Thursday, July 07, 2005


The threat we face can be removed if we look at the situation honestly and fix what is wrong. You start out with claiming that "you know" bin Laden's motives and that "you know" his stated motives are not real.

You then claim that stopping the US policies he complains about would not change his behavior. That is a convenient theory, I see it as simply a claim that shields the specific US foreign policies from being examined, questioned or changed. I suggest you have been manipulated by people whose agenda is to keep the specific US policies going by inventing scenarios where the policies are not an issue.

If you address the points I raised I think you will find that your view is incorrect. First of all, it isn't just bin Laden's motives, his motives are shared by the others that have attacked us and plan to attack us. Also the same grievances are shared by millions of others. This isn't just about bin Laden and won't stop with bin Laden.

Your reply doesn't address the fact that when George Tenet quotes the Fatwas he omits the motives. Others do this too or they substitute some other motive, this substitution serves the function of insulating the specific US foreign policies from questioning doesn't it?

Doing these things, suppressing the stated motives and insisting that the motives are anything else but the stated motives, serves an agenda. That agenda is of keeping the specific US foreign policies from being challenged. I have never talked with someone who held the view that it really isn't about the US foreign policies that didn't also think that the policies aren't that bad or shouldn't be changed. The theory is convenient for those that don't want the policies to be changed.

I am trying to explain to you that people are intentionally manipulating you about what the motives are. Did you see what George Tenet did in the example I gave you?

George Tenet isn't alone in trying to deny why we are being attacked and lying about the available facts. President Bush lies about why we were attacked. Thomas Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives too. Friedman claims, " the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998 I also have to wonder how in this invented scenario Friedman "knows" what bin Laden "sensed" about the Arab street.

So know I have given you three specific examples of lies. Think about this. If you start going through the evidence you will see a pattern.

Your comment about the Palestinians is simply inaccurate and history proves this. Perhaps you are unaware of this because people are lying about the basic facts. You base a lot of your opinion simply on hypotheticals and baseless assumptions.

It is propaganda to suggest that the Palestinians have been rejecting peace. You have been manipulated, you are not getting the whole story. For example, in 1976 Arafat accepted the 1976 peace offer (the acceptance of the Security Council Resolution of January 1976 backed by virtually the entire world, including the leading Arab states, the PLO, Europe, the Soviet bloc -- in fact, everyone who mattered. ) The Security Council Resolution of January 1976 was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US. Remember this was a Security Council Resolution. The US vetoed it, killing a peace offer backed by virtually the entire world. Today THIS fact is effectively kept from the American public by mainstream media by now acting like it never happened. For examples of how these rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see the games played by Thomas L. Friedman, "Seeking Peace in Mideast," New York Times , March 17, 1985, section 1, p. 1 (chronologically listing U.S. and U.N. Security Council proposals, but ignoring all of the Arab proposals prior to those that led to the Camp David Accords of 1978)

"So in 1976, the United States became the chief obstacle to a Palestinian state, very simply. The Security Council of the United Nations debated a resolution calling for a two-state settlement, a Palestinian settlement, a Palestinian state alongside of Israel, both states having all the rights guaranteed in the international system. This was in accord with a very broad international consensus that was supported by the Arab states, backed by the PLO and just about everybody. And in fact by then it had crystallized as an overwhelming international consensus. The U.S. vetoed. It was vetoed. The U.S. veto, incidentally, is a double veto. It vetoes the resolution and also vetoes recording in history. So it's out of history but it happened." Democracy Now

No comments: