In reply to the article by Alison Smale in the IHT "'Magic is over' for U.S., says French foreign minister" yesterday:
Sir,
In Alison Smale's article, she makes at least two statements which are highly controversial and neither make any mention of the opposing interpretation needed to maintain a balanced approach:
Firstly, she refers to the canard that "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...has called for the destruction of Israel". As scholars such as Juan Cole and British journalist Jonathan Steele have pointed out "The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel." According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." The Iranans have also denied any intention to 'destroy' Israel, but there is no balancing Iranian remark to this effect nor is there any comment by a neutral party in the article and this proves the bias.
Secondly, she paraphrases Palestinian President Abbas: "which he accused of committing a coup". Again this is an opinion from one party to the conflict, and again in balanced journalism both sides' point of view should be produced, or at the very least a comment from a neutral party. This gives the appearance of bias, in short, propaganda especially considering the latest exposé by David Rose in Vanity Fair reported in the Guardian thus "The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza". This was also suspected at the time by both the NYT and the Guardian.
I know in this day and age that one is unlikely to encounter fair and balanced journalism in the US press. This is just more proof.
Yours Sincerely
13 March 2008
11 March 2008
E-mail to the US State Dept re "U.S. may add Venezuela to list of terrorist states"
Yesterday McClatchy Newspapers published an article entitled "U.S. may add Venezuela to list of terrorist states" in which we were told
"The Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism, following reports of close Venezuelan links with Colombian rebels, a senior government official has confirmed...
The legal review comes after Colombia captured four computers belonging to a guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid into Ecuador."
The article then states "The documents suggest the Venezuelan government was in the process of providing $300 million to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC."
Firstly, the 'documents' do no such thing, and secondly, as anyone who is even half computer literate knows, once someone is possession of someone else's laptop they can alter any document they wish and if you are asking me to trust the Columbian government and armed forces then either you are naive in the extreme or seriously intellectually-challenged.
The article continued:
"The U.S. and Colombian governments and the European Union have officially designated FARC as a terrorist organization, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said publicly that he considers it a legitimate insurgency." Right and could someone please tell me why the US designation is supposed to be accepted by all countries?
"A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the subject, said government lawyers had been asked to clarify "what goes into effect in terms of prohibitions, or prohibited activities," with the state sponsor designation." In other words will they still be able to receive oil imports or will they have to conduct yet another illegal regime change operation that will provoke yet another genocide?
"The official was reluctant to predict if the FARC computer discoveries will lead to sanctions, noting U.S. investigators first must corroborate their veracity." Quite. The first intelligent thing anyone has said.
Anyway, here is e-mail I sent off to the US State Dept. this morning. I don't expect a reply of course, although if I suddenly disappear and cease to blog you'll know who's got me...I've never been to the Caribbean...
"Sirs,
I read an article in McClatchy Newspapers today saying that the "Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism".
I was wondering how this can be, considering the definition of terrorism used by the State Dept, which refers exclusively to "subnational groups or clandestine agents". (Source: Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington: Dept. of State, 2001: vi)
If, however, one takes the definition as described in the US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331 as being the correct definition, then why has the USA itself not been added to the list and the CIA declared a terrorist organisation?
Considering all the facts in the public domain about the actions of that organisation, the CIA, there can be no doubt that it fits the description perfectly of a terrorist organisation, and consequently the country that controls, finances and gives it its orders must also be considered a nation that supports terrorism."
"The Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism, following reports of close Venezuelan links with Colombian rebels, a senior government official has confirmed...
The legal review comes after Colombia captured four computers belonging to a guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid into Ecuador."
The article then states "The documents suggest the Venezuelan government was in the process of providing $300 million to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC."
Firstly, the 'documents' do no such thing, and secondly, as anyone who is even half computer literate knows, once someone is possession of someone else's laptop they can alter any document they wish and if you are asking me to trust the Columbian government and armed forces then either you are naive in the extreme or seriously intellectually-challenged.
The article continued:
"The U.S. and Colombian governments and the European Union have officially designated FARC as a terrorist organization, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said publicly that he considers it a legitimate insurgency." Right and could someone please tell me why the US designation is supposed to be accepted by all countries?
"A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the subject, said government lawyers had been asked to clarify "what goes into effect in terms of prohibitions, or prohibited activities," with the state sponsor designation." In other words will they still be able to receive oil imports or will they have to conduct yet another illegal regime change operation that will provoke yet another genocide?
"The official was reluctant to predict if the FARC computer discoveries will lead to sanctions, noting U.S. investigators first must corroborate their veracity." Quite. The first intelligent thing anyone has said.
Anyway, here is e-mail I sent off to the US State Dept. this morning. I don't expect a reply of course, although if I suddenly disappear and cease to blog you'll know who's got me...I've never been to the Caribbean...
"Sirs,
I read an article in McClatchy Newspapers today saying that the "Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism".
I was wondering how this can be, considering the definition of terrorism used by the State Dept, which refers exclusively to "subnational groups or clandestine agents". (Source: Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington: Dept. of State, 2001: vi)
If, however, one takes the definition as described in the US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331 as being the correct definition, then why has the USA itself not been added to the list and the CIA declared a terrorist organisation?
Considering all the facts in the public domain about the actions of that organisation, the CIA, there can be no doubt that it fits the description perfectly of a terrorist organisation, and consequently the country that controls, finances and gives it its orders must also be considered a nation that supports terrorism."
05 March 2008
The Times' deceipt continues
Opinion masquerading as fact yet again. Today, Wednesday 05 March 2008, the Times has an article on the Spanish elections and the second televised debate. The only problem is: the headline says one thing, the article another.
There is no proof whatsoever to back up the claim in the headline that Zapatero's support is faltering, and indeed in the text or body of the article there is no evidence presented to substantiate such a claim. It's the author's (or more likely the editor's) wishful thinking...
This is outright deceipt aimed at those who don't have enough time to read everything and who skim the headlines.
There is a further error of fact in the article, which claims that "The opposition leader (Rajoy)...accused him (Zapatero) of insulting the victims of Eta".
In fact, Rajoy used the word 'agredir', which doesn't mean to insult, it means to assault or physically attack. One would have hoped that a Times correspondent could at least understand the language of the country he's reporting on...or God forbid, he wouldn't mistranslate on purpose would he?
There is no proof whatsoever to back up the claim in the headline that Zapatero's support is faltering, and indeed in the text or body of the article there is no evidence presented to substantiate such a claim. It's the author's (or more likely the editor's) wishful thinking...
This is outright deceipt aimed at those who don't have enough time to read everything and who skim the headlines.
There is a further error of fact in the article, which claims that "The opposition leader (Rajoy)...accused him (Zapatero) of insulting the victims of Eta".
In fact, Rajoy used the word 'agredir', which doesn't mean to insult, it means to assault or physically attack. One would have hoped that a Times correspondent could at least understand the language of the country he's reporting on...or God forbid, he wouldn't mistranslate on purpose would he?
Iran wants world ban on nuclear weapons
This Iranian position reveals the US and British deceipt in its accusations that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, and that both countries have been using their not insignificant power on the Security Council to ridicule an international treaty such as the NPT.
There is no doubt that the US/UK tactics and planning are clever and cunning. They are also immoral, illegal and based on lies as usual. Hypocrisy pure and simple.
The Supreme Leader of Iran, who is the real power in Iran not the President, issued a fatwa several years ago now banning research, production and use of nuclear weapons. The current Iranian regime has always maintained it is not interested in nuclear weapons, as even the Israeli press have acknowledged:
"In an interview with Time Magazine Ahmadinejad said "We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings.""Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument ... The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today" he added."
There is NO proof they have a weapons programme in spite of 'evidence' supplied by an Iranian terrorist organisation and conveniently 'believed' by the US.
And how do the positions square up? Well, one side (Iran) has consistently stated that nuclear weapons are evil and must be erradicated from - not just the Middle East - but the entire world, while the other side (US/UK) have been steadily increasing development of their own new nuclear weapons, supporting the spread of nuclear weapons in countries with 'friendly' regimes (Israel, India & Pakistan), while negating the 'inherent' right of just one country (Iran) to have its own nuclear fuel cycle which at the end of the day is a declaration of energy independence which the US/UK cannot tolerate. Indeed, when Iran was ruled by the US-installed dictator puppet the Shah, the US government and its arch-genocidal criminal Kissinger, actively supported Iran's push for nuclear technology.
As FPIF reported last year: "A declassified document from President Gerald Ford's administration, for which Kissinger was Secretary of State, supported Iran's push for nuclear power. The document noted that Tehran should "prepare against the time--about 15 years in the future--when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."
Interesting to note too that according to the Washington Post "Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago"..."that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making".
Agence France-Presse:
"IRAN wants to ban all nuclear weapons through an international treaty, the country's foreign minister said at the UN's Conference on Disarmament.
"The time has come to ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons," Manouchehr Mottaki told the conference.
The UN Security Council on Monday slapped another round of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment activities, while in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency attempted to convince Tehran to cooperate.
Western states have accused Tehran of pursuing a nuclear program under cover of energy production, a charge it has firmly denied.
Iran's foreign minister said during Tuesday's meeting in Geneva that it is necessary to "start negotiations to reach a convention on the ban of stocks and the production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction".
During the conference, he questioned the right of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear arms.
"The winners of the Second World War have claimed this right and imposed it on the international community," he said.
"Today, the right of veto and the right to possess nuclear arms has become a monetary exchange to obtain illegitimate rights," he added.
Iran, which confirmed that it had launched its first rocket to space February 4, also supported a proposal from Russia and China to ban weapons in space.
The project, which was presented on February 12 by Russia during the Conference on Disarmament, suggested banning the deployment of all types of arms in space. The US has opposed such a treaty.
The UN Conference on Disarmament brokered key Cold War accords such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but has made scant progress over the last decade as the 65 members remain at odds on future priorities."
There is no doubt that the US/UK tactics and planning are clever and cunning. They are also immoral, illegal and based on lies as usual. Hypocrisy pure and simple.
The Supreme Leader of Iran, who is the real power in Iran not the President, issued a fatwa several years ago now banning research, production and use of nuclear weapons. The current Iranian regime has always maintained it is not interested in nuclear weapons, as even the Israeli press have acknowledged:
"In an interview with Time Magazine Ahmadinejad said "We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings.""Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument ... The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today" he added."
There is NO proof they have a weapons programme in spite of 'evidence' supplied by an Iranian terrorist organisation and conveniently 'believed' by the US.
And how do the positions square up? Well, one side (Iran) has consistently stated that nuclear weapons are evil and must be erradicated from - not just the Middle East - but the entire world, while the other side (US/UK) have been steadily increasing development of their own new nuclear weapons, supporting the spread of nuclear weapons in countries with 'friendly' regimes (Israel, India & Pakistan), while negating the 'inherent' right of just one country (Iran) to have its own nuclear fuel cycle which at the end of the day is a declaration of energy independence which the US/UK cannot tolerate. Indeed, when Iran was ruled by the US-installed dictator puppet the Shah, the US government and its arch-genocidal criminal Kissinger, actively supported Iran's push for nuclear technology.
As FPIF reported last year: "A declassified document from President Gerald Ford's administration, for which Kissinger was Secretary of State, supported Iran's push for nuclear power. The document noted that Tehran should "prepare against the time--about 15 years in the future--when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."
Interesting to note too that according to the Washington Post "Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago"..."that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making".
Agence France-Presse:
"IRAN wants to ban all nuclear weapons through an international treaty, the country's foreign minister said at the UN's Conference on Disarmament.
"The time has come to ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons," Manouchehr Mottaki told the conference.
The UN Security Council on Monday slapped another round of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment activities, while in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency attempted to convince Tehran to cooperate.
Western states have accused Tehran of pursuing a nuclear program under cover of energy production, a charge it has firmly denied.
Iran's foreign minister said during Tuesday's meeting in Geneva that it is necessary to "start negotiations to reach a convention on the ban of stocks and the production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction".
During the conference, he questioned the right of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear arms.
"The winners of the Second World War have claimed this right and imposed it on the international community," he said.
"Today, the right of veto and the right to possess nuclear arms has become a monetary exchange to obtain illegitimate rights," he added.
Iran, which confirmed that it had launched its first rocket to space February 4, also supported a proposal from Russia and China to ban weapons in space.
The project, which was presented on February 12 by Russia during the Conference on Disarmament, suggested banning the deployment of all types of arms in space. The US has opposed such a treaty.
The UN Conference on Disarmament brokered key Cold War accords such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but has made scant progress over the last decade as the 65 members remain at odds on future priorities."
02 March 2008
Message to Israeli Ambassador, Madrid
Israel’s aerial bombing in the centre of a densely-populated city is an illegal means of warfare; it is clear that these attacks will directly cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian property and infrastructure.
The targeting of schools, clinics and ministries is a war crime. These attacks are part of the ongoing collective punishment of the occupied civilian population of Gaza; this includes the restricting fuel, electricity, food, medical, and humanitarian supplies – resulting in humanitarian crisis. Since the start of 2008, 132 Gazans have been killed in Israeli attacks; it is estimated that over 44 civilians have died as a result of being denied access to medical care.
Mr. Ambassador. This is not only a genocide but a 'shoa' as one of your ministers threatened the other day. As PM Abbas has stated, in fact it is worse than a holocaust. Instead of defending the indefensible crime of intentionally killing children and babies, why are you not calling for an end to your governments cynical operation.
The good news is that the world over ordinary citizens like myself have been woken up to your countries repulsive crimes and as each Palestinian baby dies you lose more support the world over. One day your criminal regime will be over and criminals such as yourself will be paying for your crimes. Where is your God in all of this? Nowehere. You sir are criminal scum.
The targeting of schools, clinics and ministries is a war crime. These attacks are part of the ongoing collective punishment of the occupied civilian population of Gaza; this includes the restricting fuel, electricity, food, medical, and humanitarian supplies – resulting in humanitarian crisis. Since the start of 2008, 132 Gazans have been killed in Israeli attacks; it is estimated that over 44 civilians have died as a result of being denied access to medical care.
Mr. Ambassador. This is not only a genocide but a 'shoa' as one of your ministers threatened the other day. As PM Abbas has stated, in fact it is worse than a holocaust. Instead of defending the indefensible crime of intentionally killing children and babies, why are you not calling for an end to your governments cynical operation.
The good news is that the world over ordinary citizens like myself have been woken up to your countries repulsive crimes and as each Palestinian baby dies you lose more support the world over. One day your criminal regime will be over and criminals such as yourself will be paying for your crimes. Where is your God in all of this? Nowehere. You sir are criminal scum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
