Friday, April 30, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Soviet troops in the country and the US is helping these terrorists attack the best government the Afghanis ever had. We helped the fundamentalist extremists take over the country and destroy the women rights, the modernity and the progress, "... the cost being measured entirely in non-American deaths and suffering, as the rebels regularly exploded car bombs and sent rockets smashing into residential areas of Kabul, and destroyed government-built schools and clinics and murdered literacy teachers (just as the US-backed Nicaraguan contras had been doing on the other side of the world, and for the same reason: these were symbols of governmental benevolence)." afghan Doesn't that make you think at all?
Laura writes, " It boggles my mind that anyone can still defend bush.
Also if we are to prevent future attacks it is very important to know what mistakes or incompetence lead to the 9/11 attacks. The real issue is do you care more about the country or saving bush's ass?"

Great point Laura. Bush received warnings that bin Laden was determined to attack the US. We now know Bush and his team were more interested in planning for a war with Iraq so they did not act on the warnings. That is not a leader. After the first plane hit the WTC, Bush continued with his plan to go to a children's classroom where he read a book about a pet goat. That is not a leader. After being told about the second plane hitting the WTC, Bush continued to sit in the children's classroom listening to a book about a pet goat.That is not a leader. He just sat there when we were under attack. He sat there for at least 6 minutes and by some reports 11 minutes. That is not a leader.
He fought the attempts to hold a commission and when the commission asked him to testify the shit said he could only give them an hour. Eventually he testified but Cheney had to hold his hand. That is not a leader.
vtrtl writes, "See if you can keep up here... It was once considered wrong (but in the long view we have decided that is was objectively right) to oppose slavery in the United States.
It does not follow that opposition to the United States and its policies is therefore always right under every circumstance and at all times."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think the Muslim girls in the schools felt like when the US supported Mujahideen killed their teachers? Your fanatical support of these things is shameful.
US policy makers bear enormous responsibility for the radicalism for not only funding, organizing and arming them but for also imposing such enormous injustices on the general populations so that some are motivated to join the forces that target us now.
Don't tell me that Saddam and the Mujahideen were good when they were teamed up with the US and only "became" bad when they no longer served the agendas of US policy makers.
The first step is to be honest with the American people about how this mess started and what it is really about.
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Problems with Oliver Kamm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

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

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

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my new post ( August 17, 2005) : One of the Reasons for the War on Iraq
I am glad others can see that the emperor is naked.
Tom Tomorrow's post about Bush:
"Oh god

He's so awful. He just flounders around until he can dredge up a marginally appropriate sound bite--and when the question doesn't allow for that, he's just utterly lost."

My book is almost finished, you can pre-order it now: click here

Monday, April 12, 2004

Dear Richard,

In your article "Franken on Donahue" you write "But Lofton smacks Franken back nothing that "For openers, Mikhail Gorbachev, the author of perestroika, was a communist!" and says that the June 11,1990, issue of Time magazine quotes Gorbachev as saying, " I am a communist, a convinced communist ." But, ignoring Gorbachev's self-proclaimed communism, Franken seems to be arguing that when the Soviet Union was communist there were no serious shortage"

You miss the point which Franken spells out in his book. The point is Chancellor was not making excuses for Communism but Bernie was arguing in his book that Chancellor was. Bernie wrote, "his absurd observation that the problem in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism, but shortages"

The point Franken made was that on August 21, 1991 is wasn't the old Soviet Union under communism any more. By that time big changes over several years had already taken place. It wasn't the old Soviet Union any more. Changes were underway since 1985. By February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party had even agreed to give up its monopoly of power. As Franken explains in his book on p30, "Chancellor was saying that Gorbachev couldn't use communism as an excuse because, by that point, he had completely dismantled communism in the Soviet Union."

Bernie tried to make Chancellor appear to be an apologist for communism when the fact is the old communist system was really over at that point. Do you understand?

Tom Murphy

Saturday, April 10, 2004

For the President Only
Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate (Osama) Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America".

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(edited)... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told a ... (edited) ... service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation.

Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.

Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qaeda members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks , including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related.

The CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

i got this email "among wire simple brick"
with this content:

" business eye make sky secretary of meal through different net agreement female angle slip view plane peace jelly person plough

V I C O D I N and X A N E X C I A L I S

apple jump credit wool interest so match judge space scale selection goat kettle digestion card complete deep potato make test cork unit conscious possible roll narrow drink second who system government invention safe normal still change simple shake solve able look send government trousers hook manager mist as night jewel tree coat grain"

So now they just send gibberish to sell drugs? Is this target marketing to people that are on something when they read their email? I don't remember getting this sort of thing before. I recall tricks like emails with subject lines like "Hey" and things like that but I haven't seen this.

And I sometimes get email that is not my email address. It looks like it was sent to someone else but I got it. They were ads too, I never got one that was a regular email. Is this also kind of guerilla marketing?

Thursday, April 08, 2004

research Scarborough and the dead aide

"On July 21, 2001, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the body of Lori Klausutis, 28, was found in the office of U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough, 38, for whom Klausutis worked as an aide. Police on the scene said there were no indications of forced entry or physical struggle and "no signs of trauma to the body." The official medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland, then conducted an extensive autopsy - more than 80 hours - before announcing his findings last week.

Berkland said Klausutis died from a blow to the head, probably caused when she fainted and fell to the floor after an attack of a previously undiagnosed "valvular condition of the heart." Klausutis, an avid runner and member of the Northwest Florida Track Club, had never evinced heart problems before - but such things happen, Berkland said. He also admitted that authorities had previously lied about her fatal wound in order to forestall media inquiries into the case. "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury," he told the Northwest Florida Daily News."
Many more links to LOCAL FL Newspapers at this link:

Does anyone need any more proof that the media is crooked?

Monday, April 05, 2004

Fish Talk

An AOL article "7 Rules to Stop Worrying About" Mentions the don't "Drink Red Wine with Fish" rule. They write "Choose wisely and these heretofore anathematized combinations will not ruin a meal. A light red, such as a Pinot Noir or a Beaujolais, works well with "meatier" fish, like tuna, salmon, and swordfish." It is good to know the rational about the rule and how lighter red can work better since I don't like white wine and never concidered getting it just to go with my fish. it is good to know that this has nothing to do with getting cancer and dying.

A more serious fish related topic is the deal with farm raised salmon. That apparently does have to do with getting cancer and dying. I like salmon but now they say the farm raised salmon, the kind most Americans eat (Farmed salmon now makes up 80 per cent of fresh salmon sold around the United States), isn't safe, "The study concluded that consumers should not eat farmed salmon from some regions more than once a month." globeandmail

The weird thing about the coverage of this is the matter of fact nature with which it is reported. Specifically the matter of fact nature with which the fact that people have so poisoned our enviorment that restrictions of the consumption of some food are being issued. This is just seen as a given?

The PCBs get concentrated in the feed that is given to the farmed raised slamon. The bottom line is the polution is in our evoroment and that is how it gets into the feed whcih is given to the salmon. Do we have to live with these poisons in the source food forever?? The reports I have read don't deal with it as far as I can see. I don't see any sort of reporting to the effect of "look what these companies have done to our envioroment", like I said the PCBs are seen as a given and I don't see anyone in the reports saying that it is a travasty that our enviornomet is poluted with them REGARDLESS OF THE DEGREE. Isn't living in a world that says don't eat too much of something becasue it could give you cancer kind of crazy? Becasue we have contibuted to poisoning the enviorment it is unsafe to eat someting more than once a month?

The LA Times article described it this way "Levels of contaminants are higher than in wild fish. Industry officials dispute conclusions." This is the emphasis? The concerns of Industry officials! This is from the LA Times which I am told is "liberal". actaully warns that with some salmon the "don't eat window" should be four months: "Using the EPA standard, "to avoid an excessive risk of cancer, one should reduce consumption of farm salmon," Carpenter says. "On average, one meal of farmed salmon a month is what one should not exceed," he adds. "And some European farmed salmon should be eaten only once every four months.""
Chomsky mentions in this article that "Marginalization of the superfluous population takes many forms. Some of these were the topic of a recent Business Week cover story entitled “Why Service Stinks” (Octember 23). It reviewed refinements in implementing the 80-20 rule taught in business schools: 20 percent of your customers provide 80 percent of the profits, and you may be better off without the rest. The “new consumer apartheid” relies on modern information technology (in large measure a gift from an unwitting public) to allow corporations to provide grand services to profitable customers, and to deliberately offer skimpy services to the rest, whose inquiries or complaints can be safely ignored. The experience is familiar, and carries severe costs—how great when distributed over a large population, we don't know, because they are not included among the highly ideological measures of economic performance. Incarceration might be regarded as an extreme version, for the least worthy."

I think the article is interesting because it goes against one of the big myths of capitalism, namely that capitalism is what is best for us because the drive for profits translates into greater efficiencies which are supposed to benefit all of us. From the article, "... most consumers feel they're getting squeezed by Corporate America's push for profits and productivity. The result is more efficiencies for companies--and more frustration for their less valuable customers."

Friday, April 02, 2004

I was never excited about Dean's campaign. I walked aroung the Dean rally in NYC with a sign critical of Dean. Dean Come CLean It featured a quote from Dean about Bush:
"The President (Bush) deserves praise for rallying the spirits of our people after September 11 and for some of the measures he and others in his Administration have taken since. I know they are sincere, and that they want what is best for our country and the world. "-Howard Dean 2/17/03

Bush lied to America about why we were attacked, he doesn't deserve praise for God sakes!  Dean intends on continuing the corrupt foreign policies that serve the same special interests that Bush serves. The same special interests that Bush lied to American for. That should make everyone really think.

When I did talk to some Dean people at a "Dean meetup", some people got what I was saying. One woman turned to her friend and asked, "would you ever say that about Bush?" (the positive comment that Dean said) Well for most people agaisnt Bush the answer is no, so who was Dean really representing?

Being agianst a war that already happened does not mean much. If you looked forward and compared what Dean wanted to do and Bush wanted to do, Dean was more of a hawk wanting MORE troops in Iraq and to stay LONGER. Whose interests was Dean serving?

Thursday, April 01, 2004

Mr. Mahajan writes, "All of this feeds into some desire many people have for not wanting to see the United States as an imperial nation, at least not as a deliberately imperial one -- just one that is misled by Israel.", which strikes me as ironic because I think he may not want to see something: Israel's imperialism.

My take on it is that the Iraq war certainly has already been used for Israel's imperialism with regard to Iraq as well as that of the United States. I think that the same way claims about security are used as excuses for the United States' imperialism, the security talk just masks greed which is often called "interests," another code word.

He mentioned "benefits for Israel like the cheaper oil through the revival of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline and, presumably, the right of Israeli corporations to do business in Iraq." But you wrote, " These are small potatoes compared to the cost of the war and also to the aid Israel already gets from the United States -- and minuscule compared to what ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would make in the long run if Iraq's oil was privatized." I am not sure what he means by this. Surely the people that make profits off of business deals exploiting Iraq are not concerned about the costs of the war. The US taxpayers pay for the costs of the Iraq war and reconstruction, the money is not coming out of the pockets of the corporations that profit from the deals that will be imposed upon Iraq.

I agree that talk about Israel's security isn't serious but I think you miss the point that the talk is cover for Israel's "interests" (meaning Imperial ambitions)

And Mr. Netanyahu is looking forward to it: "It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," Mr. Netanyahu told a group of British investors in London. "It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

Note that Netanyahu does not say "It is a matter for the Iraqi people to decide" what he says is "It is just a matter of time".

On Sunday, August 24, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky vowed to discuss the issue with the U.S. secretary of energy during his envisaged visit to Washington next month.
He asserted that the whole project depends on Jordan's consent, adding that the kingdom would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to flow through its territory.
Note that he didn't say "the whole project depends on the Iraqi people's consent.

So the US plans for "democracy" in Iraq are clear. What is really meant by "democracy" is a government that will do the business deals that both the US and Israel want. Already Israel's greed is evident and they are acting like they are owed something. The justifications for getting what they want are being floated out there. Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon’s government "views the pipeline to Haifa as a ‘bonus’ the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq," according to Haaretz.

And Israel corporations are already getting what they want. Iridium to supply Iraq with $4-5m in public phones
Iridium Satellite (Israel) will also market thousands of mobile phones. globes

Given how the injustices of Israel have outraged many in that area of the world, it is outrageous for Israel to even be involved. (and for the US for that matter) The obvious question not asked is would the Iraqi people want to be giving Israel these deals. Based on opinion polls I have seen of the views of other Arabs in the region I think the answer is no. The idea that we are allowing democracy in Iraq is a sick joke. Background on Israel, visit this link:What Americans Need to Know About Zionism
Turning the Tide