13 January 2010

Reply to 'The Censor' Oliver Kamm: "the cause of jihadist rage against our side is not what we have done but what we are"

Oliver Kamm has now taken to censoring his blog. He has refused to publish my comments to his latest piece of facile, shallow opinion. Here they are anyway:

Kamm: "the cause of jihadist rage against our side is not what we have done but what we are...As Osama bin Laden stated on 23 February 1998..."

But, Mr Kamm, ObL wrote in his "letter to the American people" and published in the Observer on 30 November 2002:

"we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:
"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it. "
See also articles:

"a mood of resentment toward America and its behavior around the world has become so commonplace in their countries that it was bound to breed hostility, and even hatred."
But the ultimate put-down to Mr Kamm's wild theory comes from Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden Unit, and author of Imperial Hubris, when he was still in the CIA, in which this topic comes up again and again. A quote:

"the genesis, dimensions, and threat of the bin Laden problem...is knowable for anyone who takes the time to read and ponder a representative sample of relevant open-source literature. The conclusions a fair-minded individual would fraw from this endeavour would, I believe include the following...bin Laden was precise in telling America the reason's he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world...Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are bin Laden's only indispensable allies....Given that these easy-to-reach conclusions can be drawn from materials found in the public library, and on the internet, Americans should wonder why their political, intelligence, military and media leaders have not made them. The answer, I believe, lies in another point made by Robert Baer: "I know enough about the way Washington worked to know that when it did not like the some piece of informationit did everything in its power to discredit the messenger," he wrote in See No Evil."
(from Imperial Hubris, Anonymous -Mike Scheuer, Preface, pp. x-xi)

Rather similar to Mr Kamm's own modus operandi..."

I'm not the first however. Another person who occasionally posts on the Media Lens message board, 'macky' was "blocked by Kamm long before I started posting here, simply for once having the temerity to provide Hansard references when challenged to by Kamm, on Galloways’ record on opposition to Saddam. It sort of spoilt the little petulant & puerile anti-Galloway piece he had just written"

Another, who goes by the name of 'rippon', also wrote:

"I have apparently been barred from commenting on Oliver Kamm's blog.

Despite repeated attempts, he declines to publish my comment.

Although I disagree with the principle he espouses (that I should declare my 'membership' of Media Lens), I have nevertheless prefaced my comment with the parenthetical remark: "(I am a member of Media Lens.)"

Despite this, he still declines to publish my comment.

Does any other 'member' of ML find that this applies to them?

Kamm has replied to me that he is "not able to post" +his+ views at Media Lens.

I have sought (but not received) clarification on this from both ML and Kamm: Is Kamm not free (as free as me) to post on this message board?

[NB. The Editors of Media Lens confirmed: "Thanks Rippon. Kamm has not been prevented from posting here. Best Eds "]

Here is Kamm's e-mail to me in which he tries to explain his decision:

"Dear Mr Sketchley,

Thank you for posting comments at TimesOnline. As I've said to your comrades, I welcome contributions from Media Lensers, but I'm now turning my previous requests into a requirement. I'd be grateful if you would preface your remarks with the information that you're a member of Media Lens and that this is an organisation that denies the genocide at Srebrenica. As Media Lens members post assiduously on my bog, this is a mere courtesy to my regular readers to alert them to the provenance of these views.

Oliver Kamm
Leader Writer & Columnist

Mr.Kamm is a class A liar.

1 comment:

macky said...


You might find the following Thread quite amusing, if you can excuse the very bad language that is (well it is HP afterall)!;


The point being that Kamm himself joins in and tries to justify his censoring of people, so naturally I & others had to pull him up on his porkies !