a statement.

Yassin, the spiritual leader of the hardline Palestinian militant group, was killed last month in an Israeli air strike as he left a Gaza City mosque." Special Broadcasting Service

Here is Noam Chomsky's full post:
"I don't think lobbies, or the love affair with Israel after
1967 on the part of many intellectuals, are marginal.  They
are often a swing factor, and very influential when no
major power interests are involved, as is often the case. 
But I don't think they've been decisive in the past, and
don't think anything has changed in that respect. 

Israel is probably perceived as more valuable as a
"strategic asset" than before.  By now it is virtually an
off-shore US military base and high-tech affiliate. 
Relations are so close that one of Israel's leading
military industries (Rafael, Israel Armament Development
Company) is moving a large part of its development and
manufacturing to the US, so it can integrate more closely
with US firms and the military market here.  Israel claims
to have air and armored forces larger and more
sophisticated than any NATO power (US excepted), and the US
is now beefing these up by sending over 100 of its most
advanced jet bombers, with the very prominent announcement
that they can fly to Iran and back and that they are an
updated version of the US planes Israel used to destroy an
Iraqi reactor in 1981 (incidentally, thereby initiating
Saddam's nuclear weapons program, though that's kept
quiet), and equipped with what the Hebrew press calls
"`special' weaponry." Whatever the purpose of all this,
it's doubtless intended for the ears of Iranian
intelligence, perhaps to rattle the Iranians and provoke
them to some action that can justify US "retaliation," or
to destabilize the country internally.  In this and many
other ways a rich and very powerful client state, closely
allied to the other regional military power, Turkey, and at
the edge of the world's major energy resources is of no
slight value.  Probably more than before, when Israel was
seen as one of the guardians of the dictatorships that
govern the oil producing states.

The assassination of Sheikh Yassin certainly harmed the US
in Iraq, quite directly.  Though the media are keeping
pretty quiet about it, the murder of the four US security
contractors in Fallujah appears to have been retaliation
for the Yassin assassination; responsibility was taken
immediately by a previously unknown group in Iraq called
"Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin." And we see what that set
off.  Though some reaction was anticipated, I doubt that
anything like this was.  And even though Sharon used US
helicopters sent with the foreknowledge that they'd
continue to be used for such purposes as assassinations, I
doubt very much that the Yassin assassination was
explicitly authorized by Washington.  About the "Arab
street" elsewhere, the assumption for years has been that
the local allies can handle anything that comes up, and
that's been well enough verified so that it's
understandable -- if not necessarily correct -- that US
planners should not consider it a major problem.

Israel aside, the US quite often undertakes actions on its
own that planners know will arouse rage and retaliation in
the Arab and Muslim worlds.  Take the invasion of Iraq, for
example.  It was expected to have that effect, and did.  As
also predicted, support for al-Qaeda networks increased
substantially, as did terrorism worldwide.  But it was
considered worth it anyway.

One could certainly argue that these longstanding
commitments are harmful to US interests.  Many do, right
within the establishment.  And sometimes plans have been
reversed when that is recognized.  There are famous cases. 
E.g., in 1971 Kissinger backed Israel's rejection of an
Egyptian offer of a full peace treaty (not under the
influence of lobbies or articulate opinion, who probably
knew nothing about it), but was compelled to reverse course
after the 1973 war made it clear it was a serious mistake,
leading to the Camp David agreements of 1978-9, where the
US-Israel accepted the 1971 offer (basically)."

See my new post ( August 17, 2005) : One of the Reasons for the War on Iraq