Wednesday, August 20, 2003

Dear Mr. Lockard:

In your review of Noam Chomsky's 9/11 you wrote, "They did so for their own reasons, apparently religio-cultural xenophobia, and certainly not out of compassion for the struggles of other peoples for self-determination. "

If you had taken the time you could have found out what the motives actually were. The terrorism we face is a matter of life and death and it is a necessity to do the research into why these things are happening.

The FBI testified as to motive before the Senate. As any criminal investigator they looked at what bin Laden has actually said. What is provoking the terrorism is not complicated and bin Laden has explained it many times for several years: Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel’s brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq.

Your assertion about what they "certainly" didn't attack us because of compassion for the struggles of other peoples for self-determination is unnecessary demonization. The fact is horrible wrongs are being carried by U.S. foreign polices and it is arrogant to think it is not possible that people could be reacting to this fact. When you wrong peoples you can't expect to dictate how some will respond, even if their responce is wrong. Yes bin Laden wants a certain form of Islamic rule but he uses a braod appeal to very real and very legitimate grievances and in so doing gains support from even those that may not want exactly the version of government he seeks to estabish in the Muslim world.

Nat Turner convinced several other blacks to engage in terrorism, killing dozens of whites. It would be dishonest not to admit the role slavery had in motivating these blacks to do what they did. It was an example of two wrongs. But it is important to keep in mind that to claim that these blacks did it becsue they were religious freaks is dishonest. It would be manipulative to claim that all these blacks believed in Nat Turners "signs from God" and that a religious and "anti-white" motive was all there was to it. Today I think we can see clearly that the wrongs of slavery were the motivating reasons for Nat Turner and his fellow terrorist's terrorism. And we can see that it is possible for two wrongs to take place.

Every time I read an article that doesn't acknowledge that President Bush had the audacity to lie to America about why we were attacked, I am reminded just how extreme the political environment is in America today.

The bottom line is Bush lied to America about why we were attacked. Representative Press (you will find a link to the FBI's testimony there) The corrupt polices (a case of two wrongs) are kept safe from public scrutiny by a President who prefers to feed the public a huge lie (so that people don't question what it is they are being put in harm's way for)

From what I remember, the book 9/11 wasn't the best presentation of Chomsky's analysis (although it was good) I suggest you read more of Chomsky because what he says makes sense here is a page I transcribed, it includes a link to the whole audio interview with Chomsky. Here is a key part of it:

Dick Gordon: But you do that from a very clinical academic point of view.

Noam Chomsky: It’s not academic. I don’t want to have other terrorist atrocities in the United States. And if you want to reduce terrorist atrocities, if you’re even sane, the first thing you do is look at their causes. If you don’t want to look at their causes you’ll just increase the atrocities. I mean that’s just elementary, there’s nothing academic about it. I mean that’s for my grandchildren. I don’t want them to be attacked. So therefore I want to know the reasons why things like this happen. If we want to know the reasons why things like this happen we are going to have to search the record. And there we will find the reasons.

As I had started to say, you can go back 40 years and find President Eisenhower talking about the campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East and you’ll 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. You can find the same things when the Wall Street Journal does analyses of opinion there today. Yeah, we caught to pay attention to that.
<< I accomplished getting a rise out of a person that I believe is not an American. >>

you are wrong again, and you proved my point.
I knew there had to be something going on year. You guys are not too bright and now you have admitted that you are not even trying to use your head. You stupidly get this wrong idea in your head and you set off in refusal mode acting like an ass. Never even occurred to you that you are wrong did it?

As far as Israel, you obviously never have made the effort to research a damn thing, have you?
Suicide Bombers Kill 2 Israelis; Shatter Truce Calm
Aug. 12
— By Rami Amichai
ROSH HA'AYIN, Israel (Reuters) - Two Palestinian suicide bombers killed two Israelis in attacks barely an hour apart Tuesday, shattering six weeks of relative calm ushered in by a cease-fire declared by Palestinian militants.

You glide along assuming that the media is being straight with you. They aren't.
The above deceptive and manipulative reporting is just the most recent example of the game played when reporting about Israel. The headline is actually a double deception and lie. Would you know from the above headline that the "truce" was in fact not shattered by the suicide bombers because it was already shattered by Israel? Would you think that what is called a "truce" is considered by Israel to mean that Palestinians agreed to a ceasefire but that it doesn't apply to Israel? The word truce is used so that you would actually think what most people think when they hear truce. They think two sides have agreed to a cease-fire.
What the press is doing is crooked. What is called "reporting" by mainstream media today is a sick joke and off the wall. It is as Chomsky has written, "When the intellectual history of this period is someday written, it will scarcely be believable."
Because you make these wrong assumptions, you don't have a clue what is really going on because you have just swallowed the crap that the mainstream media has fed you.
As far as America, I am America. Get it? You don't grasp what this country is supposed to be. A country of, by and for the people. It is supposed to be my government, those sitting in Washington are supposed to be my representatives and were selected to do the people's will.
Having people lied to and deceived about what is going on and using the government to serve the agendas of special interests is never what this country was supposed to be about. When you write something as stupid as "Why do you hate America so much? ", it shows how extremely ignorant you are.
It is extremely ignorant to label a citizens desire for truth and justice as "hate." Use your head you brainwashed simpleton. Is calling for an end to Enron's corruption "hate"? Do you even know what Enron did to this country? Being a citizen is more that sitting on your ass making IGNORANT comments and playing lowclass games. "getting a rise out of a person"? You really lack basic social skills. Educate yourself and learn some manners, you are making a spectacle out of yourself.

Tuesday, August 19, 2003

<< I got the fact that the inspectors were kicked out straight from the horses mouth, like from former cheif weapons inspector, Richard Butler, and YES, even Scott Ritter, both of whom said the inspectors were KICKED OUT when they had their deabte on the now defunked Phil Donahue show on MSNBC >>

No Dbetter, you are wrong. I happened to have saved the transcript of that show and put it on my web site, so don't even try it. Scott Ritter DID NOT SAY THE INSPECTORS WERE KICKED OUT.

"Understand that, in December 1998, it wasn't Iraq that kicked the inspectors out. It was a phone call from Peter Burleigh to you that got the inspectors out, so the United States could initiate a bombing campaign,Desert Fox, which used U.N. intelligence to target Saddam Hussein. That destroyed the credibility of the inspection." - RITTER on Donahue January 13 US involved in Saddam's gassings

Dbetter, how come you are always spreading disinformation and lies? I also posted a link to several media sources who AT THE TIME reported the truth but NOW it serves the agendas of the powerful to lie so the lie. did you look at the link or not?

By the way there is something that Butler and Ritter both agreed on: (NOTE THAT THE MEDIA DID NOT FOCUS ON AMERICA'S INVLOVEMENT IN THESE WAR CRIMES!!!)

US involved in Saddam's gassings!: Facts like these are not too popular with the US mainstream media now. 'Donahue' for January 13
       HAIG: If I may-if I may ask these two this question because this is a-this is a fallacy that is put out a lot, that we gave chemical, biological or nuclear technologies to Iraq. Is that true?
       BUTLER: Actually, we gave Iraq technical advice on how to use its chemical weapons against Iran.
       HAIG: Do you know for a fact we gave them technical advice on how to use chemical weapons?
       BUTLER: Absolutely undisputed.
       HAIG: In what sense?
       RITTER: Wafiq Samarai (ph), the former head of the Iraqi intelligence service responsible for Iran-I have met with him many times, and he has said that U.S. advisers were sitting there as Iraq planned the inclusion of chemical weapons in the Anfal (ph) offensive.
       HAIG: I will never believe that. (yep, for some they can't get it into their heads. Here is Butler and Ritter AGREEING and this clown still doesn't get it. do you get it?)

Sunday, August 17, 2003

Consequently, although the Soviet threat is often portrayed as the major concern, there is reason to believe that since World War II the primary target of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf has been internal upheaval jeopardizing U.S. influence in this highly coveted area. The gulf has long been seen as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."[ Foreign Relations of the United States, vol. 8 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1945) Volume 8, p. 45. ]

In sum, U.S. policy toward the Middle East is characterized by an intention to ultimately control the oil there, strengthen key allies to do the United States' bidding, and keep other powers--not just the Soviet Union, but also Britain and France--away, if not dependent on the United States. The fruits of this policy, which took up where earlier French and British policy left off, have been the prolonged Arab-Israeli dispute, the fundamentalist Muslim uprising in Iran, and other assorted conflicts, including the Iran-Iraq war.

Chomsky : Absolutely. The smarter guys like George Kennen were pointing out that control over the energy resources of the middle east gives the US what he called 'veto power' over other countries. He was thinking particularly of Japan. Now the Japanese know this perfectly well so they've been working very hard to try to gain independent access to oil, that's one of the reasons they've tried hard, and succeeded to an extent, to establish relations with Indonesia and Iran and others, to get out of the West-controlled system.

Actually one of the purposes of the [post World War II] Marshall Plan , this great benevolent plan , was to shift Europe and Japan from coal to oil. Europe and Japan both had indigenous coal resources but they switched to oil in order to give the US control. About $2bn out of the $13bn Marshall Plan dollars went straight to the oil companies to help convert Europe and Japan to oil based economies. For power, it's enormously significant to control the resources and oil's expected to be the main resource for the next couple of generations.