Which conspiracy theory, yours or mine?
The evidence doesn't fit your conspiracy theory at all.
The evidence doesn't fit your conspiracy theory at all.
a quick poll--need some input
- Thread starter pt1gard
- Start date
The latest Zogby poll asks if they believe the Government "Made it happen". As I suspected, only 4.2% agreed with this statement. 26.5 said they thought the government "Let it happen"; though there is not one memo or person on the inside of such a plot who has come out as evidence of this.
An Opinion Dynamics Corporation poll says 34 percent of Americans believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFO's, and 24% believe in witches. Yet only 4.2% believe Bush blew up the towers...
The so called "truth movement" is being very dishonest when they claim the zogby poll shows that people support an investigation into why the towers collapsed. Maybe we should spend millions investigating Area 59 first?
An Opinion Dynamics Corporation poll says 34 percent of Americans believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFO's, and 24% believe in witches. Yet only 4.2% believe Bush blew up the towers...
The so called "truth movement" is being very dishonest when they claim the zogby poll shows that people support an investigation into why the towers collapsed. Maybe we should spend millions investigating Area 59 first?
You'll find this story in various versions around the web, but we've picked one account at Public Eye (www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/Missing_Jews.htm).
First, how do they get the figure of 4,000? It seems high to us, would around 9% of the workers there really be Israeli? The article points to a Jerusalem Post story on September 12th:
"The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack. The list is made up of people who have not yet made contact with friends or family, Army Radio reported. Telephone connections between Israel and the New York City and Washington, D.C. areas has been sporadic and unreliable since the multiple attacks yesterday".
So it's clear this figure isn't just people who work at the WTC, or even the WTC and the Pentagon. It's just a guess, based on families who have relatives nearby (perhaps just visiting New York or Washington, or touring the US and may have been in the area), and who haven't heard from them yet. Which, given the overwhelmed telephone system, is no surprise at all, and was matched in other countries (a UK help line for anxious relatives received over 20,000 calls about potentially missing family members, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601150,00.html). Ireland similarly reported receiving 2500 to 3000 calls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1540543.stm).
The article confirms the general nature of the calls later, with a quote from the New York Times:
"For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site, and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks.But Friday, Alon Pinkas, Israel's consul general here, said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel.
There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried".
Makes sense to us, and shows that this figure of 4,000 (and therefore all the claims that flow from it) is entirely meaningless. The story was given life by Lebanon?s Al Manar television, though, and the anti-Israel slant meant it was quickly picked up across the web. Read more about this with Bryan Curtis Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/116813).
Further detailed debunking of this story at http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html
First, how do they get the figure of 4,000? It seems high to us, would around 9% of the workers there really be Israeli? The article points to a Jerusalem Post story on September 12th:
"The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack. The list is made up of people who have not yet made contact with friends or family, Army Radio reported. Telephone connections between Israel and the New York City and Washington, D.C. areas has been sporadic and unreliable since the multiple attacks yesterday".
So it's clear this figure isn't just people who work at the WTC, or even the WTC and the Pentagon. It's just a guess, based on families who have relatives nearby (perhaps just visiting New York or Washington, or touring the US and may have been in the area), and who haven't heard from them yet. Which, given the overwhelmed telephone system, is no surprise at all, and was matched in other countries (a UK help line for anxious relatives received over 20,000 calls about potentially missing family members, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601150,00.html). Ireland similarly reported receiving 2500 to 3000 calls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1540543.stm).
The article confirms the general nature of the calls later, with a quote from the New York Times:
"For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site, and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks.But Friday, Alon Pinkas, Israel's consul general here, said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel.
There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried".
Makes sense to us, and shows that this figure of 4,000 (and therefore all the claims that flow from it) is entirely meaningless. The story was given life by Lebanon?s Al Manar television, though, and the anti-Israel slant meant it was quickly picked up across the web. Read more about this with Bryan Curtis Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/116813).
Further detailed debunking of this story at http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html
I'll give you that two papers list Odigo as being Hq'd in different locations.
Which one do you believe? YOU posted both of them.
Another attempt at throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks.
Surprise, surprise, another lie from Bush. And tending in the same direction and toward the same end as all the others.
While the Mossad is warning Israelis to stay out of the WTC, and setting teams up to "document" the attack on the WTC before the planes hit, ol' Bush is out front lying his ass off.
:mj07:
Odigo is Israel-based, and its main ops are in Israel, but it has a US HQ located very near the WTC. The point that matters is that Odigo has intelligence connections.
You shouldn't be so cavalier or insulting in your arguments, Marine. It's your ass on the line, not mine. You could have been on the USS Liberty when the Israelis decided to sink it, or in the Marine Corps barracks over in Lebanon when the Mossad decided NOT to pass on information about the pending bombing.
Yet there is this little gem right underneath it which you forgot to quote:
"There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried".
Hard to say ZERO israelis were killed in the attacks isn't it?
Keep flinging poop. something will stick someday, eventually, when you start to see the truth.
"There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried".
Hard to say ZERO israelis were killed in the attacks isn't it?
Keep flinging poop. something will stick someday, eventually, when you start to see the truth.
And, unfortunately, I gave up my career in the military due to ungrateful "citizens" like pt1gard.
I got tired of putting my ass on the line for conspiracy theorists. So I left, and opted to take a position elsewhere that will increase the probability my kids will have a dad for a longer timespan and won't have to watch the news and listen to the jeering from people and ask questions about what their daddy did.
I said no Israelis were killed in the WTC. I know there are claims there were one or at most two in the planes.
As for the one supposedly in the WTC, I'll believe it when it's proved. And if it is proved, big deal. By any rational measure, there should have been dozens or hundreds of Israelis killed that day inside the WTC - if the attack wasn't produced by the Mossad, which in fact it was.
That's the irony isn't it? People who haven't gotten a clue what freedom is are the ones best used to fill out the defense ranks.
It's only charity that keeps from insulting you, because, friend, you are [insult removed]. Your theory is every bit as much a conspiracy theory as mine or anyone else's.
Somebody took down those buildings, and that somebody didn't tell the rest of us it was going to happen. So, by definition, somebody conspired to produce 9/11.
The question is whose conspiracy theory fits the facts best?
great stuff mahoney,
you roasted him thoroughly but like sponge once warned me, you can give marine 100 correct answers and prove him wrong and he will find one thing to hang his own anger on and gnaw at it until his gums bleed ... he was so right ... you have so much more understanding on the whole picture and he only sees static ....
its fine these other guys dont believe the wtcs were bombed ... they dont answer the simplest things and never will ... does he think DU is a good thing? he never comments on that and how many citizens are needlessly murdered ....
i dont respect anyone defending that for the usa, maybe he does ... there are many in the military sick of bush and come fwd. and called him out on 9/11 ... but the official story parrots never address them either as any unbiased person has learned in this thread... this thread has hundreds of items they cant stomach bc it proves 9/11 was an inside job, but what do you and i have to gain? i know shills when i see them or puppets and this thread is teeming with them ... the hilarity of Norad's keystone cops that fateful day is all an untampered jury would need ... but the fact that no one was ever reprimanded anywhere on 9/11 in any capacity, and instead promoted, just proves we are rght in spades :00hour
you roasted him thoroughly but like sponge once warned me, you can give marine 100 correct answers and prove him wrong and he will find one thing to hang his own anger on and gnaw at it until his gums bleed ... he was so right ... you have so much more understanding on the whole picture and he only sees static ....
its fine these other guys dont believe the wtcs were bombed ... they dont answer the simplest things and never will ... does he think DU is a good thing? he never comments on that and how many citizens are needlessly murdered ....
i dont respect anyone defending that for the usa, maybe he does ... there are many in the military sick of bush and come fwd. and called him out on 9/11 ... but the official story parrots never address them either as any unbiased person has learned in this thread... this thread has hundreds of items they cant stomach bc it proves 9/11 was an inside job, but what do you and i have to gain? i know shills when i see them or puppets and this thread is teeming with them ... the hilarity of Norad's keystone cops that fateful day is all an untampered jury would need ... but the fact that no one was ever reprimanded anywhere on 9/11 in any capacity, and instead promoted, just proves we are rght in spades :00hour
Last edited:
Happy New Year's, Gregg!
Thanks for starting this wonderful thread. Too bad silly gooses are allowed to shit in it, but, hey, all they do is make our case indirectly.
Thanks for starting this wonderful thread. Too bad silly gooses are allowed to shit in it, but, hey, all they do is make our case indirectly.
9/11 coincidences, 10 minutes on Norad
9/11 coincidences, 10 minutes on Norad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g
9/11 coincidences, 10 minutes on Norad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g
Racism Among Some Jewish Intellectuals
By Sam Hamod Guest Columnist
No, this is not an anti-semitic article or an unjustified attack on anyone. It is an attempt to clarify what's going on with African American demands for reparations for slavery and its aftermath: the attacks from David Horowitz, Elie Weisel and The Holocaust Corporation. This article also examines why Philip Roth in his latest novel, THE HUMAN STAIN, likens African Americans to apes and why John Entine is bringing up that old clich? that African American athletes are what they are and excel because of their genetic breeding (something akin to Hitler's attack on African Americans after the German Olympics of 1930s). And, why is it that the U.S. media is taking a hands-off approach to these dastardly and inhumane racial slurs? Why are such writers as Roth, Weisel, Entine and other Jews suddenly turning into racists? Or have they always been racists but until now been afraid to come out in the public with it? Do they think that by attacking African Americans that the other white supremacists will forget about them and focus on African Americans, Farrakhan, Latinos and Arabs and let them alone? Perhaps.
On the other hand, there are Jewish writers such as Anthony Lewis, Steve Kowit and Naom Chomsky who want nothing to do with this new Nazism of some of their fellow Jews. Shelby Foote, who passed himself off as a plain white southerner, has now made it plain that he is a Jew, which is fine; but I, and I'm sure others, were shocked when he likened the Ku Klux Klan to the French Resistance of WW II !! Scott Simon of NPR recently inferred that though Daniel Boone and others, who were anti-Mexican racists and the spiritual children of Cortez at the Alamo, should be admired because they followed their principles and their orders; doesn't this sound like the Jews should have admired the SS troops who killed them because they believed in their principles? !! Have these men such as Roth, Horowitz, Simon, Entine and Weisel lost their minds, or are they just echoing a long felt feeling that may have pervaded many Jews that blacks, schvartza , were and still are inferior to God's "chosen" people? Perhaps the rise of white supremacists has allowed these men to join the other white men in condemning and attacking African Americans.
Before we go further, let me explain, I am not African American and the hue of my skin is white.
First, let us understand that over 5 times as many African Americans died in the American slave trade as died in the holocaust. But let it also be known that among those millions executed, many were not Jews but were Poles, Russians, other Slavic peoples and French, Catholics, Protestants and atheists. However, the Holocaust Corporation, as I and many Jews call it, has decided that the holocaust that happened against Africans who were the forefathers of our present African Americans, the indigenous Americans, also called the Native Americans, Amer-Indians, etc., and the driving out of 8 million Palestinians from their homes and their continued brutality at the hands of Israel, should not be called holocausts because the Jewish Holocaust Corporation has deemed only Jews could suffer a holocaust.
Not only that, but if anyone raises a question about this Holocaust Corporation or against Israel or any Jewish writer, they are called anti-semites. This is another distortion of the language and of truth. Thus, not only has this Holocaust Corporation usurped the term holocaust for themselves exclusively, but they also have stolen the linguistic definition of semitic. ACTUALLY, SEMITIC IS A LANGUAGE GROUP, NOT A RACIAL GROUP, IN FACT, IF THERE IS AN ORIGINAL GROUP, IT'S THE ABYSSINIANS WHO WERE SPEAKING AMHERIC BEFORE THERE WAS A HEBREW LANGUAGE; AT THAT TIME THERE WERE THE ARAMAIC SPEAKERS, WHO WERE ARABS AND PEOPLE LIKE ABRAHAM, AND THEN LATER JEWS. THEN, AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, CAME ARABIC AND HEBREW------THESE ARE THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES. ONCE AGAIN, SEMITIC IS NOT A RACIAL GROUP; IT IS A LANGUAGE FAMILY MADE UP OF ARAMAIC, AMHERIC, ARABIC AND HEBREW. IT IS NOT A TERM FOR JEWS ALONE.
Also, for the sake of accuracy, Abraham spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. So much for Hebrew being God's language!
Now we come to David Horowitz and his recent ad in the Brown University Student Newspaper in which he gave his reasons for denying reparations to African Americans. In his allegations, he did not address any of the real reasons that African Americans sought reparations, namely, the destruction of large families who were brought to America as slaves and then split up, the deaths of so many during the passage to America, the years of slavery and brutality visited upon African Americans, then, the aftermath of slavery which was harmful discrimination that went on, and continues to this day in the workplace, in social areas, in the media and in educational testing and in educational and professional profiling against African Americans (through red-lining of loans, through racial profiling by police, through discrimination in court decisions, etc.).
If Jewish survivors of the Hitlerian holocaust should be compensated, Japanese Americans compensated, Native Americans compensated, why not African Americans whose suffering was much longer, more devastating, and more cruel than the other ethnic groups who were compensated? Horowitz never answers this question in his attacks on African Americans and their quest for compensation. Incidentally, though he cries about the holocaust, Horowitz never sheds one tear for the suffering of the Palestinians whose land was taken for his holocaust survivors to create Israel. Weisel, Roth, Horowitz all use double standards in their moral judgements; thus, from their writings, it appears that they believe that anyone who is not a Jew should be seen as inferior (except for the white supremacists who scare the hell out of most decent Jews, and maybe even Weisel and company).
But, since most of the media is owned by Zionist leaning owners, these media monsters of venom and hatred, like Horowitz, Weisel and other pro-Zionist columnists will continue to have their way with little opposition allowed in the mass media because of the Zionist control the media. Sarnoff of NBC, Paley of CBS, Goldensohn of ABC and Friendly of NPR, and the families that own and control The NY Times and The Washington Post were, and are, strongly pro-Zionist, and in most cases were of Ashkenazim backgrounds (so they had little cultural understanding for the Sephardic Jews or Arabs who actually populated the Middle East and Palestine for the past 3000 years).
Why is it that Elie Weisel, who won a Nobel Prize for his humanitarian work has been at the forefront of stopping African Americans and Palestinians from claiming their just place as holocaust victims? The phrase, "Never Again," that is the motto of the Holocaust Museum is supposed to be for mankind, but somehow, it pertains only to Jews and to the holocaust corporation and its supporters. So we ask, how hollow is "Never Again " if it applies only to one ethnic group, when suffering is more widespread and allegedly this museum was to be a boon to mankind, not just for those who suffered in the holocaust.
But then again, history is strange. Often the poor whites in the south were more cruel to the blacks than the wealthier whites, because these poor whites identified with the richer and more prominent whites and they felt they were carrying out their wishes because of the southern rhetoric used by so many of the wealthier southern whites. This does not excuse the wealthier whites, even to this day. Sadly enough, Ted Turner had a message at Thanksgiving some years back at the Atlanta Airport to the effect that he missed the days of "My Old Kentucky Home" and he has had the music from GONE WITH THE WIND played as a memento to the old South , two insults and hurts to African Americans.
Look at Scott Simon, never allowing such articulate experts on the Middle East such as Edward Said or myself on his NPR weekend programs because we speak with no accent, don't lose our temper, don't shout and are effective at conveying the Arab, Palestinian and Islamic message about unfairness in the Middle East. Scott and I belonged to the Watergate Health Club and we often spoke, but though I requested it, he would never invite me on his progams though he knew of my status as a professor, former Director of The Islamic Center of Washington, DC and a scholar on the Middle East.
It is the same when you turn on PBS programs: it has become the Shelby Foote and Ken Burns' view of history assisted by Henry Louis Gates,Jr.. A friend of mine saw the documentary about Gen. Stonewall Jackson, and his response was that it was so overloaded with sentiment that he almost forgot (though he's black) that Jackson was fighting to defend slavery!
It is clear that NPR and PBS are not for all of us, but for a chosen few, such as Scott Simon, Shelby Foote, Ken Burns,and Daniel Shorr. Where are the African Americans, the Arab Americans, the Latino Americans, the Native Americans on the daily and weekly shows? Certainly we have many trained in journalism and broadcasting, but we cannot break the monopoly; not even for commentary or those little ditties that complain about the world of pots and pans and about "How I lost my virginity at 17, " etc. etc. ad nauseum, when there are more important issues to deal with in racism in jazz, racism in politics, racism in education and testing, and so much more--but these weaklings chuckle it off as, "we need a little humor"--which is true, but then again, they are supposed to be "news" not entertainment. Also, why is it that they don't have an African American speaking about racism in Africa, or an Arab also reporting on the problems between Palestinians and Israel? (Why do 90% of these reporters "just happen" to be Jewish?) Certainly, there must be some other qualified, educated broadcasters in America.
Whether it be Salon.com, which features Horowitz and his ilk, NBC, Harper's, The NY Times, NPR, it's all the same, politics by Scott Simon and Daniel Shorr on weekends, the "freedom of speech" often of hatemongers or politicians from the far right, followed by some tepid "centerists" allowed to allegedly "balance things out."--while those of us who could truly balance things out are kept off the air. As one commentator put it, "the elitists in the U.S. media see blacks and Arabs as the same, it's just that the Arabs are "sand-*******," and the blacks are "jungle-*******." If they didn't see us this way, why would they treat our people and our concerns as badly as they do?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH Ah,that's an interesting idea, one that's preached about continually in the media when they want to have their position heard--but if you disagree with the editorial position of a television on newspapers outlet--you'll rarely, if ever, be heard from. Yes, you may have freedom to speak your mind, but you certainly won't get heard through the major media because they won't put you on the air or allow your material to be printed in their pages. The problem is much like that in ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell: "Some are more equal than others." This group, that includes people like Horowitz, Weisel, Abraham Fox of the B'nai Brith, Roth, Entine, are "more equal " than the rest of us.
As one scholar put it, "Do you think The NY Times would ever run an anti-holocaust compensation ad? But you know they'd run one that was against compensation for African Americans." Do you think they'd run an ad showing Israeli atrocities against Palestinian children and their funerals? Let's get serious; freedom of speech is a ploy to protect those who are in power against those who disagree with them; it keeps them in power over the rest of us who have no major media power. Major media power is what gives you political power in the world.
The Lutherans point out that there are "sins of commission and sins of ommission." These major media outlets and their lackeys, the Horowitz'es, Weisels, etc. commit, and the rest are excluded--thus, they are guilty of the sin of ommission by not allowing our voices to be published or heard. Thus, they are the ones who are destroying the true intent of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that speaks of "Freedom of Speech"; just as the southerners have always ignored the Bill of Rights and basic Christianity when it came to blacks by not allowing them to be seen as a full human being!
The other problem we face in the U.S. at this time is that there aren't many Helen Thomas's or Mike Wallace's or Lowell Bermann's around--most of the current crop of "journalists" don't have the guts to really go after injustices-they'd rather be invited to a politician's dinner table, as is the case with so many Washington correspondents, play tennis with the President, as was the case with several tv correspondents, or be invited "down to the ranch" as is going on now with the Bush administration.
Martin Luther King, Schwerner, Goodman and all those black and white martyrs must be turning over in their graves at this time with this new racism that is flourishing in America. It is not just from those who speak with racist tones, but also those who keep the true voices out of circulation in the mass media--why weren't there more real jazz musicians on Ken Burns' show, why Stanley Crouch (as commentator?) and not Ahmad Jamal or Oscar Peterson or Ishmael Reed--why so much of that Gatesian type musician, Wynton Marsalis; every good trumpet player knows that Wynton is fantastic technically, but that he can't even blow in the same room as Wallace Roney on trumpet or his brother Branford on sax. So whether it's politics unmasked, or politics as covered in cultural shows by exclusion, it is the same. Thus, it was just that the U.S. was kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission and even kicked off the UN Narcotics Control Commission (because we've been remiss in both areas).
I have often been embarrassed when America has chided and criticized other nations for their racial and human rights violations--because, though we may not be as bad as some, we are no angels in our behavior toward our minorities and we often turn one minority against another in order to allow the ruling group to stay in power; this is often done through the media. We have also now shown a proper representation in our media of important stories or ethnic groups. In the present situation, the rights of African Americans to have compensation for their years of suffering, past and present, has been given short shrift by the media and the media and many of its leading spokesmen have even spoken against these just reparations. It is doubly sad that so many of these spokesmen are Jewish. They use Hitler's methods against African Americans and against Palestinians and excuse it by saying, "we've suffered--don't tell me about your suffering because it's not as bad." Bah, humbug.
As they used to say in the 60s, IT IS TIME.
By Sam Hamod Guest Columnist
No, this is not an anti-semitic article or an unjustified attack on anyone. It is an attempt to clarify what's going on with African American demands for reparations for slavery and its aftermath: the attacks from David Horowitz, Elie Weisel and The Holocaust Corporation. This article also examines why Philip Roth in his latest novel, THE HUMAN STAIN, likens African Americans to apes and why John Entine is bringing up that old clich? that African American athletes are what they are and excel because of their genetic breeding (something akin to Hitler's attack on African Americans after the German Olympics of 1930s). And, why is it that the U.S. media is taking a hands-off approach to these dastardly and inhumane racial slurs? Why are such writers as Roth, Weisel, Entine and other Jews suddenly turning into racists? Or have they always been racists but until now been afraid to come out in the public with it? Do they think that by attacking African Americans that the other white supremacists will forget about them and focus on African Americans, Farrakhan, Latinos and Arabs and let them alone? Perhaps.
On the other hand, there are Jewish writers such as Anthony Lewis, Steve Kowit and Naom Chomsky who want nothing to do with this new Nazism of some of their fellow Jews. Shelby Foote, who passed himself off as a plain white southerner, has now made it plain that he is a Jew, which is fine; but I, and I'm sure others, were shocked when he likened the Ku Klux Klan to the French Resistance of WW II !! Scott Simon of NPR recently inferred that though Daniel Boone and others, who were anti-Mexican racists and the spiritual children of Cortez at the Alamo, should be admired because they followed their principles and their orders; doesn't this sound like the Jews should have admired the SS troops who killed them because they believed in their principles? !! Have these men such as Roth, Horowitz, Simon, Entine and Weisel lost their minds, or are they just echoing a long felt feeling that may have pervaded many Jews that blacks, schvartza , were and still are inferior to God's "chosen" people? Perhaps the rise of white supremacists has allowed these men to join the other white men in condemning and attacking African Americans.
Before we go further, let me explain, I am not African American and the hue of my skin is white.
First, let us understand that over 5 times as many African Americans died in the American slave trade as died in the holocaust. But let it also be known that among those millions executed, many were not Jews but were Poles, Russians, other Slavic peoples and French, Catholics, Protestants and atheists. However, the Holocaust Corporation, as I and many Jews call it, has decided that the holocaust that happened against Africans who were the forefathers of our present African Americans, the indigenous Americans, also called the Native Americans, Amer-Indians, etc., and the driving out of 8 million Palestinians from their homes and their continued brutality at the hands of Israel, should not be called holocausts because the Jewish Holocaust Corporation has deemed only Jews could suffer a holocaust.
Not only that, but if anyone raises a question about this Holocaust Corporation or against Israel or any Jewish writer, they are called anti-semites. This is another distortion of the language and of truth. Thus, not only has this Holocaust Corporation usurped the term holocaust for themselves exclusively, but they also have stolen the linguistic definition of semitic. ACTUALLY, SEMITIC IS A LANGUAGE GROUP, NOT A RACIAL GROUP, IN FACT, IF THERE IS AN ORIGINAL GROUP, IT'S THE ABYSSINIANS WHO WERE SPEAKING AMHERIC BEFORE THERE WAS A HEBREW LANGUAGE; AT THAT TIME THERE WERE THE ARAMAIC SPEAKERS, WHO WERE ARABS AND PEOPLE LIKE ABRAHAM, AND THEN LATER JEWS. THEN, AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, CAME ARABIC AND HEBREW------THESE ARE THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES. ONCE AGAIN, SEMITIC IS NOT A RACIAL GROUP; IT IS A LANGUAGE FAMILY MADE UP OF ARAMAIC, AMHERIC, ARABIC AND HEBREW. IT IS NOT A TERM FOR JEWS ALONE.
Also, for the sake of accuracy, Abraham spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. So much for Hebrew being God's language!
Now we come to David Horowitz and his recent ad in the Brown University Student Newspaper in which he gave his reasons for denying reparations to African Americans. In his allegations, he did not address any of the real reasons that African Americans sought reparations, namely, the destruction of large families who were brought to America as slaves and then split up, the deaths of so many during the passage to America, the years of slavery and brutality visited upon African Americans, then, the aftermath of slavery which was harmful discrimination that went on, and continues to this day in the workplace, in social areas, in the media and in educational testing and in educational and professional profiling against African Americans (through red-lining of loans, through racial profiling by police, through discrimination in court decisions, etc.).
If Jewish survivors of the Hitlerian holocaust should be compensated, Japanese Americans compensated, Native Americans compensated, why not African Americans whose suffering was much longer, more devastating, and more cruel than the other ethnic groups who were compensated? Horowitz never answers this question in his attacks on African Americans and their quest for compensation. Incidentally, though he cries about the holocaust, Horowitz never sheds one tear for the suffering of the Palestinians whose land was taken for his holocaust survivors to create Israel. Weisel, Roth, Horowitz all use double standards in their moral judgements; thus, from their writings, it appears that they believe that anyone who is not a Jew should be seen as inferior (except for the white supremacists who scare the hell out of most decent Jews, and maybe even Weisel and company).
But, since most of the media is owned by Zionist leaning owners, these media monsters of venom and hatred, like Horowitz, Weisel and other pro-Zionist columnists will continue to have their way with little opposition allowed in the mass media because of the Zionist control the media. Sarnoff of NBC, Paley of CBS, Goldensohn of ABC and Friendly of NPR, and the families that own and control The NY Times and The Washington Post were, and are, strongly pro-Zionist, and in most cases were of Ashkenazim backgrounds (so they had little cultural understanding for the Sephardic Jews or Arabs who actually populated the Middle East and Palestine for the past 3000 years).
Why is it that Elie Weisel, who won a Nobel Prize for his humanitarian work has been at the forefront of stopping African Americans and Palestinians from claiming their just place as holocaust victims? The phrase, "Never Again," that is the motto of the Holocaust Museum is supposed to be for mankind, but somehow, it pertains only to Jews and to the holocaust corporation and its supporters. So we ask, how hollow is "Never Again " if it applies only to one ethnic group, when suffering is more widespread and allegedly this museum was to be a boon to mankind, not just for those who suffered in the holocaust.
But then again, history is strange. Often the poor whites in the south were more cruel to the blacks than the wealthier whites, because these poor whites identified with the richer and more prominent whites and they felt they were carrying out their wishes because of the southern rhetoric used by so many of the wealthier southern whites. This does not excuse the wealthier whites, even to this day. Sadly enough, Ted Turner had a message at Thanksgiving some years back at the Atlanta Airport to the effect that he missed the days of "My Old Kentucky Home" and he has had the music from GONE WITH THE WIND played as a memento to the old South , two insults and hurts to African Americans.
Look at Scott Simon, never allowing such articulate experts on the Middle East such as Edward Said or myself on his NPR weekend programs because we speak with no accent, don't lose our temper, don't shout and are effective at conveying the Arab, Palestinian and Islamic message about unfairness in the Middle East. Scott and I belonged to the Watergate Health Club and we often spoke, but though I requested it, he would never invite me on his progams though he knew of my status as a professor, former Director of The Islamic Center of Washington, DC and a scholar on the Middle East.
It is the same when you turn on PBS programs: it has become the Shelby Foote and Ken Burns' view of history assisted by Henry Louis Gates,Jr.. A friend of mine saw the documentary about Gen. Stonewall Jackson, and his response was that it was so overloaded with sentiment that he almost forgot (though he's black) that Jackson was fighting to defend slavery!
It is clear that NPR and PBS are not for all of us, but for a chosen few, such as Scott Simon, Shelby Foote, Ken Burns,and Daniel Shorr. Where are the African Americans, the Arab Americans, the Latino Americans, the Native Americans on the daily and weekly shows? Certainly we have many trained in journalism and broadcasting, but we cannot break the monopoly; not even for commentary or those little ditties that complain about the world of pots and pans and about "How I lost my virginity at 17, " etc. etc. ad nauseum, when there are more important issues to deal with in racism in jazz, racism in politics, racism in education and testing, and so much more--but these weaklings chuckle it off as, "we need a little humor"--which is true, but then again, they are supposed to be "news" not entertainment. Also, why is it that they don't have an African American speaking about racism in Africa, or an Arab also reporting on the problems between Palestinians and Israel? (Why do 90% of these reporters "just happen" to be Jewish?) Certainly, there must be some other qualified, educated broadcasters in America.
Whether it be Salon.com, which features Horowitz and his ilk, NBC, Harper's, The NY Times, NPR, it's all the same, politics by Scott Simon and Daniel Shorr on weekends, the "freedom of speech" often of hatemongers or politicians from the far right, followed by some tepid "centerists" allowed to allegedly "balance things out."--while those of us who could truly balance things out are kept off the air. As one commentator put it, "the elitists in the U.S. media see blacks and Arabs as the same, it's just that the Arabs are "sand-*******," and the blacks are "jungle-*******." If they didn't see us this way, why would they treat our people and our concerns as badly as they do?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH Ah,that's an interesting idea, one that's preached about continually in the media when they want to have their position heard--but if you disagree with the editorial position of a television on newspapers outlet--you'll rarely, if ever, be heard from. Yes, you may have freedom to speak your mind, but you certainly won't get heard through the major media because they won't put you on the air or allow your material to be printed in their pages. The problem is much like that in ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell: "Some are more equal than others." This group, that includes people like Horowitz, Weisel, Abraham Fox of the B'nai Brith, Roth, Entine, are "more equal " than the rest of us.
As one scholar put it, "Do you think The NY Times would ever run an anti-holocaust compensation ad? But you know they'd run one that was against compensation for African Americans." Do you think they'd run an ad showing Israeli atrocities against Palestinian children and their funerals? Let's get serious; freedom of speech is a ploy to protect those who are in power against those who disagree with them; it keeps them in power over the rest of us who have no major media power. Major media power is what gives you political power in the world.
The Lutherans point out that there are "sins of commission and sins of ommission." These major media outlets and their lackeys, the Horowitz'es, Weisels, etc. commit, and the rest are excluded--thus, they are guilty of the sin of ommission by not allowing our voices to be published or heard. Thus, they are the ones who are destroying the true intent of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that speaks of "Freedom of Speech"; just as the southerners have always ignored the Bill of Rights and basic Christianity when it came to blacks by not allowing them to be seen as a full human being!
The other problem we face in the U.S. at this time is that there aren't many Helen Thomas's or Mike Wallace's or Lowell Bermann's around--most of the current crop of "journalists" don't have the guts to really go after injustices-they'd rather be invited to a politician's dinner table, as is the case with so many Washington correspondents, play tennis with the President, as was the case with several tv correspondents, or be invited "down to the ranch" as is going on now with the Bush administration.
Martin Luther King, Schwerner, Goodman and all those black and white martyrs must be turning over in their graves at this time with this new racism that is flourishing in America. It is not just from those who speak with racist tones, but also those who keep the true voices out of circulation in the mass media--why weren't there more real jazz musicians on Ken Burns' show, why Stanley Crouch (as commentator?) and not Ahmad Jamal or Oscar Peterson or Ishmael Reed--why so much of that Gatesian type musician, Wynton Marsalis; every good trumpet player knows that Wynton is fantastic technically, but that he can't even blow in the same room as Wallace Roney on trumpet or his brother Branford on sax. So whether it's politics unmasked, or politics as covered in cultural shows by exclusion, it is the same. Thus, it was just that the U.S. was kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission and even kicked off the UN Narcotics Control Commission (because we've been remiss in both areas).
I have often been embarrassed when America has chided and criticized other nations for their racial and human rights violations--because, though we may not be as bad as some, we are no angels in our behavior toward our minorities and we often turn one minority against another in order to allow the ruling group to stay in power; this is often done through the media. We have also now shown a proper representation in our media of important stories or ethnic groups. In the present situation, the rights of African Americans to have compensation for their years of suffering, past and present, has been given short shrift by the media and the media and many of its leading spokesmen have even spoken against these just reparations. It is doubly sad that so many of these spokesmen are Jewish. They use Hitler's methods against African Americans and against Palestinians and excuse it by saying, "we've suffered--don't tell me about your suffering because it's not as bad." Bah, humbug.
As they used to say in the 60s, IT IS TIME.
pt1gard,
With all due respect, I think that ones carries it a bit too far in this 9-11 thread.
BTW there are plenty of so called african Americans who are also against reparations.
With all due respect, I think that ones carries it a bit too far in this 9-11 thread.
BTW there are plenty of so called african Americans who are also against reparations.
just thought it brought up some good points on hypocrisy ... it might be slightly off topic but i found it had some pretty intersting viewpoints, doesnt mean we have to buy every comment
have a great new years TT
same to all my pals on here
take care
gregg
have a great new years TT
same to all my pals on here
take care
gregg
The Meeting That Never Was: Pat Tillman and Noam Chomsky
by Dave Zirin
"I don't believe it," seethed Ann Coulter.
Her contempt was directed at a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle story reporting that former NFL star and Army Ranger war hero Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, believed the US war on Iraq was "f***ing illegal" and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors. It must have been quite a moment for Coulter, who upon Tillman's death described him in her inimitably creepy fashion as "an American original--virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be." She tried to discredit the story as San Francisco agitprop, but this approach ran into a slight problem: The article's source was Pat Tillman's mother, Mary.
Mary and the Tillman family are relentlessly pushing for answers to the questions surrounding Pat's death in Afghanistan. They want to know why it took the Pentagon five weeks to tell them he died in a tragic case of friendly fire. They want to know why they were unwitting props at Pat's funeral, weeping while lies were told by eulogizing politicians. Mary is now hoping that a new Pentagon inquiry will bring closure. "There have been so many discrepancies so far that it's hard to know what to believe," she said to the Chronicle. "There are too many murky details."
The very private Tillmans have revealed a picture of Pat profoundly at odds with the GI Joe image created by Pentagon spinmeisters and their media stenographers. As the Chronicle put it, family and friends are now unveiling "a side of Pat Tillman not widely known--a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books...to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author." Tillman had very unembedded feelings about the Iraq War. His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, "I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush." With these revelations, Pat Tillman the PR icon joins WMD and Al Qaeda connections on the heap of lies used to sell the Iraq War.
Tillman's transition from one-dimensional caricature to critically thinking human being is a long time coming. The fact is that in death he was far more useful to the armchair warriors than he had ever been in life. When the Pro Bowler joined the Army Rangers, the Pentagon brass needed a loofah to wipe their drool: He was white, handsome and played in the NFL. For a chicken-hawk Administration led by a President who loves the affectations of machismo but runs from protesting military moms, this testosterone cocktail was impossible to resist. The problem was that Tillman wouldn't play their game. To the Pentagon's chagrin, he turned down numerous offers to be its recruitment poster child.
But when Tillman fell in Afghanistan the wheels once again started to turn. Now the narrative was perfect: "War hero and football star dies fighting terror." The Abu Ghraib scandal was about to hit the press, so the President found it especially useful to praise Tillman as "an inspiration on and off the football field, as with all who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war on terror." His funeral was nationally televised. Bush even went back to the bloody well during the presidential campaign, addressing his team's fans on the Arizona Cardinals' stadium Jumbotron.
We now know, of course, that this was all a brutal charade. Such callous manipulation is fueling the Tillman family's anger. As Mary Tillman said this past May, "They could have told us up front that they were suspicious that [his death] was a fratricide, but they didn't. They wanted to use him for their purposes.... They needed something that looked good, and it was appalling that they would use him like that." A growing number of military families, similarly angered, are criticizing the war in Iraq through organizations like Military Families Speak Out.
As for Chomsky, whom Ann Coulter would undoubtedly label "treasonous," Mary Tillman says a private meeting was planned between him and Pat after Pat's return--a meeting that never took place, of course. Chomsky confirms this scenario. This was the real Pat Tillman: someone who, like the majority of this country, was doubting the rationale for war, distrusting his Commander in Chief and looking for answers. The real Pat Tillman, the one with three dimensions, must stick in the throat of the Bush-Coulter gang, a pit in the cherry atop their bloody sundae.
by Dave Zirin
"I don't believe it," seethed Ann Coulter.
Her contempt was directed at a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle story reporting that former NFL star and Army Ranger war hero Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, believed the US war on Iraq was "f***ing illegal" and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors. It must have been quite a moment for Coulter, who upon Tillman's death described him in her inimitably creepy fashion as "an American original--virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be." She tried to discredit the story as San Francisco agitprop, but this approach ran into a slight problem: The article's source was Pat Tillman's mother, Mary.
Mary and the Tillman family are relentlessly pushing for answers to the questions surrounding Pat's death in Afghanistan. They want to know why it took the Pentagon five weeks to tell them he died in a tragic case of friendly fire. They want to know why they were unwitting props at Pat's funeral, weeping while lies were told by eulogizing politicians. Mary is now hoping that a new Pentagon inquiry will bring closure. "There have been so many discrepancies so far that it's hard to know what to believe," she said to the Chronicle. "There are too many murky details."
The very private Tillmans have revealed a picture of Pat profoundly at odds with the GI Joe image created by Pentagon spinmeisters and their media stenographers. As the Chronicle put it, family and friends are now unveiling "a side of Pat Tillman not widely known--a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books...to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author." Tillman had very unembedded feelings about the Iraq War. His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, "I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush." With these revelations, Pat Tillman the PR icon joins WMD and Al Qaeda connections on the heap of lies used to sell the Iraq War.
Tillman's transition from one-dimensional caricature to critically thinking human being is a long time coming. The fact is that in death he was far more useful to the armchair warriors than he had ever been in life. When the Pro Bowler joined the Army Rangers, the Pentagon brass needed a loofah to wipe their drool: He was white, handsome and played in the NFL. For a chicken-hawk Administration led by a President who loves the affectations of machismo but runs from protesting military moms, this testosterone cocktail was impossible to resist. The problem was that Tillman wouldn't play their game. To the Pentagon's chagrin, he turned down numerous offers to be its recruitment poster child.
But when Tillman fell in Afghanistan the wheels once again started to turn. Now the narrative was perfect: "War hero and football star dies fighting terror." The Abu Ghraib scandal was about to hit the press, so the President found it especially useful to praise Tillman as "an inspiration on and off the football field, as with all who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war on terror." His funeral was nationally televised. Bush even went back to the bloody well during the presidential campaign, addressing his team's fans on the Arizona Cardinals' stadium Jumbotron.
We now know, of course, that this was all a brutal charade. Such callous manipulation is fueling the Tillman family's anger. As Mary Tillman said this past May, "They could have told us up front that they were suspicious that [his death] was a fratricide, but they didn't. They wanted to use him for their purposes.... They needed something that looked good, and it was appalling that they would use him like that." A growing number of military families, similarly angered, are criticizing the war in Iraq through organizations like Military Families Speak Out.
As for Chomsky, whom Ann Coulter would undoubtedly label "treasonous," Mary Tillman says a private meeting was planned between him and Pat after Pat's return--a meeting that never took place, of course. Chomsky confirms this scenario. This was the real Pat Tillman: someone who, like the majority of this country, was doubting the rationale for war, distrusting his Commander in Chief and looking for answers. The real Pat Tillman, the one with three dimensions, must stick in the throat of the Bush-Coulter gang, a pit in the cherry atop their bloody sundae.
