| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:20 am Post subject: EVERY MORNING, EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD READ THIS TWICE!!! |
| Why should Zionist Jews (and the Evangelical Christian whackos) put our great country at risk of going down for continuing to support Israel? Former Republican Congressman Paul Findley also mentions in the third edition of his excellent 'They Dare to Speak Out' book (which one can purchase at a discount via www.wrmea.com) that the vast financial support (BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars that should remain at home for Americans instead) of Israel's brutal suppression of the Palestinian people contributed to the motivation for the tragic 9/11 attack.. Read what Bin Laden mentions below to confirm this.. We need to cut Israel loose to SAVE America... No more war for Israel either:
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Subj: EVERY MORNING, EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD READ THIS TWICE!!!
Date: 1/21/04 4:49:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: studioron@verizon.net
To: studioron@verizon.net
bin Laden sez................excerpts from a May 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller:
"The Western regimes and the government of the United States of America bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."
"The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail. They have mobilized their people against Islam and against Muslims. These are portrayed in such a manner as to drive people to rally against them. The truth is that the whole Muslim world is the victim of international terrorism, engineered by America at the United Nations. We are a nation whose sacred symbols have been looted and whose wealth and resources have been plundered. It is normal for us to react against the forces that invade our land and occupy it."
"Our mothers and daughters and sons are slaughtered every day with the approval of
America and its support. And, while America blocks the entry of weapons into Islamic
countries, it provides the Israelis with a continuous supply of arms allowing them thus
to kill and massacre more Muslims. Your religion does not forbid you from committing
such acts, so you have no right to object to any response or retaliation that
reciprocates your own actions. But, and in spite of this, our retaliation is directed
primarily against the soldiers only and against those standing by them. Our religion
forbids us from killing innocent people such as women and children. This, however,
does not apply to women fighters. A woman who puts herself in the same trench with
men, gets what they get."
"I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government,
and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ... . We believe that this
administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as
the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the
Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans
for the world, especially the Islamic world. American presence in the Gulf provides
support to the Jews and protects their rear. And while millions of Americans are
homeless and destitute and live in abject poverty, their government is busy
occupying our land and building new settlements and helping Israel build new
settlements in the point of departure for our Prophet's midnight journey to the seven
heavens. America throws her own sons in the land of the two
Holy Mosques for the sake of protecting Jewish interests."
"The American government is leading the country towards hell. ... We say to the
Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they
cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to
their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the
wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil,
just as Ramzi Yousef and others have done. This is my message to the American
people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does
not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth."
- bin Laden
www.investigate911.com/binladensez.htm
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:29 am; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:58 pm Post subject: Liberating America From Israel |
| Liberating America From Israel
By Former Congressman Paul Findley
9-12-2
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president - even President Bush this very day - could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank - biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11,Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality.
Nothing can justify 9/11. Those guilty deserve maximum punishment, but it makes sense for America to examine motivations promptly and as carefully as possible. Terrorism almost always arises from deeply-felt grievances. If they can be eradicated or eased, terrorist passions are certain to subside.
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee
From RePortersNoteBook.com
What Congressman Paul Findley Said on AIPAC (Zionist) Lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/09/25/what-congressman-paul-findley-said-on-aipac-zionist-lobby.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:20 pm Post subject: Why Americans are Sending Billions to Israel |
| Subject: Why Americans are sending billions to Israel? - By Paul J. Balles
Why Americans are sending billions to Israel
By Paul J. Balles
Al-Jazeerah, March 30, 2004
Redress, 29 March 2004
You asked why the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, despite the fact that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty. You apparently learned only recently of how the Israelis got away with that attack. You seem completely unaware of how Israel and its American Zionists control America.
You should know that Zionists control the US government and the media. If you have a significant position in the government or are a significant voice in public, the Zionists will destroy you! If you object to blind support of Israel, they will label you anti-Semitic and threaten you and cost you your job.
Do you know that if you complain about Zionist influence, you will receive hate mail and threats of violence? If you object to the billions of dollars of your taxpayer money going to Israel, the Zionists will label you a Jew-hating Aryan, and they will pretend that you don't care that "6 million Jews were exterminated in the holocaust".
They will use that "history" to play on yours and everyone else's collective guilt. They will also use it to distract attention from slaughterers like Sharon who kill and maim and destroy everything Palestinian.
Zionist Israel and its American supporters will continue the blatant murders of Palestinians - old men, women, children and cripples - until the Zionist genocide of Palestinians is complete. They truly learned much from the Nazis!
And, yes, America and Americans' billions supports it all - the killing, the maiming, the destruction of property, the deprivation, the imposed poverty, the theft of water rights, the Bantustans, the Apartheid Wall and the suicide bombers.
Do you wonder how America supports the suicide bombers? When an entire people are overpowered, tortured, repressed, subjugated and subdued beyond hope, with America standing on the sidelines applauding and paying for it while Europe turns its head away, what do you expect the people to do?
They can't cry. They have no tears left. They can't fight tanks and Apache helicopters and F-16s with stones! If they fire a rocket that hits no one, the source of the rocket will be destroyed anyway. Firing rockets against Israelis with the latest American military detection equipment amounts to suicide with no results.
The suicide bombers who sacrifice themselves in a weak attempt at resistance are actually creations of Israel and America. Thanks again to the billions of dollars Americans cough up each year for their endowment.
Don't ever again ask why. Ask fellow Americans when you're going to put a stop to the long distance support for a Mafioso of Zionist hit men.
When are you going to insist that the president and his men - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Cohen - all closer to Israel than they are to America - get prosecuted as members of an organized crime syndicate? Make no mistake: Zionism in America is organized crime!
When will you stop electing Senators and Representatives to Congress who can't resist the lure of Zionist support? They're nothing more than legislators who embrace the same organized crime syndicate.
When will you stop reading the crap written and published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and US News? When will you stop being influenced by the broadcasts of the Murdoch empire and Fox News?
When will you stop supporting organized Zionist crime and take America back from Israel for Americans?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Paul Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for 34 years. For more information, see http://www.writerfreelance.com and http://www.pballes.com. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:04 pm Post subject: |
| It's an illegal aggression and occupation and land grab in Palestine. This genocide of Palestinians has been going on long before the first suicide bombing in Israel.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
I stand by Palestine not those terrorists in Israel who murdered my fellow Americans on the USS Liberty June 8th 1967, 34 innocent Americans sun bathing on deck while pagan Israel peppers them with bullets.
Then they murdered American Jew Rachel Corrie in Rafah, Palestine March 16th, 2003 with a US supplied dozer.
Shot American Brian Avery in Jenin, Palestine April 5th, 2003, experienced serious wounds to his face after Israeli troops shot at him with heavy machine gun fire from an armoured personnel carrier
My hero Jack Bernstein warned us in 1984 about these terrorists in Israel and abroad.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/
Odigo Says Workers IN "ISRAEL" Were Warned
Of 911 Attack 2 Hours Before
By Yuval Dror
Ha'aretz Daily - Israel
The Life Of An American Jew
In Racist-Marxist Israel
By Jack Bernstein
© 1984 by Jack Bernstein and Leonard (Len) Martin
The Life Of An American Jew In Racist-Marxist Israel
POLITICAL ZIONISM IS BORN In l897, the First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland. At this Congress, it was decided to work toward the establishment of a Jewish state and a search for land on which to build this Jewish state began. Great Britain offered the Zionist land in Africa. This the Zionists rejected -- THEY WANTED PALESTINE! At the time, Palestine was inhabited by a half a million Palestinian Arabs and a few Palestinian Jews who are blood related and who had lived together in peace for centuries. With Palestine as their choice for a homeland, European Ashkenazi Jews began migrating to Palestine. As I explained earlier, most were communist/socialist oriented with some of them being radical Bolshevik communists whose aim is world domination. So when you think of Jews, especially as related to Israel, keep in mind that there is a great difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. They are not one united people. They are divided socially, politically and especially racially
ISRAEL STIRS UP PERPETUAL WAR In the Holy Land, it would seem that there would be peace. Instead, war and preparation for war is ever present. The Israeli military machine is recognized as the fourth most powerful in the world. From the standpoint of the amount of planes, tanks and other fighting equipment, plus the fact that they are of the latest designs, the military machine of Israel is very powerful. But, in the army, serious weaknesses have developed. Before exploring the weaknesses of Israel's army, let's briefly review each of the wars in which Israel has been involved -- an average of one every 8 years since it became a state in 1948. 1948 WAR -- Just after Israel had declared itself a state, Palestinians and other Arabs attacked the Israeli Army which had been formed out of the terrorist groups, the Irgun and Stern Gang. The reason for the attack by the Palestinians was to try and regain their homes which, through murder and terrorism, the Zionists had confiscated. The Palestinians had been a peaceful people and were not trained in the art of warfare, while the Ashkenazi Zionist Jews who had migrated from Soviet Russia, Poland and Germany had more knowledge of tactical warfare. In addition, Zionists had built up a large amount of arms which they had purchased FROM THE U.S. AND COMMUNIST COUNTRIES and had illegally smuggled into the area. The Arabs were defeated and in the process Israel conquered more Palestinian territory. 1956 WAR -- Egypt owned the land through which the Suez Canal flows. Egypt's President Nasser declared his intention of taking over operation of the canal from England. This would have hurt England's colonial empire. So, England along with France and Israel conspired to attack Egypt. With Egypt nearly subdued, America's President Eisenhower stepped in and ordered England, France and Israel to withdraw. At the time, the United States was still militarily strong enough to back up Eisenhower's order, so England, France and Israel did withdraw. This was the ONLY time during U.S.-Israeli relations that a U.S. president put the interests of America ahead of Israel's interests. 1967 WAR -- Tension was mounting between Egypt and Israel over territory located between the two countries -- the Sinai and Gaza strip. To help Israel get an unfair advantage, the Soviet Union resorted to trickery: Soviet diplomats in Egypt told President Nasser to threaten war but NOT ATTACK. This act of treachery enabled Israel to attack while Egypt was "off-guard" and destroy Egypt's military capacity in 6 days. It has been the goal of Israel's leaders to take over all the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers. Besides the Sinai and Gaza Strip which Israel intended to take from Egypt during the war, they desired the WEST BANK which was part of Jordan, and the GOLAN HEIGHTS which was part of Syria. So, during the 1967 War, Israel resorted to trickery. Israel had the technical equipment to intercept radio messages and change these messages ("boil" them) and then send them on to their destination. During the war, Israel intercepted messages from Egypt to Jordan and Syria and changed the messages, tricking Jordan and Syria into entering the war. The Arab countries were defeated and Israel took a big step toward its goal of conquest by occupying the Golan Heights and West Bank as well as the Sinai and Gaza Strip. Even though Israel's attack on Egypt is called the 1967 WAR and often referred to as the SIX-DAY WAR, it can hardly be called a war. EGYPT, the most powerful Arab nation at that time, didn't have a chance to fight. Trickery on the part of the Soviet Union and Israel as I have explained, rendered the so-called loyu WAR nothing more than a treacherous act of TERRORISM FOR WHICH THE SOVIETS AND ISRAEL ARE FAMOUS. ISRAEL'S ATTACK ON THE U.S.S. LIBERTY During the 1967 War, one of the most daring acts of treachery was committed. It was the attack on an American ship, the U.S.S. LIBERTY, by America's so-called friend and ally, Israel. During Israel's treacherous attack on Egypt, the U.S.S. LIBERTY, an American surveillance ship, was cruising off the coast of Israel monitoring the progress of the attack. Realizing the U.S.S. LIBERTY was learning and recording Israel's acts of treachery, Israeli leaders decided to "get rid" of the evidence. Israeli planes and torpedo boats attacked the LIBERTY with the obvious intent of sinking it. If the ship was sunk, thus destroying the evidence, Israel then could blame Egypt for the attack -- and the Zionist controlled news media in America would have given the LIE as FACT with the intent of turning the American people against Egypt. But, fortunately, bravery on the part of the LIBERTY crew kept the ship afloat. Israel failed in its act of treachery against America, its ally, but during the attack, Israel killed 34 crew members of the LIBERTY and wounded 171. Israel claimed the attack on the LIBERTY was a case of mistaken identity. But, reports by the surviving crew and other evidence prove the attack by Israel WAS INTENTIONAL. Facts about the attack on the U.S.S. LIBERTY were conveniently omitted by the Zionist controlled American news media. All that the Zionists told the American people was that Israel had sunk an American ship, but that it was a case of mistaken identity. An investigation by the U.S. government was suppressed and the matter quickly forgotten -- a good example of the tremendous influence the Zionists exercise over the U.S. government. The cover-up of the whole scandalous affair by the U.S. government could not have succeeded if the news media had done its duty and reported the facts surrounding the attack. This is a good example of the power the Zionist controlled news media in America exercises to distort or withhold important information from the American people. 1973 WAR -- The treachery on the part of Israel and the Soviets that led to the 1967 War embittered the Arab people and immediately they began arming with the intent of retaliating for this Israeli treachery and to try and take back the land that Israel had taken from them. By 1973 they were prepared. Even though several Arab countries were preparing militarily, they were trying to peacefully work out a solution with Israel. But, Israel was assured that their Zionist brethren in America would use their power over the U.S. government to make sure that the U.S. would support Israel. So, Israel's leaders continued to maintain a belligerent attitude. Realizing the hopelessness of further negotiating with Israel's leaders, Egypt along with Jordan, Syrian and Iraq attacked Israel -- and they were winning. With Israel facing defeat, the powerful Zionists in America pulled the string of their power over the U.S. government and the U.S. government officials obeyed their Zionist masters. Massive amounts of U.S. military equipment and arms were AIRLIFTED AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE to Israel to bolster the retreating Israeli forces. This U.S. aid enabled Israel to turn the tide and emerge victorious. Yes, Israel was saved, but so much U.S. military equipment was airlifted to Israel at that time that the U.S. armed forces were left in short supply and in a weakened position. U.S. government officials are so much under the influence of the Zionists that they had alerted the 82nd airborne division stationed at Ft. Bragg, N.C. and U.S. troops stationed in Germany for the purpose of being sent to aid Israel, if necessary. It is pretty sad that to please the Zionist power in America, U.S. government officials are willing to sacrifice the lives of American boys to save Zionist/Marxist Israel. Young men already in the U.S. armed forces and their parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters should especially be concerned about Israeli precipitated wars and attempts to involve the U.S. in these wars, because if necessary to save Israel in one of their acts of aggression, the U.S. government will bow to the American Zionists and send American boys into combat -- the boys will have no choice but to fight on the side of Zionist/Marxist Israel. If American boys die in a future Mideast war, you will know that those responsible will be the Zionist Jews in America and the weak-spined politicians in Washington, D.C. who bow to their Zionist lords.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=2380
Rice: Israel's Security Is Key To Security Of Rest Of World
Iraq War to Protect Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/03/29/iraq-war-launched-to-protect-israel.php
ISRAEL'S PART OF THE PACT WAS: 1. Israel would NOT allow any Western country, ESPECIALLY THE U.S., to build military bases on Israeli territory. 2. Israel would allow an official communist party to function freely in Israel. 3. Israel would NOT make any agreement to solve the Palestinian problem 4. Israel would persuade world Jewry, especially in the U.S., to have the Western powers adopt a policy of favoring Israel over the Arabs. 5. Israel was to continue its Marxist economic policies and thwart any free-enterprise tendencies in that country.
A WARNING TO MR., MRS., MS., and MISS AMERICA
The Marxist Zionists who rule Israel and the Marxist Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel.
They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982. The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists.
If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist/Marxist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends.
Then .. . . More American boys will die because of these clever murderous Zionists, who, incidentally, have been responsible for pushing America into World War I, World War II, as well as the Korean War and Vietnam Wars.
While Zionist international bankers and other Zionist Jews were busy counting their profits for those wars,
American mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters were mourning the loss of their sons and brothers.
Will YOU someday be mourning the loss of your son or brother -- because of Zionist treachery?
Pat Buchanan: Israel's Isolation – and America's:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/03/30/pat-buchanan-israel-s-isolation-and-america-s.php
Another SD Union Tribune article on USS Liberty:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/03/30/another-sd-union-article-on-uss-liberty.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:06 am Post subject: Complete--BIN LADEN TRANSCRIPT--CNN won't report! |
| Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:16:54 EDT
Subject: Complete--BIN LADEN TRANSCRIPT--CNN won't report!
To:
BIN LADEN TRANSCRIPT
FRI OCT 29 2004
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Newsreader: A new message from Bin Laden to the American people about
the
reasons and results of the 9/11 attacks.
Newsreader 2: The head of AL Qaeda says the continuation of us policy
will
lead to the repetition of what happened.
Male presenter: The head of AL Qaeda organization directed a message to
the
American people and this video and audio appearance in this tape which
Jezeera
required for the first time for two years. In the beginning of his
message, he
spoke about the reasons why they chose the US to execute 9/11..
OBL: You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid
another
conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you
security
is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of
their
security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell
us why we
didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom
don't
have dignified souls like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you
because we
are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain
the
freedom of our Muslim nation as you spill our security, we spill your
security.
Female presenter: Bin Laden spoke for the first time about the main
reasons
he thought of executing Sept 11 attacks, confirming that the Israeli
operation
in Lebanon was the first incident where he thought of it.
OBL: I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after
the
events of Sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading
on you,
and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still
existing to
repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses
incidents.
I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to
understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were
so fed up, and
we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people
in
Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really
touched me
directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US
permitted
the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In
these
hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it
resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a
hard
determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the
destroyed towers in
Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and
destroy
towers in the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing
our
children and women.
Male presenter: Bin Laden considered in his message that the results of
Sept
11 were successful in his opinion and as a reason of that, he said that
the
similarity between the administration of Bush the father and the Arab
regimes
said Bush learned so much from them during his visits.
OBL: We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration
due
to the similarity of his regime and the regimes in our countries. Which
half of
them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and
presidents
and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and
stubborn
and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity
appeared
during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were
impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our
countries. Here
he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was
feeling
jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations
finances
without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of
freedom
and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight
terrorism. He
was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't
forget to
transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to
falsify
elections to benefit from it in critical times.
Female Presenter: Bin Laden considered the way Bush dealt with the
first
moments of Sept. 11, giving a good chance to the executors of Sept. 11
to complete
it.
OBL: We agreed with Mohammed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole
operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay
attention and
we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave
50
thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by
themselves when they
most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from
listening to
the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than
paying
attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the
time to
execute the operation thank god.
Male presenter: the final part of the message is that the security of
the
Americans depends on the policy that they execute despite the winner of
the
elections.
OBL: Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda.
Your
security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our
security has
automatically secured their security.
Female Presenter: In Bin Laden's message he approached other points. He
pointed to the contradiction which considers oppression and killing of
innocents a
legal act. They formed an international law as bush the father did with
the
children of Iraq according to bin laden. Bin Laden pointed to the
millions of
pounds of explosives dropped on Iraqi children as bush his son had
done, as he
said to remove an old agent and install a new agent to help in stealing
the oil
of Iraq. And bin laden said the events of 9/11 came as an answer to
this
oppression and said that if the answer to this oppression is considered
bad
terror, then we need to do it. And he stressed that he wants to deliver
this message
to the Americans in words and in deeds since the 9/11 events. He
reminded
Americans of a few warning messages through various news media like
Time Magazine
and CNN and other Arab and correspondents since 1996. He warned them of
the
consequences of their countries policies. He talked about the damage
Sept 11
caused the US economy and that it cost close to a trillion dollars. He
talked
about President Bush and that the emergency law requires more money.
END
+++++++
Chinese Axiom:
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is
extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind
is correct.
When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.
--Confucius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The QUESTION:
To subscribe and grow with knowledge or
to unsubscribe and Die Stupid?
Send an E-mail to:
RePorterNoteBook@aol.com | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:14 am Post subject: Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden, He's Back |
| From: "Couples Company"
Subject: Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden, He's Back
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:03:10 -0700
Was today insane or what? You know I'll fine tune this over the next several days as new information becomes available:)
Since this is breaking news, any new info I should include or facts now disproven, let me know. Enjoy
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BinLaden.htm
COMMENTARY
Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden
He's Back
By Laura Dawn Lewis
On October 29, 2004 Osama bin Laden, via a professionally shot video tape finally stated he ordered 9/11 and further clarified that his assault on the US will not stop until US foreign policy in the Middle East changes. He is quite clear; his beef with the US is what we are doing, not what we are. This position, objecting to US foreign policy remains consistent with interviews he did in 1996 and 1998 with US Media, where he stated the same objections.
This well-timed tape along with its effectiveness at vilifying anyone looking for diplomatic solutions just made the only just and humane resolution impossible insuring this "war" goes on indefinitely
US Policy is defined as: Israel/Palestine, ending the US support of apartheid and ethnic cleansing the United States funds, supports and diplomatically protects from International law; invading countries that did not attack us on false pretense and an end to shielding the governments of Saudi Arabia and other regimes hurting their people. Nearly 70% of the world's people agree that US foreign policy is the problem and cite this as why they are angry with Americans. Some polls have shown this as high as 90%. Americans by comparison remain largely oblivious. Of course bin Laden stated nothing about hating our "Freedom" or that we are "Infidels" which is also consistent with previous interviews. In fact he mocked the Bush Administration's attempt to paint his objectives in such simplistic terms worthy of the kindergarten corner.
Excerpts from the Tape:
"We decided to destroy towers in America," bin Laden said, referring to the World Trade Center.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.
In his statement, Bin Laden accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said.
"I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.
"We fought you because we are free .. and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours."
"Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened (with new attacks)," Bin Laden added.
Bin Laden also said that Bush's reaction toward the Sept. 11 attacks was slow which gave the hijackers the time they needed to carry out the attacks.
Al-Jazeera 10/29/2004
View the 18 Minute Broadcast
Unlike the discredited Bin Laden tape of December 2001, there is no reason to suspect this latest tape is not genuine, (though rumors our flying that it is not) Bin Laden's statements are consistent with previous statements on PBS, (The discredited version of 2001 was not) and the person on the tape appears to be him; the quality is good and clear.
We'll concede this is the real thing. The next logical question is, why wait three years and nearly two months to claim responsibility September 11, 2001, four days before the election? That has been one of the main sources of doubt and contention with journalists like myself digging, questioning and increasingly becoming alarmed at the inaccuracies and propaganda whipping Americans into a all-out blood lust fear inspired, blindly patriotic frenzy. This tape furthers this emotional smorgasbord, making it awfully convenient on several levels.
John Kerry made a big deal about the fact that we invaded Afghanistan to "Hunt down Bin Laden" then took our eye off the ball so we could invade what we really wanted, Iraq. Cheney made it clear within 5 hours of the planes hitting on 9/11, Afghanistan was a convenience, scribbling a note insisting they find some way to tie Saddam to 9/11. (The Movie Hijacking Catastrophe goes into this in depth). In fact this administration used bin Laden as long as they needed to and then substituted Saddam changing everyone's focus.
This is the first tape in almost three years. Nothing, no appearances, messages, taunts...nothing for three years and now last week we have an obvious American accented "terrorist" promising worse than 9/11. Today Bin Laden suddenly pops up?
Most disturbing, bin Laden articulates what the peace movement and anti-war movements have said, "It's our foreign policy stupid", which is the problem and why terrorism targeted at US interests exists. There is no way around that. US Foreign Policy is the root cause of terrorism. Bush couldn't have asked for a better tool.
Bush and Kerry adamantly declared they will not "Be intimidated or influenced" by anything bin Laden says, suggests or intimates thus positioning anyone stating the problem is our foreign policy as "terrorist sympathizers" rather than rational human beings who object to breaking international law and discarding the constitution via acts considered war crimes when committed by any one other than the US or Israel. It kills the diplomatic solution and supports the force solution, the Bush Doctrine.
Bin Laden's objections to our foreign policy are legitimate. What we are doing by proxy in Palestine is wrong. Not my opinion, that is according to the Hague Resolutions, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statues, The United Nations, our own constitution and International law. For those using the God excuse, it's also against the teachings of the Gospels, which for Christians IS the final word of God and take precedence over all books of the Old Testament. That is another can of twisted worms that Bush's agenda distorted well.
What we are doing in Iraq is wrong. Again, not my opinion. That statement originates with the Hague Resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, Rome Statues, our own constitution and International law. Terrorism's defeat only occurs upon the removal its causes: Oppression, greed, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization, conquest and invasion, not the branches or seeds illustrated by the people. Our policies cause terrorism both in Palestine and Iraq, and yes the two are intimately connected. Anything other than addressing the realities on the ground of these two policy nightmares feeds terrorism, creates more of these reasons and more baby bin Ladens. Simply put, unless you get the root, the weeds always grow back. We're dead heading by attacking the results of these policies, the terrorists. We're not pulling weeds out by the roots since we continue to fertilize the situations causing terror to grow in the first place.
Unfortunately, this tape provides fuel for Bush's objectives. Our "I'm never wrong and my actions are God inspired" President Bush and "me too" Kerry backed by warmongers and profiteers can now use any attempt addressing the causes of terrorism as being 'influenced by the terrorists'. This well-timed tape along with its effectiveness at vilifying anyone looking for diplomatic solutions eradicates humane resolutions, opting for the barbaric while effectively segregating those promoting diplomacy thus insuring this "war" goes on indefinitely. Concurrently it creates enough fear to insure the money keeps rolling in and the remaining portions of the PNAC plan, now known as the Bush Doctrine can continue to clear the Middle East of any person not 100% behind Israel or the US.
Fox News led the charge beginning at 5PM. O'Reilly set the pace, claiming Emen is siding with the terrorists and an anti-American sympathizer because he opposes the war? And people believe that. It only took one minute for O'Reilly to spin a 360. Not quite a record, but almost. A rap singer is a terrorist sympathizer because he opposes our invading countries that have not attacked us, killing over 100,000 civilians and basically raping their country? Has reason completely left the American mindset? By minute three Mr. O'Reilly insisted we are in World War III...against terrorism, forgetting that terrorism embodies a dynamic, non descript emotional adjective that sometimes serves as a verb or a noun but cannot be defined. Of course he's never explained how an army can fight an ever-changing idea that is a reaction and a tactic. Meanwhile 75% of the women in this country are terrified, just where the President wants them.
A Plea or a Warning?
The language of this statement caught my eye:
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said.
The tape is different in that it is appealing to the American people, What the tape says to me, reading between the lines is:
"Here's your chance America. We don't hate you. We hate what you're doing so we're giving you one last opportunity to change your ways. If you choose to continue killing us, our children, our culture and our faith, you leave us no choice but to fight back. Stop interfering with our ability to live and we'll stop interfering with you. If you don't, you have only yourselves to blame."
I see this as the moral equivalency of a clear conscience from bin Laden's point of view. A way of giving us one last chance to reverse this course. In his mind I'm believe he's saying,
"See I told the American people what they need to do in order to avoid being attacked. I'm not asking them to do anything illegal. I'm just asking them to stop doing what is illegal and return to the principles and values they pretend they espouse. And look, they don't care. They want to kill us. Therefore since they won't stop killing us and messing with our lives, they are not innocent any longer. Not their women. Not their children, none of them. Not innocent in God's eyes and not innocent in mine. They allowed this to happen therefore all are responsible."
Ominous, but I believe realistic.
bottom line
PRIMARILY: My questions show suspicion toward the timing. This administration, and as Kerry is a Senator I consider him part of it, finesses the American people and rarely tells the relevant truth. Cross reference Europe in the 1920's and 1930's and you see the same tactics, logic and agendas at work in the United States today.
Secondly: They've used 9/11 to strip us of our most personal rights and control the American people, basically taking our freedom and convincing us that the loss of freedoms is freedom. They've told us persons against pre-emptive strikes and our consistent violations of international law are unpatriotic, because we want to stop engaging in the policies that create terrorism.
Third: I find it strange that it took three years for bin Laden to claim responsibility for 9/11. Today is the first time; up until this point there was no concrete evidence. Now he's made it clear. Why now? I find it suspicious that he disappeared from consideration until Kerry pounded home the fact we used him to go to war and then changed our direction. He disappeared from the media, now he's back?
Extremely disturbing to me is the convenience of positioning the only sane resolution to ending this war, the addressing and reexamination of our foreign policy, as "intimidation" or caving to terrorists rather than diplomacy. This serves the agenda of those promoting this war by effectively silencing those of us seeking peaceful and humane resolutions inline with our constitution and international law.
Finally the most ominous, I suspect this tape is a gesture, a warning and a last opportunity for peace, which the bullheaded nature of our government now will never approach on the convenience of "being influenced by terrorists". You see with this, even those in the Arab world who may have sympathized with bin Laden's agenda but not his tactics, no longer need to feel guilty. Should another attack come they can say, "He gave the American people the chance to change this and they refused. Anything from this point forward is their own fault. They are all guilty"
The cost of war coming home with the majority of our reservists deployed eight thousand miles away, that is a very frightening thought. But of late nothing surprises me. We can create a win/win here and eliminate terrorism. But to so that we must step out of the fear and actually begin to think. <END>
Copyright © Couples Company, Inc. 1999-2004
All Rights Reserved
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BinLaden.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:52 pm Post subject: Osama Votes Bush, Says Fisk |
| Osama Votes Bush, Says Fisk
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:05:53 -0500 From: "MER - Mid-East Realities -
MiddleEast.Org" <MERL@MiddleEast.Org>
Osama Votes Bush Says Fisk
... Robert Fisk is the chief Middle East correspondent for the London
Independent and one of the most knowledgeable, insightful, and
courageous western journalists about the Middle East. He was
exclusively
interviewed in 1996 by MERTV for a series of four half-hour programs
which we will soon Internet broadcast. He was interviewed yesterday on
the 'Democracy Now' program about the recent speech by Osama Bin Laden
to the 'people of America', about Yasser Arafat, and about the war in
Iraq.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1513254
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk joins us on the line right now, the chief
Middle East correspondent for The London Independent, author of, Pity
the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon. Welcome to Democracy Now!,
Robert.
ROBERT FISK: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Your reaction to the Bin Laden tape.
ROBERT FISK: Well, it is clearly timed for the election, and indeed it,
looks to me like he's voting for Bush. Although he tells the American
people, it is in their hands, it is not Bush or Kerry. He has always
had
this notion. I remember in 1996, I thought it was outlandish, I didn't
put it in my report of my meeting, he had this idea that the American
people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their
individual states of the union would become individual countries, a bit
like Yugoslavia has now become. I said to him at the time, I don't
think
you seem to realize the American people vote for the government in the
United States, which they don't of course in Saudi Arabia and most
other
states in the Middle East. And he just seemed to let that go. He was
obsessed at the time with Somalia and how the Americans were paper
tigers there. I must say when I read that he was telling the American
people that Bush couldn't protect them, he didn't do very well in
protecting the Afghanistan from the Americans, did he? But no, this is
clearly Osama Bin Laden coming back into the picture. You have to
realize that he is, and this is a fact I can promise you, he keeps up
with television news reports, writing, and so on. So, he knows what is
being said. The idea of thinking that he is out of touch, he might have
been many years ago but not now. He's not a -- an internationally
shrewd
figure. He has never traveled very much although oddly enough, he has
been to Sweden. I did notice that reference to Sweden in the text. He
has actually been there, but he does understand what's going on in the
rest of the world. So, therefore, this was a clear attempt to come in.
My belief is that he would calculate correctly, that a tape in which
there's a further threat against the United States by the people who --
well, he actually says himself, he admits it the idea occurred to me of
the twin towers and the international crimes against humanity of
September 11, 2001. I'm sure he realizes that further threats are more
likely to help Bush than Kerry and what Osama Bin Laden wants now, of
course, is a president to be elected who will further mire the country
into the Middle East swamp, and cause, of course more American
casualties, which Bush will surely do. So, I think that this is
probably
Osama Bin Laden's vote for George W. Bush.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert Fisk, who interviewed Osama Bin
Laden twice.
ROBERT FISK: Three times, actually.
AMY GOODMAN: Three times? When did you interview him and how does he
compare in how he looks to when you interviewed him?
ROBERT FISK: Well, it's an odd thing to say, and I noticed this before
the American bombardment of Afghanistan. When I used to see him, he was
always dressed very humbly, in a white Jallabia, a cheap cotton gown
and
Keffiyeh headdress like any Palestinian or Gulf Arab might wear. But
more and more now he appears, when he does appear in videos, in sort of
gold-fringed robes. And I wonder if that is not a certain amount of
vanity crept into his personality. After all, he is a fairly well known
guy now. And I wonder if this isn’t ? if I could see something of the
Mahdi there, the person who began to believe he was a personal sort of
interpreter for some higher being. It's interesting that he constantly
wants to be portrayed as did before as being in a cave. Of course, the
prophet Mohammad lived in a cave. And indeed he was on a mountain
outcrop when he first received the message from God. And I wonder what
is actually going on not politically over the United States or attacks,
but I wonder what's going none the Bin Laden mind. That's not the first
time he has had such a smart gown on. He was wearing it like that all
in
2000. But before that he was a much more humble figure, but I suppose
could you say that, before he probably thought he had more to be humble
about.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet interestingly, he did not make any reference to
the
Koran.
ROBERT FISK: Well, I think that the tape was slightly longer than the
one that you have seen. And I believe he does make reference to the
Koran in the full half hour tape. You thought it was 18 minutes. But it
hasn't all been aired. I have spoken to the people who got the original
tape and there are a number of Koranic expressions. That's not quite
right, but it is not your fault that you got it wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read you to Walter Cronkite's comments. I
don't
know if you heard about them.
ROBERT FISK: Well, I know who Walter Cronkite is but I don't know about
his comments.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, he said this on Larry King. He said, so now the
question is basically right now, how will this affect the election. And
I have a feeling it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm
inclined
to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who
is a very clever man, he probably set up Bin Laden to this thing. The
advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principle
subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the
Al-Qaqaa explosive dump.
ROBERT FISK: I don't really think it's worth much comment. I know the
timing and the dates when this tape originally arrived in Islamabad. I
don't think anything could have been -- it wasn’t -- for example it
didn't arrive five weeks ago and was then held up until the right
moment
in the election if that's what Cronkite was suggesting. I don’t think
there is any -- yeah, I think that's a conspiratorial theory. There's a
lot of things in this, which suggest that Bin Laden is oddly enough
actually trying to torture Americans. You see, at the very beginning,
when he says, Bush is still misleading you and misinforming you by not
telling you the truth. The odd thing about that is an awful lot of
people think that Bin Laden is quite correct and accurate in saying
that. He is not correct in much else, but in that he is. He never was
of
course in Beirut in 1982, you know, he keeps going back to the Lebanese
invasion. Although he certainly would have seen pictures. And I saw the
real thing in Beirut, whole apartment blocks crumbling to the ground
with all of the occupants inside, with -- after the Israelis had bombed
the buildings from the air, claiming that “terrorists” were inside,
when
in fact in almost all cases, I went to, they were just civilians
families, babies, children, who of course were flattened like pancakes
underneath this mass of concrete and iron. They looked frankly when I
saw them very much like the dead looked of September 11. So, I'm not
making a dark comparison. That's what Bin Laden is doing. But I
understand what he is talking about when he talks about the destroyed
towers in Lebanon. The odd thing is that there's a slightly wrong
translation from the Arabic. He says that, you know, he never thought
of
an attack on the twin towers in New York. What he actually says in the
Arabic was, I had never thought of doing it until I saw what happened
in
Lebanon. Then the idea occurred to me. In other words, he's saying that
the inspiration came from Israel's invasion rather than him sitting
down
and saying there's a good target. I'm not sure I believe him because
it's quite clear that the targets, which were chosen were to represent
finance and the military. And I -- if indeed Ziad Jarrah’s plane, the
Lebanese hijacker, I would have thought that would have gone for the
legislature and Capitol Hill. Interesting enough, Ziad Jarrah himself
was in the Beirut siege and his family who I met managed to get him
out.
He was a small boy at the time, fascinated by airplanes and flying. He
was just a schoolboy. Actually attending a Christian school. And his
father told me that after he had gotten out of Beirut and he had seen
the air attacks, he refused to play with his sister in the park or go
to
the swings because he said, what had happened in Beirut was too
serious.
Of course, he naturally occurred to me when I heard Bin Laden speaking,
that if he had met Ziad Jarrah, and I rather suspect he had, Jarrah
himself may have given his childhood memories of what happened in
Lebanon to Bin Laden, but that might sound as conspiratorial as Walter
Cronkite. I don’t know.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The
Independent,
we have to break, when we come back I want to ask you about Yasser
Arafat, his health and the significance of his going to France, and his
leadership in Palestine and Israel's struggle. And I want to ask you
about the deadliest weekend we have seen in Iraq over the last six
months for U.S. soldiers. And then the study, 100,000 Iraqis dead.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk on the line us with, Middle East correspondent
for The Independent. You wrote a piece on Saturday, Robert, the title,
“The Truth is that Yasser Arafat died years ago. He married the
revolution. And in the end, he became a little dictator, falsely
promising democracy.” Your response to the latest news of Yasser Arafat
and his health?
ROBERT FISK: Well, he has been -- he's died so many times, hasn't he?
We
were told originally, he died in one of the air raids in Beirut in
1982,
and he didn't. Then he had a crash in the Libyan desert in his plane
and
he was okay, but the pilot was killed. Then he had a blood clot in the
brain on the way to Baghdad from Amman and Jordanian doctors saved him.
This time, of course, it clearly is serious. Although, I mean in a way,
when you look at it symbolically, this old man like an elderly owl who
has been trapped inside this rubble for three years, still talking
about
going to Jerusalem and leading his people to a new state, and so on,
peace of the brave, and then eventually, he's hauled out on a stretcher
looking like a skeleton and taken off to a foreign country from which
he
may never return alive. It's not the way in which leaders should go,
but
the problem is, you see, all along, he never allowed a new leadership
to
take shape around him. He was a corrupt man. He is a corrupt man. He
won't be doing much corruption for a while now, but all this time, and
this is the great tragedy of the Palestinians, apart from the fact
their
living under occupation, which is a greater tragedy for them, is that
this is a man who didn't allow young and educated Palestinians to take
their place in a new political entity. If you look at the pictures or
look at any of the pictures that you see of Arafat outside the Mukada
building in Ramallah, you look at the pictures of him coming out when
he
was led out of the building and put in the helicopter, all the men
around him are paunchy, 50-60 year olds from the days of fighting the
Israelis in Lebanon in the 80’s. Whenever a bright young spokesman has
popped up on television from the Palestinian side, they are being
slapped out and the old men are being brought back. Like, for example,
the Palestinian representative of the United Nations, who is almost
incomprehensible on television or radio. Especially when the Israelis
put up extremely eloquent and well educated young people to represent
their country. So he's -- you know, I have said many times, even Arafat
as a physical existence, that's not a face that you would see on a
student dorm window along with Che Guevara or even Castro. In a sense,
he represents by his continuity, by his desire to represent the
revolution, to be married to the revolution, as he put it, which is
wife
found out what that meant. It has a consistency and a kind of courage
to
it, but he had everything wrong with the Arabs in the sense that he
turned into just another Arab dictator, which is exactly what I think
the Israelis wanted. They want an obedient dictator to manage the
occupation for them. It was interesting that when the second Intifada
broke out, the Israelis asked the question, can Arafat control his own
people, which of course was dutifully taken up, the Israelis set the
agenda for CNN and the BBC, who said, can care fat control his people,
having forgotten that the principle behind the Oslo agreement was not
that Arafat would control his people but that he would represent them.
And in a sense he does represent them, because in the streets there are
people who say we need control, you see? One of the great sicknesses I
think, the cancers of the Arab world is the desire for people to put a
form of authoritarian regime over the freedoms of the kind of democracy
that we think we live in. I would have to say, however, that if he was
an Iraqi, living in the hell of Iraq at the moment, I might well look
back wishfully on the terrible days of Saddam compared to the
infinitely
more violent and dangerous days today.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of which, your latest question, what's happening
in Iraq right now, as well as the capture, the kidnapping of Margaret
Hassan, and the threatened, what will happen to her, the killing of the
U.S. soldiers, and the 100,000 report, which we're going to talk about
in a minute, of casualties in Iraq--Iraqi civilians.
ROBERT FISK: Well, you know, the problem is that although some of us,
when we go to Iraq are still moving around, most of my colleagues, and
I
don't blame them at all, scarcely leave their hotels tells because it's
too dangerous. We still have the two French journalists missing.
Although mostly, I understand they're still alive. We have had
journalists murdered; quite a few of them. So, when you talk like this,
for example, I just listened to your questions. Excuse me. We are
constantly faced by this kind of theatrical facade. Who has Margaret
Hassan? We don't know. I know Margaret very well, but there's no claim
from a particular group. There are no armed men standing in the
background with the Islamic banners. Who took her? Why? We hear eight
marines were killed. On operational duties. What does that mean? Were
they ambushed? Were they in a tank that blew up? Were they in a
helicopter that crashed? What does it mean? We hear 100,000 casualties.
Well, there are two ways of getting a casualty rate, an Iraq casualty
rate in Iraq. One is to go around all of the scholarly notebooks of
doctors and morticians who wrote down five more bodies at 2:17 p.m.
this
afternoon. To go to all of the hospitals, to go the ministry of health
and when we've done that, and of course, the associated press had a
pretty good go at this before most of Iraq went outside of government
control, we came up with a figure that got to around 20,000 or 30,000
Iraqis. The figure of 100,000 has been extrapolated from a series of
interviews in specific locations based upon percentages. In other
words,
if they went to five houses in a street and found that 20 more people
had died of violence in the previous year, then they would extrapolate
out from that increase in violence and what it meant. But the 100,000
is
not a record of actual deaths. It's an extrapolation of percentages put
forward in what is in effect a kind of opinion poll. It may be less
than
100,000. It may be considerably less, but I think when you get to the
point where you are sort of saying, "my god it wasn't 30,000 but
100,000," you are beginning to forget the individual and it's the
individual Iraqi who is suffering every day, every day, and there are
many, many deaths will never be recorded simply because in a small
village out in the desert, they will bury the person quickly and the
authorities essentially have no control there anymore. There's no one
to
take down deaths and no one to notify. In Baghdad you still have to
notify deaths. So you can go down to the Baghdad city mortuary, and I
actually go there and meet the doctors and morticians. I actually stand
there among the corpses and we can count them each day. Now that I can
do. I can tell you, on a certain day 27 people were brought with
gunshot
wounds into this hospital. And I can do all the hospitals in Baghdad.
But I can't travel to Najaf and Samara and Fallujah and count there,
too. So there is and there will be no precise statistic. That of course
is precisely the way the United States and Britain and the American
military and America's appointed Iyad Allawi, so-called interim prime
minister, that's the way they want it.
(7) Soros undone by his greed; Chossudovsky wrong amout Osama
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:51:27 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk>
1. Soros
George Soros' statements about the iniquity of the Bush Babies would be
more worthy of interest if he had not himself taken the opportunity of
the Balkan Wars to seize control of valuable mineral producing areas:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/szamuely/soros.htm
2. Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky fails to understand either the limits of covert
action or the psychology of UBL. As regards the first, it is simply
implausible to suggest that the UBL videos should have been produced
directly by CIA and co., just as the film that claimed the moon
landings
were faked in a US desert was implausible. There is fakery in the
covert
ops world, but it isn't this simple. UBL is genuinely offering an
explanation and a last chance to repent to the USA and its allies,
secure in the knowledge that the offer will only make them more
determined to ignore or misunderstand what he says and pursue their
policies with all the more blind fervour. There is no contradiction
here
: it is a Qur'anic concpet, that, when the deniers and defiers of God
are warned of the consequences of their acts, they become more
determined to deny and defy God as a result, yet one must warn them in
any case, it is an obligation of honour.
At the same time, it is undeniable that UBL and Bush reinforce one
another and this does not imply that UBL is a fake. It simply is the
case that each seeks a global confrontation with the other. In this
sense, and in this sense only, UBL and the other Qutbist Guerrilla
leaders are 'objective American assets'.
Let me make one final suggestion : in my view the purpose the the
prisoner abuses committed by the US is not to find guerrillas, but to
create guerrillas, though the immediate abusers may have no conscious
awareness of this fact. The more guerrilla opposition the US meets, the
more of a carte blanche it gains for its own atrocities. This is true
on
the large scale, vis-a-vis- UBL, and on the small scale of Abu Ghraib.
Again, this makes the two sides useful to one another, "objective
allies" if you like - not paid double agents or conscious provocateurs
in the spy-versus-spy sense that Michel seems to be pursuing.
Incidentally, I do wish Michel would honour his obligations to those
like me who have paid a year in advance for the Global Outlook
Magazine,
by the way - he is now claiming he cannot afford to supply a year's
worth of pre-paid issues of it (already subscribed in advance at $C23
p.a.) to anyone who doesn't wish to pay an extra $C95 p.a. - which
means
that he has extracted the first $23 from me, and supplied nothing
whatsoever in return (except conspiracy theories on the web).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/MEMBER.html
(8) American Board of Rabbis condemns France for hosting Arafat,
demands
ban on French products
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:11:38 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk> To: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
In an unprecedented and extraordinary attack on France, the American
Board of Rabbis has demanded a worldwide ban on French products. The
New
York-based association which promotes Jewish unity abroad voted
unanimously to call on Jewish people around the world to boycott
everything French: goods, services, and even the language. The board is
outraged at France's providing hospital treatment for Palestinian
leader
Yasser Araft, who it describes as a 'master terrorist', responsible for
'the murder of thousands of infants, children, women, and men.'
Association President, Rabbi Mordechai Yitzchok Friedman, said
'France’s
harboring of Arafat, is consistent with its tradition of anti-Semitism
and anti-American activities.” The Rabbi said the hosting of Yasser
Arafat was an act of terrorism and was in breach of the U.S.'s Global
Anti-Semitism Bill, under which the U.S. State Department is to monitor
global anti-Semitism and annually rate countries on their treatment of
Jews. Rabbi Friedman continued his extraordinary attack by referring to
the Book of Genesis, Chapter 12, Verse 3, claiming, 'God will curse
those who curse the Jewish People, and so shall the people and country
of France be cursed.” Arafat meantime is recovering in a hospital near
Paris after being flown there from Ramallah via Jordan for emergency
medical treatment. Aides say doctors have ruled out leukaemia and are
testing the ailing 75-year old leader for a possible virus.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=1fdfaca99c9e3050
(9) H. G. Wells & the greens
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:41:49 -0500 From: aelewis@provide.net To:
myers@cyberone.com.au
> H. G. Wells as a Green ...
> (1) Common slogans - the Greens are still using the slogan One >
World
or None.
No greens that I know use that slogan (and I know a LOT). Some greens
do
have a globalistic orientation, it is true. Most local/in-the-trenches
greens are concerned with local issues. They may give lip-service to
the
"think globally" rhetoric, but it has little purchase in practice.
> (2) Common concern with reducing the human impact, and > especially
the human population.
Almost no Greens of my acquaintance (after YEARS of heavy participation
on their discussion boards) have any interest whatever in reducing the
human population. In fact, when I raise the issue, it is usually
shouted-down. I've almost been kicked off boards for this.
"Common concern with reducing the human impact"? Certainly! What sane
and informed person is not so concerned?
> (3) Common promotion of World Government initiatives like the > World
Court and Kyoto Protocol.
Mixed bag. There is some support for World-Court-like initiatives among
greens, and more support for Kyoto. The support for Kyoto is not rooted
so much in visions of a globalistic world state; it is rooted in an
awareness of the environmental and resource problems that will in our
lifetimes result in catastrophe, if they go unchecked. SOMETHING has to
be done. What is it? (i.e. cut them some slack, for gosh sakes)
> (4) Common promotion of "minority" politics. Today, the Greens > are
the force behind Gay Marriage (which you have declared > yourself in
favour of). More at > http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/szilard.html
Yes, among the lefty greens there is strong support for minorities, gay
rights, etc.
I cannot recall endorsing gay marriage specifically. What I endorse is
MARRIAGE, and I would like the state to stay out of it. (In other
words,
marry as you please; it is none of my business.)
> In short, the Green Left today is the vehicle of the World >
Government movement, which tried to establish "World Unity" > after
both
World Wars.
This is oversimplified but contains a grain of truth.
> Wells was connected with it, right from the start. He was one > of
the
creators of Wilson's 14 Points. And a craftsman of the > attempt to
make
the League of Nations a World Government (with > a World Army, & World
Court) in 1919.
Yes, and most greens, confronted with Wellsian and Wilsonian ideas,
would reject most of them, with exceptions.
Your view is too categorical, too fixed. You fail to see the nuances.
You seem anxious to pigeon-hole the greens, and you are not seeing what
a large, diverse movement it is. I speak, as I think you know, as one
who has been severely critical of the greens, so this is not just a
blind apology for them.
(10) H. G. Wells as a Green
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:57:18 EST From: ECONORTH@aol.com
I also disagree somewhat. The U.S. Greens are adamantly opposed to
NAFTA
and WTO and all such corporate-led globalization schemes. That and
their, at least, lip-service to decentralization would make them poor
allies of H. G. Wells.. On the other hand, they take many social
positions that are trotskyist: gay marriage, radical feminism, etc. The
Greens here seem to be confused about what they stand for, and that may
be why they are in decline.
(11) green decentralism does not necessarily contradict a world
government
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:03:49 +0700 From: Brian Salter
<bsalter@gol.com>
to add another note to your commentary, green decentralism does not
necessarily contradict a world government / world order agenda.
consider what david ray griffin has to say from his pro-world
government
viewpoint, in his essay, "Global Government: Objections Considered"
(published in "Towards Genuine Global Governance", ed. harris & yunker,
1999):
"...political and economic decentralization of the type that is desired
can occur only in tandem with a type of centralization... With regard
to
the Daly-Cobb vision of economic decentralization, in which each
community becomes as self-sufficient as possible so that trade is
minimized rather than maximized, this total reversal of the course we
have been on for the past several hundred years, is veritably
inconceivable apart from a global government that would madate and
provide policy guidelines for such a change. The kind of centralization
involved in the form of global government envisaged here is, then, not
the antithesis of the desirable kind of economic and political
decentralization, but its precondition."
i tend to think that griffin is right. in my experience, there are few
radical decentralists who seem to have thought through these sort of
implications.
--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia ph +61 2 62475187
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror:
http://mailstar.net/index.html
If mail does not arrive, check your Trash folder - it may be filtered
out.
To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line; allow 1
day. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:40 am Post subject: The story TV news won't tell |
| The story TV news won't tell
For 10 years Tim Llewellyn was the BBC's Middle East correspondent. In this passionately argued polemic he accuses British broadcasters, including his former employer, of systematic bias in covering the Arab-Israeli conflict, giving undue prominence to the views of Jerusalem while disregarding the roots of the crisis
Sunday June 20, 2004
The Observer
Since the Palestinians began their armed uprising against Israel's military occupation three years and eight months ago, British television and radio's reporting of it has been, in the main, dishonest - in concept, approach and execution.
In my judgment as a journalist and Middle East specialist, the broadcasters' language favours the occupying soldiers over the occupied Arabs, depicting the latter, essentially, as alien tribes threatening the survival of Israel, rather than vice versa. The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is shown, most especially on mainstream bulletins, as a battle between two 'forces', possessed equally of right and wrong and responsibility. It is the tyranny of spurious equivalence.
That 37 years of military occupation, the violation of the Palestinians' human, political and civil rights and the continuing theft of their land might have triggered this crisis is a concept either lost or underplayed. Nor are we told much about how Israel was created, the epochal dilemma of the refugees, the roots of the disaster.
Legions of critics have formed similar views and put them to the BBC and ITN, to no avail. In my case, the BBC, who employed me for many years in the Middle East, was no doubt able to categorise me as a veteran journalist who had spent too long in the region, though executives are always polite and prompt in their replies. Even making such criticisms carried the risk of my being labelled parti pris. (BBC producers are instructed not to mention that I was a BBC Middle East correspondent on air, in case my views might be associated with the BBC.)
Now comes hard evidence to support these views, gathered by Greg Philo and his Glasgow University Media Group, who have monitored and analysed four separate periods of BBC and ITN coverage between late 2000 and the spring of 2002. Bad News From Israel makes the scientifically based case that the main news and current affairs programmes - with the rare exception, usually on Channel 4 - are failing to tell us the real story and the reasons behind it. They use a distorted lens.
The result is that the Israelis have identity, existence, a story the viewer understands. The Palestinians are anonymous, alien, their personalities and their views buried under their burden of plight and the vernacular of 'terror'.
The Israeli view, the study finds, dominates the coverage. There is far more coverage of Israeli deaths than Palestinian, even though far more Palestinians have died, and they have the evidence that unerringly shows it. Israeli violence is tempered not only by the weight of coverage but by the very language used to describe incidents.
One example is a template for hundreds: when Israeli police killed 13 Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin in October 2000, inside Israel, soon after the armed uprising in the occupied territories began, BBC and ITN coverage was a fifth of that given to the Palestinians who stormed a police station in Ramallah a day later and murdered two captured Israeli soldiers. These Palestinians were 'a frenzied [lynch] mob... baying for blood'. No such lurid prose was used to describe the Israeli killing of their own citizen Arabs.
In the Israeli reprisals that followed the Ramallah killings, ITV said the Israelis were 'abandoning their restraint'. This was after two weeks in which Israeli forces had killed 100 Palestinians, most of them civilians.
Cause and effect, the Philo team finds, are misreported. Why does the 'cycle of violence' start, for example? In October 2002, the BBC repeatedly referred to the killing of the Israeli tourist minister as the reason for Israeli army reprisals against Palestinian towns and villages. It did not mention the fact that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine had killed the minister in reprisal for the Israeli assassination of its leader.
As Philo shows, the cycle is always shown as Palestinian attack and Israeli reprisal. Broadcasters consistently fail to suggest that it might be the military occupation that engenders armed resistance, or that Israeli actions may be such as to provoke Palestinian violence. The study finds that the daily despairing and degrading consequences of living under military occupation are rarely reported.
And while there is constant reference to Israeli security and Israel's right to exist, there is little mention of Palestinians' security or their right to exist.
A former news agency bureau chief, based in Jerusalem, sums it up: '[British TV] cover the day-to-day action but not the human inequities, the essential imbalances of the occupation, the humiliations of the Palestinians.' He also quotes a BBC journalist, who tells him TV centre does not want 'explainers... it's all bang-bang stuff'.
Almost as importantly, the Glasgow volume also shows the results of this coverage and how badly it serves the public who pays for it. The team interviewed many people, of different backgrounds, regions and ages (the study explains fully its focus group methods and practices), whose views of the conflict, as seen through TV, are closely analysed. Two examples: of groups of British students interviewed in 2001 and 2002 only about 10 per cent knew it was Israel that occupied Palestine - most believed the Palestinians were the settlers and it was they who occupied Israel. In 2002, only 35 per cent of the British students questioned knew that the Palestinians had suffered far greater casualties than the Israelis.
This ignorance among people who rely on TV for their information about the world is not surprising: Bad News reveals that between 28 September and 16 October 2000 BBC1 and ITN devoted 3,500 lines of text to the crisis in Israel/Palestine - 17 of which were devoted to the history of the conflict.
Since Philo and his team finished their analysis, little has changed. So far, criticism has been deflected. Mostly as a result of pro-Israeli pressure, a Middle East ombudsman has been appointed by the BBC, who will report by the end of the year; and organisations such as Reporting the World try professionally, by example and by discussion, to suggest how the TV companies might improve their coverage.
I am not confident of change. The reasons for this tentative, unbalanced attitude to the central Middle East story are powerful. BBC news management is by turns schmoozed and pestered by the Israeli embassy. The pressure by this hyperactive, skillful mission and by Israel's many influential and well organised friends is unremitting and productive, especially now that accusations of anti-Semitism can be so wildly deployed.
The general BBC and ITN attitude is to bow to the strongest pressure. The Arabs have little clout in Britain, and their governments and supporters have much responsibility to bear for not presenting their side of the story and for abysmal public relations.
After Hutton, the BBC's tendency to sniff the wind from Downing Street on such a sensitive foreign story, where the line is taken from Washington, has been intensified.
There is still an inbuilt cultural tendency in broadcasting newsrooms, easily exploited, to see the world in terms of 'them' and 'us', the carnage in an Israeli shopping mall still somehow more evocative and impressive in news terms than the bomb that devastates the shabby apartments in an Arab slum. The events of 11 September 2001 reinforced this endemic bias. It is easier to invoke Islamic extremism or al-Qaeda or ask why there is no democracy in Palestine than go to the awkward heart of the matter.
The TV companies' reluctance to view the crisis, as they once did, from inside and across the Arab world as well as from Israel, and their failure to base a senior and credible team in the occupied territories, mean that the crisis is consistently viewed from the ambience of Israeli west Jerusalem. Here, it is easy for Israelis to shape the views of the western journalists who live among them, or, conversely, threaten those who step out of line.
Orla Guerin, the BBC's fearless and candid Middle East correspondent, drew on herself not for the first time unwarranted Israeli wrath recently when she reported how the Israeli army had kept a Palestinian boy in a bomb belt waiting at his, and everyone else's, peril while the camera crews showed up. She told viewers, 'these are the pictures the Israelis wanted the world to see'. The Israelis did, of course, but they did not want such frank exposure of their cynicism.
Just before the invasion of Iraq last year, a BBC current affairs documentary (not mainstream news) exposed Israel's unadmitted nuclear weapons programme, a rare if very late-evening example of the corporation risking Israel's displeasure. The Israeli authorities threatened to expel the BBC's Jerusalem bureau and boycotted its news teams, only lifting their strictures when BBC management appointed a monitor of all the corporation's Middle East coverage. His findings will appear later this year, but there is no doubt he exists as a result of pressure from Israel and its powerful friends in Britain.
There is currently also froideur between the BBC and Israel's government over an interview aired on 30 May with the nuclear weapons whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu. A foreign ministry spokesman has accused the BBC of breaking Israeli law because Vanunu's freedom depended on his having no contact with foreigners. Here, Israel may well have gone over the top.
Israel's hysterical reactions to frank and critical reporting show the uselessness of British broadcasters' trying to appease Israel by constraining and falsely 'balancing' coverage. Spin doctors and media bullies must be seen off whether they are in Westminster or west Jerusalem. Nervousness in London has caused tension between reporters on the ground and their managements as the news teams try to survive the trigger-happy Israeli army, a paranoid Israel government and their own masters' tentativeness.
This thoughtful Glasgow study does offer some hope. It found that the images of this crisis, of tanks, jet fighters and helicopter gun-ships in lethal pursuit of terrified civilians, many of them women and children, have brought home to viewers that a grave injustice is being committed in Palestine. They are just not quite sure what it is. The words our broadcasters so often use to explain those images stand in the way of of them, as if to try to block them or ameliorate them, rather than tell of the horror they signify.
· 'Bad News From Israel: television news and public understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', by Greg Philo and the Glasgow University Media Group, is published by Pluto Press | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
