A Built-in Bias Against the Interests of Ordinary People
""Constructing Public Opinion" demonstrates the way in which political elites help to promote the military industrial complex."
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map. "
Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
Here is Ahmadinejad's actual quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Pundits and politicians are telling falsehoods which manipulate the public into accepting a confrontation with Iran. Either out of ignorance or by intention, pundits and politicians are actively helping to create a confrontation with Iran. (most are probably regurgitating what they heard from news sources which falsely reported what Ahmadinejad said.) They are manipulating public opinion by misrepresenting what he said. As you can see, Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about." - Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map".
President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran's foreign minister confirmed what Ahmadinejad was actually referring to, "He is talking about the regime."
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made clear he is talking about a democratic political process being the way the regime will vanish:
"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met."
[The words highlighted in red were omitted from the 60 Minutes interview. This omission is another example of how mainstream media is manipulating the public.]
Ahmadinejad has been explicate about how he thinks the regime will vanish and it is clear he is talking about a political process and not an attack as many in the mainstream media would like you to believe: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."
"Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements." - a dangerous rumor has spread
Someone at the Associated Press altered this quote, what the AP did is "irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP altered the quote to sound more threatening."
Here is Ahmadinejad's actual quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Pundits and politicians are telling falsehoods which manipulate the public into accepting a confrontation with Iran. Either out of ignorance or by intention, pundits and politicians are actively helping to create a confrontation with Iran. (most are probably regurgitating what they heard from news sources which falsely reported what Ahmadinejad said.) They are manipulating public opinion by misrepresenting what he said. As you can see, Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about." - Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map".
President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran's foreign minister confirmed what Ahmadinejad was actually referring to, "He is talking about the regime."
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made clear he is talking about a democratic political process being the way the regime will vanish:
"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met."
[The words highlighted in red were omitted from the 60 Minutes interview. This omission is another example of how mainstream media is manipulating the public.]
Ahmadinejad has been explicate about how he thinks the regime will vanish and it is clear he is talking about a political process and not an attack as many in the mainstream media would like you to believe: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."
"Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements." - a dangerous rumor has spread
Someone at the Associated Press altered this quote, what the AP did is "irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP altered the quote to sound more threatening."
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A Chill Descended on the Gathering
A Chill Descended on the Gathering
I have wondered about this before, how much has the so called pro-Israel or Zionist agenda undermined the anti-war movement?
Peter Bart writes about "emerging fissures" within Hollywood's anti-war political movement:
"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."
Peter Bart continues, "Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals."
Bart also points out that, "The Economist observed ... only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," ... and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.""
By the way, Edwards is exactly right, this is the greatest short-term threat to world peace. Shame on those in his audience who don't pause for a second to review the issue. They arrogantly assume that the Jewish State of Israel can do no wrong and in doing so they put Americans at risk.
I have wondered about this before, how much has the so called pro-Israel or Zionist agenda undermined the anti-war movement?
Peter Bart writes about "emerging fissures" within Hollywood's anti-war political movement:
"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."
Peter Bart continues, "Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals."
Bart also points out that, "The Economist observed ... only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," ... and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.""
By the way, Edwards is exactly right, this is the greatest short-term threat to world peace. Shame on those in his audience who don't pause for a second to review the issue. They arrogantly assume that the Jewish State of Israel can do no wrong and in doing so they put Americans at risk.
Bart warns, "Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the "I" word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today's political dialogue. The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Avert a Potential Crisis of Horrific Proportions
Kevin,
I see you, like me, are worried about what Bush may do next. At this point, the possibility of President Bush starting a war with Iran is so tangible that I don't see many, if any, people dismissing it out of hand.
In mainstream media, we hear from pundits talking about the likelihood of Bush attacking Iran yet only those pundits who omit mentioning it would violate international law and our Constitution get chosen to be on TV.
I agree with you that we must take the sane approach. Leaving Bush in power with the idea in his head that he has a right to attack Iran is DANGEROUS and could cost the lives of God knows how many Americans, let alone other people in the world.
We are in such a DANGEROUS situation right now that we must do more that advocate what Bush shouldn't do. We must prevent him from doing with with all our might, our very lives are at risk because of this insanity.
Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from damaging our security and needlessly getting who knows how many more Americans killed. It is past time to put a stop to this self declared "War President." The man has proven that he is not fit to be Commander in Chief. As unimaginable as it sounds, three times now he has made it clear that he doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq. Contrary to the perception of many, the press doesn't hold him accountable. Bush has lied several times to the American people, a recent time he actually admitted to it and still the mainstream media was unwilling to call him a lair! In fact the Washington Post went as far as censoring one of their own articles: "Shortly after accurately reporting remarks that President Bush made during a press conference, the Washington Post changed its article. The newer version mischaracterized the president’s words and dropped a crucial quote. Why? Maybe because the old version of the article showed that the president is a liar."
Our lives are at risk, it is time to employ the basic powers of government to rescue ourselves from an impeding doom. We must demand that Congress impeach President Bush for launching the war on Iraq. The reason Bush said he attacked Iraq is a lie. He said he attacked because Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, THAT IS A LIE! What a insult to the American people that this man doesn't even know the basic fact about why he attacked Iraq! What an insult all those that served and all those that have died or have been maimed in Bush's war that Bush is lying about why he started the war. What an insult it is for the mainstream media to sweep these things under the rug, fooling millions of Americans about issues that effect their lives.
How did the American people get to this point? The media is manipulating the public and violating basic principles.
I think you have been influenced by mainstream media. How is it you scoff at the idea of a being as good as your word, at the idea of upholding international law? When the U.S. signs an international treaty, it is supposed to uphold it, that basic principle is enshrined in our Constitution. Over the past decades, the MSM has driven the idea out of many people's heads of behaving morally and legally in international affairs. The main way they do it is by neglecting to allow pundits on the air that support the rule of law. "A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT" -Thomas Paine
We may have little time left. What do you say to doing a serious examination of the issues. We must insist that our representatives uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is the only way we are going to avert a potential crisis of horrific proportions. Bush must be stopped. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that nothing short of impeachment will stop him from starting another war. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that he is dangerous and nothing short of impeachment can protect the American people.
I see you, like me, are worried about what Bush may do next. At this point, the possibility of President Bush starting a war with Iran is so tangible that I don't see many, if any, people dismissing it out of hand.
In mainstream media, we hear from pundits talking about the likelihood of Bush attacking Iran yet only those pundits who omit mentioning it would violate international law and our Constitution get chosen to be on TV.
I agree with you that we must take the sane approach. Leaving Bush in power with the idea in his head that he has a right to attack Iran is DANGEROUS and could cost the lives of God knows how many Americans, let alone other people in the world.
We are in such a DANGEROUS situation right now that we must do more that advocate what Bush shouldn't do. We must prevent him from doing with with all our might, our very lives are at risk because of this insanity.
Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from damaging our security and needlessly getting who knows how many more Americans killed. It is past time to put a stop to this self declared "War President." The man has proven that he is not fit to be Commander in Chief. As unimaginable as it sounds, three times now he has made it clear that he doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq. Contrary to the perception of many, the press doesn't hold him accountable. Bush has lied several times to the American people, a recent time he actually admitted to it and still the mainstream media was unwilling to call him a lair! In fact the Washington Post went as far as censoring one of their own articles: "Shortly after accurately reporting remarks that President Bush made during a press conference, the Washington Post changed its article. The newer version mischaracterized the president’s words and dropped a crucial quote. Why? Maybe because the old version of the article showed that the president is a liar."
Our lives are at risk, it is time to employ the basic powers of government to rescue ourselves from an impeding doom. We must demand that Congress impeach President Bush for launching the war on Iraq. The reason Bush said he attacked Iraq is a lie. He said he attacked because Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, THAT IS A LIE! What a insult to the American people that this man doesn't even know the basic fact about why he attacked Iraq! What an insult all those that served and all those that have died or have been maimed in Bush's war that Bush is lying about why he started the war. What an insult it is for the mainstream media to sweep these things under the rug, fooling millions of Americans about issues that effect their lives.
How did the American people get to this point? The media is manipulating the public and violating basic principles.
I think you have been influenced by mainstream media. How is it you scoff at the idea of a being as good as your word, at the idea of upholding international law? When the U.S. signs an international treaty, it is supposed to uphold it, that basic principle is enshrined in our Constitution. Over the past decades, the MSM has driven the idea out of many people's heads of behaving morally and legally in international affairs. The main way they do it is by neglecting to allow pundits on the air that support the rule of law. "A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT" -Thomas Paine
We may have little time left. What do you say to doing a serious examination of the issues. We must insist that our representatives uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is the only way we are going to avert a potential crisis of horrific proportions. Bush must be stopped. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that nothing short of impeachment will stop him from starting another war. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that he is dangerous and nothing short of impeachment can protect the American people.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Recommended Microphone for Mac or PC
Recommended Microphone for Mac or PC
This is a noise-canceling microphone, it cancels background noise and interference. This is the mic to get if you want to cancel out the fan noise of your computer. This is my recommendation for a good microphone at a good price. Get it here: Logitech USB Desktop Microphone
This is a noise-canceling microphone, it cancels background noise and interference. This is the mic to get if you want to cancel out the fan noise of your computer. This is my recommendation for a good microphone at a good price. Get it here: Logitech USB Desktop Microphone
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Working towards war
Rice lied about Iran to U.S. Congress
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States ... Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
"Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."
"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal," he said."
"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about," says Rice.
"Leverett and others have represented the proposal as a missed opportunity that could have defused tensions with Iran which have grown to the point that the U.S. administration has been forced to deny it plans military action against Tehran." - Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States ... Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
"Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."
"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal," he said."
"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about," says Rice.
"Leverett and others have represented the proposal as a missed opportunity that could have defused tensions with Iran which have grown to the point that the U.S. administration has been forced to deny it plans military action against Tehran." - Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
All Options are NOT on the Table
All Options are NOT on the Table
We have an extremely serious problem with the mainstream media and the political elites. Their agenda violates the fundamentals of basic decency and morality. It should be pointed out that a "War of Choice" is by definition A WAR CRIME, you should call a spade a spade. Those that pushed the Iraq War and MANY of the same people that declare that "all options are on the table" are still engaged in the promotion of war crimes. All options are NOT on the table with regard to Iran because we are not a Nazi country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and our politicians are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You can't just "choose" to attack a country for any reason you concoct. We are supposed to abide by basic rules of international laws against war crimes as treaties signed by the U.S. plainly state. The mainstream media and politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others have violated their oaths of office by violating the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes clear that the founders of this country did not envision a country of pirates and thieves.
It should also be pointed out that these violations of the U.S. Constitution are violations of the rights of the American people and the specific acts, the wars that these politicians are getting the U.S. into are violations of the American people as well. The so called "progressives" must stop playing along with or soft peddling the criticism of the ugly and deadly neo-con games and start saying clearly that their agenda is ILLEGAL And IMMORAL and not just "unnecessary".
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
We have an extremely serious problem with the mainstream media and the political elites. Their agenda violates the fundamentals of basic decency and morality. It should be pointed out that a "War of Choice" is by definition A WAR CRIME, you should call a spade a spade. Those that pushed the Iraq War and MANY of the same people that declare that "all options are on the table" are still engaged in the promotion of war crimes. All options are NOT on the table with regard to Iran because we are not a Nazi country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and our politicians are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You can't just "choose" to attack a country for any reason you concoct. We are supposed to abide by basic rules of international laws against war crimes as treaties signed by the U.S. plainly state. The mainstream media and politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others have violated their oaths of office by violating the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes clear that the founders of this country did not envision a country of pirates and thieves.
It should also be pointed out that these violations of the U.S. Constitution are violations of the rights of the American people and the specific acts, the wars that these politicians are getting the U.S. into are violations of the American people as well. The so called "progressives" must stop playing along with or soft peddling the criticism of the ugly and deadly neo-con games and start saying clearly that their agenda is ILLEGAL And IMMORAL and not just "unnecessary".
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
In response to my video, What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't, BurtLanden complains erroneously, "If you really think that al qaeda hates America because of our support for Israel, then youre a sucker. al Qaeda NEVER ONCE mentioned Israel until the last few years. do your homework. go back and read why bin Laden declared war on America in 1998. because of our support for Saudia Arabia and because we have troops on Saudi Arabian (Muslim ) soil. bin Laden HATED Arafat, Hussein and all Muslims who dont practice strict fundamentalist Islam. al qaeda couldnt give a crap about the Palestinians!"
That isn't true Burt. (Burt has swallowed Thomas Friedman's lie)
I put these links together to expose the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
NEW POST: Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks
Why did Osama bin Laden declare a jihad against the US government?
Thomas Friedman has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda.
Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives
Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades
A chutzpah award goes to CNN's Anderson Cooper for pushing Thomas Friedman's canard even after reading Bergen's book.
Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
CNN continues to downplay and omit motives for attacks
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.
It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.
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.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."
No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.
The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices
ABC NEWS OMITS Mention of AMERICA and ISRAEL
Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]
In response to my video, What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't, BurtLanden complains erroneously, "If you really think that al qaeda hates America because of our support for Israel, then youre a sucker. al Qaeda NEVER ONCE mentioned Israel until the last few years. do your homework. go back and read why bin Laden declared war on America in 1998. because of our support for Saudia Arabia and because we have troops on Saudi Arabian (Muslim ) soil. bin Laden HATED Arafat, Hussein and all Muslims who dont practice strict fundamentalist Islam. al qaeda couldnt give a crap about the Palestinians!"
That isn't true Burt. (Burt has swallowed Thomas Friedman's lie)
I put these links together to expose the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
NEW POST: Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks
Why did Osama bin Laden declare a jihad against the US government?
Thomas Friedman has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda.
Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives
Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades
A chutzpah award goes to CNN's Anderson Cooper for pushing Thomas Friedman's canard even after reading Bergen's book.
Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
CNN continues to downplay and omit motives for attacks
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.
It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.
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.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."
No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.
The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices
ABC NEWS OMITS Mention of AMERICA and ISRAEL
Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!
Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!
"Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke - or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf - an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.
A U.S. Attack Is Illegal
Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses." - Bush Targets Iran by Marjorie Cohn
Below is what I wrote about the illegality of President Bush's attack on Iraq:
I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.
It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.
see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
NOW we see the same game being played with regard to talk about Bush attacking Iran.
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
"Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke - or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf - an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.A U.S. Attack Is Illegal
Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses." - Bush Targets Iran by Marjorie Cohn
Below is what I wrote about the illegality of President Bush's attack on Iraq:
I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.
It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
NOW we see the same game being played with regard to talk about Bush attacking Iran.
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
"Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I recognized because I'm a private pilot and I'm used to airfield environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center." - Paul Neal
The planes impacted the buildings with tremendous force and damaged the structure. The crashes forced debris and jet fuel down the elevator shafts. The fire ball explosions came right out of the elevator shafts, the elevator doors were blown open. People in the the lower/sub-basements levels could smell the jet fuel which smelled like kerosene.
"At 8:46am, the 1st plane flew into the north tower, my building. My co-workers and I escaped by descending 30 flights of stairs through jet fuel fumes and water." - Jen Murawski
"We smelled kerosene," Mike Pecoraro recounted. Felipe David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. Cutter explosives don't create fireballs.
"Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured."
"... I thought it was odd that no one was coming into our stairwell from other floors. I assumed that they found other stairwells. … 21, 20, 19 … I could smell something familiar. There it is, my first connection to the outside. I could smell something. What is it? It reminds me of something. Kerosene? It smells like the kerosene heaters my father had 20 years ago in the Poconos. (I never made the connection to jet fuel until later on.) ... We keep going; 9, 8, 7, then again, "hold it." Picture the scene. You can only see half a flight below you and half above. If you crane your neck into the center of the stairs, all you can see are dozens of hands. There is still no panic. We are using those ahead of us as scouts, listening to whatever we could. The smell of burning kerosene is getting stronger. ... When we got to 1, the elevator doors were blown out and blackened. These were our first images of what was happening. They led us out the Marriott Hotel lobby. On the floor to our right was a fireman with a woman who was blackened from head to toe, barely alive, if alive at all." - Christopher Ferrer
If it was "explosives" they would be blown to pieces rather than burned. Being burned is consistent with a fuel explosion. Other individuals were burned as well and there was a lot of smoke.
"As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn't recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you're camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.
The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I don't recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.
There was a lady there screaming that she didn't know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.
Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint." - Firefighter Peter Blaich
"David Kravette, a managing director of Cantor Fitzgerald, caught an elevator down from the 105th floor to meet clients in the lobby. He emerged in the lobby, slightly aggravated at the inconvenience. "Which one of you knuckleheads came without an ID?'' Kravette recalled asking, just as a tremendous explosion shook the six-story lobby. "I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,'' Kravette said. "People were engulfed in flames.'' He escaped across an overpass to the West Side Highway. Three Cantor employees in the lobby suffered severe burns but will survive."
"Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day."
As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people.
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." FIRE causes people's skin to peel and hang off their bodies. (*see example of skin hanging off because of fire below)
"It was an eerie walk down the smoky stairs, a path to safety that ran through the suffering. They saw people who had been badly burned. Their skin, he says, "was like a grayish color, and it was like dripping, or peeling, like the skin was peeling off their body."
... Even as people streamed down the stairs, the cracks were appearing in the walls as the building shuddered and cringed. Steam pipes burst, and at one point an elevator door burst open and a man fell out, half burned alive, his skin hanging off. People dragged him out of the elevator and helped get him out of the building to the doctors below." - TIME
There are more quotes at this page: Jet Fuel
*An example of skin hanging off because of fire: (from "Escape: Because Accidents Happen: Fire" PBS Airdate: February 16, 1999) ""Some people had - Their clothing was alight, their hair was very singed. Where their arms and skin were exposed, there was skin hanging off that had been burnt." - Alan Pryke
"Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I recognized because I'm a private pilot and I'm used to airfield environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center." - Paul Neal
The planes impacted the buildings with tremendous force and damaged the structure. The crashes forced debris and jet fuel down the elevator shafts. The fire ball explosions came right out of the elevator shafts, the elevator doors were blown open. People in the the lower/sub-basements levels could smell the jet fuel which smelled like kerosene.
"At 8:46am, the 1st plane flew into the north tower, my building. My co-workers and I escaped by descending 30 flights of stairs through jet fuel fumes and water." - Jen Murawski
"We smelled kerosene," Mike Pecoraro recounted. Felipe David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. Cutter explosives don't create fireballs.
"Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured."
"... I thought it was odd that no one was coming into our stairwell from other floors. I assumed that they found other stairwells. … 21, 20, 19 … I could smell something familiar. There it is, my first connection to the outside. I could smell something. What is it? It reminds me of something. Kerosene? It smells like the kerosene heaters my father had 20 years ago in the Poconos. (I never made the connection to jet fuel until later on.) ... We keep going; 9, 8, 7, then again, "hold it." Picture the scene. You can only see half a flight below you and half above. If you crane your neck into the center of the stairs, all you can see are dozens of hands. There is still no panic. We are using those ahead of us as scouts, listening to whatever we could. The smell of burning kerosene is getting stronger. ... When we got to 1, the elevator doors were blown out and blackened. These were our first images of what was happening. They led us out the Marriott Hotel lobby. On the floor to our right was a fireman with a woman who was blackened from head to toe, barely alive, if alive at all." - Christopher Ferrer
If it was "explosives" they would be blown to pieces rather than burned. Being burned is consistent with a fuel explosion. Other individuals were burned as well and there was a lot of smoke.
"As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn't recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you're camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.
The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I don't recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.
There was a lady there screaming that she didn't know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.
Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint." - Firefighter Peter Blaich
"David Kravette, a managing director of Cantor Fitzgerald, caught an elevator down from the 105th floor to meet clients in the lobby. He emerged in the lobby, slightly aggravated at the inconvenience. "Which one of you knuckleheads came without an ID?'' Kravette recalled asking, just as a tremendous explosion shook the six-story lobby. "I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,'' Kravette said. "People were engulfed in flames.'' He escaped across an overpass to the West Side Highway. Three Cantor employees in the lobby suffered severe burns but will survive."
"Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day."
As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people.
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." FIRE causes people's skin to peel and hang off their bodies. (*see example of skin hanging off because of fire below)
"It was an eerie walk down the smoky stairs, a path to safety that ran through the suffering. They saw people who had been badly burned. Their skin, he says, "was like a grayish color, and it was like dripping, or peeling, like the skin was peeling off their body."
... Even as people streamed down the stairs, the cracks were appearing in the walls as the building shuddered and cringed. Steam pipes burst, and at one point an elevator door burst open and a man fell out, half burned alive, his skin hanging off. People dragged him out of the elevator and helped get him out of the building to the doctors below." - TIME
There are more quotes at this page: Jet Fuel
*An example of skin hanging off because of fire: (from "Escape: Because Accidents Happen: Fire" PBS Airdate: February 16, 1999) ""Some people had - Their clothing was alight, their hair was very singed. Where their arms and skin were exposed, there was skin hanging off that had been burnt." - Alan Pryke
Monday, January 29, 2007
Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII. See video
SCOTT PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?PRESIDENT BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." And secondly, that "it's in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It's in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy." And thirdly, you know, "If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them." transcript
Bush is wrong! This is a dangerous situation.
Stop the 'War President' NOW!
Write Your Representative
Contact Your Senator
Contact the Whitehouse
Contact the Media
See Video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
Stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.
The video was removed by YouTube but it should not have been. It is a textbook example of "Fair Use" SEE: A Fair Use Issue and CBS
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
A Fair Use Issue and CBS
I uploaded this video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous, to LiveVideo since YouTube removed it.
There was no justification for removing the video. I used 18 seconds of audio, with one still frame in order to comment on an extremely serious matter where the President of the United States makes another false statement. I also used 7 seconds of video without audio to critique the segment as well (it showed the interviewer and Bush). This is in a 70 second video that I present as my news analysis. This CLEARLY falls under Fair Use. My video has been pulled off of YouTube and this notice is in its place: "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner CBS Broadcasting, Inc because its content was used without permission" That is BS. I have a right under Fair Use to use 18 seconds of audio and 7 seconds of video to analyze an extremely important issue of the day. If what I did in this video is not "Fair Use" then nothing is.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Read transcript here: President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.
A Fair Use Issue and CBS
I uploaded this video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous, to LiveVideo since YouTube removed it.
There was no justification for removing the video. I used 18 seconds of audio, with one still frame in order to comment on an extremely serious matter where the President of the United States makes another false statement. I also used 7 seconds of video without audio to critique the segment as well (it showed the interviewer and Bush). This is in a 70 second video that I present as my news analysis. This CLEARLY falls under Fair Use. My video has been pulled off of YouTube and this notice is in its place: "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner CBS Broadcasting, Inc because its content was used without permission" That is BS. I have a right under Fair Use to use 18 seconds of audio and 7 seconds of video to analyze an extremely important issue of the day. If what I did in this video is not "Fair Use" then nothing is.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Read transcript here: President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.
Friday, January 19, 2007
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."
Abdul Rahman Yasin was an accomplice in the 1993 bombing of the WTC. Lesley Stahl, from the CBS show 60 Minutes, interviewed him in May of 2002. She asked him about Ramzi Yousef and how Yousef convinced him to help him.
Abdul Rahman Yasin: He was not charismatic but he had a strong logic. He can convince people easily. He convinced me.
Lesley Stahl: So you’re saying that Ramzi Yousef and Mohammed Salameh tried to politicize you. Is that what you're telling us?
Abdul Rahman Yasin: Yes, they tried and I was influenced. They used to tell me that you are an Iraqi and you have seen the destruction in Iraq. And they used to tell me how Arabs suffered a great deal, and that we have to send a message that this is not right. This is to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia. So they talked to me a lot about this.
Yasin "says he is sorry for what he did and that the bombers, whom he said he met for the first time while living in a Jersey City apartment building, talked him into it."
After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.
"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273
Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on 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."
Abdul Rahman Yasin was an accomplice in the 1993 bombing of the WTC. Lesley Stahl, from the CBS show 60 Minutes, interviewed him in May of 2002. She asked him about Ramzi Yousef and how Yousef convinced him to help him.
Abdul Rahman Yasin: He was not charismatic but he had a strong logic. He can convince people easily. He convinced me.
Lesley Stahl: So you’re saying that Ramzi Yousef and Mohammed Salameh tried to politicize you. Is that what you're telling us?
Abdul Rahman Yasin: Yes, they tried and I was influenced. They used to tell me that you are an Iraqi and you have seen the destruction in Iraq. And they used to tell me how Arabs suffered a great deal, and that we have to send a message that this is not right. This is to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia. So they talked to me a lot about this.
Yasin "says he is sorry for what he did and that the bombers, whom he said he met for the first time while living in a Jersey City apartment building, talked him into it."
After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993."Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273
Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on 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."
Monday, January 15, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
It way be far worse than that.
It way be far worse than that. People are starting to realize that Bush threatened Iran in the speech and US raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraq is a bad sign. A worse sign is the air craft carriers and the missiles that Bush is sending over there.
It would be another war crime on a huge scale and could very well spiral out of control into WWIII.
Now I don't know about you but every WWIII forecast I have ever seen predicted deaths in excess of the casualties of every other war to date. We are living in dangerous times. It is critical that we pull Bush's ability to start another war NOW. His violation of the US Constitution is grounds enough to politically neutralize him to prevent him from destroying millions of lives.
It would be another war crime on a huge scale and could very well spiral out of control into WWIII.
Now I don't know about you but every WWIII forecast I have ever seen predicted deaths in excess of the casualties of every other war to date. We are living in dangerous times. It is critical that we pull Bush's ability to start another war NOW. His violation of the US Constitution is grounds enough to politically neutralize him to prevent him from destroying millions of lives.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Selling his plan for escalating the war in Iraq
Selling his plan for escalating the war in Iraq, President Bush claimed, "the consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits."
Amy Zalman, Ph.D. writes, "There is no evidence that any American presence in Iraq will forestall Islamist extremism, nor that leaving or engaging differently would by itself lead to an increase." - Bush's Speech Sees Iraq as Fatal Battleground for Terrorism Vs. Freedom
I think she should point out that there is evidence that staying in Iraq actually increases the anger and recruitment of Islamist extremists.
Zalman does point out that the speech indicated a "poor understanding of the region." But she should explain it so people can understand it. She should explain that "terrorism vs freedom" is a false premise about why we were attacked on 9/11. The premise for why we were attacked on 9/11, the premise for the war on terror, is a lie. We were not attacked on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms." We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign policies and not "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" as Bush claimed on 9/11.
Terrorists are attacking us for the same reason terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. Ramzi Yousef sent his letter to the NYT stating the motive for attacking the WTC in 1993, "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."
Osama bin Laden has made his motives known, "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."
President Bush says, "the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." I think President Bush should do what he says. Bin Laden has repeated the motives by reminding people that "in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning ..." He also pointed out that President Bush was hiding the truth about their motives, "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."
Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11.
The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam or that they don't like freedom or that they are envious.
Amy Zalman, Ph.D. writes, "There is no evidence that any American presence in Iraq will forestall Islamist extremism, nor that leaving or engaging differently would by itself lead to an increase." - Bush's Speech Sees Iraq as Fatal Battleground for Terrorism Vs. Freedom
I think she should point out that there is evidence that staying in Iraq actually increases the anger and recruitment of Islamist extremists.
Terrorists are attacking us for the same reason terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. Ramzi Yousef sent his letter to the NYT stating the motive for attacking the WTC in 1993, "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."
Osama bin Laden has made his motives known, "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."
President Bush says, "the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." I think President Bush should do what he says. Bin Laden has repeated the motives by reminding people that "in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning ..." He also pointed out that President Bush was hiding the truth about their motives, "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."
Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11.
The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam or that they don't like freedom or that they are envious.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Osama bin Laden answered questions
In a May 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden answered questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. Here is a key question that answers why he commits terrorism against the U.S.
Q: Many of the Arabic as well as the Western mass media accuse you of terrorism and of supporting terrorism. What do you have to say to that?
Osama bin Laden: There is an Arabic proverb that says "she accused me of having her malady, then snuck away."
Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right.
Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. There is no doubt in this. Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. Every country in the world has its own security system and its own security forces, its own police and its own army. They are all designed to terrorize whoever even contemplates to attack that country or its citizens. The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. Tyrants and oppressors who subject the Arab nation to aggression ought to be punished. The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims. The recurrence of aggression against Muslims everywhere is proof enough. For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized. ...
In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land.
John Miller also asked questions, below is an example:
John Miller: Ramzi Yousef was a follower of yours. Do you remember him and did you know him?
Osama bin Laden: After the explosion that took place in the World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef became a well known Muslim figure. Muslims have come to know him. Unfortunately, I did not know him before this incident. I of course remember who he is. He is a Muslim who wanted to protect his religion jealously from the oppression practiced by America against Islam. He acted with zeal to make the Americans understand that their government was attacking Muslims in order to safeguard the American-Jewish interests
Q: Many of the Arabic as well as the Western mass media accuse you of terrorism and of supporting terrorism. What do you have to say to that?
Osama bin Laden: There is an Arabic proverb that says "she accused me of having her malady, then snuck away."
Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right.
Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. There is no doubt in this. Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. Every country in the world has its own security system and its own security forces, its own police and its own army. They are all designed to terrorize whoever even contemplates to attack that country or its citizens. The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. Tyrants and oppressors who subject the Arab nation to aggression ought to be punished. The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims. The recurrence of aggression against Muslims everywhere is proof enough. For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized. ...
In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land.
John Miller also asked questions, below is an example:
John Miller: Ramzi Yousef was a follower of yours. Do you remember him and did you know him?
Osama bin Laden: After the explosion that took place in the World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef became a well known Muslim figure. Muslims have come to know him. Unfortunately, I did not know him before this incident. I of course remember who he is. He is a Muslim who wanted to protect his religion jealously from the oppression practiced by America against Islam. He acted with zeal to make the Americans understand that their government was attacking Muslims in order to safeguard the American-Jewish interests
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The Iraq War and Oil Privatization
The Iraq War and Oil Privatization
Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time,"
"to have nobody talk about it, to me, is fairly shocking and makes clear that still the Democrats, the Republicans, the media are afraid to talk about oil"
"the report calls for privatization of Iraq’s oil, turning it over to private foreign corporate hands, putting all of the oil in the hands of the central government, and essentially, I would argue, extending the war in Iraq to ensure that US oil companies get what the Bush administration went in there for: control and greater access to Iraq's oil."
"the report also says that the US government will withhold military, economic and political support of the Iraqi government, unless the recommendations are met. That’s a pretty straightforward statement. The US government will not provide any support to the al-Maliki government, unless it advances the changes to the Iraqi constitution and changes to Iraqi national law that essentially privatize Iraq's oil."
"The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors."
How is pressure used to make Iraq do what the special interests want? See:
Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time,"
"to have nobody talk about it, to me, is fairly shocking and makes clear that still the Democrats, the Republicans, the media are afraid to talk about oil"
"the report calls for privatization of Iraq’s oil, turning it over to private foreign corporate hands, putting all of the oil in the hands of the central government, and essentially, I would argue, extending the war in Iraq to ensure that US oil companies get what the Bush administration went in there for: control and greater access to Iraq's oil."
"the report also says that the US government will withhold military, economic and political support of the Iraqi government, unless the recommendations are met. That’s a pretty straightforward statement. The US government will not provide any support to the al-Maliki government, unless it advances the changes to the Iraqi constitution and changes to Iraqi national law that essentially privatize Iraq's oil."
That is something for us in the antiwar movement to be very, very clear about, that this is their objective and that we have to, as I repeatedly say, not just call for the end of troops in Iraq, but make clear that the US corporate invasion cannot be progressed or continue, as well."- Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of Iraq's Oil Industry
"The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors."
How is pressure used to make Iraq do what the special interests want? See:
"The recent Iraq Study Group report recommended the US help Iraq "prepare a draft oil law" to hasten investment. The report estimates Iraq could raise oil production from 2 million to 3 or 3.5 million barrels per day over the next three to five years.Critics say the US is leaning on the IMF and World Bank to push Iraq into signing oil contracts fast, so western firms can secure the oil before Chinese, Indian and Russian firms do. An IMF official told SPIEGEL ONLINE that "passage of a hydrocarbon law is not a condition for financial support from the IMF." Nevertheless, Iraqi authorities found it necessary to promise the IMF a draft petroleum law by the end of this year -- this in the same letter that says "we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the program remains on track."
The IMF sets the conditions for Iraq's debt relief from the so-called Paris Club countries. Eighty percent of that debt has been wiped clean, and the final 20 percent depends on certain economic reforms. With the final reduction, Iraq's debt would come to 33 percent of its GDP -- but if the reforms are not made, debt would climb to 57 percent of GDP, according to an IMF report.
Criticisms have also been levelled against the World Bank, where former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz is in charge. Wolfowitz has been accused of pushing a US agenda after opening a World Bank office in Baghdad."
- Will Iraq's Oil Blessing Become a Curse? By Joshua Gallu in Berlin
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Sunday, December 31, 2006
discussions of Israel and Palestine
Paul in Berkeley complains about James Risser's diary on Kos: Should DailyKos ban all discussions of Israel and Palestine? Paul complains, "Because when they are ridiculously one-sided, as yours is, they are already pretty close to the bottom."
No Paul in Berkeley, the facts are the facts. Zionists resort to very ugly tactics all the time and they do it in order to abort discussion of the facts. If the facts are known, most Americans would not go along with these injustices. There is no excuse for calling people "anti-semitic" when they dare tell the truth about Israel. It is worse than calling someone a "racist" just because they think OJ Simpson is guilty of a double murder. And OJ Simpson DID brutally kill two people!
It isn't "one sided" to point that out!
"It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have been the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel's policy toward the Palestinians from the start." - Tanya Reinhart
The deceptions and ugly tactics used to hide the brutal facts about Israel are incredible. The media is extremely dishonest when it comes to Israel, they push falsehoods all the time. "In my entire experience with American journalism, I have never found anything as extreme, sustained, and omnipresent" - Alison Weir
What is one sided is the mainstream media when it comes to Israel, they are committing fraud for Israel all the time. There has been suppression of the fact that Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children.
Journalist Chris Hedges and others have witnessed Israeli troops intentionally murdering children. And what Hedges and others have witnessed has been documented by an Israeli human rights group and has been confirmed by Israeli soldiers admissions. Physicians for Human Rights USA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem all confirm the Israeli policy of targeting civilians.
An Israeli Jew Tells the Truth About The 'Anti-Semitism" Trick
Shulamit Aloni appeared on Democracy Now. Shulamit Aloni is a former Knesset member who headed the Meretz Party in Israel. She was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy NOW!
Amy Goodman asked her what she thought of the fact that often when people speak out against Israel policies they get labeled "anti-Semitic". Shulamit Aloni answered "well it is a trick, we always use it."
No Paul in Berkeley, the facts are the facts. Zionists resort to very ugly tactics all the time and they do it in order to abort discussion of the facts. If the facts are known, most Americans would not go along with these injustices. There is no excuse for calling people "anti-semitic" when they dare tell the truth about Israel. It is worse than calling someone a "racist" just because they think OJ Simpson is guilty of a double murder. And OJ Simpson DID brutally kill two people!
It isn't "one sided" to point that out!
"It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have been the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel's policy toward the Palestinians from the start." - Tanya Reinhart
The deceptions and ugly tactics used to hide the brutal facts about Israel are incredible. The media is extremely dishonest when it comes to Israel, they push falsehoods all the time. "In my entire experience with American journalism, I have never found anything as extreme, sustained, and omnipresent" - Alison Weir
What is one sided is the mainstream media when it comes to Israel, they are committing fraud for Israel all the time. There has been suppression of the fact that Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children.
Journalist Chris Hedges and others have witnessed Israeli troops intentionally murdering children. And what Hedges and others have witnessed has been documented by an Israeli human rights group and has been confirmed by Israeli soldiers admissions. Physicians for Human Rights USA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem all confirm the Israeli policy of targeting civilians.
An Israeli Jew Tells the Truth About The 'Anti-Semitism" Trick
Shulamit Aloni appeared on Democracy Now. Shulamit Aloni is a former Knesset member who headed the Meretz Party in Israel. She was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy NOW!
Amy Goodman asked her what she thought of the fact that often when people speak out against Israel policies they get labeled "anti-Semitic". Shulamit Aloni answered "well it is a trick, we always use it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
