Why is the BBC deliberately suppressing information?
Yesterday I saw this article on the BBC website:
Somali insurgents in deadly fight
Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 January 2008, 14:51 GMT
In the article, we had quotes from "the head of the country's UN refugee agency":
"Guillermo Bettoki told the BBC it was still too dangerous for the UNHCR to move its operations back to Somalia."
"Mr Bettoki said while the UNHCR would still be based in neighbouring Kenya, the agency would continue its humanitarian work in Somalia. "
"I have never felt the way I feel now in the sense of frustration for the lack of progress in the situation," he told the BBC's Network Africa programme.
But he said the Somali people themselves were less negative. "They see the conflict that is affecting Somalia for so many years as something that is the creation of the politicians or the warlords for their own interests," he said.
"The Somali people do appreciate the work that we are doing and they do have hopes and it is those hopes that keep us on the move."
While the BBC was reporting worthless titbits, Reuters, however, were reporting this:
"Somalia is worst humanitarian crisis: UN official"
"LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - High levels of malnutrition and the difficulties of delivering aid make Somalia the world's most pressing humanitarian crisis, the U.N. refugee agency's representative there said on Tuesday.
More than 1 million people have fled their homes in Somalia, which is convulsed by fighting between Ethiopian-backed government forces, Islamist insurgents and an assortment of warlords.
"I've never seen anything like Somalia before," Guillermo Bettocchi, representative of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said during a visit to London.
"The situation is very severe. It is the most pressing humanitarian emergency in the world today -- even worse than Darfur,"
Why did the BBC not report the Darfur comment and the figures?
The only piece of data you reported was "Since then it is estimated that 60% of Mogadishu's residents have fled their homes" which is meaningless to most people. What's 60% of a figure you don't know and haven't been told?
If the UN High Commissioner for Refugees feels that Somalia is worse than Darfur, why does the BBC believe that part of his discourse was not newsworthy, but his other comments were? It just doesnt make sense. You would have received the Reuters feed so you knew exactly what he had said.
The article was also misleading as the reader was under the impression the BBC had spoken to Guillermo Bettocchi in Somalia. Thankfully Reuters has provided more accurate and less misleading information than the BBC.
30 January 2008
13 January 2008
Gordon Brown's new chief of strategy: "'What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts."
According to the Guardian:
"Brown surprised Westminster last week by appointing the former advertising executive to beef up his administration after a string of high-profile scandals. The £137,000-a-year job makes Carter one of the most powerful officials in government."
This is getting outrageous now, wherever we turn we see criminals getting rich, and they are then rewarded...
Here's the Independent on Sunday'd obituary of Philip Agee:
"Philip Agee: Former CIA agent who accused his government of 'state terrorism'"
Other news:
Libya key transit for UK-bound migrants
"Up to a million migrants have gathered in Libya, from where they will attempt to sail across the Mediterranean for Europe and, ultimately, the UK.
If you want to have good laugh read it, if not forget it. It's really just more propaganda for the truly gullible...
"The man appointed to Downing Street by Gordon Brown to improve the running of government and help restore Labour's flagging fortunes allegedly 'misled' the media and 'issued false statements' that helped to inflate artificially the share price of a massively indebted telecoms company, according to court documents filed in the United States.
Stephen Carter, Brown's new chief of strategy, who has given up a lucrative job chairing a City PR firm to take up his new £137,000-a-year government post, was chief operating officer at British cable TV company NTL between September 2000 and 2001. When Carter arrived, NTL had $17bn of debt on its books and the company was struggling to retain customers. He continued to reassure investors and the media that the company was performing well and was expanding its customer base, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in the Southern District Court of New York in 2002. One document alleges that following a teleconference call with investors and analysts in 2001, Carter was asked by his customer marketing director, Charles Darley: 'How can you ... persuade investors to believe that NTL is going to be OK when you know it isn't?'
According to Darley's recollection, quoted in the lawsuit, Carter allegedly replied: 'What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts.'"
"The settlement is likely to prove an embarrassment for the man who is now Brown's key fixer, charged with ensuring the government averts future crises after the debacles involving missing data, secret donations and Northern Rock.While friends of Carter, 43, have been quick to argue that NTL's problems were not of his making and that what he found when he arrived from advertising firm JWT 'shocked him', allegations that he attempted to spin the company out of its problems are likely to be seized upon by opposition parties."
And quite rightly too...
More on this in the Times:
It was one of the largest corporate bankruptcies in American history. But in a move that outraged investors, Carter walked off with £1.7m in compensation, including a £600,000 bonus."
The Times points out something that should have us all worried:"Brown surprised Westminster last week by appointing the former advertising executive to beef up his administration after a string of high-profile scandals. The £137,000-a-year job makes Carter one of the most powerful officials in government."
This is getting outrageous now, wherever we turn we see criminals getting rich, and they are then rewarded...
Here's the Independent on Sunday'd obituary of Philip Agee:
"Philip Agee: Former CIA agent who accused his government of 'state terrorism'"
Other news:
Libya key transit for UK-bound migrants
"Up to a million migrants have gathered in Libya, from where they will attempt to sail across the Mediterranean for Europe and, ultimately, the UK.
New estimates reveal that there are two million migrants massed in the North African country and that half of them plan to sail to the European mainland and travel on to Britain in the hope of building a new life.
According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), most have travelled from sub-Saharan states such as Ghana and Sierra Leone, attracted by Libya's reputation as a centre for people smugglers. Most are expected to wait until the spring, when the seas are calmer, before making the crossing on unseaworthy and crowded vessels."
Damian Thompson is a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph and editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald. The Daily Telegraph has just given him free space to advertise his new book and in passing take a swipe at what he calls "counterknowledge: misinformation packaged to look like fact" for people "who are susceptible to conspiracy theories": "Lies, damn lies and 'counterknowledge'". The establishment must be getting really worried!If you want to have good laugh read it, if not forget it. It's really just more propaganda for the truly gullible...
12 January 2008
The Persian Gulf Incident
Here are a couple of letters sent to the BBC and Salon.com
E-Mail to Paul Reynolds
I just wanted to make a few comments about your article "US-Iran stand-off not mere propaganda". (1)
Your never-ending loyalty, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, to the US military would be commendable if it were applied with equal vigour to both sides which, with all due respect, does not appear to be the case in this instance.
The BBC and other western news corporations willingly gave headlines and text to US claims without first either seeing the evidence or seeking a response from the other side. Indeed, you yourself were quoted in the first BBC online report about the incident:
"The BBC's Paul Reynolds says the key question is whether this is a one-off incident or whether it heralds a more aggressive stance by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The latter policy would be unexpected, given the lowering of tension over the nuclear issue, he says, but as the incident of the captured British naval personnel showed, tensions are always high.
There is no doubt that the US is ready to respond, our correspondent adds. ". (2)
We had to wait till the following the day to read the line in the fourth paragraph "Iran has dismissed the incident as a "routine" encounter " and then at the very bottom of the article, the last 2 paragraphs to be precise:
"Iran has played down the event, calling it an "ordinary occurrence".
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said: "This happens for the two sides every once in a while and, after the identification of the two sides, the issue is resolved." (3)
It is only after the story received the contempt it deserves in internet blogs and forums worldwide (just check out the comments section below the corresponding articles at the Times of London and the Washington Post websites, did we begin to hear the other side of the story from the BBC: "Iran says US video was fabricated" (4) and " Iran airs video of navy stand-off". (5)
Why do you never give the other side a similar benefit of the doubt, which is a logical consequence if there is rigid balance and taking into consideration the track record of both sides viz-à-viz telling the truth?
Indeed, your own article confirms the suspicion that you only reacted once you saw the "admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf", and in fact, you never once refer to the charge reported by the BBC that "Iran says US video was fabricated". (4) Nor do you mention the report put out by Press TV quoting Republican Guards Brigadier General Ali Fadavi who "said Iran's boats had only approached the US ships to examine the registration numbers as they had been unreadable" mentioned by Richard Holt in the Daily Telegraph. (6)
Perhaps you were referring to this when you then stated that "This goes beyond the back and forth of a propaganda battle, in which once again the Iranians show themselves to be masters", when actually it appears your skills are equally as good if not better.Tthere are facts which point to deliberate manipulation by the US. As Prof. Juan Cole commented: "The Iranians analyzed the Pentagon video released to the US media and found that the audio track was not synchronized properly with the video, pointing to serious tinkering. And sure enough, we now know that the tape is a fabrication in the sense that the Pentagon says the video and the audio were recorded separately and then combined. And they can't even be sure where the audio came from!" (7) Cole quotes the NYT: "On Wednesday, Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak officially, said they were still trying to determine if the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere." and "the recording carries no ambient noise — the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind — that would be expected if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small boats that sped around the three-ship American convoy." (8) Further, Cole states "The Iranian press is suspicious about the timing of the Pentagon videotape, noting that it was released just as Bush was heading to the Middle East to try to convince the Arab allies of the US to make common cause with Israel against Iran."(7) You obviously feel this view of the Iranian press is not even worth commenting on.
Finally you mention that "Iran's always determined to exert its influence in what it insists on calling the Persian Gulf". Why do you use the word "insists" here when, according to Working Paper No. 61, UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES , dated March 28, April 4, 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and the official term to be used by members of United Nations? (9)
Yours Sincerely
David Sketchley
Seville, Spain
Links:
(1) Last Updated: Friday, 11 January 2008, 10:56 GMT US-Iran stand-off not mere propaganda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7182637.stm
(2) Monday, 7 January 2008, 23:34 GMT Iran boats 'threatened US ships'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7175325.stm
(3) Tuesday, 8 January 2008, 22:49 GMT US releases Iran stand-off video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7177946.stm
(4) Last Updated: Wednesday, 9 January 2008, 11:55 GMT Iran says US video was fabricated
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7178878.stm
(5) Last Updated: Thursday, 10 January 2008, 09:38 GMT Iran airs video of navy stand-off
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180567.stm
(6) Iranian video 'shows no threat to US navy' by Richard Holt Last Updated: 2:47am GMT 11/01/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HCW2PHAIVL0PPQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/10/wiran110.xml
(7) Informed Comment Friday, January 11, 2008 US Video of Iran Speedboats Doctored; Iranians Charge Fabrication
http://www.juancole.com/2008/01/us-video-of-iran-speedboats-flawed.html
(8) NYT Published: January 10, 2008 Iran Accuses U.S. of Faking Persian Gulf Video By NAZILA FATHI
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10iran.html?bl&ex=1200200400&en=ab0fa0fbe1b14f9c&ei=5087%0A
(9) UNITED NATIONS Working Paper No. 61 UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES
Twenty-third Session Vienna, 28 March – 4 April 2006
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf
------------------------------------------------
In reply to:
E-Mail to Paul Reynolds
Posted by David Sketchley on January 11, 2008, 11:50 pm, in reply to "BBC - US-Iran stand-off not mere propaganda"
Dear Paul,I just wanted to make a few comments about your article "US-Iran stand-off not mere propaganda". (1)
Your never-ending loyalty, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, to the US military would be commendable if it were applied with equal vigour to both sides which, with all due respect, does not appear to be the case in this instance.
The BBC and other western news corporations willingly gave headlines and text to US claims without first either seeing the evidence or seeking a response from the other side. Indeed, you yourself were quoted in the first BBC online report about the incident:
"The BBC's Paul Reynolds says the key question is whether this is a one-off incident or whether it heralds a more aggressive stance by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The latter policy would be unexpected, given the lowering of tension over the nuclear issue, he says, but as the incident of the captured British naval personnel showed, tensions are always high.
There is no doubt that the US is ready to respond, our correspondent adds. ". (2)
We had to wait till the following the day to read the line in the fourth paragraph "Iran has dismissed the incident as a "routine" encounter " and then at the very bottom of the article, the last 2 paragraphs to be precise:
"Iran has played down the event, calling it an "ordinary occurrence".
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said: "This happens for the two sides every once in a while and, after the identification of the two sides, the issue is resolved." (3)
It is only after the story received the contempt it deserves in internet blogs and forums worldwide (just check out the comments section below the corresponding articles at the Times of London and the Washington Post websites, did we begin to hear the other side of the story from the BBC: "Iran says US video was fabricated" (4) and " Iran airs video of navy stand-off". (5)
Why do you never give the other side a similar benefit of the doubt, which is a logical consequence if there is rigid balance and taking into consideration the track record of both sides viz-à-viz telling the truth?
Indeed, your own article confirms the suspicion that you only reacted once you saw the "admission by the US Navy that Iranian speedboats might not have been the source of an apparent threat to attack American ships in the Gulf", and in fact, you never once refer to the charge reported by the BBC that "Iran says US video was fabricated". (4) Nor do you mention the report put out by Press TV quoting Republican Guards Brigadier General Ali Fadavi who "said Iran's boats had only approached the US ships to examine the registration numbers as they had been unreadable" mentioned by Richard Holt in the Daily Telegraph. (6)
Perhaps you were referring to this when you then stated that "This goes beyond the back and forth of a propaganda battle, in which once again the Iranians show themselves to be masters", when actually it appears your skills are equally as good if not better.Tthere are facts which point to deliberate manipulation by the US. As Prof. Juan Cole commented: "The Iranians analyzed the Pentagon video released to the US media and found that the audio track was not synchronized properly with the video, pointing to serious tinkering. And sure enough, we now know that the tape is a fabrication in the sense that the Pentagon says the video and the audio were recorded separately and then combined. And they can't even be sure where the audio came from!" (7) Cole quotes the NYT: "On Wednesday, Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak officially, said they were still trying to determine if the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere." and "the recording carries no ambient noise — the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind — that would be expected if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small boats that sped around the three-ship American convoy." (8) Further, Cole states "The Iranian press is suspicious about the timing of the Pentagon videotape, noting that it was released just as Bush was heading to the Middle East to try to convince the Arab allies of the US to make common cause with Israel against Iran."(7) You obviously feel this view of the Iranian press is not even worth commenting on.
Finally you mention that "Iran's always determined to exert its influence in what it insists on calling the Persian Gulf". Why do you use the word "insists" here when, according to Working Paper No. 61, UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES , dated March 28, April 4, 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and the official term to be used by members of United Nations? (9)
Yours Sincerely
David Sketchley
Seville, Spain
Links:
(1) Last Updated: Friday, 11 January 2008, 10:56 GMT US-Iran stand-off not mere propaganda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7182637.stm
(2) Monday, 7 January 2008, 23:34 GMT Iran boats 'threatened US ships'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7175325.stm
(3) Tuesday, 8 January 2008, 22:49 GMT US releases Iran stand-off video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7177946.stm
(4) Last Updated: Wednesday, 9 January 2008, 11:55 GMT Iran says US video was fabricated
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7178878.stm
(5) Last Updated: Thursday, 10 January 2008, 09:38 GMT Iran airs video of navy stand-off
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180567.stm
(6) Iranian video 'shows no threat to US navy' by Richard Holt Last Updated: 2:47am GMT 11/01/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HCW2PHAIVL0PPQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/10/wiran110.xml
(7) Informed Comment Friday, January 11, 2008 US Video of Iran Speedboats Doctored; Iranians Charge Fabrication
http://www.juancole.com/2008/01/us-video-of-iran-speedboats-flawed.html
(8) NYT Published: January 10, 2008 Iran Accuses U.S. of Faking Persian Gulf Video By NAZILA FATHI
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10iran.html?bl&ex=1200200400&en=ab0fa0fbe1b14f9c&ei=5087%0A
(9) UNITED NATIONS Working Paper No. 61 UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES
Twenty-third Session Vienna, 28 March – 4 April 2006
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf
------------------------------------------------
In reply to:
The U.S. military inflicts more damage on its own credibility
-
Another important point
Glenn,
You appear to have overlooked the question as to why the Iranians would have been acting 'provocatively', when they got within 200m of one of the warships. The UK's Daily Telegraph, using a Press TV report, quoted Republican Guards Brigadier General Ali Fadavi who "said Iran's boats had only approached the US ships to examine the registration numbers as they had been unreadable".
Why has no one mentioned this?
Link:
http://tinyurl.com/25bdqa
18 December 2007
Official complaint to the BBC about Paxman
Here is the text of an official complaint I have just sent in to the BBC:
"I wish to make an official complaint about one of the presenters of Newsnight: Jeremy Paxman.
BBC editorial guidelines state:
"Presenters of News and Current Affairs programmes
In the case of those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or reporters on, BBC news programmes and programmes about current affairs, there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest. Care must be taken to ensure that they remain impartial when speaking publicly (see section 2.1 above) and do not promote any political party, campaigning organisation or lobby group which may jeopardise their status as an impartial broadcaster."
Jeremy Paxman has scoffed at these guidelines by not only providing promotional written support for a pro-American 'campaigning organisation or lobby group', the British-American Project for the Successor Generation (BAP), but also being a Fellow of said lobby group and being the 'face' of their organisation - if not then why is he featured photo and all on their main page?
On the home page of the BAP website we can find this:
"What Fellows Say abut BAP
'A marvellous way of meeting a varied cross-section of transatlantic friends.'
Jeremy Paxman, Journalist and BBC broadcaster"
This is an open endorsement of a 'campaigning organisation or lobby group'. BBC guidelines expressly forbid Paxman from promoting this group.
I always had my doubts about Paxman's impartiality and the reason's for his pro-American bias on Newsnight, now I know why.
This is an obvious case of conflict of interest. In view of this, I demand that the BBC take action now."
"I wish to make an official complaint about one of the presenters of Newsnight: Jeremy Paxman.
BBC editorial guidelines state:
"Presenters of News and Current Affairs programmes
In the case of those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or reporters on, BBC news programmes and programmes about current affairs, there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest. Care must be taken to ensure that they remain impartial when speaking publicly (see section 2.1 above) and do not promote any political party, campaigning organisation or lobby group which may jeopardise their status as an impartial broadcaster."
Jeremy Paxman has scoffed at these guidelines by not only providing promotional written support for a pro-American 'campaigning organisation or lobby group', the British-American Project for the Successor Generation (BAP), but also being a Fellow of said lobby group and being the 'face' of their organisation - if not then why is he featured photo and all on their main page?
On the home page of the BAP website we can find this:
"What Fellows Say abut BAP
'A marvellous way of meeting a varied cross-section of transatlantic friends.'
Jeremy Paxman, Journalist and BBC broadcaster"
This is an open endorsement of a 'campaigning organisation or lobby group'. BBC guidelines expressly forbid Paxman from promoting this group.
I always had my doubts about Paxman's impartiality and the reason's for his pro-American bias on Newsnight, now I know why.
This is an obvious case of conflict of interest. In view of this, I demand that the BBC take action now."
15 December 2007
Rosa Monckton admits 'close' link to MI6
Today's Telegraph carries the following headline and story:
"Rosa Monckton admits 'close' link to MI6"
"Rosa Monckton has disclosed that someone close to her was involved with MI6. Miss Monckton told the inquest into the princess's death that she personally had "no connection with the security services" but that "someone close to me is connected with the SIS". The Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, protects British interests abroad."
Note the cynical comment at the end "The Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, protects British interests abroad."
Rosa Monckton is of course married to Dominic Lawson, who was accused by former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson of being an MI6 asset, apparently referred to in MI6 by the code name 'SMALLBROW'.
According to the Guardian, "Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain...Tomlinson...said that in the early 1990s the editor of the Spectator was on MI6's books".
In an article in 2000 in the British Journalism Review, David Leigh confirmed that at the time Lawson was editor of the Spectator:
"Two articles appeared in the Spectator magazine in early 1994 under the by-line Kenneth Roberts...They were datelined Sarajevo, and "Roberts" was described as having been working with the UN in Bosnia as an "advisor". In fact, he was MI6 officer Keith Robert Craig (the pseudonym was a simple one), whose local cover was as a civilian "attached" to the British military unit's Balkan secretariat."
So could Rosa Monckton have been referring to Lawson?
I don't think so. Its actually much more likely she was referring to her brother Anthony Monckton, who according to David Leigh, "was himself a serving MI6 officer, who was to take over the Zagreb station in the Balkans in 1996" and ended up as station chief in Serbia before having his cover blown "in a book by Zoran Mijatovic, former deputy chief of the Serbian intelligence service. A Belgrade newspaper then printed Monckton’s photograph, phone number and e-mail details, forcing him to return to Britain. "
********************************************************
Other news of interest today:
The Telegraph, again: "UN cites Serb threat to Kosovo's energy". This article appears to be fearmongering aimed at provoking ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.
"UN officals fear that the small Serb population in the north of the province, under instructions from Belgrade, could shut down the Gazivoda reservoir, which supplies 60 per cent of Kosovo's water..."The Gazivoda complex is critically important for Kosovo, but the people running the installation are all Serbs from the local area," said another senior international official in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo...Beyond sourcing alternative supplies, Mr Acda said that UNMIK was considering "putting people on the ground and using diplomatic pressure" to ensure that the flow of water continues.
But others intimately acquainted with the problem speak in more dramatic terms. "There aren't any solutions for Gazivoda," said a senior official. "Everyone's edging around the subject.
"Can you send in NATO troops? How would that play internationally?"
He added that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, had been heard to threaten: "If you're thinking about putting troops around Gazivoda - don't."
Two excellent articles in Salon.com, the first one entitled "Inside the CIA's notorious "black sites" is about Yemeni Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah's suffering at the hands of the terrorist organisation CIA.
He was testifying in a federal suit brought by the ACLU "claiming Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. enabled the clandestine transportation of five terrorism suspects to overseas locations where they were subjected to "forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" according to the AP.
The court has also heard evidence "of a former Jeppesen employee who said the company openly spoke of its role in extraordinary rendition...According to the declaration of Sean Belcher, who worked briefly for Jeppesen as a technical writer in San Jose, Calif. in 2006, the director of Jeppesen's International Trip Planning Service, Bob Overby, told new employees during an introductory breakfast that "we do all the extraordinary rendition flights."
When some employees looked puzzled at the statement, Overby added that he was referring to "torture flights," according to Belcher's declaration.
According to Belcher, Overby then said he understood some employees were not comfortable with that aspect of Jeppesen's business but added "that's just the way it is, we're doing them," and that the rendition flights paid very well."
The other called "America's trinity of terrorism" describes how the "network of U.S.-sponsored terrorism now on global display relies on death squads, disappearances and torture".
More on torture from Alexander Cockburn in The First Post: "Torture: it’s the American way" and how there's "not much evidence that Americans are aghast at these disclosures".
Alternet has an interesting account of how Ecuador will evict the US from its Manta air base when the lease expires in November 2009. The article claims that Ecuador could offer the airbase to China. It also claims that while the "purported purpose of the FOL (Forward Operating Location) was to help interdict drug shipments from neighboring Colombia", in reality "it is being used by Colombian pilots and as a center of anti-guerilla intelligence as a part of Plan Colombia, and for the targeting of alleged terrorist groups".
An earlier version of the article can be found here.
Finally some news from gold expert, and who has written for Accountancy and the International Currency Review, Julian D. W. Phillips on how the world is abandoning the US Dollar as the international currency for trade. The conclusion?
"We are moving to the end of the U.S. $'s 62-year reign as the world's main international currency for trade, financial transactions and central-bank reserves? Unless something is done to give real value to the $, we believe that the process has to accelerate, rupturing the global monetary system, only to bring back Protectionism in the large trading blocs, exacerbating political and economic instability. We see this rising wave of concern moving forward to a major crisis. Any calming of the situation will cause a short-term strengthening of the $ to be followed by steeper declines."
"Rosa Monckton admits 'close' link to MI6"
"Rosa Monckton has disclosed that someone close to her was involved with MI6. Miss Monckton told the inquest into the princess's death that she personally had "no connection with the security services" but that "someone close to me is connected with the SIS". The Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, protects British interests abroad."
Note the cynical comment at the end "The Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, protects British interests abroad."
Rosa Monckton is of course married to Dominic Lawson, who was accused by former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson of being an MI6 asset, apparently referred to in MI6 by the code name 'SMALLBROW'.
According to the Guardian, "Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain...Tomlinson...said that in the early 1990s the editor of the Spectator was on MI6's books".
In an article in 2000 in the British Journalism Review, David Leigh confirmed that at the time Lawson was editor of the Spectator:
"Two articles appeared in the Spectator magazine in early 1994 under the by-line Kenneth Roberts...They were datelined Sarajevo, and "Roberts" was described as having been working with the UN in Bosnia as an "advisor". In fact, he was MI6 officer Keith Robert Craig (the pseudonym was a simple one), whose local cover was as a civilian "attached" to the British military unit's Balkan secretariat."
So could Rosa Monckton have been referring to Lawson?
I don't think so. Its actually much more likely she was referring to her brother Anthony Monckton, who according to David Leigh, "was himself a serving MI6 officer, who was to take over the Zagreb station in the Balkans in 1996" and ended up as station chief in Serbia before having his cover blown "in a book by Zoran Mijatovic, former deputy chief of the Serbian intelligence service. A Belgrade newspaper then printed Monckton’s photograph, phone number and e-mail details, forcing him to return to Britain. "
********************************************************
Other news of interest today:
The Telegraph, again: "UN cites Serb threat to Kosovo's energy". This article appears to be fearmongering aimed at provoking ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.
"UN officals fear that the small Serb population in the north of the province, under instructions from Belgrade, could shut down the Gazivoda reservoir, which supplies 60 per cent of Kosovo's water..."The Gazivoda complex is critically important for Kosovo, but the people running the installation are all Serbs from the local area," said another senior international official in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo...Beyond sourcing alternative supplies, Mr Acda said that UNMIK was considering "putting people on the ground and using diplomatic pressure" to ensure that the flow of water continues.
But others intimately acquainted with the problem speak in more dramatic terms. "There aren't any solutions for Gazivoda," said a senior official. "Everyone's edging around the subject.
"Can you send in NATO troops? How would that play internationally?"
He added that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, had been heard to threaten: "If you're thinking about putting troops around Gazivoda - don't."
Two excellent articles in Salon.com, the first one entitled "Inside the CIA's notorious "black sites" is about Yemeni Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah's suffering at the hands of the terrorist organisation CIA.
He was testifying in a federal suit brought by the ACLU "claiming Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. enabled the clandestine transportation of five terrorism suspects to overseas locations where they were subjected to "forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" according to the AP.
The court has also heard evidence "of a former Jeppesen employee who said the company openly spoke of its role in extraordinary rendition...According to the declaration of Sean Belcher, who worked briefly for Jeppesen as a technical writer in San Jose, Calif. in 2006, the director of Jeppesen's International Trip Planning Service, Bob Overby, told new employees during an introductory breakfast that "we do all the extraordinary rendition flights."
When some employees looked puzzled at the statement, Overby added that he was referring to "torture flights," according to Belcher's declaration.
According to Belcher, Overby then said he understood some employees were not comfortable with that aspect of Jeppesen's business but added "that's just the way it is, we're doing them," and that the rendition flights paid very well."
The other called "America's trinity of terrorism" describes how the "network of U.S.-sponsored terrorism now on global display relies on death squads, disappearances and torture".
More on torture from Alexander Cockburn in The First Post: "Torture: it’s the American way" and how there's "not much evidence that Americans are aghast at these disclosures".
Alternet has an interesting account of how Ecuador will evict the US from its Manta air base when the lease expires in November 2009. The article claims that Ecuador could offer the airbase to China. It also claims that while the "purported purpose of the FOL (Forward Operating Location) was to help interdict drug shipments from neighboring Colombia", in reality "it is being used by Colombian pilots and as a center of anti-guerilla intelligence as a part of Plan Colombia, and for the targeting of alleged terrorist groups".
An earlier version of the article can be found here.
Finally some news from gold expert, and who has written for Accountancy and the International Currency Review, Julian D. W. Phillips on how the world is abandoning the US Dollar as the international currency for trade. The conclusion?
"We are moving to the end of the U.S. $'s 62-year reign as the world's main international currency for trade, financial transactions and central-bank reserves? Unless something is done to give real value to the $, we believe that the process has to accelerate, rupturing the global monetary system, only to bring back Protectionism in the large trading blocs, exacerbating political and economic instability. We see this rising wave of concern moving forward to a major crisis. Any calming of the situation will cause a short-term strengthening of the $ to be followed by steeper declines."
14 December 2007
The assassination of Brigadier François Al-Hajj
In an article, which otherwise highlighted Bush's double standards - he doesn't seem to understand that he too is meddling in Lebanese politics - "Bush warns Syria not to interfere in Lebanese politics", Reuters speculate who was behind the attack:
"On the other hand, maybe it was forces unwilling to see the army led by an officer seen as friendly to Hezbollah and close to a Christian opposition leader. "
And what forces could that possibly be?
Bush, trying to put us off the scent, said: "Like the many victims before him, General al-Hajj was a supporter of Lebanon's independence and an opponent of Syria's interference in Lebanon's internal affairs", pointing the finger at Syria.
Given that General al-Hajj was a supporter of Lebanon's independence perhaps he was also an opponent of US interference in Lebanon's internal affairs? General Hajj is the man who led the Lebanese army's attack on Fatah-al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp and it is quite possible he uncovered evidence linking the CIA or Saudi Intelligence to the affair. The level of intelligence required to carry out such a bombing could also indicate a western backed perpetrator.
As the Globe and Mail put it "al-Hajj was thought to have good relations with Damascus". The Daily Star in Lebanon also pointed out that MP Michel Aoun, leader of the Reform and Change bloc and Hizbollah ally was "a personal friend of Hajj and his nominee to succeed Suleiman as army command". So why would Syria kill him?
But let's face it, who do you think knows more about what's happening in Lebanon? Who is more given to making wild statements without any proof, indeed, where the proof points in the opposite direction? George Bush - who would have difficulty pointing Lebanon out on a map of the world - or the ME press?
According to Al-Ahram "it was unclear that Al-Hajj was associated with either team (pro or anti-Syrians), and the army has never been considered a party in the power struggle. Most Lebanese praise the army as their only non- sectarian national institution. Analysts say Al-Hajj, 55, had good relations with Syria and links with Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun, commander of the army during the Civil War. But then, so would most generals of his generation. Like Suleiman, he was a Maronite Christian.
Al-Hajj would have been among two leading contenders to head the army had Suleiman been appointed president, as agreed by both sides."
Al-Ahram quotes Paul Salem, head of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East Centre in Beirut:
"The most sensitive post subject to the bargaining is who will be the next head of the army, and he was the most prominent candidate,"
Salem says this does not necessarily indicate that an internal faction might be responsible. "The position of the head of the army is of great concern to the big players in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, the US and Saudi Arabia. Each wants to push the army in a certain direction -- the US wants it to be an army that works with them and the Syrians want it to work under them," he said. Note the elephant in the room. No mention here of one of the principal suspects: Israel. But anyway, they must all be suspects, not just Syria and Iran.
In the same article, Omar Nashabe, a criminology expert and justice editor for the pro-opposition daily Al-Akhbar, pointed out the plausibility of Al Qaeda being behind the attacks: "Despite the army's siege of the Nahr Al-Bared Palestinian camp, outside the northern city of Tripoli, the group's leader managed to flee.
"Al-Hajj was head of operations and when they targeted Nahr Al-Bared they weren't able to capture the head of Fatah Al-Islam, Shaker Al-Abssi," Nashabe said. Salem agreed. "If the Fatah Al-Islam people are still around I imagine Al-Hajj would have been one of the targets," he said." However, we know from Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration arranged support for militants including Fatah-al-Islam, that the Saudis were financing Fatah-al-Islam through the Lebanese Hariri, and that many of Fatah-al-Islam's fighters were of Saudi origin.
Hizbollah has also accused the US of "waging a covert war" against them, The accusation followed "reports in the US and British media that the CIA has been authorised to take covert action against the militant Shia group, which receives substantial military backing from Iran, as part of wider strategy by the Bush administration to prevent the spread of Iranian influence in the region." Part of this covert war was an assassination attempt of Nasrullah by Al-Qaeda, according to the Jerusalem Post.
According to Al-Ahram, Nashabe posited another theory. "The martyr François Al-Hajj was in the south coordinating support for the Lebanese resistance [led by Hizbullah]. For that reason the Israelis have tried to kill him in the past," he said, citing military sources close to the late brigadier. He said that attempt had occurred in Rmeish, Al-Hajj's southern hometown. "Finally, he was also in the battlefield when the army was in direct confrontation with the Lebanese Forces in the past," Nashabe said.
The army, under Aoun, and Samir Geagea's right-wing Lebanese Forces fought a bitter "war of elimination" at the tail end of the 1975- 1990 Civil War. Rancour persists between the two Christian leaders. Geagea is now part of the 14 March movement." The account of the Israelis trying to kill al-Hajj was also mentioned by SANA along with Syrian condemnation: "Israel bombed al-Hajj's car in southern Lebanon in 1976 after he refused to cooperate with Israel and the Israeli-backed Lahd militias and threatened him in July 2006 during its aggression against Lebanon. " Iran condemned the assassination and Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini also stressed that the "enemies of Lebanon, in particular the Zionist regime, enjoy maximum benefit from insecurity in Lebanon."
The question that must be asked is, what exactly is the Minister of the Interior of Lebanon up to and who is he aligned with?
Al-Ahram: "there are no official suspects yet in any of the assassinations that started with former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri"
How many have there been? This was the ninth fatality. And Lebanese investigators have no clues on any of the murders? Come on now. Since the resignation of Hassan Al Sabaa, "a Sunni Muslim retired officer loyal to the country's anti-Syrian majority coalition", Sport and Youth Minister Ahmad Fattfat was named acting interior minister. Ahmad Fattfat is Sunni and also profoundly pro-American and anti-Syrian, consequently the slightest proof of Syria being behind these assassinations would be spouted all over the world, and reported to the UN Hariri investigation. It wouldn't be the first time. Conversely, if there was the slightest indication of his allies being involved, do you really think he would say anything? I don't.
"On the other hand, maybe it was forces unwilling to see the army led by an officer seen as friendly to Hezbollah and close to a Christian opposition leader. "
And what forces could that possibly be?
Bush, trying to put us off the scent, said: "Like the many victims before him, General al-Hajj was a supporter of Lebanon's independence and an opponent of Syria's interference in Lebanon's internal affairs", pointing the finger at Syria.
Given that General al-Hajj was a supporter of Lebanon's independence perhaps he was also an opponent of US interference in Lebanon's internal affairs? General Hajj is the man who led the Lebanese army's attack on Fatah-al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp and it is quite possible he uncovered evidence linking the CIA or Saudi Intelligence to the affair. The level of intelligence required to carry out such a bombing could also indicate a western backed perpetrator.
As the Globe and Mail put it "al-Hajj was thought to have good relations with Damascus". The Daily Star in Lebanon also pointed out that MP Michel Aoun, leader of the Reform and Change bloc and Hizbollah ally was "a personal friend of Hajj and his nominee to succeed Suleiman as army command". So why would Syria kill him?
But let's face it, who do you think knows more about what's happening in Lebanon? Who is more given to making wild statements without any proof, indeed, where the proof points in the opposite direction? George Bush - who would have difficulty pointing Lebanon out on a map of the world - or the ME press?
According to Al-Ahram "it was unclear that Al-Hajj was associated with either team (pro or anti-Syrians), and the army has never been considered a party in the power struggle. Most Lebanese praise the army as their only non- sectarian national institution. Analysts say Al-Hajj, 55, had good relations with Syria and links with Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun, commander of the army during the Civil War. But then, so would most generals of his generation. Like Suleiman, he was a Maronite Christian.
Al-Hajj would have been among two leading contenders to head the army had Suleiman been appointed president, as agreed by both sides."
Al-Ahram quotes Paul Salem, head of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East Centre in Beirut:
"The most sensitive post subject to the bargaining is who will be the next head of the army, and he was the most prominent candidate,"
Salem says this does not necessarily indicate that an internal faction might be responsible. "The position of the head of the army is of great concern to the big players in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, the US and Saudi Arabia. Each wants to push the army in a certain direction -- the US wants it to be an army that works with them and the Syrians want it to work under them," he said. Note the elephant in the room. No mention here of one of the principal suspects: Israel. But anyway, they must all be suspects, not just Syria and Iran.
In the same article, Omar Nashabe, a criminology expert and justice editor for the pro-opposition daily Al-Akhbar, pointed out the plausibility of Al Qaeda being behind the attacks: "Despite the army's siege of the Nahr Al-Bared Palestinian camp, outside the northern city of Tripoli, the group's leader managed to flee.
"Al-Hajj was head of operations and when they targeted Nahr Al-Bared they weren't able to capture the head of Fatah Al-Islam, Shaker Al-Abssi," Nashabe said. Salem agreed. "If the Fatah Al-Islam people are still around I imagine Al-Hajj would have been one of the targets," he said." However, we know from Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration arranged support for militants including Fatah-al-Islam, that the Saudis were financing Fatah-al-Islam through the Lebanese Hariri, and that many of Fatah-al-Islam's fighters were of Saudi origin.
Hizbollah has also accused the US of "waging a covert war" against them, The accusation followed "reports in the US and British media that the CIA has been authorised to take covert action against the militant Shia group, which receives substantial military backing from Iran, as part of wider strategy by the Bush administration to prevent the spread of Iranian influence in the region." Part of this covert war was an assassination attempt of Nasrullah by Al-Qaeda, according to the Jerusalem Post.
According to Al-Ahram, Nashabe posited another theory. "The martyr François Al-Hajj was in the south coordinating support for the Lebanese resistance [led by Hizbullah]. For that reason the Israelis have tried to kill him in the past," he said, citing military sources close to the late brigadier. He said that attempt had occurred in Rmeish, Al-Hajj's southern hometown. "Finally, he was also in the battlefield when the army was in direct confrontation with the Lebanese Forces in the past," Nashabe said.
The army, under Aoun, and Samir Geagea's right-wing Lebanese Forces fought a bitter "war of elimination" at the tail end of the 1975- 1990 Civil War. Rancour persists between the two Christian leaders. Geagea is now part of the 14 March movement." The account of the Israelis trying to kill al-Hajj was also mentioned by SANA along with Syrian condemnation: "Israel bombed al-Hajj's car in southern Lebanon in 1976 after he refused to cooperate with Israel and the Israeli-backed Lahd militias and threatened him in July 2006 during its aggression against Lebanon. " Iran condemned the assassination and Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini also stressed that the "enemies of Lebanon, in particular the Zionist regime, enjoy maximum benefit from insecurity in Lebanon."
The question that must be asked is, what exactly is the Minister of the Interior of Lebanon up to and who is he aligned with?
Al-Ahram: "there are no official suspects yet in any of the assassinations that started with former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri"
How many have there been? This was the ninth fatality. And Lebanese investigators have no clues on any of the murders? Come on now. Since the resignation of Hassan Al Sabaa, "a Sunni Muslim retired officer loyal to the country's anti-Syrian majority coalition", Sport and Youth Minister Ahmad Fattfat was named acting interior minister. Ahmad Fattfat is Sunni and also profoundly pro-American and anti-Syrian, consequently the slightest proof of Syria being behind these assassinations would be spouted all over the world, and reported to the UN Hariri investigation. It wouldn't be the first time. Conversely, if there was the slightest indication of his allies being involved, do you really think he would say anything? I don't.
11 December 2007
Reply to David Aaronovitch "How to be a mad dictator"
Pure sophistry from arch neo-con and Bush supporter Aaronovitch, - he is an expert at it, passing off false claims in order to deceive.
DA uses the word 'populist' as an insult, and to him it is, as he represents the elites who believe themselves superior to us 'ordinary people', and who Chavez only 'claims' to represent, according to Aaronovitch. The problem with politics and the media today, is that they concentrate on words and ignore actions. Chavez actions actually show that he does represent ordinary people, unlike DA's heroes: the war criminals Bush and Blair, who are true populists claming to represent the people while actually representing big business, That is exactly what this is all about. That's why Chavez is constantly demonised by the likes of DA, and his little friend Oliver Kamm, who are big business' paid rottweilers, there to savage the opposition with insults and false arguments which ironically describe themselves very accurately.You, sir, are a charlatan.
DA uses the word 'populist' as an insult, and to him it is, as he represents the elites who believe themselves superior to us 'ordinary people', and who Chavez only 'claims' to represent, according to Aaronovitch. The problem with politics and the media today, is that they concentrate on words and ignore actions. Chavez actions actually show that he does represent ordinary people, unlike DA's heroes: the war criminals Bush and Blair, who are true populists claming to represent the people while actually representing big business, That is exactly what this is all about. That's why Chavez is constantly demonised by the likes of DA, and his little friend Oliver Kamm, who are big business' paid rottweilers, there to savage the opposition with insults and false arguments which ironically describe themselves very accurately.You, sir, are a charlatan.
04 December 2007
Reply to Oliver Kamm, "A dangerous fantasy"
The only duplicity on view is Oliver Kamm's pompous rhetoric, full of innuendo, double standards, distortions, half-truths and plain lies. The dangerous fantasy lies in Kamm's own mind, and that of his heroes Bush, Blair and 'Bonkers' Bolton, as their hypotheses rely on false premises.
Further, quoting a proven liar such as Blair at the start of one's case, just doesn't quite do anything for one's own credibility, of which Kamm has none anyway.
Kamm conveniently forgets to mention that the NPT applies not only to Iran but to the UK as well. Shhh. Don't mention Trident anyone...and forget about US research into new nuclear bunker busters which are completely against the NPT. Don't you know international treaties don't apply to us, only those in our sights. Oh and most importantly of all, don't mention the Israeli, Pakistani or Indian weapons programmes.
Kamm conveniently forgets that there is no proof that Iran has or ever has had a nuclear weapons programme, and no amount of face-saving from the US Intelligence community's (that must be an oxymoron!) latest NIE can alter that fact. For that's what the NIE is, a face-saver, as they know that Iran has provided answers to all the questions asked by the IAEA, which will now achnowledge that there never was a weapons programme. The NIE presents NO facts to back up their assertion that Iran did indeed have a nuclear weapons programme prior to 2003. None. Zero. Hot air just like Kamm.
"Hizbullah continues to destabilise Lebanese democracy and defy UN security council demands to disarm."Do we really need to remind Kamm exactly what democracy is? He seems to think that a majority has no rights and can undermine its own democracy? What verbal nonsense. Perhaps someone should tell little Oliver, that the Shia are the majority in Lebanon not a minority, without a complete voice yet, and in fact it is the US, Israel, UK, France and Saudi Arabia that are guilty of destabilising Lebanese democracy for their OWN interests not those of the Lebanese. Remember it was the Saudis, in cohorts with the US and aided by Hariri who provided money and arms to Sunni terrorist groups allied to Al Qaeda in the Lebanon, as a counterweight to Hezbollah.
"On its own admission, it has received large amounts of weaponry from Iran via Syria." So what? Israel receives much,much more from the US.
"The death-squad despotism of Bashar al-Assad - a statesman discernibly less intellectually able than George Bush - is engaged in a murder campaign against non-compliant politicians in Lebanon."Once more the insidious Kamm makes value judgements based on what facts? None. Its his opinion, but there are no facts to back it up."Less intellectually able". How on earth does Kamm measure that? "Death-squad despotism"? Perhaps we should remind Kamm of proven death squads, trained by the US: Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, South Korea, Iran, Chile and Uruguay, Cuba, Colombia, Haiti, Vietnam, the list is endless. Also we should not forget Israel also has deaths quads. Where is Kamm's outrage about those?
"Iran's complaints of discriminatory treatment and a denial of its rights under the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) are only slightly less risible than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that Iran has no homosexuals."Why? We are not told.
"But it is clear from this month's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran remains selective in its cooperation with UN requirements."What about Kamm's own selective referral to the NPT? Did he miss this passage "The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran"?
Kamm is also a professional at turning logic on its head: "The likeliest way to increase tension and exacerbate Iran's obstructionism is to act as if the regime has done nothing wrong" and "Avoiding military action requires that the UN pressure Iran to abide by its international obligations as a signatory of the NPT."
Remember, no one, no one has provided any proof of a weapons programme, consequently there is no proof Iran is not abiding by "its international obligations as a signatory of the NPT" which gives it the "the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination". Note the phrase "without discrimination". Yet discrimination is precisely what Kamm is applying here. And if there is no proof of any wrongdoing then why should we not act "as if the regime has done nothing wrong"?
Further, quoting a proven liar such as Blair at the start of one's case, just doesn't quite do anything for one's own credibility, of which Kamm has none anyway.
Kamm conveniently forgets to mention that the NPT applies not only to Iran but to the UK as well. Shhh. Don't mention Trident anyone...and forget about US research into new nuclear bunker busters which are completely against the NPT. Don't you know international treaties don't apply to us, only those in our sights. Oh and most importantly of all, don't mention the Israeli, Pakistani or Indian weapons programmes.
Kamm conveniently forgets that there is no proof that Iran has or ever has had a nuclear weapons programme, and no amount of face-saving from the US Intelligence community's (that must be an oxymoron!) latest NIE can alter that fact. For that's what the NIE is, a face-saver, as they know that Iran has provided answers to all the questions asked by the IAEA, which will now achnowledge that there never was a weapons programme. The NIE presents NO facts to back up their assertion that Iran did indeed have a nuclear weapons programme prior to 2003. None. Zero. Hot air just like Kamm.
"Hizbullah continues to destabilise Lebanese democracy and defy UN security council demands to disarm."Do we really need to remind Kamm exactly what democracy is? He seems to think that a majority has no rights and can undermine its own democracy? What verbal nonsense. Perhaps someone should tell little Oliver, that the Shia are the majority in Lebanon not a minority, without a complete voice yet, and in fact it is the US, Israel, UK, France and Saudi Arabia that are guilty of destabilising Lebanese democracy for their OWN interests not those of the Lebanese. Remember it was the Saudis, in cohorts with the US and aided by Hariri who provided money and arms to Sunni terrorist groups allied to Al Qaeda in the Lebanon, as a counterweight to Hezbollah.
"On its own admission, it has received large amounts of weaponry from Iran via Syria." So what? Israel receives much,much more from the US.
"The death-squad despotism of Bashar al-Assad - a statesman discernibly less intellectually able than George Bush - is engaged in a murder campaign against non-compliant politicians in Lebanon."Once more the insidious Kamm makes value judgements based on what facts? None. Its his opinion, but there are no facts to back it up."Less intellectually able". How on earth does Kamm measure that? "Death-squad despotism"? Perhaps we should remind Kamm of proven death squads, trained by the US: Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, South Korea, Iran, Chile and Uruguay, Cuba, Colombia, Haiti, Vietnam, the list is endless. Also we should not forget Israel also has deaths quads. Where is Kamm's outrage about those?
"Iran's complaints of discriminatory treatment and a denial of its rights under the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) are only slightly less risible than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that Iran has no homosexuals."Why? We are not told.
"But it is clear from this month's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran remains selective in its cooperation with UN requirements."What about Kamm's own selective referral to the NPT? Did he miss this passage "The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran"?
Kamm is also a professional at turning logic on its head: "The likeliest way to increase tension and exacerbate Iran's obstructionism is to act as if the regime has done nothing wrong" and "Avoiding military action requires that the UN pressure Iran to abide by its international obligations as a signatory of the NPT."
Remember, no one, no one has provided any proof of a weapons programme, consequently there is no proof Iran is not abiding by "its international obligations as a signatory of the NPT" which gives it the "the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination". Note the phrase "without discrimination". Yet discrimination is precisely what Kamm is applying here. And if there is no proof of any wrongdoing then why should we not act "as if the regime has done nothing wrong"?
02 December 2007
John Bolton, the hawkish former US ambassador to the UN, says Tehran’s nuclear threat is growing and it will have to be halted by force
Richard Woods' fawning, obeisant report about a criminal who shares responsibility for one of the greatest crimes of our times - the illegal war of aggression on Iraq - and for the deaths of of over a million civilians shows how this country has degenerated into a moral sewer. Bolton's claim to fame? He was US Ambassador to the UN for under a year and a half, having been a 'Recess Appointment' and who was never even ratified by the US Senate.
'Bonkers' Bolton should share the same fate as von Ribbentrop, not be fêted in the pages of the Times!
What's with the British establishment media giving so much time to this madman? It seems he also has a full-time contract with the neo-cons at BBC Newsnight and now this? Even worse, what's with British journalists acting as stenographers for criminals and their outrageous chutzpah with calls to commit yet more crimes?
Is there no decency left in this country or has everyone sold their souls to the devil and his earthly advocates?
Other news: E-mail sent to Laura Bush (comments@whitehouse.gov), 17-nov-2007 13:26.
Attn: First Lady, Mrs.Laura Bush
Dear Mrs. Bush,
While commending you for your recent trip to the ME to prompt awareness of breast cancer in the region, I would like to ask you, as a renowned campaigner on behalf of the oppressed women of Islam, if you will be taking any action, such as speaking to your Saudi friend His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, to help the "Girl from Qatif", a 19-year-old woman who was gang-raped – and has now been sentenced by a Saudi court to six months in jail – and 200 lashes – for the "crime" of being in the car of a man who was not her relative?
Direct intervention by yourself could save this girl from receiving 200 lashes. According to the IHT the decision "was a shocking move". They also report that Saudi judges are "appointed by the king", and have a "wide discretion in handing down sentences, often said to depend on their whim." (1) Consequently, some pressure brought to bear by yourself or your husband could have immediate impact.
I urge you to consider some form of direct action.
Yours Sincerely,
Has she done anything? Of course not.
-------------------------------------------------
UPDATE 18 December 2007.
Saudi king pardons woman who was gang raped
The title would be extremely strange if we had no contaxt wouldn't it? Could my letter to Laura Bush have had anything to do with the pardon. I hope so...
'Bonkers' Bolton should share the same fate as von Ribbentrop, not be fêted in the pages of the Times!
What's with the British establishment media giving so much time to this madman? It seems he also has a full-time contract with the neo-cons at BBC Newsnight and now this? Even worse, what's with British journalists acting as stenographers for criminals and their outrageous chutzpah with calls to commit yet more crimes?
Is there no decency left in this country or has everyone sold their souls to the devil and his earthly advocates?
Other news: E-mail sent to Laura Bush (comments@whitehouse.gov), 17-nov-2007 13:26.
Attn: First Lady, Mrs.Laura Bush
Dear Mrs. Bush,
While commending you for your recent trip to the ME to prompt awareness of breast cancer in the region, I would like to ask you, as a renowned campaigner on behalf of the oppressed women of Islam, if you will be taking any action, such as speaking to your Saudi friend His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, to help the "Girl from Qatif", a 19-year-old woman who was gang-raped – and has now been sentenced by a Saudi court to six months in jail – and 200 lashes – for the "crime" of being in the car of a man who was not her relative?
Direct intervention by yourself could save this girl from receiving 200 lashes. According to the IHT the decision "was a shocking move". They also report that Saudi judges are "appointed by the king", and have a "wide discretion in handing down sentences, often said to depend on their whim." (1) Consequently, some pressure brought to bear by yourself or your husband could have immediate impact.
I urge you to consider some form of direct action.
Yours Sincerely,
Has she done anything? Of course not.
-------------------------------------------------
UPDATE 18 December 2007.
Saudi king pardons woman who was gang raped
The title would be extremely strange if we had no contaxt wouldn't it? Could my letter to Laura Bush have had anything to do with the pardon. I hope so...
15 November 2007
Reply to Jonathan Freedland
Jonathan Freedland shows his own deep prejudices when he states: "artfully keeping each option - carrots, sticks and sharper sticks - in play."
Is Iran a donkey? Of course not, it is a civilised nation, in fact their civilisation is older than ours...the constant treatment of sovereign nations as donkeys that have to be prodded with a stick or rewarded with a carrot is deeply insulting, prejudiced and possibly even racist.
Freedland also plays dumb when he wants to: "why, if civil nuclear power is all the Iranians want, they don't simply import enriched uranium from abroad."
Well as Freedland, well knows, Iran sits on top of not only natural gas and oil but also natural uranium and mines it, why should they not enrich their own - it is after all described as an an "inalienable right" in the NPT? Why should they have to buy from privatised western corporations?
How does Freedland know what people in power are thinking? Or does he just take their statements at face value without comparing them to actual deeds instead...otherwise what are we to make of this: "These signals, and several others, have persuaded governments - and not only those in Washington and Jerusalem - that, even if there is not definitive, fizzing-fuse proof of an Iranian bomb, this is the direction in which the Iranians are heading".
These rhetorical acrobatics are becoming more and more transparent for their falseness; "It is this record of evasion, "of lying and cheating to the International Atomic Energy Agency", according to Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, that has persuaded many otherwise doveish European governments that Tehran is up to something."
This twisting of meanings has now been rebutted by CASMII in their letter published in todays Guardian:
"Rather than being a theory dreamt up by bloggers, the absence of evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran is a fact (Jonathan Freedland, November 14). The IAEA, the only international body qualified to monitor Iran's nuclear plans, has repeatedly said there's no proof whatsoever that Iran's uranium enrichment is for anything other than its civilian nuclear programme. While Iran's earlier concealment of its nuclear programme might give cause for suspicion, this took place against a backdrop of a US trade embargo aimed at preventing civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran.Stefan SimanowitzCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention Against Iran"
Other rubbish from Freedland - the existential threat to Isreal. This is of course complete rubbish and has been discredited by the Guardians own Jonathan Steele. Doesn't Freedland read his own colleagues? Or did he just 'forget' it?
Iran would never launch an unprovoked attack on Israel, it would defeat any object - they would be immediatey wiped off the map themselves by both Israel and the US, they would also wipe Palestine off the map, and kill millions of fellow Muslims in the surrounding countries. What has happened to common sense with media commentarists these days? Do they willfully play the 3 monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) when it suits them? No, the wiped off the map accusation has been well and truly discredited by Farsi scholars, ah so we better find another reason - oh sure - why not 'proliferation', that's always a good one.
Well a better start would be for the 5 'official' nuclear powers (also - what a coincidence! - the veto wielding members of the Security Council) to comply with their own oblgations under the NPT. Yet, what about the the Pakistani and Indian nuclear programmes? These have been virtually sanctioned by the international community and they're not even signatories to the NPT. What amazing double standards.
Curious isn't it that in all his analysis of the sticks, Freedland forgets the elephant in the room.: Israel. No mention of any possible attack by Israel. I wonder why considering all the threats coming from that militarised occupier of others, who recently launched a war of aggression on Lebanon, and left over a million 'presents' in Lebanon in the last days of the war (cluster bombs)...and who have consistently used collective punishment against civilians.
Pathetic effort Freedland. And the biggest joke is that you get paid for this crap...
Is Iran a donkey? Of course not, it is a civilised nation, in fact their civilisation is older than ours...the constant treatment of sovereign nations as donkeys that have to be prodded with a stick or rewarded with a carrot is deeply insulting, prejudiced and possibly even racist.
Freedland also plays dumb when he wants to: "why, if civil nuclear power is all the Iranians want, they don't simply import enriched uranium from abroad."
Well as Freedland, well knows, Iran sits on top of not only natural gas and oil but also natural uranium and mines it, why should they not enrich their own - it is after all described as an an "inalienable right" in the NPT? Why should they have to buy from privatised western corporations?
How does Freedland know what people in power are thinking? Or does he just take their statements at face value without comparing them to actual deeds instead...otherwise what are we to make of this: "These signals, and several others, have persuaded governments - and not only those in Washington and Jerusalem - that, even if there is not definitive, fizzing-fuse proof of an Iranian bomb, this is the direction in which the Iranians are heading".
These rhetorical acrobatics are becoming more and more transparent for their falseness; "It is this record of evasion, "of lying and cheating to the International Atomic Energy Agency", according to Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, that has persuaded many otherwise doveish European governments that Tehran is up to something."
This twisting of meanings has now been rebutted by CASMII in their letter published in todays Guardian:
"Rather than being a theory dreamt up by bloggers, the absence of evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran is a fact (Jonathan Freedland, November 14). The IAEA, the only international body qualified to monitor Iran's nuclear plans, has repeatedly said there's no proof whatsoever that Iran's uranium enrichment is for anything other than its civilian nuclear programme. While Iran's earlier concealment of its nuclear programme might give cause for suspicion, this took place against a backdrop of a US trade embargo aimed at preventing civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran.Stefan SimanowitzCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention Against Iran"
Other rubbish from Freedland - the existential threat to Isreal. This is of course complete rubbish and has been discredited by the Guardians own Jonathan Steele. Doesn't Freedland read his own colleagues? Or did he just 'forget' it?
Iran would never launch an unprovoked attack on Israel, it would defeat any object - they would be immediatey wiped off the map themselves by both Israel and the US, they would also wipe Palestine off the map, and kill millions of fellow Muslims in the surrounding countries. What has happened to common sense with media commentarists these days? Do they willfully play the 3 monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) when it suits them? No, the wiped off the map accusation has been well and truly discredited by Farsi scholars, ah so we better find another reason - oh sure - why not 'proliferation', that's always a good one.
Well a better start would be for the 5 'official' nuclear powers (also - what a coincidence! - the veto wielding members of the Security Council) to comply with their own oblgations under the NPT. Yet, what about the the Pakistani and Indian nuclear programmes? These have been virtually sanctioned by the international community and they're not even signatories to the NPT. What amazing double standards.
Curious isn't it that in all his analysis of the sticks, Freedland forgets the elephant in the room.: Israel. No mention of any possible attack by Israel. I wonder why considering all the threats coming from that militarised occupier of others, who recently launched a war of aggression on Lebanon, and left over a million 'presents' in Lebanon in the last days of the war (cluster bombs)...and who have consistently used collective punishment against civilians.
Pathetic effort Freedland. And the biggest joke is that you get paid for this crap...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
