Sunday, June 22, 2003

Monday, June 16, 2003

May 1998 interview with Bin Laden answering questions.
... What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?
The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel.

...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. frontline: hunting bin laden: who is bin laden?É

Read from the first-ever television interview with Osama Bin Ladin was conducted by Peter Arnett in eastern Afghanistan in late March 1997:

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.
... Those hundreds of thousands who have been killed or displaced in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, do have brothers and relatives.
.... A man with human feelings in his heart does not distinguish between a child killed in Palestine or in Lebanon, in Iraq or in Bosnia. So how can we believe your claims that you came to save our children in Somalia while you kill our children in all of those places?
...So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

Transcript of Osama Bin Ladin interview by PeteÉ

Sunday, June 15, 2003

"I usually have some reason and can tell you what it is"
such is the claim by one of the poseters here yet when solid facts are presented all they can do is respond with:
"not a valid argment"

yet when a perfect example of suppression of information from the American public is revealed, all they can do is call names and cast doubt WITHOUT even addressing the post!!

ZNet | Mideast | The Complex Art Of Simulation
"in his meeting with U.S. president George Bush at the Aqaba summit, prime-minister Ariel Sharon will seek the U.S. backing of his demand that the Palestinian authority will use forceful [military] means against the terror organizations and their infrastructure in the territories, as a precondition for any diplomatic advance. Sharon will tell Bush that it is not acceptable to settle just for agreements between the Palestinian organizations to a cease fire " In return Sharon will promise Bush that Israel will evacuate illegal outposts in the West bank ” (Ha’aretz Hebrew edition, Aluf Ben, June 2, 2003).
Is it just an accident that in the internet English version of Ha'aretz, this piece of information was eliminated altogether, and the headline announced only Sharon's willingness to evacuate outposts?

I would say it is not an accident. this is intentional suppresion of facts from the American public. And it is part of the ongoing partern. You can look at case after case where the US media suppresses or severly downplays events in Israel and Palestine.

Following the 4 June Aqaba summit between President Bush and Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the US media fell quickly into the pattern of ignoring or severely downplaying Israeli attacks on Palestinians, and playing up Palestinian counterviolence as a threat to a budding "peace process."

Yet The Guardian (British newspaper)'s Conal Urquhart reported that "As George Bush talked about peace with the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers, Israeli soldiers were raiding the refugee camp of Balata and the city of Nablus for the third day running." ("Children shot in third day of Israeli army raids, The Guardian, 5 June 2003)

Urquhart described how "screams echoed around the clinic" in the camp, "as a woman brought her seven-year-old daughter in for treatment. She had been shot in the abdomen by an Israeli soldier" as the Aqaba summit took place. Later the same day, the report said, a boy was shot in the head with a rubber-coated bullet.

According to the Red Crescent, The Guardian reported, "some 50 people have been treated for bullet and shrapnel wounds" in two days. The American pulic is being made fools out of. How is this possible? Many forces are at work to keep these facts from the American public. We can't ignore the fact that if someone dares point things like this out, they get attacked and the reports are labled "drivel". YET THEY DON"T BACK UP A SINGLE DIRTY ALLEGATION. THE ATTEMPT IS TO INTIMIDATE AND CONTINUE THE SUPPRESSION OF THESE FACTS.

Dr. Samir Abu Zarzur, the head of the casualty department at Rafiah hospital in Nablus, said that his department treated 32 people injured by the Israeli army on Tuesday, the day President Bush was meeting the Palestinians' Mahmoud Abbas and other Arab leaders in Sharm Al-Sheikh and urging them to join a struggle against "terrorism."

Saturday, June 14, 2003

<< I've done my homework and have determined that the roots of Islamic extremism >>
thanks for putting some info together. But I must point out that what I have been arguing is not the roots of Islamic extremism but rather why are the terrorists targeting us. Fair enough? The topic is "Hate for the U.S."

From an interview found on Al Jazzeera website taken by reporter Taysir Alouni, following the WTC attack:
(From what you quoted I searched and the next paragraph is:)
"The proof came when the U.S. government pressured the media not to run our statements that are not longer than very few minutes. They felt that the truth started to reach the American people, the truth that we are not terrorists as they understand it but because we are being attacked in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir, the Philippines and everywhere else."

<< has far less to do with US policies than it does with religion and oppression of the region which has fostered a rage -a rage that has been turned away from the real source to a common enemy that appeals to the religious themselves -western culture, values and governments.

The terrorists (for example the 19 men from 9/11 and the shoe bomber) clearing are reacting to U.S. policies and actions. bin Laden wants to set up a very fundamentalist version of Islam. bin Laden gains support for the terrorism campaign by pointing out the abused of U.S. policies. Many people, MANY that would never resort to terrorism, don't like the U.S. policies. Others that join his jihad against the U.S. don't share the same religions convictions. (for example 9/11 hijackers were video taped getting lap dances from strippers and drinking alcohol).

bin Laden wants to make it a religious campaign. Yet we know that the U.S. has supported and worked with the world's most fundamentalist regimes.

Clearly what stands between ANYONE making changes in the region is the U.S. and the West. Many would want societies very different from what bin Laden wants.
It should be pointed out that many that wanted modernization have been killed with the help of the U.S. The U.S. funded with BILLIONS of dollars the same fundamentalist Islam that bin Laden supports, in the process killing many that wanted modern and progressive government.

The governments that bin Laden (and others that hate terrorism) hate are propped up by the U.S. the motive? Greed.
"U.S. support for almost any ruler [often against the wishes of his people] willing to protect U.S. interests, routinely identified in Washington as oil and Israel... It is dangerous to divorce terrorism from politics, yet the U.S. media continue to talk about an abstract war against terrorism without mention of the issues or context that lie behind them. ... Democratization "is not on the American agenda" in the Middle East. The reason? Because Washington finds it more efficient to support a range of dictators across the Arab world as long as they conform to U.S. foreign policy needs."- Graham E. Fuller former CIA 8/24/98

You can go back 40 years and find President Eisenhower talking about the campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East and youÕll find the National Security council giving the reasons. People in the region perceive the United States, rightly they say, as supporting oppressive harsh governments which block democracy and development and doing it because we want control of their oil resources.

No one likes to be manipulated by foreign powers. That is why people that may not want bin Laden's ultimate goal of very fundamentalist Islamic governments still admire someone that strikes back at the foreign interference. Yes most people don't like the oppressive harsh governments which block democracy and it is the U.S. that is propping them up. bin Laden wants the Saudi Arabia government toppled. It is the U.S. that props that government up. (Most people in Suadi Arabia want more rights for women, so if it was a democracy it would be an improvement. U.S. businessmen don't give a damn about human rights in the region. They don't want the oil pie divided up with the general population. They PREFER to deal with undemocratic rulers.
After the Gulf War, the U.S. could have established a democracy in Kuwait if they really cared about the people there. They didn't.
You can look at case after case. The U.S. ousted a democratically elected leader in Iran and installed the Shah! Motive? Greed.

Thursday, June 12, 2003

<< I really don't get your claim of Bush "lying" here at all. >>

again, notice how I quote evidence. you have produced nothing.
you keep repeating the big lie that the President and others want you to believe. (so that the policies that enrich the powerful can remain in place)

<< Because when the whole spectrum of what Bin Laden has said >>
example? give us a link and quote what it is that you think makes the point you are trying to make.

I support what I say with examples. Here is the newest example: Intelligence Officer Challenges Bush Administration on 'Why They Hate Us'
in a new book entitled Through Our Enemies' Eyes, one senior American intelligence officer, simply dubbed "Anonymous," sharply disagrees with that view.
"There are a lot of people who say he hates our freedoms, as you said, or hates our liberties, and hates us for what we are, rather than what we do," said the author. "That is a very common piece of analysis, and I think it is entirely wrong. Bin Laden has resonance in the Muslim world because he has focused his dislike for the things we do, not what we are."

"He has not identified our culture, our society, as the main enemy or as the main reason to fight us. What he has identified are specific U.S. foreign policy actions and activities that have a resonance among Muslims all over the world."

can you admit that I have gone above and beyond what most people here do to prove a point. give me some credit here. you STILL didn't quote a single bit of evidence. Come on. I am trying to get the truth out to the public to make Ameirca safer. don't be so stuborn. how can you argue with the above?

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

<< I can't help being curious as to how you know exactly what happened since our media is so remiss in reporting this to the public. >>
because I don't rely only on US media to get the news.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own CorrespondÉThe coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.
The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.
US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.
"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.
"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".
This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

<< Aren't you part of the public or do you have some private inside track to information which is not available to the rest of us? >>
the way the elites get away with the things they do is that the overwhelming majority of the American public doesn't make an effort to research and seek out news. Most people assume that the mainstream media will report what are the relevant facts. Most people don't understand that the mainstream media reporters are hired for and keep their jobs by reporting and not reporting things according to what the powerful interests want.

The above is just one example of this. With all the talk about Iraq, it is journalistic malpractice not to report how the Saddam situation started and the role the US played in it.

BBC NEWSÊÊÊ BBC Sport >>ÊÊÊGraphics version >>ÊÊÊChange to World edition >>
News Front Page | World | UK | England | N Ireland | Scotland | Wales | Politics | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health | Education | Talking Point
World Contents: Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East | South Asia | From Our Own Correspondent | Letter From America |
Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 06:33 GMT

Saddam's parallel universe
Allan Little
BBC world affairs correspondent

For Saddam Hussein war against US and British forces would present enormous difficulties but, in all probability, nobody in his inner circle is telling him that.

When he took the decision to invade Kuwait - changing at a stroke the strategic shape of the world's most important energy-producing region - he consulted only three people.

" It seems part of the dictatorial condition to be surrounded by people who are too afraid to bring you bad news "

One was his cousin. The other two were his sons-in-law, the husbands of his daughters.

All three of these men were members of his Tikriti tribe - the clan which has governed Iraq for more than 30 years.

And when this tight-knit group takes a decision, no-one dares to challenge them.

It seems part of the dictatorial condition to be surrounded by people who are too afraid to bring you bad news.

We know this to be true of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. And it is true of Saddam Hussein.

Inside knowledge

We know this because two of these men - the two sons-in-law - defected in 1995.

They turned up unannounced in Jordan looking for political asylum.

King Hussein put the head of his private office - General Ali Shukri - in charge of them.

They told him everything - how the inner circle makes its decisions, how Saddam's two sons, Uday and Qusay, had begun to assert their claims to political power, how Saddam had never abandoned his long-standing ambition to acquire a nuclear bomb.

We know it, too, because the man who was head of Iraq's army in 1990, when the invasion took place, General Nizar al-Khazraji, fled the country a few years later and is now, in effect, under house arrest in Denmark.

He told us that he knew nothing of the plans to invade Kuwait.

He heard the news like everyone else - on the radio.

When he told Saddam Hussein a few days later that Iraq could not possibly defeat an American-led invasion attempt, he was sacked.

Dictators do not want to hear news like this. They do not listen.

Fatal truths

The then deputy head of military intelligence, Wafiq al-Sammurrai, is another of the top brass who have fled the country.

I went to see him in the little flat in Surrey which is now his home.

" You will die if you tell him [that invading Kuwait is a mistake] "
Wafiq al-Sammurrai
former deputy head of military intelligence

I asked him whether he had told Saddam Hussein that the invasion was a mistake.

"You can't tell him this face to face," he said.

"Nobody can tell him this. You will die if you tell him this. Everybody is afraid".

One man who did tell him to his face to get out of Kuwait was the deputy US ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson.

He had a meeting with Saddam four days after the invasion.

Saddam offered America a deal:

We keep Kuwait, he said, though we are not sure yet what to do with it. And if you Americans don't make a fuss, we can come to a mutually beneficial arrangement about cheap oil supplies and, in addition, we Iraqis will promise not to threaten Saudi Arabia.

Why did Saddam believe the United States would be amenable to such an offer?

It was not simply that he was surrounded by terrified yes men.

It also reflects the way he understood his relationship with the United States.

Iraq's 'special relationship'

The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.

"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.

"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".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

Blind eye

Everyone knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian conscripts.

When 5,000 Kurds were gassed at Halabja in 1988, Kurdish leaders turned to America for help. Mahmoud Osman was one of them.

"I couldn't get any of my friends in the State Department to return my calls," he said.

"They told me we cannot listen to you when you talk about chemical weapons because we do not want to jeopardise our relations with the Iraqis".

So this also explains why Saddam got it all so badly wrong in 1991.

America and the West had turned a blind eye to everything he had done for over a decade.

No-one dared tell him that the invasion of Kuwait would be any different.

Rule of terror

Two of those four men who took that fatal decision were in the end burned by it.

The sons-in-law who defected to Jordan stayed six months and then decided to return, apparently convinced that Saddam had forgiven them.

"I warned them," General Shukri told me, "that they would be executed within seven days of crossing the border.

"I was wrong. They were executed within two days".

This is the nature of Saddam's rule.

Even those who sit at his right hand, who help him govern the Republic of Fear, are not safe.

Those who perpetrate the fear are themselves victims of it.

'Weaned by the West'

Last week I met a major from Saddam's detested security service the Mukhabarat who had recently defected.

He told me he was ashamed of his career in the service of the dictator.

I asked him why he had not left his job.

"Listen to me," he said.

"I have a wife, a family, a boy. If I leave, he will kill him. Do you know what that means?

"Yes I am ashamed. But I am from this country.

"Not only I helped Saddam Hussein. America helped him, Britain helped him. He's your guy. He's your son."
^^ Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | Feedback | ©

Sunday, June 08, 2003

The New York Times called upon an expert on terrorism to offer his thoughts on how to counter the plague. His advice, based upon long experience, was straightforward: ÒThe terrorists, and especially their commanders, must be eliminated.Ó He gave three examples of successful counterterrorist actions: the US bombing of Libya, the Israeli bombing of Tunis, and IsraelÕs invasion of Lebanon. He recommends more of the same Òif the civilized world is to prevail.Ó The Times editors gave his article the title: ÒItÕs Past Time to Crush The Terrorist Monster,Ó and they highlighted the words: ÒStop the slaughter of innocents.Ó They identify the author solely as ÒIsraelÕs Minister of Trade and Industry.Ó His name is Ariel Sharon.(New York Times (September 30, 1986)) His terrorist career, dating back to the early 1950s, includes the slaughter of 69 villagers in Qibya and 20 at the al-Bureig refugee camp in 1953; terrorist operations in the Gaza region and northeastern Sinai in the early 1970s including the expulsion of some ten thousand farmers into the desert, their homes bulldozed and farmlands destroyed in preparation for Jewish settlement; the invasion of Lebanon undertaken in an effort Ñ as now widely conceded Ñ to overcome the threat of PLO diplomacy; the subsequent massacre at Sabra and Shatilla; and others.

Some might feel that the choice of Ariel Sharon to provide Òthe civilized worldÓ with lessons on how to Òstop the slaughter of innocentsÓ may be a little odd, perhaps perverse, possibly even hypocritical. But that is not so clear. The choice is not inconsistent with the values expressed in action and the intellectual culture expressed in words Ñ or in silence.

In support of this conclusion, we may observe that the remedy for international terrorism Ñ at least, a substantial component of it Ñ is within our grasp. But no action is taken to this end, and indeed the matter is never discussed and is even inconceivable in respectable circles. Rather, one finds accolades to our benevolent intentions and nobility of purpose, our elevated Òstandards of democracy, freedom and humanism,Ó sometimes flawed in performance. Elementary facts cannot be perceived and obvious thoughts are unthinkable. Simple truths, when expressed, elicit disbelief, horror, and outrage Ñ at the fact that they are voiced.

In a moral and intellectual climate such as this, it may well be appropriate for the worldÕs greatest newspaper to select Ariel Sharon as our tutor on the evils of terrorism and how to combat it.

Wednesday, June 04, 2003


he did do that. He was proactively cooperating. Remember? the Bush team claimed it was a trick. remember?

Top UN weapons experts reported Friday that Iraq was showing new signs of cooperation with inspection efforts, prompting a majority of Security Council member nations to call for giving the inspections more time to work before resorting to the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.

After the inspectors suggested that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were being successfully contained, an exasperated Secretary of State Colin Powell abandoned his prepared speech and warned that the Security Council should not be duped by "tricks that are being played on us.",0,4756936.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Tuesday, June 03, 2003
<< A PEW Survey may be worth reading about the United States foreign policies. International Surveys: What We Are Finding >>

confirms one again what has been known for 50 years.

The bottom line is greedy powerful people are using US foreign policies to make themselves rich. They dictate US foreign policies such as supporting kings and oppressive rulers (installing them in many instances) and much of what they do is kept out of the public's view.
in mainstream media, people play the game (they wouldn't be hired if it wasn't clear that they were going to omit certain facts from their reporting)
we weren't told that the US was responsible for putting the Baath party into power in the firts place. not telling people about this is "playing the game".
these crimes continue because thanks largely to the influence of the media, they can't imagine that US foreign policies would be abused by U.S. businessmen..

Monday, June 02, 2003

bin Laden could not have flown the planes himself.

the racism still percists to a degree that that is what they do, that blacks would go out a kill (ignoring the conditions under which the slaves revolted in 1940's

Sunday, June 01, 2003

<< The terrorist attack on 9/11 is related to past American foreign policy -- in short, America's own fault; >>

Would you grow up?
Your blindly support US foreign polices and you try to make it impossible for rational discussion about the policies by making it adversarial. "America" what is that? Do most people know that US foreign polices have screwed over Middle East people.
"own fault" what does this mean? ALL fault? No fault at all?
You think FUNDING and SUPPORTING the most extreme elements that undermined and destroyed the lives of millions of people is faultless?

You think supporting and organizing coups to place the Baath party into power is faultless?

You think backing king is faultless. We are a people that freed themselves from a king. Do you seriously not understand how evil it is to SUPPORT kings and oppressive rulers and make it impossible for the people to have democracy? you think someone can do horrible things to a people and remain totally faultless?

Tell me about your opinion on Nat Turner. (he and other blacks killed over 50 whites)
do you want to talk about blame in that case?