You wrote, "Reflexively taking an anti-American pose with respect to our country's role in history is both factually incorrect and as intellectually lazy. Blindly following left-wing agitprop doesn't make you smarter than someone who believes their government. "

stop with the bullshit. There are people that take the time to look into the facts. You ASSUME
people are "blindly" doing this or "reflexivley" doing that, but have YOU looked into the facts or made an effort to THINK about what you are saying?

you wrote, "Has the United States made mistakes? Sure. "

Mistakes? WRONGS have been comitted in the service of special poweful interests like business interests.

You wrote, " But we have also arguably done more good for more people than any other country in world history, often by force of arms. Never forget that thanks to America's "history of invasions and occupations", France, Germany, Japan and South Korea are all vibrant, prosperous democracies. "

Lets look at the very first claim. you claim that "thanks to America's "history of invasions and occupations", France [is a] vibrant, prosperous democracy"

So American policy makers felt compelled to do something nice for France? Is that what you argueing?
Look, Germany declared war on the US and the US fought Germany. It would have been dificult or impossible not to have had the side effect of helping France when we were trying to defeat Germany. Your arguement is just odd concidering the facts. If your arguement isn't that the US was intentionally trying to help France, then why even mention it?

As far as how wonderful the US was to France after WWII, take a look at what was done to labor (you know, working people). US polciy makers served business interests and US based Labor Unions and undermined labor in France with CIA opperations using thugs.

On the post-war reconstruction of the Mafia by the U.S. as part of its campaign to destroy the European labor movement, see for example, Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics Of Heroin: C.I.A. Complicity In The Global Drug Trade, Brooklyn: Lawrence Hill, 1991, chs. 1 and 2 (updated edition of the classic work on U.S. government involvement in drug-running, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, New York: Harper and Row, 1972).  An excerpt (pp. 25, 36-38):

In Sicily the O.S.S. [the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the C.I.A.], through the Office of Naval Intelligence, initially allied with the Mafia to assist the Allied forces in their 1943 invasion.  Later, the alliance was maintained to check the growing strength of the Italian Communist party on the island. . . .  As Allied forces crawled north through the Italian mainland, American intelligence officers became increasingly upset about the leftward drift of Italian politics.  Between late 1943 and mid-1944, the Italian Communist party's membership had doubled, and in the German-occupied northern half of the country an extremely radical resistance movement was gathering strength. . . .  Rather than being heartened by the underground's growing strength, the U.S. army became increasingly concerned about its radical politics and began to cut back its arms drops to the resistance in mid-1944. . . .

As Italy veered to the left in 1943-1944, the American military became alarmed about its future position in Italy, and O.S.S. felt that [Sicily's] naval bases and strategic location in the Mediterranean might provide a future counterbalance to a Communist mainland. . . .  Don Calogero [an Italian mobster] rendered . . . services to the anti-Communist effort by breaking up leftist political rallies.  On September 16, 1944, for example, the Communist leader Girolama Li Causi held a rally in Villalba that ended abruptly in a hail of gunfire as Don Calogero's men fired into the crowd and wounded nineteen spectators. . . .  The Allied occupation and the subsequent slow restoration of democracy reinstated the Mafia with its full powers, put it once more on the way to becoming a political force, and returned to the Onorata Societa the weapons which Fascism had snatched from it. . . ."

In 1946 American military intelligence made one final gift to the Mafia -- they released [American mobster] Lucky Luciano from prison and deported him to Italy, thereby freeing one of the criminal talents of his generation to rebuild the heroin trade. . . .  Within two years after Luciano's return to Italy, the U.S. government deported more than one hundred more mafiosi as well.  And with the cooperation of his old friend Don Calogero and the help of many of his former followers from New York, Luciano was able to build an awesome international narcotics syndicate soon after his arrival in Italy.

The study also describes how the U.S. government helped to reestablish the Corsican Mafia in France when the C.I.A. employed the Corsican syndicates to forcibly break Marseille's powerful Communist labor unions during dock strikes in 1947 and 1950.  These actions "put the Corsicans in a powerful enough position to establish Marseille as the postwar heroin capital of the Western world" between 1948 and 1972 (pp. 44-61).

See also, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The C.I.A., Drugs and the Press, London: Verso, 1998, ch. 5; Henrik Krüger, The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence, & International Fascism, Boston: South End, 1980 (on the probable involvement of the C.I.A., Mafiosi, certain Southeast Asians and elements of the Nixon White House in the sudden shift of the U.S. heroin supply route from Marseilles to Southeast Asia and Mexico in the early 1970s).  On the involvement of the U.S. labor leadership in these actions, see footnote 71 of this chapter.

On the U.S. operations in post-World War II France, see for example, Gabriel Kolko, The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-1945, New York: Pantheon, 1968 (updated edition 1990), ch. 4 and pp. 439-445; Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics Of Heroin: C.I.A. Complicity In The Global Drug Trade, Brooklyn: Lawrence Hill, 1991, chs. 1 and 2.

On the enthusiastic involvement of the mainstream U.S. labor leadership in the operations to restore the old industrial order to power in Northern Italy -- in part by reorienting the new Italian unions from their radical-democratic structure to American-style, leadership-dominated "business unionism" -- see for example, Federico Romero, The United States and the European Trade Union Movement, 1944-1951, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989 (translation 1992), especially pp. 16-41, 149.

On the U.S. labor leadership's complicity in the overall U.S. and British post-war effort to destroy unions internationally, see also, for example, Roy Godson, American Labor and European Politics: The A.F.L. as a Transnational Force, New York: Crane, Russak, 1976, especially pp. 52-53, 75, 104, 117-137.  This book, based on internal A.F.L. documents, explains in glowing terms and frames as a great humanitarian achievement in defense of democracy, liberty, and a free trade union movement, how the A.F.L. exploited postwar starvation in Europe to transfer power to its own associates by keeping food from their opponents (pp. 3, 104, 116); employed gangsters as strike breakers to split the labor movement (pp. 120-125); undermined efforts of French labor to block shipments to the French forces attempting to reconquer Indochina (p. 135); split the Confédération Générale du Travail, a major French union in the key industries of coal mining, communications, and transportation, in 1947 as part of its efforts to "restore the internal balance of political power and prevent a shift to the extreme left" (pp. 117-132); and so on.  However, the book skirts the Mafia connection, which is detailed in footnote 79 of this chapter.

Other studies of this topic include: Ronald Radosh, American Labor and United States Foreign Policy, New York: Random House, 1969 (review of U.S. labor leaders' rigid Cold War positions on foreign policy matters, and their active participation in reining in left-wing labor movements internationally); Ronald Filippelli, American Labor and Postwar Italy, 1943-1953: A Study of Cold War Politics, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989; Sallie Pisani, The C.I.A. and the Marshall Plan, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991, pp. 99-100 (on U.S. labor leaders' activities in postwar France); Howard B. Schonberger, Aftermath of War: Americans and the Remaking of Japan, 1945-1952, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1989, ch. 4 (on U.S. labor leaders' activities in occupied Japan); Fred Hirsh and Richard Fletcher, The C.I.A. and The Labour Movement, Nottingham, U.K.: Spokesman, 1977.  See also, Thomas Braden, "I'm glad the C.I.A. is 'immoral,'" Saturday Evening Post, May 20, 1967, p. 10 ("It was my idea to give the $15,000 to Irving Brown [of the A.F.L.].  He needed it to pay off his strong-arm squads in the Mediterranean port, so that American supplies could be unloaded against the opposition of the Communist dock workers").

Similar attitudes have persisted in the U.S. union leadership until the present.  See for example, Aaron Bernstein, "Is Big Labor Playing Global Vigilante?: The A.F.L.-C.I.O. Spends Millions A Year To Fight Communism Overseas -- Fueling A Bitter Internal Battle," Business Week, November 4, 1985, pp. 92-96.  An excerpt:

Through a group of little-known institutes, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. spends $43 million a year in 83 countries -- often for anticommunist projects that tend to merge with the [Reagan] Administration's foreign policy themes. . . .  Their combined spending nearly matches the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s $45 million U.S. budget.  Some $5 million of the foreign affairs money comes from dues of member unions.  The other $38 million comes largely from two government sources.  One is the Agency for International Development (A.I.D.) . . .  The other is the National Endowment for Democracy (N.E.D.), a congressionally funded foundation started with the aid of conservative Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to "sell the principles of democracy" abroad. . . .

[C]onservative foreign policies are nothing new for labor: The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has long been proud of the role International Affairs Dept. Director Irving J. Brown and his predecessor Jay Lovestone have played in fighting communism around the world since World War II.
http://www.understandingpower.com/chap5.htm
BUY THE BOOK:

I asked Rusty, "Rusty, instead of pointing to an entire article, why don't you quote something from Chomsky that you think is not right to say.
Seems your point is that specific US foreign policies cannot be truthfully described or should not be because doing so "causes terrorism."

The guy can't deal with the facts, look how fucking low this guy stoops. He pulls out the "antisemite" slander, the "conspiracy" nonsence and the "nut'' label.
Yep Rusty uses these tactics. It is disgusting that this guy resorts to calling me "an antisemetic conspiracy nut"
Someone else sees that this guy "Dr. Rusty Shackleford" has problems:
"Seriously, Dr. Rusty: take your hate-mongering to some other fantasy world, and leave the jawas out of it."
http://illovich.com/archives/socialpolitical/i_like_starwars_but.html#000361
Is this Dr. Rusty actually a teacher in Texas?

Rusty writes, "But to believe that Americans are as described by Noam Chomsky is to share in a discourse and worldview that is distinctly anti-American."

not "Americans are," Rusty but specific American foreign policies are. You really have trouble with this point don't you?
Chomsky has never said that it is the cause of all that is bad. You are just playing games. And you really don't want to dome to terms with the evil of the policies. Example, is this an American or a Nazi: "Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us". http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

ccwbass seems to think the grievances in the Middle East were "never a topic of contention" until they "magically became one"

ccwbass, "never a topic of contention" until it "magically became one"? WRONG.
Go back 40 years and you 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 aught to pay attention to that.http://www.representativepress.org/ChomskyInterview.html

mypetjawa (Rusty Shackleford) asks, "If the world was as the Left described it, wouldn't it be just to attack America?
"
mypetjawa (Rusty Shackleford) thinks he has hit upon away to make sure no one can criticizes American or Israeli policies, "The next time you hear an academic use words like colonialism or imperialsm, the next time you hear an intellectual use words that suggest America as the cause of so much suffering in the world, the next time a Leftist speaks of the death of children at the hands of America, don't let them go unchallenged. Remind them of the consequences of their words."

mypetjawa mypetjawa(Rusty Shackleford) is using propaganda techniques.
My responses:
Rusty,
You need to learn basic logic. You write, "If the world was as the Left described it, wouldn't it be just to attack America?"

Maybe you think killing civilians is OK and so it would be "just" but I don't. The problem you have is you can't grasp the concept of two wrongs. In 1831 Nat Turner and other terrorists he led murdered about 60 whites. Children's brains were smashed out of their heads, by some accounts all the victims were decapitated. Now are you going to tell me that since this happened in response to slavery that it must be "just"? Or that since Nat Turner and his fellow terrorists did what they did that we can no longer be against Slavery since that would mean "agreeing with the terrorists"?
Tom Murphy | Email | Homepage | 06.20.04 - 1:22 pm | #

Mud Blood & Beer responded: "Tom: I think you veer off point there a bit. What Rusty (I think) is saying is that the left has declared that America itself is the great evil in the world, and if that is the premise then it could be considered appropriate to eliminate this evil at virtually any cost (because the evil of America is so great). This seems to me an accurate description of the thinking among today's lefties, given everything that's come out of their mouths since 9/11/2001. (Here I mean the real left -- the America haters -- and not mainline democrats, who are simply fools)"

I answered:
"America itself"? No, you are wrapping specific foreign policies in the term "America." There are serious wrongs, just as slavery was one. Your games are like saying it was "anti-American" to be against slavery during the slavery period. You see how wrapping specific policies under the banner of "America" is an attempt to insulate them from analysis and criticism? You don't want to grasp the concept of two wrongs.
I made my point as clear as possible. Pointing out that specific policies by policy makers are wrong is not an endorsement of any act against them. US street thugs don't get away with this "but I am America" garbage, why should US foreign policy makers? Stop the propaganda with the "America itself," we are talking about specific foreign policies.
By your rational we could have never ended slavery since that would have been "giving in to terrorists." And we could not have called slavery a "great evil" since in your mind that would be saying "America itself," we are talking about specific foreign policies.
By your rational we could have never ended slavery since that would have been "giving in to terrorists." And we could not have called slavery a "great evil" since in your mind that would be saying "America itself is a great evil"
Stop trying to protect specific policies by attacking fellow Americans, it isn't right what you are doing.

Is CNN's Lou Dobbs insane?
CNN's Lou Dobbs show titled their story on Kofi Annan's urging the UN Security Council not to shield American from international prosecution for war crimes an "Outragous Demand"!
here are the details: Annan wants no war crimes exemption for Americans

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the UN Security Council not to shield American peacekeepers once again from international prosecution for war crimes, citing the abuse of Iraq prisoners by US forces.
Mr Annan urged council members not to support a US resolution calling for the blanket exemption for a third straight year. The current exemption expires on June 30.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,257078,00.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States faced an uphill fight on Friday to get an exemption from a new International Criminal Court, with diplomats saying ambassadors were hesitating because of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460305
By the way, even though the media keeps calling it "abuse" the fact is it is torture. http://www.fair.org/activism/times-torture-update.html

Good point! Actually the media should be covering this and there should be talk of impeachment.

The powers that be don't want this to be the focus so it isn't. email the media http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html

COMPARE

June 18, 2004

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda."
-- George W. Bush

March 18, 2003
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH

check the facts: http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03032001.html

BUSH MUST BE IMPEACHED! (I know I know this isn't about sex but it happens to be important)

call the media and tell them to cover this! http://www.geocities.com/helpkirk/Media.html

http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html

you right-wing freaks are dishonest shits if you don't act on this. this isn't a game. if you thought Clinton's lie was important then this is a thousand times more so.

my email to a fan of my web site RepresentativePress.org
The fan wrote, "I stumbled on to your site after doing a google search on "9/11 terrorists".......Specifically, looking into whether all the individuals involved in this terrorist act knew this was a suicide mission.

Then I stumble on your site.......What a bunch of crap!!....My suggestion to you is you get serious about seeking some mental health treatment because clearly you're in need....("Bush lied"??------That's psychotic)"

It appears that all the 9/11 terrorists did know before they got on the plane. Some may have been informed close to the 9/11 date while others like Atta obviously knew for months. In fact Atta wrote four pages of instructions to the others called "Last Night" in which it is made clear that it is a suicide mission.

psychotic or not, what Bush told the public was not the truth although perhaps he is too simple to understand that fact. Yes it is "psychotic" to trick the American people about WHY they are in harm's way but the agendas of the powerful don't often take into account the rights of the common people. There is alot a talk about "our freedoms", the sad fact is the American people are robbed of their freedoms when they are fooled into thinking the terrorists attack us because of ours. The point I am making is that Bush lied to America about why we were targeted and that his lie robs the American people of the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to continue to be put in harm's way over specific foreign policies.


But you ignore the facts about the MOTIVES for the attacks of 9/11. The REASONS the terrorists did what they did.

Many of the terrorists were not strict Muslims, many were drinking alcohol and having sex with prostitutes. What lnked them together was the common goal, the motives.

What you ignore is the fact that the motive has been made clear for years.

The thing that links them and the other attacks and bin Laden together is MOTIVE.

The motive for the WTC attack was made clear by the statement the terrorists made: "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."

Did you read this link on my web site?> http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html

In addition to that if you look you will see the motives are repeated over and over again. You can read the interviews of bin Laden here: http://www.robert-fisk.com/understanding_enemy.htm

The motives are what enticed the terrorists to join in the first place. Recruiting them was done by appealing to the well know grievances.

"A former member of an extremist Islamic organization which is part of al-Qaeda explained how the organization's recruiters operate on susceptible young men. "Someone approached me in the mosque as I was praying, and started to talk to me about injustice in the Middle East, the poverty, our impotence in the face of Israel. He made me want to listen to him - to find a solution. At first these people don't talk about violence. They concentrate on how much injustice America has caused in the world and how to get rid of this unfairness. They mention Palestine, they call on you to uphold your national dignity, to defend people, and suggest for that you must sacrifice yourself. Then your people will live after you and will always remember you." The young man, himself an Egyptian, speaking in the privacy of a quite courtyard in Cairo, believed this was the way Mohamed Atta was approached." - "Al-Qaeda" by Jane Corbin p125

But there are people who deny the motives in order to serve the interests that want the policies to continue. Bush isn't the only liar, there are many others including Clinton, the media, government officials and intellectuals tell the same lie or play along with it. For example George Tenet quotes HALF of a key sentence from bin Laden's Fatwa, cutting off the part that explains the motives. Tenet obviously does this to focus only on the intention to kill Americans and to suppress the reasons why. http://www.representativepress.org/Intelligence.html )

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet plays the same ugly game Bush plays, he deceives the American public about motives behind 9/11. See link:9/11 Intelligence Report the second half of the In the REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ? BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, George Tenet suppresses the second half of a key bin Laden statement. The Second half doesn't say anything like what you claim, it says clearly the MOTIVES:

in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Look for my new book coming soon (you can buy a shirt now to promote it) LINK> http://www.cafeshops.com/911motives

Bush is so pathetic it is unreal.

"I first suspected that Mr. Bush had lost contact with everyday reality last July, when he insisted during a press conference that "we gave [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the [U.N. weapons] inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in."

Even if Mr. Bush watches only Fox News, he ought to have known that the inspectors searched Iraq for six weeks last winter, before they were forced to clear out so bombing could begin. Yet he repeated the same weird claim just last month, in the presence of the Polish president, saying of Saddam Hussein: "It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in." Did Condi forget to tell him about Hans Blix and the inspectors?"

(from the article See What Happens When You Don’t Read? by Joe Conason )

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8599

Do you guys realize how fucking patheric Bush is? And how much the media is going easy on this moron?

Links to Bush two statements here from the whitehouse.gov web site: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_representativepress_archive.html#107563421116836893

You wrote, " I also think the removal of saddam hussein will save more lives than the sum total of all the deaths you lay at the feet of America daily on CL. "

How many times does this fucking have to be said to you? Saddam and the US were partners in war crimes, they were teamed up TOGETHER. The US HELPED Saddam carry out gassings. you can't compare Saddam's crimes agaisnt the US's crimes when the US is so responsible for Saddam's hold on power. The bulk of his crimes were comitted when the US supported him. Who is responsible for putting the Baath party into power in the first place? When the US knew he was a murderous thug in the late 50's the CIA still worked with him! The US put the Baath party into power two times in the 60s.


HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT REPORTED? EVER?

You wrote, " Spitfire's point is not that the Oil for Food scandal was not reported, it's that it also hasn't been shoved down our throats like the abu ghraib scandal has. "

The oil for food scandal has gotten plenty of media coverage. The problem is you have an increadibly distotorted view of the world. First of all, the media, becasue of its slanted reporting, has allowed people to continue to refer to the abu ghraib events as "hazing". the media (including even Al Franken) were unwilling to make it clear to the public that RAPES occured.

You whole take on things is so off base it is increadible. you can't see that the media has UNDERPLAYED the fact that RAPES took place. and we see the effect, many AMericans can gleefully refer to "hazing" as they remain ignorant about the RAPES.

You wrote, "Its (almost ) industry wide, selective outrage, always based on a preset agenda, ie: the removal of george w bush. Paranoid ? "


more like clueless. The media has played along with Bush so much it is off the wall. the dumb shit has even stated twice that Sadam didn't let the inspectors in so that is why we attacked him. WAS THAT REPORTED IN THE MEDIA?

You wrote, " You may argue that the media is always biased towards bad news, and thats true, but the oil for food thing is at least as big a scandal as abu ghraib, by all accounts ? no ?

Ok, libs, here you go, litmus test:

Google the Oil for Food Scandal, pull up an account of it on line, then read it, and every time you see: U.N or United Nations, insert the word Halliburton (shiver) and tell me that wouldn't be story one, page on, headline , first quarter hour on the hour prime time news story. "

You really don't have a grasp on the issues. As I said, the UN food for oil scandal has been reported. What I have been pointing out have been things that have been either severly underreported or not reported at all.


Here is something that blows you whole "UN oil for food scandal didn't get reported tey way it should have" theory out of the water. you like the story becasue you think it is something that makes the UN look bad and the US can sit on the side and say "look how bad the UN is". Here is the kicker: the US was involved. DID THE MEDIA MAKE THAT CLEAR TO YOU?

and to my other point which you ignored until I challenged another post of yours about morality. have you seen the media report AT ALL the fact that the US is violating International Law by changing Iraqi foreign ownership laws? have you seen it reported at all?

the examples you bring up have at least been reported, you claim underreported. The example I gave you ignored and then expalined away with the immoral "a state gotta do what a state gotta do". That example of I am giving you have gone UNREPORTED IN AMERICA.

stop and think for a minute, your viewpoint is so scewed it isn't funny. review the facts I pointed out.

you really don't understand how the media works. I give you dramatic examples as proofs. you try to bullshit your way around with claims that someting didnt' get enough coverage but that is exposed as foolish when you see that the US's role in the scandal is what got underreported.

AS for my other example, one more time, the American media hasn't even reported this to the public:


On May 22 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1483, abolishing sanctions against Iraq and recognising the United States and United Kingdom as the country's occupying powers. The resolution called upon the US-UK authority to "comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079563,00.html

The US and UK have already violated these Conventions.

You wrote, " I'll ask the serious liberals on this board (and by the way, I do not intend "Liberal" as an insult LOL ) Do you or do you not agree, that, lets say, the washington press corp, the ones asking the questions at the news conferences are across the board anti bush ? "

you are out of your mind. they let him get away with things so off the wall it isn't funny. Bush is still nuts and the media has really ignored it. TWO TIMES now Bush insanely insited that Saddam didn't even allow the inspectors in so that is why we attacked him. The media is really hiding crazy stuff from Bush:

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_representativepress_archive.html#107563421116836893

You wrote, "You scream about Halliburton and Bechtel but bury stories about the UN oil-for-food scandal. I read stories complaining about the fact that 500,000 children had died due to poor malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of sanctions, and now we find out that the "braintrust" of the United Nations was on the take and Saddam was pocketing the kickbacks. So...WHOSE fault is it that a half a million children lost their lives due to malnutrition and lack of medicine? "

You may think you are making some great point but you are not, you are ignorant of the facts. The 500,000 children died BEFORE the oil for food program was even instituted.

The stringent economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq in August 1990. In August 1995 the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reported that there had been a fivefold increase in child mortality in Iraq since the imposition of sanctions. It is a 1995 UN report that is the source of the info about the 500,000 children dead.

On the show 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright about it:

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

The first Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food Programme was exported in December

1996 and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997
http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

Some one calling themselves "JG" writes, ""I can respect you sticking to your beliefs, but how far will you take that ?
At what point would you be willing to consider the possibility that you may have been wrong ? On both sides of the issues, we all become too locked into our first feelings, we all have to be able to rethink things, every time someone on CL is presented with information that doesn't match their pre set notions, they dismiss it, it came from the wrong website... it's a vast right or left wing conspiracy, it's all a ploy by the saudis or by al franken, its a by product of the polarization that is gripping this country, and I have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, it is not good.
So I'll ask you directly, when will you be willing to consider the possibility that it this invasion is NOT about oil, or land grabs, that whatever you feel about the outcome or the methods, the motivation was sincere ? When US troops leave Iraq ? when a new Iraqi government is elected ? When Iraq steps up and votes against us in the UN security council in 50 years, those falafel eating surrender monkey ingrates ?"
I responded: G, here are the facts:
On May 22 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1483, abolishing sanctions against Iraq and recognising the United States and United Kingdom as the country's occupying powers. The resolution called upon the US-UK authority to "comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079563,00.html
The US and UK have already violated these Conventions. what the hell is your deal, you don't understand this or know about it? you expect our mainstream media to spoon feed you the facts? The media didn't report to the American people how the CIA helped put the Baath party into power in the first place. They didn't report how the CIA handed over the names of thousands of people to be killed by the Baathists. The media continues the game by not reporting the violations the US is doing right now in Iraq.
when the **** are you going to wake up?
are you putting us on with this bullshit of yours that the US is simply trying to help the Iraqi people, that the "motivation was sincere"!?!, are you a **** two year old? Are you really this God damn ignorant or naive? You ignore 50 years of the US **** over the people of the Middle East.

Now that you see that the US has clearly shown its true colors (again) with the violations of the rights of the Iraqis (this is happening RIGHT NOW!) with the illegal imposing of business deals upon them, are you going to finally wake up or not?

JG ignored the above.
He posted the following in responce to some other topic:

I am not saying school prayer is some sort of be all and end all, but I do think that laws, a system of crime and punishment, will never be enough to prevent people from doing bad things, there has to be some underlying morality , be it religious, or just a sense of right and worng, thats missing from society today. If the only deterrence of a crime will be "can I get away with it or not " then we are all in trouble. This is nothing new, when the Romans stopped revering (and fearing) their gods, the moral code fo their society collapsed. Its a basic formula, am I saying everyone needs to start going to church, but I do think a godless, faithless society is asking for trouble. Whats this guy was is that if these two murdering teens had a real faith, and a sense fo right and wrong, this tragedy would have never happened.

Too many of our young men and women today are growing up without souls, heartless and cruel, if religion is no longer strong enough to provide a model for thought and deed, and the collapsing family not noi longer able to provide it, then who or what will ? the government ? hardly ! public opinion ? yeah right. Every society is built and runs on 4 pillars, Religion, Family, Law, and Public Opinion, I don't need to tell you how shaky our table has become.

So I wrote, "JG you write things like "If the only deterrence of a crime will be "can I get away with it or not " then we are all in trouble. "
yet you don't practice what you preach. you are complicitous with crimes in the Middle East.
you write as if you live in a mke believe world. you say things like we can wait and see if the US in honest about what it is doing in Iraq. But I have pointed out to you that we do not have to wait. I showed you the facts and you ignore them.
I am talking about this:Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pillage is forbidden LINK>>>> http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/32258349.html

JG responed: "I think it was pericles who said " a state can not be moral as the people must be, it's first last and only goal must be preservation and welfare of the state "

or something like that, someone google it for me.

Every government has to act solely in it's own interests, don't be childish and asume that any nation on this planet acts in any other way besides it's own self interests. All I need my government o do is look out for me and my fellow citizens, thats harsh, but true. It has no responsibility to any other master besides it's own citizens."

I responed:
You wrote, "I think it was pericles who said " a state can not be moral as the people must be, it's first last and only goal must be preservation and welfare of the state " or something like that, someone google it for me."

JG, you really should give more thought to your opinions. You may think you are dressing up your immorality but it doesn't hide the fact that it is immoral. OF COURCE A STATE CAN BE MORAL AND SHOULD BE MORAL!! A human being has the goal of preservation of him or herself, that doesn't mean they can disregard morality! What an evil concept that you can simply disregard morality because the state "gotta do what it gotta do" That is the philosophy of a thug.

You write, "Every government has to act solely in it's own interests, don't be childish and asume that any nation on this planet acts in any other way besides it's own self interests. All I need my government o do is look out for me and my fellow citizens, thats harsh, but true."

Two points: First of all, a government has to act morally or we should end it. Second, who is being naive? when you talk about the internets of a government you aren't serious when you include the interests of the average citizen are you? The interests served by this government are those of the powerful. And that is why they want you to disregard morality, they are THAT greedy.

But the thing about you is that you are really twisted. Are you now going to tell me that you are serving the interests of the state by being deceptive here on Craigslist? YOu made a big point about "the motivation was sincere" as far as the US toward Iraq. Yet you don't think the US has to be sincere, it only has to "do what it gotta do". You write, "It has no responsibility to any other master besides it's own citizens" Why are you on here trying to get people to believe that the US is sincere when your philosophy is that the US has no responsibility to be sincere at all? You are going to argue that the US by some fluke happens to be sincere when the US has no responsibility to be so? You are bullshitting your fellow citizens for whose benefit? The state? America is supposed to be a government of the people, so you miss the point of what America is supposed to be about.
What is you contribution to America? Trying to trick Americans into thinking their government is acting morally while AT THE SAME TIME (actually after it is made clear to you that the US is not acting morally) insisting that the government has not responsibility to be moral?
When do you finally come clean and stop acting like a shit. People are suffering and dying because of the kinds of games people like you play.

An Example Of What Should Be Considered a Newsworthy, Significant Contribution to the Counterterrorism Debate

William Kaminsky quotes J. Cofer Black, the director from 1999-2002 of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center on his blog.
Here is a key point:
"At the more strategic level, the only way to address terrorism is to deal with the issues that create terrorism, to resolve them where possible, and where that's not possible to ensure that there is an alternative to violence"

Mr. Kaminsky makes a good point: "Politicians from both sides of the aisle would do well to heed this." I could not agree more with Mr. Kaminsky. Have you noticed that the specific foreign policies are worth more than our lives? Where is the discussion about these specific policies and why aren't people questioning if we should continue with them and continue to put out lives at risk because of them?
Here is my web page about Bush's lie: http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

Dear Mr. Burke:

I read your review of Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival. I thought
it was interesting because I am finishing my book and I want everyone that
reads it to "get it". Here is my article that focuses on the central argument
I make in my book. I was hoping you could read it and tell me what you think:
http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

I can answer any questions you have. These are matters of life and death
so I think you will agree it is important to address them.

Below I try to address the concerns you raised in your review and also
in a post I found at Burke on Chomsky
In your post you write, "Likewise, more contentiously, I'd say putting
Hussein and Ba'athism way down the list of things that explain Iraq prior
to this war (or prior to Gulf War I) is an error of equal proportions, because
it leaves Chomsky or a similar critic as blind to the motors that drive history"
But Chomsky is not blind to the motors that drive history. The US is the
most powerful motor on earth so it is important to focus on the US, I don't
know how you measure "way down the list".

I read the first mention of Saddam in his book, Hegemony or Survival
p31, and I think it addresses your concern about where on the list to put
Hussein and Ba'athism. Yes Saddam's record was horrendous but the US supported
him during the worst of it. Simply listing Saddam's crimes without mention
of the US role would be wrong. The "motor" of the US is the most powerful
one and is one for which we are responsible for. But the history shows that
we bear enormous responsibility for Saddam too. We knew he was a murderer
when the CIA was supporting him decades ago (before the 1980's). We supported
him even after the Gulf War. Chomsky explains in detail about Saddam and
US policy on his CD ( http://www.representativepress.org/listentothis.html )

As far as discussing crimes that we can control and the importance in
doing so, Chomsky makes a good point here: "But take a look, say, at the
book Edward S. Herman and I wrote on this topic. We discussed three kinds
of atrocities. What we called "benign bloodbaths", which nobody cares about,
constructive bloodbaths, which are the ones we like, and nefarious bloodbaths,
which are the ones that the bad guys do. The principle that I think we ought
to follow is not the one that you stated. You know, it's a very simple ethical
point: You're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions.
You're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's
actions. The most important thing for me and for you is to think about the
consequences of your actions. What can you affect."

The point that we supported Saddam is rarely mentioned in the media
and the hypocrisy of this I have rarely seen addressed. Chomsky talks about
this on his CD. I have seen a few mentions of the support but here is something
interesting, talking heads from the Administration and think tanks list Saddam's
crimes using the statement that "Saddam? attacked his neighbors" (neighbors
plural)! So they include the attack on Iraq! But that is the war that we
supported him in! NEVER have I seen a reporter question these talking heads
about why Saddam's attack on Iran is listed as a wrong act by Saddam even
though the US helped him do it. How can the very same act be wrong for Saddam
and right for us? (this is an example of the media "playing the game")
I haven't seen Chomsky mention it but I think how the Ba'ath party came
to power in the 60's is very important (see below). I think the media's omission
of how the Ba'ath party came to power is very telling. Don't you agree? The
problem with the games reporters are playing or going along with out of ignorance
is exposing it requires proving two things. The first is that the omitted
thing is in fact true and second? that the? omitted things was in act omitted
and should have been reported. I have people tell me that "oh the media doesn't
give a history" but that simply is not true. Specifically, I have seen the
media a few times mention the 1980's and US support and I have seen media
talking heads justify it as the "lesser of two evils". But notice that the
60's coups and the handing over of hundreds of names to the Ba'ath party
is NOT mentioned in the media. I am talking about effective reporting in
the media, not a single mention somewhere like the? OpEd in the Times written
by . In fact a NYTs OpEd written by author Morris that did talk about the
1963 coup shows that reporters are ignoring it unless no one reads the OpEds
in the Times.

Here are some details about how the Ba'ath party came to power in the
60's and the US role: US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy
at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked
them". "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". http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

The role of the US in putting the Ba'ath party into power should have
been reported to the public, but it wasn't. I have several examples at my
web site the first article that I mentioned ( http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html
) is a dramatic example of the interests of the powerful being served without
regard for the rights of the common man. Maybe I present it forcefully enough
for the reality to be clear to everyone? I think Chomsky understates the
fact that Bush doesn't give the public the truth. About the Bush lie (about
why we were attacked) Chomksy refers to the "comforting story" that is "completely
at variance with everything we know." I think Chomsky is great but he tones
it down too much in this particular case. The fact that Bush lied about why
we are attacked on 9/11 is an outrage.

Another dramatic example of the media playing the game is their refusal
to report that the Iraq War was illegal. ( By the way, I have my correspondence
with a Newsday reporter that? sheds light on how the game is played if you
are interested.) Also the media is neglecting to inform the public that the
US is violating the Geneva and Hague Conventions by imposing business conditions
and changing laws in Iraq. Another dramatic example is ignoring the last
50 years of the US of undermining democracy in the region. The media played
along with the idea that the US intends to see up a democracy. The media
"forgot" to mention that we were lied to to get us into Vietnam. They "forgot"
to report we were lied to in the fist Gulf war. ( Lies About Iraq
)

As Chomsky explains in the movie Manufacturing consent, "the interests of
power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the
needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the
blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing
themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
http://home.twcny.rr.com/heurich/chomsky.html

You asked the question "why isn't Chomsky dead?" (for publishing the
ideas and facts he does). Chomsky has explained this in other publications.
The interests of the powerful in the US are not carried out inside the US
by violence, instead it is by manipulation and propaganda and it is done
largely voluntarily.

This idea was explained by George Orwell in a preface that was intended
for his novel Animal Farm but was not included. Here is part of that preface,
"The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely
voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark,
without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign
country will know of instances of sensational items of news ? things which
on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the
British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general
tacit agreement that ?it wouldn?t do? to mention that particular fact. So
far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press
is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have
every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind
of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in
plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body
of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without
question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but
it is ?not done? to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ?not done?
to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the
prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.
A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either
in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Orwell's Proposed Preface to 'Animal Farm'

Chomsky explains a Propaganda Model: Propaganda Model
Below is another example of? manipulation and lies being told in order
to fool the public. Yes there are people playing games in the world.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example
of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's
1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game",
which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that
powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you
believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants
peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been
presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false
premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants
peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine
is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United
States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process,"
while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking
peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."
This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise.
So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with
Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many.?
Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play
the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky
wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that
Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called Chomsky
to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her
that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman
looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would
run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said
they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
As Chomsky writes, "But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times
and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's
like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

"Russil Wvong" "Noam Chomsky" and "George Kennan" Wvong Wrong

You wrote, "Chomsky is taking a single sentence from the middle of a 21-page
document and arguing that this represents the primary goal of US
foreign policy, ignoring the rest of the documentand numerous
other documents in which it's clear that the primary goal of US<
policymakers was containment of the Soviet Union."

And yet you wrote, "I am *not* arguing that US foreign policy is virtuous and
benevolent, or that Kennan himself has never made any
recommendations which cannot be criticized on moral grounds. In the same document, PPS/23, Kennan recommends that the US encourage the Western European countries to retain, develop, and exploit

their African colonies, as a source of food and raw materials,
with no mention of the interests of the Africans themselves. ... Here, Chomsky definitely has a point. "

You wrote "The US has done plenty of immoral things. But *it shouldn't be
necessary to make stuff up*, and I think Chomsky's quote of
PPS/23 is so misleading that it falls into this category. "
Russil, you see yourself how Kennan wrote in the same document, your
point about "ignoring the rest of the document" is just wrong. I hate to think there are people that will absolutely refuse to concede a
valid point. The fact is Chomsky is correct when he quotes Kennan. Have you
given it more though because I hope if you do you will agree.


I myself have been doing extensive research into the agendas served by US policy makers.

I have made an effort to present the facts as clearly as possible. I was wondering what you think: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives
I was hoping you would read my article and be motivated to purchase and wear one of myT-Shirts. Tell me what you think.

Sincerely,

Tom Murphy
PS my book will be coming out soon, I hope you will consider buying it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html
This is a hell of a lot more than "hazing". NOTE that the media has done a poor job informing the public about these facts, in fact the contribute to a down playing of the horrific events. Many still have a chip on their shoulders and say "big deal". The media has not made it clear that this is a **** big deal. Jesus Christ, you guys are not going to start making excuses for God damn rapists are you? How **** low are you robotic blind leader followers going to sink?

"He pointed the laser sight directly in the middle of my chest," said Professor Shaker, a political scientist at Baghdad University. "Then he pointed to his penis. He told me, 'Come here, bitch, I'm going to fuck you.'"

The incident is one of a number in which US soldiers are alleged to have abused, intimidated or sexually humiliated Iraqi women.

US officials have acknowledged detaining women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information: a strategy that is in violation of international law.

According to the New Yorker magazine the photos and videos so far unreleased by the Pentagon show American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner", and a secret report by General Antonio Taguba into the scandal confirms that US guards videotaped and photographed naked female prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard" is shown "having sex with a female detainee".

my point about the media downplaying the worst part of the abuse is correct. You don't know about the abuse of the women and the rapes. Notice how many people still can say "What's the big deal? Sounds like college kids at a frat." thanks to the way the media has underreported the abuse of the women??

(by the way, even the "liberal" Air America's Al Franken was unwilling to mention the women abuse and rape, as was his co-host who only had the courage to say "and other things")

Please read my post: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/30416569.html (link works on the page)

This is absolutely crazy. We have soldiers RAPING female detainees.
Senior US military officers who escorted journalists around Abu Ghraib on Monday admitted that rape had taken place in the cellblock where 19 "high-value" male detainees are also being held.

David,

I posted a response to your question: "Can you please explain to me why the US government should take any account whatsoever of other people *unless* it furthers the interests of the US government? I mean, what else is the US government for? In fact can you give me one instance from all recorded history where any national government has ever done anything of real import for another country unless it was in their interest?"

Here it is:
Did you miss the point? US policy makers setback the people of Afghanistan by supporting terrorists in an attempt to destroy the progressive government.

You wrote, "where any national government has ever done anything of real import for another country" The point isn't that US policy makers didn't do anything for the Afghanis, the point is they HARMED THEM.


I have found that people want to deny that US foreign policy makers are willing to harm people to further their agendas. This seems to be what you are doing by not dealing with it and instead acting like the question is between actively helping or just doing nothing. I think I am making myself clear. The point is not that US policy makers aren't doing something of "real import" for the Afghanistan, the point is that the US policy makers were willing to HARM them as they carry out their agenda. I think you are not addressing this point because I can't imagine that you would be arguing that any national government should actually hurt people as they pursue their agenda.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

A reader comments, "you're a racist. let me ask you a question, RIGHT NOW, as we speak, Arabs are murdering blacks by the THOUSANDS in the Sudan, ethnically cleansing them out of the country, where' your outrage, hypocrite?"


Our country isn't SUPPORTING IT! ****, is that such a difficult concept for you to get?

As a citizen of the United States I have a moral responsibility to make sure my government doesn't CAUSE harm. THat is what is happening with Israel. that is what is happening in the Middle East. By the way, I went to the trouble of explaining how US polciy makers fucked over country after country after country in the Middle East. so you are a LIAR when you make your claim that "it is only about Isreal".

I emialed you the following (it talked about US policy makers fucking the people of Iraq, fucking the people of Iran fucking the people of Jordan)

what the hell are you talking about "in order to fight what was a greater threat at the time"? The CIA handed over the names of THOUSANDS of people for the Baaath party to kill, many tortured first. you can justify any evil action by claiming "we had to in oder to fight somethign else" but what did you dream we were fighting when we put the Baath party into power in 1963?
at some point does it ever sink in that there are indeed greedy immoral people that use US polcies to further their agenda?

and when the hell did you think the US "paid for the mistakes"? are you totally clueless?
Do you realize how many times the US has undermined democracy? Why? because greedy men want to expliot the resources and not have the population share in the wealth. this is easily done when you have dictators in charge. Jesus Christ, at some point don't you feel foolish making excuses for these guys?

Deal with the fact that there are indeed greedy people that use American policies for immoral agendas. If you need another example of the dishonesty, look at the case of CIA coup to overthrow Mossadegh. I am told that "everyone" knows about this. In fact it is widely know and has been publicly admitted by former CIA director James Woolsey, "in the early 1950's the CIA, under President Eisenhower's instructions, helped overthrow the Mossadeg government and re-install the Shah. Given what's happened in Iran since 1979, Mossadeg looks pretty good by comparison. In retrospect it would have probably been a better idea to let Iran take its own course then -- there might not be so much resentment against the U.S. there now if we had kept our hands off." Now if you want to see if things are on the level, check the CIA web site: ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html ) where they explain,"Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling shah was forced into exile. " The CIA omits 44 years of history in order to avoid admitting the truth on their web site. For God Sakes, what more do you need to see?


And guy, we supported the Shah, that was the problem. we even allowed the murderer to get medical treatment here. You don't think the Iranians should be angry with the US for imposing the Shah on them. (and at the same time the US pumped money to the mulahs to keep them quite. so we really fucked over the moderates in Iran.) We supported a murderous dictator AND pumbed money to the fundamentalsits.

AS for Jordan, King Hussein responded to public pressure by allowing free parliamentary elections. He was aligned with the British but the people were pro-Nasser. (Nasser was the champion of Arab nationalism) In 1956 he replaced 64 British officers with native ones and "this was followed by free parliamentary elections which produced a pro-Nasser government under Prime Minister Suleiman Nabusli. Briefly king and government worked together, but seeing his royal prerogatives eroded by a government of the people, the former reached for outside help."1 And the outside help that King Hussein reached out to was CIA agent James Russell Barracks.
"In April 1957 King Hussein was twenty-two and the US government had already replaced Britain as his financial backer and protector. ... the US government was determined to reclaim Jordan as a Western sphere of influence. This meant replacing the freely elected government of Jordan and the reemergence of Hussein's royal dictatorship."

The exampes above show US policy makers fucking the people of Iraq, fucking the people of Iran fucking the people of Jordan. do you see a pattern?

what "threat" were we fighting when we enslaved hundreds of thousands of blacks? Slavery in America was about GREED and BUSINESS. has anyone every put in those terms for you?
And sure enough the press explained away the terrorism that was in reponce to slavery by claiming it was "without cause or provocation"
so rather than"paying for mistakes" the elites have lied to the public and gotten away with it. and in large part becasue of people like you.

Chomsky's book is a must have: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)




Learn about "The Zionists, the Oil Companies, and Washington" as she explains it on p27.

It is disgusting how people play this game that we are actaully going to allow democracy in Iraq. What the US is doing is setting up an Arab facade just like the British did.
It is really increadible how so many people play along with the idea that the US goals are noble.

"(We need an) ..Arab facade ruled and administered under British guidance and controlled by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an Arab staff.... There should be no actual incorporation of the conquered territory in the dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be veiled by such constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state and so on?. - Lord Curzon on installing the puppet Feisal as King of Iraq

From the start it was clear to many that the Jews had not moved to Palestine to live in peace with the people already living there. Many statements are startling in their fanaticism. I am talking about mainstream Zionist thought. Extremist slogans like "A land for a people for a people without a land" circulated in America without people realizing just how ugly the claim was. First of all it is an outrageous lie. That should give you a clue about how the Zionists intended to treat the native inhabitant. They were denying that they even existed! What about the Palestinians right to exist? The ironic thing is with all the pro-Israel propaganda, it is the Zionists that are the ones denying a "right to exist".
When you hear about "right to exist" what they actually mean is the right to be racist. If you look at the opinions this is the fact. They consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights to be "the destruction of Israel."
Please get this book:
or this book:

Comment from someone, "And the Palestinian terrorism before Sharon was Prime Minister? Arab terrorism wasn't born under Sharon. They killed children on purpose prior to that! Remember a little thing called the PLO?"

And who started the mess? The Zionists moved into Palestine with the intention of moving people out because they were not Jews. This ethnic cleansing was planned from the start. The Father of Zionism plotted to have the non-Jews be "spirited across the border" wrmea

From the start it was clear to many that the Jews had not moved to Palestine to live in peace with the people already living there. MAny statements are startling in their fanaticism. I am talking about mainstream Zionist thought. Extremist slogans like "A land for a people for a people without a land" circulated in America without people realizing just how ugly the claim was. First of all it is an outrageous lie. That should give you a clue about how the Zionists intended to treat the native inhabitant. They were denying that they even existed! What about the Palestinians right to exist? The ironic thing is with all the pro-Israel propaganda, it is the Zionists that are the ones denying a "right to exist".

When you hear about "right to exist" what they actually mean is the right to be racist. If you look at the opinions this is the fact. They consider Jews and non-Jews living in peace with equal rights to be "the destruction of Israel."

If you are concerned about Jews then you should respect the history of Jews who actually did stand for justice. Some paid with their lives for insisting that racism is wrong. Zionists killed OTHER JEWS who dared point out what I am saying. The Hagana archives contain the names of 40 JEWS who were killed by Irgun and the Stern Group (Jewish terrorist groups). For example an anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitant of Palestine was assassinated as he left his synagogue in June 1924 by two Haganah agents (Jewish terrorists) see Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians pp164-165


What these murdered Jews were resisting was a racist ideology. Racism is wrong, even if Jews are doing it. Far too many Jews are excusing racist policies but not all, for example the Jews I mentioned who were murdered by racist Zionist Jews. Far too many whites accepted slavery in the US but not all and they to suffered for standing up for the right thing. Don't tell me you think Jews can't do wrong and only non-Jewish white people are capable of such things. Right now the Zionist ideology is spreading such misery and injustice. People are people and you need to drop your distorted views. If you are concerned about the hate created by Israeli polices then you need to do some research. How could so many Americans go along with slavery? THINK about it.

From the start the Jews were using terrorism. As I pointed out, even against other Jews who dared speak out against their racist agenda. Terrorism continued as Jews went about implementing the agenda of "demographic purity" (by the way they continue the process but the US Media is unwilling to show it)

there are dramatic examples of stories that go unreported. American TV simply suppressed this video,
I only know about it because of the Internet: CBC News - Israeli army embarrassed by video broadcast Watch the video, the Israeli soldier actually talks about "purification" as an excuse for letting the mother of five bleed to death in front of her children. THIS IS SO CLEARLY NAZI ACTIONS! WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT IN AMERICA IS BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE IT. (Note that this was only on Canadian TV, not American TV.) Here is a picture of one of the woman's children crying as she watches her mom bleed to death. And Israeli soldiers refuse to allow an ambulance to reach her. (remember US TV executives didn't want you to see it, so you didn't)

Some American reporters think "Shit I am not going to touch that story, it could hurt my career." other American reporters simply think Israel should be treated differently. Yes American media treats Israel differently, and they think it is perfectly natural to do so. It has even been admitted openly: "It's not like when you talk about lobbying organizations for say immigrants or the disabled or the Saudi Government for that matter. History, sensitivity and politics make talk of Israel and its supporters different and alot more complicated. I'm John Donvan for Nightline in Washington." -broadcast 4/17/02 ABC's Nightline

The opinions you hold about Israel are the result of you not seeing the realities and not hearing the facts.
The airing of the video itself was a story and it made headlines in Israel. In America, reporters and editorsrefused to show it or acknowledge it existed.

Even when the rare opportunity to confront the media about their omissions happens, they IGNORE it!
At a Center for Communications Forum called “The Press & The Pentagon” on April 4, 2002 NYU
A woman asked five media people about why they never showed the video in the US:
“All four of you ... all five of you actually have discussed how editors
decide what's in the public interest and I really want to know how that decision
is made. I am thinking particularly of coverage right now of what's happening
in the Middle East and I wonder who decides it's not in the public interest
to describe the suffering and the humiliation and the terror of 3.5 million
Palestinian people who are suffering under Israeli military occupation.
I want to know why we’re not hearing those stories. why aren't we speaking
to Palestinians by telephone when possible for example
And I want to know why for example coverage, film footage of a woman, a Palestinian woman, [Huda Hawarjeh], being killed and dying, bleeding to death, in front of her four children which was deemed appropriate viewing on Israeli Television never made it to the United States. That is the first part of my question.”

     “Hold it there”, said the moderator and he then changed the question and asked the media panel a DIFFERENT question. So not only did mainstream media ignore the video, they refused to even respond to a woman that asks them about it.

The fact is facts about Jewish terrorism get suppressed in the US. In fact the first airplane hijacking in the Middle East was by Jews: " The first airplane hijacking in the Middle East also falls outside the canon: Israel’s hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent “to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus,” who had been captured on a spy mission in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the “factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice.” In October 1956, the Israeli air force shot down an unarmed Egyptian civilian plane, killing 16 people including four journalists, in a failed attempt to assassinate Field Marshall Abdul Hakim Amar, second to President Nasser, at a time when the two countries were not in a state of war. This was a preplanned operation, thus unlike Israel’s downing of a Libyan civilian airliner with 110 killed as it was lost in a sandstorm two minutes flight time from Cairo, towards which it was heading. This February 1973 action took place while Israeli airborne and amphibious forces were attacking Tripoli in northern Lebanon, killing 31 people (mainly civilians) and destroying classrooms, clinics, and other buildings in a raid justified as preemptive.28 All of this was (and is) dismissed as insignificant, if even noticed. The reaction to Arab terrorism is quite different." WesternStateTerrorism

From what you wrote I take it you hold broad and common misconceptions about Israel. By giving you examples of lies I hope you can start to see a pattern an eventually to see the truth.
In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky gives a dramatic example of the official lies and how they are maintained. He talks about Sadat's 1971 peace offer. The deal is press and scholarship are "playing the game", which means facts go down the memory hole if they don't fit the image that powerful interests want presented.
The 1971 Sadat peace offer is a perfect example. You wrote that you believed Israel was the only one in the entire region that genuinely wants peace. this is false but the reason you believe it is because you have been presented a false image by people why "play the game."
read page 127-128 of Understanding Power. I will summarize: One of the false premises is the one you hold about "Israel being the only one that wants peace". This is the false doctrine of "arab rejectionism". That doctrine is as Chomsky explains in "Necessary Illusions" "... to present the United States and Israel as "yearning for peace" and pursuing a "peace process," while in reality they have led the rejectionist camp and have been blocking peace initiatives that have broad international and regional support."

This is accomplished by suppressing facts that don't fit this premise. So for years writers have been pretending that Sadat didn't offer peace with Israel until 1977. The example Chomsky points out is just one of many. Writers that push these lies and they get away with it because people "play the game". George Will pushed it in his article in Newsweek. When Chomsky wrote Newsweek to tell them that George Will's article was false and that Sadat had offered peace back in 1971, Newsweek's research editor called CHomsky to ask him where he got the facts about the 1971 offer, Chomsky told her that it was published in Newsweek itself at the time back in 1971. The woman looked into it and agreed that Chomsky was right and she told him they would run his letter that pointed this out. BUT an hour latter she called and said they would not run the letter because George Will was having a tantrum.
As Chomsky writes, But the point is, in Newsweek and the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on, you simply cannot state these facts- it's like belief in divinity or something, the lies have become immutable truth."

For examples of how rejected Arab peace offers have been eliminated from history in the U.S., see 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); Eric Pace, "Anwar el-Sadat, the Daring Arab Pioneer of Peace With Israel," New York Times, October 7, 1981, p. A10 (explicitly denying the facts, and referring to Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 as follows: "Reversing Egypt's longstanding policy, [Sadat] proclaimed his willingness to accept Israel's existence as a sovereign state").

Like I said, this is just one example.

This point never gets made. Here is my web page about it: History of Israel.

“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, Zionist terrorist
in an August 1943 article titled “Terror”, written for Hazit
the journal of Lehi, the terrorist organization he belonged to
Visit my blog

"We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong. We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession." - For Jewish Readers from Jews for Justice