| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:17 pm Post subject: Re: James Bamford's New Book-'A Pretext for War'- on the Neo |
|
Just saw the following at www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=3751
October 9, 2004
No Palestinian State, No Peace for America
by Charley Reese
Now we know the truth. Neither the Bush administration nor the Israeli government has any intention whatsoever of allowing the Palestinians to establish their own state.
That means, of course, that both have been lying, not only to the Palestinians but to the American people. It also means that there will be no end to the conflict in the Middle East no matter what we do. A peaceful, stable Middle East is an utter impossibility without justice for the Palestinians.
One of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's advisers, Dov Weisglass, finally told the truth in an interview with Ha'aretz, a respected Israeli newspaper – although no doubt Israel will try to backtrack from Weisglass' comments. He said that Sharon's plan of unilateral disengagement is meant to prevent a resumption of negotiations. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians," he is quoted as saying.
Sharon, of course, had already said publicly that he had discarded President Bush's "road map to peace" plan, a statement that drew no response from the Bush administration, which either is frightened to death of offending the Israeli lobby or already knew the plan was dead despite its public statements.
To further quote Weisglass: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. Effectively, the whole package called the Palestinian state with all that entails has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission – all this with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns."
He was referring to Jewish settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza.
So there you have it. All the talk about the president supporting a two-state solution has been a lie. While telling lies in public, both the United States and the Israeli government have secretly agreed that there will not be a two-state solution. There will be no solution at all.
Now, you might fairly ask yourself, "What do I care what happens to the Palestinians?" Well, to be brutally frank, if you don't know any personally, the answer is probably "nothing." But ask yourself another question, "What do I care what happens to me and other Americans?" Ah, there's the rub, because our fate and the fate of the Palestinians are inextricably bound together. Those 3,000 Americans who died on Sept. 11, 2001 died in large part directly because of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestinians.
Osama bin Laden has said time and again, as have others, that as long as the Palestinians bleed, so will we. And he's right. Despite the heifer dust spread by the Bush administration, the plight of the Palestinians is the fuel that motivates virtually all the terrorism. The terrorists don't hate us because we are rich or free. They hate us because, in cahoots with the Israelis, we have brutalized and deprived of their human rights the innocent Palestinian people.
The modern state of Israel is the last colonial outpost. Palestine was occupied by an overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs when Great Britain agreed to allow European Jews to colonize it at the end of World War I. That meant displacement of the native Palestinians. Today, Israel and the United States are the only countries in the Middle East that occupy territory seized by brute force. Think about that.
What George Bush has done is sin against generations of Americans. He has condemned us to perpetual war, perpetual violence, perpetual bloodshed and perpetual grief. Our liberty will not survive that, and perhaps our economy won't either.
If you ever hope for Americans to once more live reasonably secure and to be able to travel with reasonable safety, then you darn well better get interested in solving the Palestinian problem. No Palestinian state, no peace for America. That's a fact whether Osama lives or dies, and no matter who is president. It is time for Americans to recognize that Israel's interests are in direct conflict with America's interests. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:49 pm Post subject: Israelis kill 13-year-old girl,riddling body with 20 bullets |
| The following (Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people which is supported by BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars as one can see via the link at www.wrmea.com ) is the root cause of the US terror problem as conveyed by James Bamford in his 'A Pretext for War' book and CIA agent Anonymous in his 'Imperial Hubris' book:
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Israelis kill 13-year-old girl,riddling body with 20 bullets
From: BGJDAVID
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:37:07 EDT
Subject: Israelis kill 13-year-old girl, riddling her body with 20 bullets
I have called the State Department, 202-647-6607, to express my anger why Colin Powell and others have remained silent to these atrocities. Here we have Israeli troops killing a 13-year-old Palestinian schoolgirl by riddling her body with 20 gunshots to her body. If you have the chance I hope you too make a call. By the way, in the last 11 days the Israelis have killed 92 Palestinians, half of them civilians and 20 of them have been under the age of 16 and not one word of condemnation from the White House of any other politician. Disgusting!
Israeli troops probed for killing Gaza schoolgirl
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM, Oct 11 (Reuters) - Israeli troops who killed a Palestinian schoolgirl in the Gaza Strip are under investigation for riddling her with bullets although she proved to have posed no threat to them, military sources said on Monday.
Iman al-Hams, 13, was shot some 20 times on Oct. 5 as she walked past an Israeli military outpost en route to school in Rafah, a refugee camp on Gaza's border with Egypt that has seen frequent violence during a four-year-old Palestinian uprising.
"Israeli soldiers stormed the area, the girl left the bag and tried to run," Omar Abu Khalifa, 25, a Palestinian witness who lives nearby, told Reuters. "Bullets hit the (girl's) bag and then soldiers opened fire on the girl."
Military sources said Hams was shot after walking into an area marked with no-entry signs at a time of ongoing gunfire from Rafah.
Spotted about 70 metres (230 feet) away, the girl was mistaken for a militant and soldiers wrongly believed her book satchel may have contained a bomb, the military sources said.
"The soldiers fired warning shots into the air. The figure dropped the bag and fled. The soldiers had no way of knowing it was a girl. The soldiers then fired at and hit the figure," a military source said. "The outcome was grave and regrettable."
Israeli media, quoting unnamed soldiers at the scene, said the girl was shot at close range and that the outpost commander even delivered a "coup de grace" to ensure she was dead.
"There was a lot of shooting, but I did not take part. To me it (the figure fired at) looked like a girl," a soldier, whose identity was withheld, said on Channel 2 television.
A military source said a probe into Hams's death was under way but "it is too early to speak of criminal charges."
Tensions are high in the Gaza Strip as Israel gears up for a pullout from the occupied territory slated for next year.
Israeli forces stormed northern Gaza on Sept. 30 to crush militants firing rockets into the Jewish state, the biggest offensive there since the Palestinian revolt erupted in 2000.
Twelve days of clashes have claimed the lives of at least 92 Palestinians and three Israelis.
Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon, the chief of army staff, told Israeli ministers on Sunday that troops at the outpost believed the girl had been sent by Rafah militants to lure them outdoors so they could be picked off by snipers.
Human rights groups regularly accuse Israeli troops of excessive force against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and say few abuses are prosecuted.
The Israeli army insists its troops behave ethically in the face of militants who often use suicide tactics, and says all abuse complaints are investigated.
Hams's family voiced little faith in the Israeli inquiry.
"We demand the prosecution of Iman's killer, (but) we do not trust the Israeli judicial system," the girl's older brother, Ehab, told Reuters. "My sister was an innocent little girl."
(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza)
10/11/04 09:39 ET | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:39 pm Post subject: Recent exchange with Amnesty International regarding Israel' |
| From: "Anthony Joseph Geha Yuja"
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@,
Subject: Recent exchange with Amnesty International regarding Israel's criminal actions in Gaza and elsewhere!!
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:39:09 +0200
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: RCampbel
A: josephanthony.yuja
Data invio: mercoledì 6 ottobre 2004 19.49
Oggetto: Fw: Amnesty International's Mission to Sudan!!? How about one to thePalestinian Occupied Territories?
Dear Mr Yuja, thank you for your email of 2 October. Please do visit our website - link below. Over the years we have published a number of reports on human rights violations against Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories including about the building of the fence/wall inside the Occupied Territories and its affect on the Palestinian population. You will find this and other reports on the website but I would be happy to send you hard copies of any of them if you prefer.
Also please note that Amnesty carries out regular research missions to Israel and the Occupied Territories and one is underway at the moment.
Thank you for your interest in our work.
Best wishes
Rachel Campbell
(Middle East Program)
http://www.amnesty.org/
-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: Anthony Joseph Geha Yuja
A: RCampbel
Data invio: lunedì 11 ottobre 2004 19.29
Oggetto: Amnesty International's Mission to Sudan!!? How about one to thePalestinian Occupied Territories?
Dear Miss Campbell,
Thank you for your quick response and as suggested I checked your website and found your latest commendable statement of October 1st calling on Israel to stop its lethal attacks and human rights abuses against the Palestinian Populations, the latest of which are sadly still ongoing in Gaza and elsewhere. I have circulated this statement (which disappointingly is short of the necessary condemnation) to my internet friends and contacts as well as to major media outlets in Europe and the US.
Sharon does not seem to be in the least perturbed by the world wide condemnation of his criminal actions against defenseless civilians in the Occupied Territories, and understandibly so after the usual US veto of a Security Council proposal to condem Israel's most recent wanton killings: adding insult to injury has become a constant feature of Washington's blatant pro-Israel position in this asymmetrical war, where the brutally occupied is the aggressor/terrorist and the occupier is the victim.
Below for your kind information is a comment received from a friend and retired USAF Brigadier General, James David, following the outrageous murder (one of too many in recent weeks) of a school girl by Israeli troops which as usual did not produce any condemnation either from the White House or from the State Department.
I look forward to hearing of the conclusions of your current research mission in the Occupied Territories which hopefully will prompt the absentia Quartet to wake up to its responsibilities of relieving the despair and utter injustice under which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are living in the Occupied Territories.
Hopefully, the brave and honourable efforts of Amnesty and its staff in defense of justice and respect for human rights will lead those in power to more humane, wiser and peace serving policies in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere.
With best wishes to you and to your colleagues at Amnesty.
Anthony Joseph Geha Yuja
Florence, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: BGJDAVID
Data invio: lunedì 11 ottobre 2004 16.37
Oggetto: Israelis kill 13-year-old girl, riddling her body with 20 bullets
I have called the State Department, 202-647-6607, to express my anger why Colin Powell and others have remained silent to these atrocities. Here we have Israeli troops killing a 13-year-old Palestinian schoolgirl by riddling her body with 20 gunshots to her body. If you have the chance I hope you too make a call. By the way, in the last 11 days the Israelis have killed 92 Palestinians, half of them civilians and 20 of them have been under the age of 16 and not one word of condemnation from the White House of any other politician. Disgusting!JD
Israeli troops probed for killing Gaza schoolgirl
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM, Oct 11 (Reuters) - Israeli troops who killed a Palestinian schoolgirl in the Gaza Strip are under investigation for riddling her with bullets although she proved to have posed no threat to them, military sources said on Monday.
Iman al-Hams, 13, was shot some 20 times on Oct. 5 as she walked past an Israeli military outpost en route to school in Rafah, a refugee camp on Gaza's border with Egypt that has seen frequent violence during a four-year-old Palestinian uprising.
"Israeli soldiers stormed the area, the girl left the bag and tried to run," Omar Abu Khalifa, 25, a Palestinian witness who lives nearby, told Reuters. "Bullets hit the (girl's) bag and then soldiers opened fire on the girl."
Military sources said Hams was shot after walking into an area marked with no-entry signs at a time of ongoing gunfire from Rafah.
Spotted about 70 metres (230 feet) away, the girl was mistaken for a militant and soldiers wrongly believed her book satchel may have contained a bomb, the military sources said.
"The soldiers fired warning shots into the air. The figure dropped the bag and fled. The soldiers had no way of knowing it was a girl. The soldiers then fired at and hit the figure," a military source said. "The outcome was grave and regrettable."
Israeli media, quoting unnamed soldiers at the scene, said the girl was shot at close range and that the outpost commander even delivered a "coup de grace" to ensure she was dead.
"There was a lot of shooting, but I did not take part. To me it (the figure fired at) looked like a girl," a soldier, whose identity was withheld, said on Channel 2 television.
A military source said a probe into Hams's death was under way but "it is too early to speak of criminal charges."
Tensions are high in the Gaza Strip as Israel gears up for a pullout from the occupied territory slated for next year.
Israeli forces stormed northern Gaza on Sept. 30 to crush militants firing rockets into the Jewish state, the biggest offensive there since the Palestinian revolt erupted in 2000.
Twelve days of clashes have claimed the lives of at least 92 Palestinians and three Israelis.
Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon, the chief of army staff, told Israeli ministers on Sunday that troops at the outpost believed the girl had been sent by Rafah militants to lure them outdoors so they could be picked off by snipers.
Human rights groups regularly accuse Israeli troops of excessive force against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and say few abuses are prosecuted.
The Israeli army insists its troops behave ethically in the face of militants who often use suicide tactics, and says all abuse complaints are investigated.
Hams's family voiced little faith in the Israeli inquiry.
"We demand the prosecution of Iman's killer, (but) we do not trust the Israeli judicial system," the girl's older brother, Ehab, told Reuters. "My sister was an innocent little girl."
(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza) | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:21 am Post subject: New War Dangers if Bush Re-Election |
| BUSH RE-ELECTION COULD LEAD TO IMPERIAL DREAMS -- If the president wins, he will oversee a more radical administration than his first and take the win as carte blanche to go ahead with pre-emption - -
By Georgie Anne Geyer, from Washington - Chicago Tribune - October 15, 2004
The most repeated observation about the outcome of the presidential election is that the policy on the Iraq war will turn out essentially the same, no matter which candidate wins. Either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry, the reasoning goes, will be forced to work through Iraqi elections, the continued use of military force and a gradual withdrawal of American troops, probably over a period of years. The corollary argument is that because neither can afford a precipitous change in the pattern already in place, Americans can expect much of the same, post-election. >From the traditional non-neocon conservative right, this "behavioral equivalence" presumes that Bush will be forced, by events and his own realization of the disaster that Iraq has become, to return to a less radical stature. Farewell, dreams of empire! >From the left and moderate Democratic and Republican centers, the senator is seen as a man who, despite his opposition to the Iraq war and his severe differences with the neocons, will find himself obliged not to lose another American war. Farewell, dreams of peace! The only problem is that these suppositions are simply inaccurate -- and we Americans should start thinking now about what will really happen in the crucial days after Nov. 2. If Bush wins again, he will oversee an even more radical administration than his first. With his all-or-nothing temperament, he will take re-election as carte blanche to go ahead with his program of pre-emption and imperium. Rather than pulling back from future Iraqs, he will rush ahead, feeling ordained by history. In a second Bush administration, virtually all the moderates will disappear. Almost surely, Colin Powell will leave as secretary of state, and with him many of his allies. Donald Rumsfeld may leave as defense secretary, and although he is no moderate, he is also not a neocon. His leaving would open the Pentagon to the neocons just below him, none of whom shows the slightest embarrassment or regret about the mess they've made in Iraq. All of them can be expected to push ahead with more crazy schemes after Nov. 2. Talk around town is that National Security Council adviser Condoleezza Rice would be in the secretary of state slot, thus substantially decreasing any opposition from there to Bush's expansionist dreams. Also, there's talk that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz would be named secretary of defense, cementing the power of the radical neocons in the defense establishment. No group with counter ideas has in the last four years been allowed to flourish, mainly because the president is so attuned to their pugnacious ideas and dependent on their flattering attention. The idea that a dependent yet stubborn president could suddenly change seems quite improbable. In fact, as numerous indicators attest, the neocon group around the president is already readying for the next step: to force the U.S. to take on Iran as well as Iraq, and perhaps then Syria. The ideas being bandied around from Washington to Jerusalem involve Iran's growing nuclear capacity, which would be the target of an air attack by Israeli forces with the complicity of the United States. Indeed, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations said publicly at this fall's General Assembly opening that the terrorist threat was not to be found in Iraq but in Iran (an old fear). But the Iranians, hardly unaware of these public musings, have already taken their, shall we say, precautions. Since the beginning of the American occupation of Iraq, foreign intelligence services say, between 1 million and 3 million Iranians have crossed over into Iraq (many of these are Shiites who were expelled during the 1980s wars; nevertheless, they greatly enlarge the Iraqi Shiite population). Even more important, the Iranians say that if Israelis attack them, they are ready to send three Iranian divisions across the border into Iraq to attack American and coalition forces, who would then be fighting wars on three fronts, if you include Afghanistan. There are those in the neocon camp making policy around Bush who talk of "eternal war," supposedly as a way to transform the world. With the perceived national approval of re-election--at the same time that the American military has said it will wage an all-out attack to reclaim the cities of Iraq--it would be expected that an inflated Bush would march deeper into conflicts he has identified from the beginning. But Iran is far from the only next stop for the neocons, with their intimate relationship with the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Besides Iran, in a second term their intentions are to oust Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and overthrow the Syrian Baathist regime. If the United States is to have another four years of this kind of foreign policy, it will come to be considered an outlaw in the world, most of its historical standards and principles in tatters and its future unknown. In a first Kerry administration, on the other hand, there would, at least at first, be few miracles. His would be the hard business of extricating us from Iraq without leaving behind a shameful period of history. His would be the formidable job of building up American stature and values in the current absence of them in the world. But at least we'd have a chance. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject: How to Skew Intelligence |
| The following article (appearing in the New York Times today - October 23rd, 2004) is exactly what James Bamford conveys via the URL below in association with his excellent new book ('A Pretext for War') about how the Zionist (JINSA/CSP/PNAC) neoconservatives (most of whom are Jewish Zionist extremist racists against Arabs) in the Bush regime pushed the US to invade/occupy Iraq for their Likud cronies in Israel.
James Bamford's new book ('A Pretext for War') also conveys how US support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people was the root cause for the World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and on 9/11 as well:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/07/22/james-bamford-on-msnbc-hardball-about-a-pretext-for-war.php
From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@comcast.net>
Subject: How to Skew Intelligence
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:33:53 -0400
The NY Times finally got it right (after the damage has been done). We have to hold Bush accountable. The reality is that any good sleuth knew this before the war. Hence, the inherent shortcomings of our news media. Anyone who would buy in to an argument that Iraq was a real threat to America is missing some serious screws somewhere.
jb
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23sat1.html?oref=login
October 23, 2004
EDITORIAL
How to Skew Intelligence
t's long been obvious that the allegations about Saddam Hussein's dangerous weapons and alliance with Osama bin Laden were false. But as the election draws closer, the remaining question is to what extent President Bush's team knew the allegations were wrong and used them anyway to persuade Americans to back the invasion of Iraq.
A report issued Thursday by the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, shows that on the question of an Iraqi-Qaeda axis, Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others offered an indictment that was essentially fabricated in the office of Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy.
Mr. Levin's report does not prove that President Bush knew that the Hussein-bin Laden alliance was fiction. But officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - as well as Mr. Cheney's chief of staff and the deputy national security adviser - knew that Mr. Feith's tailored conclusions were contrary to the views of the entire intelligence community. Mr. Cheney presented them to the public as confirmed truth about Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The Levin report is a primer on how intelligence can be cooked to fit a political agenda. It is another sad reminder of this administration's refusal to hold anyone accountable for the way the public was led into the war with Iraq.
It focuses on the intelligence operation set up by Mr. Rumsfeld, who had been advocating an invasion of Iraq long before Mr. Bush took office and wanted more damning evidence against Baghdad after 9/11 than the Central Intelligence Agency had.
This operation, run by Mr. Feith, tried to persuade the Pentagon's own espionage unit, the Defense Intelligence Agency, to change its conclusion that there was no alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When the Defense Intelligence Agency rebuffed this blatant interference, Mr. Feith's team wrote its own report.
It took long-discredited raw intelligence and resurrected it to create the impression that there was new information supporting Mr. Feith's preordained conclusions. It misrepresented the C.I.A.'s reports and presented fifth-hand reports as authoritative, all to depict Iraq as an ally of Al Qaeda.
Bipartisan reports from the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the intelligence community had been right and Mr. Feith wrong: there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and no link at all between Mr. Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.
For those who were confused before the war, and still are, by all the Bush administration's claims - that the hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official shortly before 9/11, that a member of Al Qaeda set up a base in Iraq with the help of Mr. Hussein, that Iraq helped Al Qaeda learn to make bombs and provided it with explosives - the evidence is now clear. The Levin report, together with the 9/11 panel's findings and the Senate intelligence report, show that those claims were all cooked up by Mr. Feith's shop, which knew that the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had already shown them to be false.
We don't know exactly how much of that the White House knew because Mr. Feith tried to confuse things. He eliminated points that the C.I.A. disputed when he showed the intelligence agency his report, and he put them back in when he sent it to the White House.
The Bush administration called Mr. Levin's report pre-election partisan sniping. It is far more than that, but voters, unfortunately, won't get final answers.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has reported on the C.I.A.'s actions before the war, has delayed a review of the administration's behavior until after the election. We also will not see the C.I.A.'s own report because Mr. Bush's new intelligence chief, Porter Goss, has rebuffed a bipartisan request from Congress to release it.
Voters have to decide whether to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the skewed intelligence cooked up by his administration to justify the war.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
Jim Bronke
This email is an _expression of my personal opinion only and does not represent that of any other entity.
If a friend forwarded this to you and should you wish to be on my list just ask. My listers know they can
be removed at any time if they wish.
jvbronke@comcast.net | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
