For instance, doesn't anyone find it slightly curious at the fact that Western journalists, the BBC's valiant Ragheb Omar among them, can still be found in downtown Baghdad? More so, is it not slightly odd that no one is objecting to cameras being panned around those who are preparing for the coming onslaught?

Who is this Saddam guy? Moreover, what kind of leader is he? If I was in his position right now, I would have got the ball rolling and rounded all of these pesky journalists up. To be used as "human shields", or something. Instead we are being treated, in the comfort of our own homes, to the sight of what those brave B-52 pilots are up against. A few old guys and a bearded chap in a khaki uniform piling up sandbags. At least this time there can be no excuse if the American's legendary "smart bombs" go off target.

But all said and done - Iraq is a thread to world peace and freedom, after all...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
For instance, doesn't anyone find it slightly curious at the fact that Western journalists, the BBC's valiant Ragheb Omar among them, can still be found in downtown Baghdad? More so, is it not slightly odd that no one is objecting to cameras being panned around those who are preparing for the coming onslaught?

---

Here's what I wrote elsewhere - I think it answers your question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Foreign reporters in Baghdad are permitted to be there only because Saddam considers it worthwhile in propaganda terms. Expect to see dead baby photocalls galore pretty soon, along with atrocity photos circulating on the net puporting to show the 'truth'. The information war is hardly a one-sided affair.

---

Saddam is no fool. Many of his presidential palaces and other quasi-military/governmental facilities are deliberately located in the heart of residential areas. He is aware of the value of footage showing wounded Iraqi civilians and even tonight we saw the first instance of news crews being escorted round casualty wards. He has become adept, over the past 12 years, at dividing world opinion; this is just the latest stage of the game, as far as he is concerned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
Having seen much of the preliminary footage of this so-called "war", I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is nothing but a publicity stunt, a work of Hollywood. Indeed, every time I switch on that box in the corner of the lounge I half expect Steven Spielberg to pop out.

---

Fr. clever Jean Baudrillard got there with a similar opinion after the first Gulf War.

quote:

---

If I was in his position right now, I would have got the ball rolling and rounded all of these pesky journalists up. To be used as "human shields", or something

---

It seems that this possibility is on the mind of at least one journalist, Anton Antonowicz from The Mirror.

quote:

---

But we also have to deal with an obvious suspicion. And this is the one which makes you wake, as I did, in a cold sweat this morning. What if we are used as shields?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Saddam is no fool. Many of his presidential palaces and other quasi-military/governmental facilities are deliberately located in the heart of residential areas. He is aware of the value of footage showing wounded Iraqi civilians and even tonight we saw the first instance of news crews being escorted round casualty wards. He has become adept, over the past 12 years, at dividing world opinion; this is just the latest stage of the game, as far as he is concerned.

---

I agree in part. I just find it bizarre that soldiers "shoring up the city defences" are allowing themselves to be seen on camera.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
before we start criticising Saddam

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
lol - yeah, fair do's to him, the loveable old rogue.

---

Then there's the Hollywood-director-designed war briefing room. Which holds daily briefings for the journalists - just in time for the US evening primetime slots. (Which is also when the first missile attacks occurred)

Then there's Blair's speech last night. Recorded yesterday afternoon and then supplied to the various TV stations for broadcast later. During the speech there were various shots of his clasped hands, poigniant close ups - all as if it were filmed by a TV company and edited nicely - but it wasn't, it was done by the government. There's so much spin going on, I'm surprised Tony isn't dizzy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Whatever the history, any sort of attempt to draw equivalence between Saddam's regime and our own is grotesque. What is this thing you have, Rick, for mustachioed mass murderers?

---

I haven't drawn up any equivalence here. I simply stated that until the late 1980s he was indeed seen by the US as something of a "lovable old rogue", like Mobuto Sese Seko in what-was-known-as Zaïre.

Donald "Rummie" Rumsfeld, probably the leading "hawk" in Washington, was heavily
involved in the sale of the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" - the now nauseating four-word mantra that Blair seems to love uttering at every available opportunity.

It seems that the Americans will stop at nothing, even blatant hypocrisy, to get their agenda across.

This "war" has nothing to do with disarming Saddam. The Americans armed him in the first place. It has nothing to do with him killing Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims, for the Americans for a long time turned a blind eye as Saddam continued shelling them with mustard gas manufactured in the good ole US of A. It has nothing to do with the enforcing of freedom and democracy, for if this were the case we would have seen US troops go into action in far more undemocratic states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saddam is a "dangerous man". Pardon me if I am wrong here, but he was just as "dangerous", if not more so, in 1990, 1985 or 1980.

"Democracy"? Rubbish. Freedom? Bullshit.

To be fair I truly believe Tony Blair believes what he is doing is good, and that he truly believes Bush is motivated in the same way and for the same reasons. Blair does actually believe in securing freedom for the Iraqi people from a tyrannical régime, and stabilising the situation in the Middle East. He has, for example, pledged his committed support to the so-called "roadmap" to peace in the region, part of which guarantees the creation of an independent Palestine. On Question Time on Thursday, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain cited a date for this - 2005.

2005. Completely unrealistic, cloud cuckooland stuff. Blair, Hain and the rest of the in-the-clouds Labour hierarchy may truly believe this, but to someone like Bush, whose pockets are lined with Zionist cash, it is little more than a ruse to satiate those Arab states who might otherwise go in the opposite direction. While Bush is prattling on about this "roadmap", his goverment has done and continues to do nothing to stop the building of further settlements by Zionist invaders. To implement such a plan, these people will have to be evicted. Will this happen? Of course not. All we will hear is yet more regurgitated crap about Jews being deported and displaced. Like the 1930s and 1940s. Hitler. Nazis. Holocaust. Yawn.

Blair is an honest man, but a misguided fool. It is his mistake that he has chosen to follow someone as indolent as George W. Bush, someone who filled live frogs with firecrackers and used them as "grenades" when he was a youngster. A drug user, alcoholic turned religious zealot. A man who as a teenager lined up his siblings in "mock" executions, and who, despite his proclamations about the Iraqi leadership, has a secret longing to be a dictator. And we are calling Saddam mad?

The very fact that a moron like Bush has attained the position of President of United States is in itself suspicious. The fact is that the man is a tool, in both senses of the word. He does not represent mainstream America - the "folks" who only care about guns, taxes and abortion and who don't even know where the hell Canada, let alone Iraq, is - he is funded by, and hence represents, a section of American society whose fundamental aims are if anything contrary to the American national interest.

The United States has nothing to fear from Iraq; it would, it appears have more to fear from some of its more objective (yet foolhardy, given the nature of the American political machinery) politicians, such as Senator Jim Moran, and brave editors, such as those at the Toledo Blade.

What about him? Saying that he didn't actually murder anyone....

I'm more concered that biscuits tend to be named after revolutionaries, myself. There's your Bourbon, your Garibaldi and then there's always the Peek Frean Marxist Assortment...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefanos:

What about him?

---

Aah, Sir Oswald. But he was never a dictator. In his own head maybe. But that is all.

quote:

---

I'm more concered that biscuits tend to be named after revolutionaries, myself. There's your Bourbon, your Garibaldi and then there's always the Peek Frean Marxist Assortment...

---

The Bourbons were anything but revolutionaries, YOU IDIOT!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
The Bourbons were anything but revolutionaries, YOU IDIOT!

---

I would have got away for it, if it wasn't your rebuttal...

As for Moseley: He was good looking and hansome, like Richard Burton, 'cos I saw him on the box once, with his black shirt on. He could have been a great dictator, given half a chance, but they treated him like a traitor, so he went to live in France...

Apparently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
The United States has nothing to fear from Iraq; it would, it appears have more to fear from some of its more objective (yet foolhardy, given the nature of the American political machinery) politicians, such as Senator Jim Moran, and brave editors, such as those at the Toledo Blade.

---

James Moran - so objective he accepted (then was made to return) thousands of dollars of Saudi cash (like that other character, Findley, you've previously deferred to). To describe either individual as "objective" when both have long-nursed grudges against the shadowy "Jews that are out to get them" would seem to be either deluded or calculated to mislead.

I suppose one has to applaud your consistency. Even while people were still dying in the WTC (including, despite various racist urban legends, Jews) you were crowing about how it was the "the fault" of Israel.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is clearly a running sore in political and human terms, but to harp on that as the root cause of all calamity is to buy into the rhetoric of Bin Laden. He knows that to play the Palestine card is to win him instant legitimacy in the hearts of millions throughout the Arab world... regardless of the fact that his aims are more to do with deposing and replacing the House of Saud... and that those of his followers have more to do with - variously - being alienated outsiders in exclusive Western societies, being repressed by home-grown (usually non-Jewish, it may surprise you to learn) despots and being on the shitty end of the societal inequalities that most Arab governments make it their business to perpetuate.

Palestine is a rallying cry - a great myth of a parasitic occupier on the whole of the Arab world; a myth that suggests that if only this parasite were to be extirpated then life in the region would be hunky dory.

To go along with this myth - I can't imagine you really see it as anything other than - is profoundly stupid and/or irresponsible.

Also: how depressingly predictable that you sourced the above cartoon from discredited Holocaust denier David Irving's increasingly scrappy and unhinged site. It's no surprise to find Irving's stance on Palestine, the "Jewish Lobby" and the 'War on Terror' reprised practically word-for-word in your posts.

Fundamentalist Arab groups, for obvious reasons, are more or less the only bodies still keen to give the missionaries of Holocaust denial the platforms they crave - but are denied - elsewhere.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bush a Zionist puppet? You'll have to do better than simply regurgitating the half-baked opinions of disaffected congressmen. Providing evidence (important concept, that: evidence) of the proportion of Bush's financial backing derived from "Zionist" sources might be a start... but I can't imagine you'll find anything other than an awful lot of sponsors in big business/oil/weapons manufacture.

(I doubt this will stop you from keening about the number of industrialists with "Jewish-sounding names" - which naturally equates with them being mini-Netanyahus, of course.)

Fans of free speech will be delighted to hear that my review of Telling Lies About Hitler, which was supressed by those fucking weasels at amazon.co.uk, has appeared on the WHSmith website.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Palestine is a rallying cry - a great myth of a parasitic occupier on the whole of the Arab world; a myth that suggests that if only this parasite were to be extirpated then life in the region would be hunky dory.

To go along with this myth - I can't imagine you really see it as anything other than - is profoundly stupid and/or irresponsible.

---

Agreed, up to a point. Of course you're right Ben, when you say that fundamentalists like Bin Laden, and oppressive regimes like the Saudis or the Syrians exploit the conflict in Palestine to divert the attention of their populations away from their own failure to provide a democratic civil society for them.

However, knowing that something is a myth doesn't diminish its power. The fact is that unless the situation of the Palestinians is dealt with in a just manner, there won't be any stability in the Middle East for precisely the reasons you mentioned. There are certain facts that are difficult to overcome: Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian lands, Israel is in breach of numerous Security Council resolutions, Israel does regularly breach human rights in these regions and the conduct of the IDF in the West Bank and Gaza is comparable with the behaviour of the Yugoslav army in Kosovo before the bombing of Belgrade (although not after, as once the conflict had started Milosevic's troops dramatically increased the severity of their tactics and the toll on the Kosovo civilian population became much worse). The fact that, as is so regularly touted in the US media, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East (although Lebanon and Turkey might dispute this) doesn't lessen the fact that their hands are as bloody as any of their neighbours, except for Saddam.

Until this is addressed, the bin Ladens and the Saddams of the region will be able to point to Western support for Israel, and justify their own actions, and win support of "ordinary" Arabs, because the points they make will contain had hint of truth.

It's analagous to the socialist interpretation of the situation that existed in Northern Ireland. A number of left-wing groups in the late 70s began to make the argument that the conflict in NI was the result of class inequality, and of poverty and neglect in the working-class communities of both traditions. If these could be addressed, then the conflict would go away. Of course, they were wrong. Well, I think they were right in their analysis, but wrong in their solution. The "national question" had to be addressed first, even though it wasn't necessarily the most important thing in people's lives, even though nations and national identity were artificial constructs etc etc etc, but because until it was dealt with, no real political progress was achievable.

quote:

---

Bush a Zionist puppet? You'll have to do better than simply regurgitating the half-baked opinions of disaffected congressmen. Providing evidence (important concept, that: evidence) of the proportion of Bush's financial backing derived from "Zionist" sources might be a start... but I can't imagine you'll find anything other than an awful lot of sponsors in big business/oil/weapons manufacture

---

Again agreed, up to a point. There's a very nasty tendency that can be seen emerging in certain left-wing circles, and that is particularly noticeable on sites like Indymedia where you get spurious connections between American Jewish businesses and US support for Israel. There's was one piece circulating that I found particularly offensive, where it listed a load of members of the Bush administration and their connections with Israel. When it was talking about certain links with Ariel Sharon, fine, that made a point, but it ended up listing people whose "connections" were being involved in local Jewish community groups. That crossed a line. It's true that there is a strong pro-Israel lobby in the US, not just involving certain Jewish groups, but also among the (much stronger) fundamentalist groups like the Christian coalition. It's also true, though, that Jewish-led groups and individual Jewish activists have often been the strongest left-wing, anti-establishment voices in US civil society. Moshe Dayan might have been Jewish, but so is Noam Chomsky. It's not religion that matters, it's politics.

On the other hand, it is possible to look at links between the Bush administration and the current Israeli government, and draw connections from it. Both Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have worked as political consultants for Likud, while Clinton was in power. The strategy that they're following now in terms of their foreign policy is based in papers that were written first for Netanyahu and latterly for Sharon, a policy based on unilateralism and the end of negotiation with the Palestinian leadership under the pretext of "state security". Why I find this worrying is not because it's any kind of evidence of a grand Zionist conspiracy controlling the US political system, but because I think it indicates that's it's unlikely that after the current war, the Bush administration will have any real interest in the creation of a Palestinian state or a equitable resolution to the situation. Which will be bad not just for the Palestinians, but also bad for the people of Israel, although good for Likud, whose political popularity rests in being seen as the "anti-terrorist" party while the population of Israel tends these days to be more left-leaning and more in sympathy with Labour on other, domestic issues.

************************************

Quick other point. Cheers for the review link Ben. I'll look that book, as soon as I've ploughed my way through Gravity's stupid bloody poxy Rainbow

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
James Moran - so objective he accepted (then was made to return) thousands of dollars of Saudi cash (like that other character, Findley, you've previously deferred to). To describe either individual as "objective" when both have long-nursed grudges against the shadowy "Jews that are out to get them" would seem to be either deluded or calculated to mislead.

---

OK, so Moran might have been offered cash by the Saudis. But that makes against the many who have been bought off by members of the Zionist lobby. I agree that these days Paul Findley can be seen as less than objective. But over thirty years of investigations has done much to strenthen his opinions about who controls what in Washington DC.

There have been plenty of hush-up campaigns engineered by the Zionist lobby; more recently we have had the story of Clinton's friends Mark Rich and traitor Jonathan Jay Pollard (a spy who stole US secrets, gave them to the Israelis who in turn - get this - sold them onto the USSR, while going back a few years we find the story of the cover-up over the USS Liberty, a story that chilled my blood. Israel at first denied the link to Pollard, only to make him an official citizen. The country is still lobbying heavily for his release from an US jail.

This is not good-old fashioned "anti-semitic" talk. The power of AIPAC, one of the larger Zionist activist groups, was highlighted by Fortune magazine in a 1997 article on Washington "insiders".

quote:

---

I suppose one has to applaud your consistency. Even while people were still dying in the WTC (including, despite various racist urban legends, Jews) you were crowing about how it was the "the fault" of Israel.

---

It's not the fault of Israel. It's the fault of those in the United States who appear to put Israeli and Zionist interests before those of their own people.

quote:

---

The situation in Israel/Palestine is clearly a running sore in political and human terms, but to harp on that as the root cause of all calamity is to buy into the rhetoric of Bin Laden. He knows that to play the Palestine card is to win him instant legitimacy in the hearts of millions throughout the Arab world... regardless of the fact that his aims are more to do with deposing and replacing the House of Saud... and that those of his followers have more to do with - variously - being alienated outsiders in exclusive Western societies, being repressed by home-grown (usually non-Jewish, it may surprise you to learn) despots and being on the shitty end of the societal inequalities that most Arab governments make it their business to perpetuate.

---

Bin Laden is just one of the many. The man is an odious creature indeed, but if the cause were to be removed so would the obvious effects. Bin Laden may well have his own agenda, but in different circumstances he would find it incredibly difficult to drum any sort of support.

quote:

---

Palestine is a rallying cry - a great myth of a parasitic occupier on the whole of the Arab world; a myth that suggests that if only this parasite were to be extirpated then life in the region would be hunky dory.

---

To say things would be "hunky dory" is of course silly; however, the extirpation - your word - of this parasite - again, your word - would do much to alleviate much of the hatred of the West that has built up over the past fifty years.

quote:

---

To go along with this myth - I can't imagine you really see it as anything other than - is profoundly stupid and/or irresponsible.

---

In the 1940s, the Arabs counted themselves among this country's staunchest allies. Today, half of them want to kill us. Something has clearly changed. One simply cannot dismiss as a "myth".

quote:

---

Also: how depressingly predictable that you sourced the above cartoon from discredited Holocaust denier David Irving's increasingly scrappy and unhinged site.

---

As you might expect, I pay frequent visits to Irving's site. Carp if you wish. He usually posts up a selection of cartoons, some of which are funny as well as topical. It certainly saves me having to waste time trawling the web.

quote:

---

It's no surprise to find Irving's stance on Palestine, the "Jewish Lobby" and the 'War on Terror' reprised practically word-for-word in your posts.

---

My posts are all written independently, but yes I would not be surprised if he is saying something similar. But then again so are other people, from left, right and centre.

quote:

---

Fundamentalist Arab groups, for obvious reasons, are more or less the only bodies still keen to give the missionaries of Holocaust denial the platforms they crave - but are denied - elsewhere.

---

I have no truck with fundamentalists. What I do believe in, however, is that British lives are being lost in what is an Zionist-American escapade. And when when the body bags start returning to American shores, I'm certain that a good many people in that country will witness the scales falling away from their eyes.

quote:

---

Bush a Zionist puppet? You'll have to do better than simply regurgitating the half-baked opinions of disaffected congressmen.

---

Every American president since the war has in some shape or form been influenced by the Zionist lobbies in Washington. You deride him, but read Findley's books. Read what he has to say. Go and check out the sources. Check out the facts. Query them, analyse them.

quote:

---

Providing evidence (important concept, that: evidence) of the proportion of Bush's financial backing derived from "Zionist" sources might be a start... but I can't imagine you'll find anything other than an awful lot of sponsors in big business/oil/weapons manufacture.

---

Of course this is going to be the case. But I would also study the funding of individual politicians as well. And how the press reacts whenever a politician says or does the "wrong" thing. That said, I very much doubt anyone will be be able to get hold of information regarding Bushie's funding, so this argument is a bit of a straw man.

quote:

---

(I doubt this will stop you from keening about the number of industrialists with "Jewish-sounding names" - which naturally equates with them being mini-Netanyahus, of course.)

---

Not necessary. I've probably done it before, anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Item!

Fans of free speech will be delighted to hear that my review of Telling Lies About Hitler, which was supressed by those fucking weasels at amazon.co.uk, has appeared on the WHSmith website.

Rejoice. Just rejoice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
"Weasels" at amazon.com? More info, maybe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank:
The fact that, as is so regularly touted in the US media, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East (although Lebanon and Turkey might dispute this) doesn't lessen the fact that their hands are as bloody as any of their neighbours, except for Saddam.

---

To clarify: I was taking the appalling record of Israeli maximalism as read - a stupid thing to do, perhaps, given that the media here (and ten times more so in the US) often fails to provide this context to the current troubles. It's always useful to have the catalogue of horrors perpetrated by demagogues like Sharon rehearsed - kind of explains why Israel's such a lousy advertisement for democracy at a regional level.

I agree also that the Israel/Palestine conflict ought to be the priority of all the interested powers in the region if anything like "stability" is ever to be aimed for.

What strikes me as the more depressingly analogous situation, however, is the sorry history of how the leaders of Africa's nations turned Apartheid into the colossal bogeyman of the continent for three decades - effectively sweeping under the carpet the outrages they perpetrated in their own countries. How edifying it was to see delegate after delegate at the Organisation for African Unity rant and rave about the iniquity of the Apartheid regime when thousands of their own countrymen were being butchered, tortured or starved according to racial or political dogma.

In the West the interminable feudal, ethnic or ideological slaughters that were taking place between blacks became so much background noise when compared with the epic and morally clear-cut struggle between a clique of white bigots on the one hand and a multi-racial coalition on the other.

Similarly, it's easy to say which side of the line you stand when presented with the contest between helicopter gunship and teenager with a slingshot - such an simple and unequivocal decision... and perhaps preferable to concentrate only on that than begin to try to consider the patchwork of despotism, feudalism, nascent liberalism, religious fundamentalism and dynastic conflict that comprises the remainder of the Arab world.

What troubles me is that we seem to see again this fucked up equation that weighs the value of a life that's taken in terms of the race of the person who took it. In Africa throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s the lives of murdered blacks seemed somehow mean something (in political terms, in media terms) if they were killed by whites. The blacks killed on a (regularly) genocidal scale by other blacks were just so many zeroes to be added to the death-roll.

Fast forward to the early 21st century and an Arab child killed by Isaeli snipers (the inevitable and disgusting "justification" being the 'crossfire') becomes an icon to Muslims around the world. An Arab child shot, starved or tortured by an Arab state, (let's say Algeria) on the other hand... well... who gives a fuck?

quote:

---

Until this is addressed, the bin Ladens and the Saddams of the region will be able to point to Western support for Israel, and justify their own actions, and win support of "ordinary" Arabs, because the points they make will contain had hint of truth.

---

Again, I fully agree that Palestine must be addressed urgently - but I'm deeply sceptical that bin Laden and his like will disappear in a puff of sulphurous smoke the moment the Palestinians have some sort of viable state. For a start, the very fact that al-Queda has conducted operations ranging across four or five continents - often using personnel who have as much connection with the Palestinians as I do with the Tamil Tigers - suggests that rather than being a body with "cells" (the most common terrorist metaphor) al-Queda is more like a growth that emits spores... taking root and growing wherever they land on fertile soil.

Islamist terrorists in Indonesia may genuflect to the Palestinian problem, but their chief motives for action will have sprung from very much more local grievances - and it won't really do to start searching for the nearest branch of an American multinational to pin the blame on them.

quote:

---

On the other hand, it is possible to look at links between the Bush administration and the current Israeli government, and draw connections from it. Both Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have worked as political consultants for Likud, while Clinton was in power.

---

As you say, these sort of linkages are a cause for nothing but despair; one can only hope that the Israeli electorate will soon approach the point where the patent failure of the "anti-terrorist" party to protect Israel from terrorism (the opposite, in fact) will impel them to vote differently. It's a cliche, but worth re-stating, that both the Palestinians and the Israelis have been pretty fucking ill-served by their leaders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
however, the extirpation - your word - of this parasite - again, your word - would do much to alleviate much of the hatred of the West that has built up over the past fifty years.

---

quote:

---

The Conservative leader is dead from his one-eighth Japanese neck up

---

quote:

---

why the perspiration on Powell's cafe-au-lait brow at the Security Council

---

Moreover! and here, to be fair, is another example of Rick's presence leading me to read documents of which I would otherwise be unaware.

quote:

---

The very low death toll of 130 suggested that a number of Israelis at the Trade Center had been warned before the attack.

When I found out the truth that only one Israeli had died, there could be no doubt that there had been a prior warning for many Israelis.

Having only one Israeli casualty among the 4,500 dead at the WTC is simply a statistical impossibility.

The next thing I researched was to see if there were any confirmed warnings to Israelis prior to the attack.

I quickly found an article in Newsbytes, a news service of the Washington Post, titled "Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack." The Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, also confirmed the prior warnings to Israel and confirmed that the FBI is investigating the warnings.

The articles detailed that an Israeli messaging firm, Odigo, with offices in both the World Trade Center and in Israel, received a number of warnings just two hours before the attack. [...]

Now, who would have warned Israelis of the impending attack, if not Israel's Mossad?

---

Admittedly, the above isn't from Irving, but "Ed Toner". But I don't know what kind of warning they seem to be jointly imagining. Here is Irving's suggestion:

quote:

---

On this Ha'aretz web page, they post thumbnail bios of the five (count 'em --- five) Israeli victims of 9/11. They include:

2 people on the ill-fated flights (1 woman, 1 man -- the Mossad agent Daniel Levin, shot by a hijacker sitting behind him on AA11)
1 deaf, 51-year-old London-born janitor who was working at the WTC that day
1 29-year-old man who was also at work (at Cantor Fitzgerald)
1 34-year-old man who happened to be at the WTC for a meeting

If the word went around to skip work that day -- and there is only the most tenuous evidence that it did -- the poor deaf janitor did not hear it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
"My words"? I used them in the context of a myth. You are taking them at face value. There's a big difference, Rick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
I repeat: I used them in the context of what I explicitly stated to be a myth - you used them at face value. Referring back to me ("your word") was the opposite of clarifying or covering your back.

---

Not so. But at least we didn't end up going down the usual "quote and misquote" route.

quote:

---

Out of interest, how would you go about "extirpating" the Israeli "parasite"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
Not so. But at least we didn't end up going down the usual "quote and misquote" route.

---

"Not so"? Well, all people have to do is scroll up. It's you that ends up looking foolish.

Also: nice move - referring snidely to "usual tactics" about which neither of us have the evidence to either prove or disprove. Very inventive. Can I also expect to see references to "those pictures of nude children you used to post, ben" ??

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
"Not so"? Well, all people have to do is scroll up. It's you that ends up looking foolish.

---

That is a matter of interpretation.

quote:

---

Also: nice move - referring snidely to "usual tactics" about which neither of us have the evidence to either prove or disprove. Very inventive. Can I also expect to see references to "those pictures of nude children you used to post, ben" ??

---

I stand by this. In most if not all of our debates in the past, you have this nasty habit of attributing statements to me that are false.

One such example that has taken place in this thread is your assumption that I am in some way or another trying to create some sort of moral equivalence between Saddam's regime and our own - by this I expect you mean the British government - when I made it perfectly clear that my intention was to expose American hypocrisy, and point out a few of the contradictions that can lead one to conclude that Bush's "moral" arguments for launching what is a childish game - "shock and awe", lololol - is little more than a sham.

Your pre-holocaust-denial diaspora-fixation, for instance. Your embarassing board/meat wooing of Olamide and the ensuing descriptions of her humiliating sexual pecadilloes (which you neither failed to fulfill, nor failed to catalogue.) Your attempts to silence her when she threatened (and occasionally succeeded) in trashing your 'research'. Unfortunately I saved none of those pages or posts, although I do keenly remember her dismissal of you as a 'dickless propagandist' and her long post about the beating you gave her, to celebrate the purchase of (and to break in) your Panzer tank-commader's gloves. She said she enjoyed it. Remember? Because it was the last beating she would ever allow you to give her.

Remember?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
I stand by this. In most if not all of our debates in the past, you have this nasty habit of attributing statements to me that are false.

One such example that has taken place in this thread is your assumption that I am in some way or another trying to create some sort of moral equivalence between Saddam's regime and our own

---

Interpreting your posts in that (imo justified) way is very different from "attributing statements that are false" - please provide an example of where I've done the latter. I've always taken care to quote your own words back at you and in the sense they were originally intended (something, funnily enough, you failed to do with my own words above.)

Unless you can provide an example of where I've "attributed statements that are false" it seems simply that you are chucking around baseless accusations. Not a sign of someone who's sure of his arguments.

quote:

---

I made it perfectly clear that my intention was to expose American hypocrisy, and point out a few of the contradictions that can lead one to conclude that Bush's "moral" arguments for launching what is a childish game - "shock and awe", lololol - is little more than a sham.

---

Your demented cackling is difficult to square with the pictures broadcast this morning of an assortment of gutted Iraqi ministries and presidential palaces - amid a city that seems otherwise to be functioning much more closely to "normality" (in terms of civilians being able to go about their business) than anyone could have hoped. Does this mean that Stop The War coalition will refrain from talking about "carpet bombing"? Probably not - but given that civilian casualties (inevitable, even with a comparatively precisely targeted bombardment such as last night's) have already taken place your description of this as a "childish game" is tasteless to say the very least.

quote:

---

In my first long post I highlighted a number of factors which make this war anything but a "moral" crusade. Perhaps you can respond in kind, and at the same time, perhaps, provide your own personal justification for supporting the Blair-Bush effort.

---

Hmmm. It seemed to me that in your first long post you did little apart from reporting with approval the ahem "objective" opinions of a ragbag of congressional misfits; namely, the tired old stuff about Zionist control of Washington etc etc

quote:

---

Two Royal Navy Sea King helicopters collided in mid-air over international waters in the Gulf, killing all seven crew on board. The Sea King Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft went down at around 0130GMT, 0430 local time.

Reports say that one helicopter was coming in to land as the other was starting out on its mission. Sea Kings normally fly with a crew of three, six of the fatalities are British, the seventh casualty is reported to be an American.

It was the second fatal helicopter crash involving British troops in twenty-four hours, following the crash of a US Marine CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter in northern Kuwait yesterday. All twelve on board were killed, including the four American crew and eight Commandos. Neither crash involved enemy fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:

Final, yet more grim, thought: even a "viable" Palestinian state is likely always to have Israel as its main trading partner, employer etc etc - is it conceivable that there will ever be a Palestinian leadership that wouldn't trace every single one of its woes back to Israel?
:washdownsleepingpillswithbottleofGrousewankie:

---

Just a quick point, that might be a bit optimistic (and ignoring all the SN stuff, what with him being a cock and all).

This report, while it does concentrate on how desperate the economic situation is for Palestinians at the moment, does suggest that Palestinian society is actually very stable, which would seem to suggest that a post-conflict state might be less more to corruption and demagoguery than other neighbouring countries.

quote:

---

As well as cataloguing economic deprivation, the report also notes that Palestinian society has displayed great cohesion and resilience.

"Despite violence, economic hardship and daily frustrations of living under curfew and closure, lending and sharing are widespread and families for the most part remain functional.

"The West Bank and Gaza has absorbed levels of unemployment that would have torn the social fabric in many other societies."

---

: pushed for time running out the door but wanted to stick that in wankies :

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Interpreting your posts in that (imo justified) way is very different from "attributing statements that are false" - please provide an example of where I've done the latter. I've always taken care to quote your own words back at you and in the sense they were originally intended (something, funnily enough, you failed to do with my own words above.)

---

I took offence to your suggestion that I was trying to draw some sort of moral equivalency between Saddam's regime and our own. This is what I would call a false assumption. You weren't only interpreting - you were attributing something to me that was and is utterly false.

quote:

---

Your demented cackling is difficult to square with the pictures broadcast this morning of an assortment of gutted Iraqi ministries and presidential palaces - amid a city that seems otherwise to be functioning much more closely to "normality" (in terms of civilians being able to go about their business) than anyone could have hoped. Does this mean that Stop The War coalition will refrain from talking about "carpet bombing"? Probably not - but given that civilian casualties (inevitable, even with a comparatively precisely targeted bombardment such as last night's) have already taken place your description of this as a "childish game" is tasteless to say the very least.

---

The "childish game" jibe was made in reference to the silly name the Americans have given to this operation. Cue the appearance of Steven Segal. Generals saying "lets give them some hammer" - lol. It's a bloody game to these people Ben, and you know it.

quote:

---

You're also mistaken about Bush's justifications, which have been (heh) articulated mainly in terms of security and pragmatism - with elements of "morality" uneasily grafted on. From my own perspective the removal of Saddam is a highly desirable goal for a number of fairly obvious reasons. Given the failure of sanctions to do anything other than strengthen his position in Iraq (not to mention the destitution they've inflicted on ordinary Iraqis), military action was, I think, the only way that he, his regime and his putative successors (principally his sons, from what I understand) could be destroyed.

---

I agree that Saddam is an odious individual. But I will only truly believe Bush if he sets about disarming every similar character. Of course, as this campaign like any other is motivated by external political objectives, I very much doubt this is going to happen. You appear to have a level of faith in Dubya: I don't.

In any case, any "pragmatism" you may see spring forth from his mouth is probably from the minds of his many advisors. We all know what a fool he is, and the sort of thing he might say if he didn't have his little army of writers and spin-doctors.

However: If immediately after this campaign Bush makes a concerted move to disarm North Korea - which in my view is far more dangerous to the world than Saddam's crumbling regime, given that it is very close to developing nuclear weapons (if indeed this hasn't happened already) - I might begin to change my mind about Bush's long-term intentions. But I am not holding my breath.

quote:

---

Hmmm. It seemed to me that in your first long post you did little apart from reporting with approval the ahem "objective" opinions of a ragbag of congressional misfits; namely, the tired old stuff about Zionist control of Washington etc etc

---

Don't keep picking on this one. We've been there already. I am referring to Bush's hypocritical use of terms like "freedom" and "democracy", the fact that America actually provided Saddam with these "weapons of mass destruction" (with the leading hawk and war-monger Donald Rumsfeld being right in the thick of it), and that the USA has for years glossed over the poor human rights records of some of its allies (Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia to name but three) in the name of political expediency. If a world leader is going to brandish the flag of morality, the least they can do is show a level of consistency.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
I took offence to your suggestion that I was trying to draw some sort of moral equivalency between Saddam's regime and our own.

---

Your outrage is comical: the implication of your comparison of Saddam's suffering child photo-ops and the media management of the allies is that we're "no better" than his regime. That and the foaming about American "war-mongering" certainly seems to imply rough equivalence, in your mind.

Once again: for me to have "falsely attributed" something I'd have had to have said - "Rick says x, y, z." as opposed to "I believe that you are peddling x, y, z."

If you can't tell the difference you're clearly incapable of anything but the most basic thought processes.

quote:

---

The "childish game" jibe was made in reference to the silly name the Americans have given to this operation. Cue the appearance of Steven Segal.

---

This coming from someone who names his web design business after a gang of fascists and describes himself as The Phoenix.

quote:

---

I agree that Saddam is an odious individual. But I will only truly believe Bush if he sets about disarming every similar character.

---

What next - the moon on a stick?

quote:

---

In any case, any "pragmatism" you may see spring forth from his mouth is probably from the minds of his many advisors. We all know what a fool he is, and the sort of thing he might say if he didn't have his little army of writers and spin-doctors.

---

Make your mind up - you're either ranting at Bush or you're ranting at his "puppeteers". If Bush and his coterie were such a bunch of clowns we would have had WWIII after September 11. Instead we saw the ousting of one of the world's vilest regimes and the destruction of what was a major power base for al-Queda.

Here's a thing: I was initially opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan and had a number of very heated arguments about it with Dangerous Daze (where he, btw?). Subsequent to that, it's become apparent that al-Queda is a movement, an idea, whatever you want to call it, that is utterly dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. Figureheads like him draw strength from an idea of the West being too flabby and corrupt to fight back against a legion of death-crazed holy warriors. Decisive action in Afghanistan demonstrated that it was the Taliban, not the West, that was the real house of cards.

Saddam has defied the UN for the past 12 year; without the credible threat of coercion he would never have even granted the meagre and deliberately divisive degree of cooperation that he has. If it fails to demonstrate that it's willing to back its threats with force in the case of Saddam - why should any other maniac (ie N Korea) take the UN or - let's be frank - the US remotely seriously?

Many have scoffed at the suggestion of connections between Saddam and al-Queda - but is this the sort of nightmarish scenario we can dare to hazard? An awful lot of posturing by Bin Laden about the "infidel" Saddam can't erase the fact that each party could bring something to the table that the other wanted. Saddam has thousands of litres of weaponised anthrax - but lacks a delivery system. What better delivery system than a dozen-strong suicide squad?

To pretend that such an eventuality could never happen is either naive or irresponsible: remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So much for your learning something from the past.

quote:

---

If a world leader is going to brandish the flag of morality, the least they can do is show a level of consistency.

---

Whu-? So you'd prefer it if Bush et al were still selling Saddam weapons?

Or, alternatively, you'd be happy if Bush made a broadcast tomorrow demanding that China withdraw from Tibet immediately or "face serious consequences" ??

Of course, neither is a remotely realistic or advisable course of action - so can we please consign this ridiculous "consistency" canard to the bin?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
Your outrage is comical: the implication of your comparison of Saddam's suffering child photo-ops and the media management of the allies is that we're "no better" than his regime. That and the foaming about American "war-mongering" certainly seems to imply rough equivalence, in your mind.

---

Aha. So now we get to the rub. I wasn't trying to draw any sort of moral equivalency, but simply putting your mention of Saddam's use of hospital shots in context. Nearly everyone who has had the opportunity to use such footage will use it, and Saddam is not the first and certainly will not be the last. You cannot argue with this, surely.

However, as far as cynical behaviour regarding the use of atrocity peoprganda - for this is the issue here - goes, one can indeed ask who is the most cynical. The Iraqis for making a big deal of (what have been accepted as) genuine scenes of injured bombing victims, or engineered American propaganda where we had a young girl shed bucketloads of tears over an "atrocity" that never actually took place?

OK, so I might have been drawing a parallel between how the respective propaganda departments use atrocity footage. But this should not and cannot be seen as a wider attempt at trying to promote an equivalency between the regimes as a whole, for, as you know, this involves more than just the use of shots of injured children.

quote:

---

Once again: for me to have "falsely attributed" something I'd have had to have said - "Rick says x, y, z." as opposed to "I believe that you are peddling x, y, z."

---

In the post in question, you said:

quote:

---

"Whatever the history, any sort of attempt to draw equivalence between Saddam's regime and our own is grotesque."

---

I don't see anything that suggests here that you are merely voicing your opinion. Read your initial comment again. You are clearly suggesting, falsely, that I am trying to draw an equivalence between our government and that of Saddam Hussein. If anything, and I will reiterate it once more, I was suggesting that similar levels of cynicism exist with regard to the use of atrocity propaganda, i.e. "hospital shots".

quote:

---

This coming from someone who names his web design business after a gang of fascists and describes himself as The Phoenix.

---

How is this relevant to the debate? Your first monicker on Seethru was "Annerobinson". One could make quite a bit out of that, if one was prepared to waste the time. As for my company name, you know nothing about the background or the reasons. Best advice: keep the personal jibes to yourself and stick with the discussion.

quote:

---

What next - the moon on a stick?

---

Your response to what was a completely reasonable point can only be described as dense, and your attempts at some sort of sarcasm as laughable. Bush claims to be some sort of guardian of democracy and freedom - in order for people to truly take him at his word he will have to provide further evidence of his intentions following what should be the successful invasion of Iraq. If you disagree with this, please indicate why instead of offering hare-brained remarks.

quote:

---

Make your mind up - you're either ranting at Bush or you're ranting at his "puppeteers". If Bush and his coterie were such a bunch of clowns we would have had WWIII after September 11. Instead we saw the ousting of one of the world's vilest regimes and the destruction of what was a major power base for al-Queda.

---

I actually agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of al-Queda's powerbase. However, this current imbroglio is an attempt by Bush to carry on where his father left off, drawing some tenuous connections in the process.

quote:

---

Saddam has defied the UN for the past 12 year

---

Israel has defied the UN for the past forty years, racking up 68 resolutions against it - most vetoed by the US. Your point?

quote:

---

Many have scoffed at the suggestion of connections between Saddam and al-Queda - but is this the sort of nightmarish scenario we can dare to hazard? An awful lot of posturing by Bin Laden about the "infidel" Saddam can't erase the fact that each party could bring something to the table that the other wanted. Saddam has thousands of litres of weaponised anthrax - but lacks a delivery system. What better delivery system than a dozen-strong suicide squad?

To pretend that such an eventuality could never happen is either naive or irresponsible: remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So much for your learning something from the past.

---

Of course, one cannot ignore that the "if your enemy is my enemy that you are my friend" scenario might be a major contributing factor to this whole sorry web. By creating false connections between to justify their aims, however, Bush and his entourage have taken this to the extreme.

quote:

---

Whu-? So you'd prefer it if Bush et al were still selling Saddam weapons?

---

Don't be silly. And don't twist my words. (*Yawn, here we go again...*) You know know exactly what I mean - funny how you have omitted the rest of the paragraph I wrote in your quote. But for your own special benefit, here it is again:

I am referring to Bush's hypocritical use of terms like "freedom" and "democracy", the fact that America actually provided Saddam with these "weapons of mass destruction" (with the leading hawk and war-monger Donald Rumsfeld being right in the thick of it), and that the USA has for years glossed over the poor human rights records of some of its allies (Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia to name but three) in the name of political expediency. If a world leader is going to brandish the flag of morality, the least they can do is show a level of consistency.

This is perfectly clear, unless your judgement is completely clouded by the propaganda from the Oval Office.

quote:

---

Or, alternatively, you'd be happy if Bush made a broadcast tomorrow demanding that China withdraw from Tibet immediately or "face serious consequences" ??

---

It would be a start. At least then no-one could call Dubya a hypocrite. But we all know that China is becoming one of America's most favoured partners, in spite of its dreadful human rights record. Saddam is essentially weak, and hence he is an easy target. China on the other hand is a nuclear power, and clearly cannot be trifled with. Instead, then, we'll turn a blind eye to their excesses in Tibet, the sale of human body parts and their growing nuclear arsenal. What's more, we'll get all of the large banking corporations to set up new homes there in big shiny buildings, in what is commonly billed as the world's most burgeoning market.

The point I am trying to make is that if Bush really cares that deeply about "democracy and freedom", then he should put his money where his mouth is. If all he can do is preach to those he can bully successfully, then he should admit the fact. I could half understand his motives if was to just put an end to the bleating and admit that he wants to get rid of Saddam simply because (a) Saddam had the temerity to piss daddio off back in 1990 and (b) he wants to provide the American people, now missing the Cold War diet, a dose of belligerent good old American entertainment. Live on CNN, no less.

quote:

---

Of course, neither is a remotely realistic or advisable course of action - so can we please consign this ridiculous "consistency" canard to the bin?

---