Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ROBERT FISK: The Myth of Western Intelligence Agencies. Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction
They were at it again last week, the liars of our Western "intelligence" community. John Bolton, the US under-secretary of state for arms control and one of Donald Rumsfeld's cabal of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives, was giving testimony before the decidedly pro-Israeli sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act...Mr Bolton, who once ludicrously claimed that Cuba had a biological weapons programme, accused Syria of maintaining a stockpile of sarin and of working on VX and biological weapons. And Congressmen Eliot Engel announced that "it wouldn't surprise me if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria".
Lies and Mischief
The Myth of Western Intelligence Agencies
By ROBERT FISK
The Independent
They were at it again last week, the liars of our Western "intelligence" community. John Bolton, the US under-secretary of state for arms control and one of Donald Rumsfeld's cabal of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives, was giving testimony before the decidedly pro-Israeli sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act.
Mr Bolton, who once ludicrously claimed that Cuba had a biological weapons programme, accused Syria of maintaining a stockpile of sarin and of working on VX and biological weapons. And Congressmen Eliot Engel announced that "it wouldn't surprise me if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria". For Baghdad, read Damascus.
Some, indeed much, of this nonsense comes from the myth-making intelligence service of Israel, which really does have weapons of mass destruction, although Engel's imaginative intervention probably had its roots in the claim of a US intelligence officer in Baghdad last April. He went on insisting Iraq had transferred its non-existent WMD to Syria by rail--before being shown a map that proved the only railway line from Iraq to Syria passed through Turkey.
But why, oh why, do we go on accepting this trash? Why do we even listen to the so-called intelligence services when they have so routinely--and bloodily--got it wrong? Among the last of the Hutton inquiry confrontations was the debate over whether Iraqi chemical weapons were fitted to missiles--the famous "45 minute" warning in Tony Blair's meretricious "dossier"--or were, as the snobbish John Scarlett informed us, "battlefield" weapons. While it was perfectly clear that Mr Scarlett allowed Downing Street to fiddle with the text so that it suggested the former, the reality is that both versions were totally untrue. Not only did Iraq have no WMD--it didn't even have a battlefield version.
Yet we let these dumbos get away with it. Nobody interrupted Mr Blair, for example, when he arrived in Iraq in the summer and said we could not say there were no WMD because we "should wait until the 1,400 US, British and Australian investigators sent in to search for Iraq's weapons had finished work". But why, for heaven's sake, couldn't he have been patient enough to let the extremely competent UN inspectors finish their work before his illegal invasion? Only now, it seems, do we have to be patient--and we're going to have to go on being patient because the Iraq survey team in whom Mr Blair desperately placed his hopes is about to say it has found no WMD.
The liars in the intelligence services, of course, have been getting it wrong from the start. Remember all those bombs we dropped on innocent people in the hope that we might--just might--kill Saddam? This started back in 1991 when we sent a missile into a hardened air-raid shelter at Amariya in Baghdad and killed upwards of 400 civilians. The Americans were trying to assassinate Saddam but he wasn't there--and never had been. We have never apologised for this atrocity and I wasn't surprised that the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, chose to visit Halabja, the scene of Saddam's massacre by chemicals of 8,000 Kurds, on his trip to Iraq this month and miss out on the Amariya shelter. In fact, the only interest the Americans have shown in this grisly shrine in Baghdad was to search it for weapons.
At the end of this year's invasion of Iraq, the Americans announced that they had bombed a building in the Mansour district of Baghdad because Saddam may have been there. Again, he wasn't. Sixteen civilians, including a baby under a year old, were killed. Again, we have never apologised for this outrage. Donald Rumsfeld, it has now been revealed, had to give special approval if any air strike was thought likely to result in the deaths of more than 30 civilians. In fact, more than 50 such strikes were proposed--and Mr Rumsfeld approved every one of them.
And still it goes on. Only last week, the Americans used two jets to strike--at night--a house in Fallujah and claimed they killed a gunman. In fact, it's now clear that they killed three members of a perfectly innocent family. This happened scarcely three miles from the spot where soldiers of the supposedly elite 82nd Airborne gunned down eight of their own Iraqi policemen on a darkened roadway, an act which has still not been explained and which was only grudgingly acknowledged two days after the killings.
And all the while, the myth-making continues. Iraq is getting better, safer, more democratic. All untrue. Still the neo-cons in Washington follow the rubbish churned out by the Wall Street Journal last February, that "the path to a calmer Mideast now lies not through Jerusalem but through Baghdad". Down at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the nastiest of the "tink thanks"--as I like to call them--where the neo-cons hang out, a former CIA covert operator, Reuel Marc, was able to announce in February that "the tougher Sharon becomes, the stronger our image will be in the Middle East".
Fed on such fantasies, we went to war. Just as the Russians went to war in Chechnya. Now Mr Blair regularly peddles the line that the battle between Russia's drunken and rapacious soldiers and the brutal warlords of Chechnya must be "seen in the context of the fight against international terrorism". Back in June he even tried to smarmy up to that grand old KGB spymaster, Vladimir Putin, by saying that some of the toughest fighters against US and UK forces in Iraq "were Chechen". This was a lie. No Chechen fighters have been found in Iraq. Indeed, Iraqis were stunned to hear that such exotic folk had turned up here--Chechens don't even look like Arabs and would not speak Arabic. But Mr Blair got away with it.
No, I don't think we're going to invade Syria. For starters, it hasn't got enough oil to make it worth invading. But we've been fed so much of this tosh about WMD that I don't think anyone--other than the Blairs and Bushes and their idiotic spooks--really believes it. As for the "intelligence community", maybe this is the moment to close it down.
Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's forthcoming book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
The Myth of Western Intelligence Agencies
By ROBERT FISK
The Independent
They were at it again last week, the liars of our Western "intelligence" community. John Bolton, the US under-secretary of state for arms control and one of Donald Rumsfeld's cabal of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives, was giving testimony before the decidedly pro-Israeli sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act.
Mr Bolton, who once ludicrously claimed that Cuba had a biological weapons programme, accused Syria of maintaining a stockpile of sarin and of working on VX and biological weapons. And Congressmen Eliot Engel announced that "it wouldn't surprise me if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria". For Baghdad, read Damascus.
Some, indeed much, of this nonsense comes from the myth-making intelligence service of Israel, which really does have weapons of mass destruction, although Engel's imaginative intervention probably had its roots in the claim of a US intelligence officer in Baghdad last April. He went on insisting Iraq had transferred its non-existent WMD to Syria by rail--before being shown a map that proved the only railway line from Iraq to Syria passed through Turkey.
But why, oh why, do we go on accepting this trash? Why do we even listen to the so-called intelligence services when they have so routinely--and bloodily--got it wrong? Among the last of the Hutton inquiry confrontations was the debate over whether Iraqi chemical weapons were fitted to missiles--the famous "45 minute" warning in Tony Blair's meretricious "dossier"--or were, as the snobbish John Scarlett informed us, "battlefield" weapons. While it was perfectly clear that Mr Scarlett allowed Downing Street to fiddle with the text so that it suggested the former, the reality is that both versions were totally untrue. Not only did Iraq have no WMD--it didn't even have a battlefield version.
Yet we let these dumbos get away with it. Nobody interrupted Mr Blair, for example, when he arrived in Iraq in the summer and said we could not say there were no WMD because we "should wait until the 1,400 US, British and Australian investigators sent in to search for Iraq's weapons had finished work". But why, for heaven's sake, couldn't he have been patient enough to let the extremely competent UN inspectors finish their work before his illegal invasion? Only now, it seems, do we have to be patient--and we're going to have to go on being patient because the Iraq survey team in whom Mr Blair desperately placed his hopes is about to say it has found no WMD.
The liars in the intelligence services, of course, have been getting it wrong from the start. Remember all those bombs we dropped on innocent people in the hope that we might--just might--kill Saddam? This started back in 1991 when we sent a missile into a hardened air-raid shelter at Amariya in Baghdad and killed upwards of 400 civilians. The Americans were trying to assassinate Saddam but he wasn't there--and never had been. We have never apologised for this atrocity and I wasn't surprised that the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, chose to visit Halabja, the scene of Saddam's massacre by chemicals of 8,000 Kurds, on his trip to Iraq this month and miss out on the Amariya shelter. In fact, the only interest the Americans have shown in this grisly shrine in Baghdad was to search it for weapons.
At the end of this year's invasion of Iraq, the Americans announced that they had bombed a building in the Mansour district of Baghdad because Saddam may have been there. Again, he wasn't. Sixteen civilians, including a baby under a year old, were killed. Again, we have never apologised for this outrage. Donald Rumsfeld, it has now been revealed, had to give special approval if any air strike was thought likely to result in the deaths of more than 30 civilians. In fact, more than 50 such strikes were proposed--and Mr Rumsfeld approved every one of them.
And still it goes on. Only last week, the Americans used two jets to strike--at night--a house in Fallujah and claimed they killed a gunman. In fact, it's now clear that they killed three members of a perfectly innocent family. This happened scarcely three miles from the spot where soldiers of the supposedly elite 82nd Airborne gunned down eight of their own Iraqi policemen on a darkened roadway, an act which has still not been explained and which was only grudgingly acknowledged two days after the killings.
And all the while, the myth-making continues. Iraq is getting better, safer, more democratic. All untrue. Still the neo-cons in Washington follow the rubbish churned out by the Wall Street Journal last February, that "the path to a calmer Mideast now lies not through Jerusalem but through Baghdad". Down at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the nastiest of the "tink thanks"--as I like to call them--where the neo-cons hang out, a former CIA covert operator, Reuel Marc, was able to announce in February that "the tougher Sharon becomes, the stronger our image will be in the Middle East".
Fed on such fantasies, we went to war. Just as the Russians went to war in Chechnya. Now Mr Blair regularly peddles the line that the battle between Russia's drunken and rapacious soldiers and the brutal warlords of Chechnya must be "seen in the context of the fight against international terrorism". Back in June he even tried to smarmy up to that grand old KGB spymaster, Vladimir Putin, by saying that some of the toughest fighters against US and UK forces in Iraq "were Chechen". This was a lie. No Chechen fighters have been found in Iraq. Indeed, Iraqis were stunned to hear that such exotic folk had turned up here--Chechens don't even look like Arabs and would not speak Arabic. But Mr Blair got away with it.
No, I don't think we're going to invade Syria. For starters, it hasn't got enough oil to make it worth invading. But we've been fed so much of this tosh about WMD that I don't think anyone--other than the Blairs and Bushes and their idiotic spooks--really believes it. As for the "intelligence community", maybe this is the moment to close it down.
Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's forthcoming book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk09292003.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
When i lived in iraq, I always comfort myself that one day I will live in a land with a good democraticly elected leader. Today I do live in a country where the leader is democraticly elected and sadly I find him more dangerours that Saddam. Where can I find comfort today?!!!
Hey, move to Canada!
Whatever else anyone says about us (jealous fools that they are) our Prime Ministers have ALWAYS been democratically elected.
Whatever else anyone says about us (jealous fools that they are) our Prime Ministers have ALWAYS been democratically elected.
The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are the hundreds of thermonuclear warheads in Israel which are pointed at Arab civilian centers.
The solution to the disastrous US foreign policy is to raise public consciousness to the distortions of the media (especially as it relates to the Arab world and Israel) so that they know to turn to other media for their information and so they can listen to what they hear coming out of CNN or FOX with skepticism.
The solution to the disastrous US foreign policy is to raise public consciousness to the distortions of the media (especially as it relates to the Arab world and Israel) so that they know to turn to other media for their information and so they can listen to what they hear coming out of CNN or FOX with skepticism.
CBC Canada had a documentary on its regular programme, Foreign Correspondent, last night about "the wall", and anyone seeing this "wall" for the first time would be horrified. I'll be talking about it in another thread later on, but I hope someone else out there saw it . Uri Avnery's "the Evil Wall" didn't half cover it.
They show a picture of a woman walking her dog past it and it was completely painted with a landscape mural - pretty well done, really attractive, etc. The point was to obviously beautify it, while not really getting at any sort of visual reality of the situation.
The wall is referred to as a 'barrier.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/international/middleeast/29MIDE.html
The wall is referred to as a 'barrier.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/international/middleeast/29MIDE.html
More important is the fact this wall is not a "wall of separation" as it is being billed. It doesn't run along the 1967 "green line" borders of what is recognized internationally (i.e. outside of Israel) as Israel's borders (Israel has never officially demarcated its borders). But instead, it runs straight through the West Bank and Gaza Strip dividing Palestinian cities from one another and in some cases runs straight through those cities.
In addition, us taxpayers here in the US have the privilege/opportunity to pay for it (in addition to paying for the illegal settlements -- illegal under international law). Last I heard it is costing over a billion dollars and will further make the US look like a completely biased "peace broker" to the people of the region.
This is not combatting terrorism but exasperating it...
In addition, us taxpayers here in the US have the privilege/opportunity to pay for it (in addition to paying for the illegal settlements -- illegal under international law). Last I heard it is costing over a billion dollars and will further make the US look like a completely biased "peace broker" to the people of the region.
This is not combatting terrorism but exasperating it...
I bet that's what Israel is going to show GWBush as well. Let me assure you no one was walking a dog or anything else in the reality of this bloody thing.
From the top of a hill in Jerusalem we were able to look out across the landscape and see exactly what the damn wall really is.
CBC, being even-handed, talked to various people on both sides, including one deluded person from the Jerusalem Council who had the nerve tor refer to the the wall as causing some "discomfort" to Palestinians; all this after we'd seen the effects of the monster on the livelihood of several Palestinians and their every day lives
Our correspondent spoke with one elderly lady who was chattering away. We were told by the translator that she wanted someone to go to the shop for her because she couldn't squeeze through one of the openings.
This is not a barrier, Fred. This is not even a security wall. It's a damn land grab, and a prison in the process. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is outright lying.
I can't remember the last time I've been so furious at the lies and deceit that have been practiced and continues to be practiced by this terrorist state. A muralled barrier, yet! Now I've heard everything until the next time.
I don't know if you ever get the opportunity (or can even do so) to watch CBC Newsworld Canada. If so, maybe you can see this programme for yourself. They tend to repeat their documentaries during the week.
As I said above I'll have much more on this in another thread later. Blessedly I was wise enough to tape same, together with a a documentary from Iraq by Brian Stewart, one of our most senior and most respected foreign correspondents. I haven't had a chance to see that yet, but I will soon, and when I do, I'll be talking about it.
From the top of a hill in Jerusalem we were able to look out across the landscape and see exactly what the damn wall really is.
CBC, being even-handed, talked to various people on both sides, including one deluded person from the Jerusalem Council who had the nerve tor refer to the the wall as causing some "discomfort" to Palestinians; all this after we'd seen the effects of the monster on the livelihood of several Palestinians and their every day lives
Our correspondent spoke with one elderly lady who was chattering away. We were told by the translator that she wanted someone to go to the shop for her because she couldn't squeeze through one of the openings.
This is not a barrier, Fred. This is not even a security wall. It's a damn land grab, and a prison in the process. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is outright lying.
I can't remember the last time I've been so furious at the lies and deceit that have been practiced and continues to be practiced by this terrorist state. A muralled barrier, yet! Now I've heard everything until the next time.
I don't know if you ever get the opportunity (or can even do so) to watch CBC Newsworld Canada. If so, maybe you can see this programme for yourself. They tend to repeat their documentaries during the week.
As I said above I'll have much more on this in another thread later. Blessedly I was wise enough to tape same, together with a a documentary from Iraq by Brian Stewart, one of our most senior and most respected foreign correspondents. I haven't had a chance to see that yet, but I will soon, and when I do, I'll be talking about it.
Jews and Arabs *can* live peacefully together but only as equals. Anything less and there can be no real peace.
Reconciliation is possible...
Reconciliation is possible...
But there must be dignity as well.
Angie said:
"This is not even a security wall. It's a damn land grab, and a prison in the process. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is outright lying.
"I can't remember the last time I've been so furious at the lies and deceit that have been practiced and continues to be practiced by this terrorist state. "
Angie takes many cases where Palestinians are inconvenienced and builds up a nonsensical conclusions about land grabbing, and turning all of Judea and Samaria into a prison. Well, it's evident Angie is a flat out liar, because she has been proven wrong by several posters.
So we get to read yet again Angie's holy rage at Israel, a non-terrorist state; but we never see any indignation from her about Syria, a real terrorist state, or other Arab terrorist states.
Classic Angie.
"This is not even a security wall. It's a damn land grab, and a prison in the process. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is outright lying.
"I can't remember the last time I've been so furious at the lies and deceit that have been practiced and continues to be practiced by this terrorist state. "
Angie takes many cases where Palestinians are inconvenienced and builds up a nonsensical conclusions about land grabbing, and turning all of Judea and Samaria into a prison. Well, it's evident Angie is a flat out liar, because she has been proven wrong by several posters.
So we get to read yet again Angie's holy rage at Israel, a non-terrorist state; but we never see any indignation from her about Syria, a real terrorist state, or other Arab terrorist states.
Classic Angie.
As I said before, the poster should call himself "bullshit". It is so much more appropriate.
Listen to him there calling me a "flat out liar". Poor blundering soul.
"Angie takes many cases where Palestinians are inconvenienced", he says and more.
Inconvenienced? That's hardly the word, "Bull". Would love to see you in a similar situation for a month.
We already know that 10 percent more of the land supposedly to become a Palestinian state has been taken by Israel in its "wall" caper. So what do you call that? A land grab by any other name is still a land grab.
If, and when, Syria builds a monstrous wall, taking in large chunks of Israeli land (we can certainly see that happening now, can't we?), and if it starts setting up roadblocks, checkpoints, preventing Israelis from attending work, school, and seeking medical services, or if Syria imposes a curfew on Israel, well, then, perhaps we'll talk about Syria.
It's not Syria that's committing the atrocities against Palestinians right now. It's your very own Israel.
Incidentally, calling me a liar (or "flat out liar") puts me in the company of brilliant Israeli dissident, peace activist, and journalist, Uri Avnery. He too has been accused of lying and a lot more, but it hasn't stopped him or detracted him from his life's work - a just and dignified peace for Palestinians and Israelis. I don't know about you, "Bull", but I rather like his vision.
Vintage Israeli defender crap. No defence, just attack the person. Pity, that.
Listen to him there calling me a "flat out liar". Poor blundering soul.
"Angie takes many cases where Palestinians are inconvenienced", he says and more.
Inconvenienced? That's hardly the word, "Bull". Would love to see you in a similar situation for a month.
We already know that 10 percent more of the land supposedly to become a Palestinian state has been taken by Israel in its "wall" caper. So what do you call that? A land grab by any other name is still a land grab.
If, and when, Syria builds a monstrous wall, taking in large chunks of Israeli land (we can certainly see that happening now, can't we?), and if it starts setting up roadblocks, checkpoints, preventing Israelis from attending work, school, and seeking medical services, or if Syria imposes a curfew on Israel, well, then, perhaps we'll talk about Syria.
It's not Syria that's committing the atrocities against Palestinians right now. It's your very own Israel.
Incidentally, calling me a liar (or "flat out liar") puts me in the company of brilliant Israeli dissident, peace activist, and journalist, Uri Avnery. He too has been accused of lying and a lot more, but it hasn't stopped him or detracted him from his life's work - a just and dignified peace for Palestinians and Israelis. I don't know about you, "Bull", but I rather like his vision.
Vintage Israeli defender crap. No defence, just attack the person. Pity, that.
the WALL is always called a 'fence' in the media. To keep the idea of the berlin wall out of the public mind
Let's make a small deal Ang, OK?
Purchase a portable or laptop, go out to Judea & Samaria, perform a professional survey of how many confiscated land has actually been taken from Palestinians who can prove legal ownership of any land taken from them, then report your findings on this site and many others (This way you could leave Canada and still post on this site on a routine basis.). If your allegation about a 10% legaly owned Palestinian "land grab" proves right, I'll accept it as fact; if you prove wrong, you'll shut your trap on this matter.
Syria has been maintaining a state of belligerency against Israel through proxy, by using the Hizballah occasionally for its needs in particular and allowing it to operate in Lebanon in general, yet I and others never see you utter a word in protest; Syria is sill illegally occupying Lebanon, oppressing its people and especially the Christians, fostering the growing of narcotics crops and its trafficking (which helps the Syrian economy not go bankrupt), and you never rail against Syria.
I don't care now about Avneri. I'm dealing with the crap you bleeding heart Canadian spouts.
As to the "pearl of wisdom" by "brian", this guy is unquestionably a dumbass sensational flat out liar. Only two small segments of the separation barrier - in any rate not the vast majority of the barrier - consist of a wall.
Purchase a portable or laptop, go out to Judea & Samaria, perform a professional survey of how many confiscated land has actually been taken from Palestinians who can prove legal ownership of any land taken from them, then report your findings on this site and many others (This way you could leave Canada and still post on this site on a routine basis.). If your allegation about a 10% legaly owned Palestinian "land grab" proves right, I'll accept it as fact; if you prove wrong, you'll shut your trap on this matter.
Syria has been maintaining a state of belligerency against Israel through proxy, by using the Hizballah occasionally for its needs in particular and allowing it to operate in Lebanon in general, yet I and others never see you utter a word in protest; Syria is sill illegally occupying Lebanon, oppressing its people and especially the Christians, fostering the growing of narcotics crops and its trafficking (which helps the Syrian economy not go bankrupt), and you never rail against Syria.
I don't care now about Avneri. I'm dealing with the crap you bleeding heart Canadian spouts.
As to the "pearl of wisdom" by "brian", this guy is unquestionably a dumbass sensational flat out liar. Only two small segments of the separation barrier - in any rate not the vast majority of the barrier - consist of a wall.
a-b: "As to the "pearl of wisdom" by "brian", this guy is unquestionably a dumbass sensational flat out liar. Only two small segments of the separation barrier - in any rate not the vast majority of the barrier - consist of a wall."
I wonder if it's the same "brian" who was booted from this board for Holocaust denial. At any rate, you're right -- I think the figure I read is that only about 6% of the planned barrier is a wall; the rest is fencing.
@%<
I wonder if it's the same "brian" who was booted from this board for Holocaust denial. At any rate, you're right -- I think the figure I read is that only about 6% of the planned barrier is a wall; the rest is fencing.
@%<
Where are the editors? Even if it's not the same indvidual, the fact is he's been using the exact same handle (without a capital B in his name), so I think all his posts should be removed.
Would you care to accompany me and carry my "portable or laptop"., my good person? Going off on such a venture would require an able assistant. Ahh, too bad. You, being so biased, would probably change the stats whilst I was not looking, or remove a "Sold" sign, or ....
Don't like being called "Ang". Coming from the departed "Anti-Angie" it was surprising and funny. It isn't any more.
Hey, don't beat me up. I'm not the one sprouting the 10 percent. I didn't come on the board and state that it is "MY" figure. Hell, I am only quoting what others have stated. I used 10 percent; others have been a bit more precise and stated 12 percent.
In any event we saw "the wall" on CBC News World. We've seen "the wall" on BBC News World, AND if Israel were REALLY concerned about "security", it would have built this monster inside the so-called Green Line, not taking in huge chunks of Palestinian farm land, etc. It didn't. It continued to build "settlements" conveniently blocking off access to Palestinian towns and villages so it could then turn around and enclose them with "the wall". Bloody rotten thing to do, and you can remain in denial 'til hell freezes over, laddie, but those are the facts.
Ah, you mentioned Uri Avnery. I do that a lot. I'm still getting used to the idea that there is a brilliant mind out there who echoes my views on "the conflict". Bear in mind that I only discovered him this past year (2003), so I was thrilled to pieces to find out a MOST IMPORTANT PERSON shared my own thoughts. And he a Jew living in Tel Aviv too! (And you accuse me of being anti-Israeli! Fat lot you know!) And such a learned man with such vision and --- ah, you don't like him, do you? Pity!
Oh, and, please, "bull", don't drag me kicking and screaming into a debate about middle east real estate. You are trying to tell me, and through me the Board, that even as we speak there are FOR SALE signs scattered hither and yon throughout the Occupied Territories? That there had been same for the past 50 plus years? That no one had his/her house demolished without first being reimbursed for it? That the real estate agent took his commission and ran whilst the bulldozer roared up to the site? Oh, "Bull", what a sense of humour you have!
And what about the 7-800,000 plus who were hurried from their homes, either to have them burned to the ground hehind them or fall into the hands of Israeli home seekers?
Show us the deeds! Show us the Bill of Sales, the Conveyances. You, "Bull", made this an issue. If you have documentation of this, well, then, lay it on us! Show me!
Don't like being called "Ang". Coming from the departed "Anti-Angie" it was surprising and funny. It isn't any more.
Hey, don't beat me up. I'm not the one sprouting the 10 percent. I didn't come on the board and state that it is "MY" figure. Hell, I am only quoting what others have stated. I used 10 percent; others have been a bit more precise and stated 12 percent.
In any event we saw "the wall" on CBC News World. We've seen "the wall" on BBC News World, AND if Israel were REALLY concerned about "security", it would have built this monster inside the so-called Green Line, not taking in huge chunks of Palestinian farm land, etc. It didn't. It continued to build "settlements" conveniently blocking off access to Palestinian towns and villages so it could then turn around and enclose them with "the wall". Bloody rotten thing to do, and you can remain in denial 'til hell freezes over, laddie, but those are the facts.
Ah, you mentioned Uri Avnery. I do that a lot. I'm still getting used to the idea that there is a brilliant mind out there who echoes my views on "the conflict". Bear in mind that I only discovered him this past year (2003), so I was thrilled to pieces to find out a MOST IMPORTANT PERSON shared my own thoughts. And he a Jew living in Tel Aviv too! (And you accuse me of being anti-Israeli! Fat lot you know!) And such a learned man with such vision and --- ah, you don't like him, do you? Pity!
Oh, and, please, "bull", don't drag me kicking and screaming into a debate about middle east real estate. You are trying to tell me, and through me the Board, that even as we speak there are FOR SALE signs scattered hither and yon throughout the Occupied Territories? That there had been same for the past 50 plus years? That no one had his/her house demolished without first being reimbursed for it? That the real estate agent took his commission and ran whilst the bulldozer roared up to the site? Oh, "Bull", what a sense of humour you have!
And what about the 7-800,000 plus who were hurried from their homes, either to have them burned to the ground hehind them or fall into the hands of Israeli home seekers?
Show us the deeds! Show us the Bill of Sales, the Conveyances. You, "Bull", made this an issue. If you have documentation of this, well, then, lay it on us! Show me!
Angie: "Hey, don't beat me up. I'm not the one sprouting the 10 percent."
She thinks that makes her right. Now I see...
Angie: "if Israel were REALLY concerned about "security", it would have built this monster inside the so-called Green Line, blah blah ..."
It's not only about Israel proper's security, you clown. The main Jewish concentrations near the "green line" within the disputed territories are also slated to enjoy this sort of not perfect security.
Angie: "It continued to build "settlements" conveniently blocking off access to Palestinian towns and villages so it could then turn around and enclose them with "the wall". Bloody rotten thing to do, and you can remain in denial 'til hell freezes over, laddie, but those are the facts."
Not only is your argument rubbish, but the leftwing in Israel was the driving force in erecting the barrier in the fist place, while the Right agreed very reluctantly to launch its construction. The fact Avneri and/or BBC World News and/or CBC News say so doesn't mean it's so.
Angie: "Uri Avnery... And he a Jew living in Tel Aviv too! (And you accuse me of being anti-Israeli! Fat lot you know!)"
Just like Don or wtf say: the fact a moron like Avneri - a pro-Israeli person by his own reasoning, yet a very pro-Palestinian by conservative estimates - thinks like you doesn't turn you into a pro-Israeli. When one is pro-Palestinian and knows exactly what most Palestinians want - no Jews, no Israel and a great Palestine in its stead - one cannot be pro-Israel. If Avneri knows what the Palestinians are after then he's one absolute piece of work.
You proudly "showcase" a person from the most radical Israeli Left and try kidding me you're not anti-Israeli. Go back to kindergarten.
Angie: [cutting through the preceding bull] "no one had his/her house demolished without first being reimbursed for it? Yammity yammity yammity"
I fail to see your point. Are you claiming a terrorist (woops! you say "freedom fighter") or those who aid and abbet him/her should be compensated for having their home demolished? The last I checked, those families remained in the disputed territories and weren't transfered to other countries.
Angie: "And what about the 7-800,000 plus who were hurried from their homes, either to have them burned to the ground hehind them or fall into the hands of Israeli home seekers?"
Under the influence of dope you must have gotten mixed up reading about another conflict around the globe.
Angie: "Show us the deeds! Yammity yammity.."
No. The burden of proof is on you. See my post above, kiddie.
She thinks that makes her right. Now I see...
Angie: "if Israel were REALLY concerned about "security", it would have built this monster inside the so-called Green Line, blah blah ..."
It's not only about Israel proper's security, you clown. The main Jewish concentrations near the "green line" within the disputed territories are also slated to enjoy this sort of not perfect security.
Angie: "It continued to build "settlements" conveniently blocking off access to Palestinian towns and villages so it could then turn around and enclose them with "the wall". Bloody rotten thing to do, and you can remain in denial 'til hell freezes over, laddie, but those are the facts."
Not only is your argument rubbish, but the leftwing in Israel was the driving force in erecting the barrier in the fist place, while the Right agreed very reluctantly to launch its construction. The fact Avneri and/or BBC World News and/or CBC News say so doesn't mean it's so.
Angie: "Uri Avnery... And he a Jew living in Tel Aviv too! (And you accuse me of being anti-Israeli! Fat lot you know!)"
Just like Don or wtf say: the fact a moron like Avneri - a pro-Israeli person by his own reasoning, yet a very pro-Palestinian by conservative estimates - thinks like you doesn't turn you into a pro-Israeli. When one is pro-Palestinian and knows exactly what most Palestinians want - no Jews, no Israel and a great Palestine in its stead - one cannot be pro-Israel. If Avneri knows what the Palestinians are after then he's one absolute piece of work.
You proudly "showcase" a person from the most radical Israeli Left and try kidding me you're not anti-Israeli. Go back to kindergarten.
Angie: [cutting through the preceding bull] "no one had his/her house demolished without first being reimbursed for it? Yammity yammity yammity"
I fail to see your point. Are you claiming a terrorist (woops! you say "freedom fighter") or those who aid and abbet him/her should be compensated for having their home demolished? The last I checked, those families remained in the disputed territories and weren't transfered to other countries.
Angie: "And what about the 7-800,000 plus who were hurried from their homes, either to have them burned to the ground hehind them or fall into the hands of Israeli home seekers?"
Under the influence of dope you must have gotten mixed up reading about another conflict around the globe.
Angie: "Show us the deeds! Yammity yammity.."
No. The burden of proof is on you. See my post above, kiddie.
Hey angie see the AP article on WMD smuggling out of iraq via kuwait?
If its true it could be interesting. obviously it needs verification but they say they will hand the WMD to the FBI soon...
If its true it could be interesting. obviously it needs verification but they say they will hand the WMD to the FBI soon...
Why have you added the "yammity yammity" bit to your spiels? I thought that was a trademark of Mr. Gehrig when he's hurling abuse at Ms. Wendy Campbell.
Or, good GOD, are you Mr. Gehrig in disguise? EEEK!!
Anyway, "Bull" I'm afraid there's little to be added here. You have your closed mind, I have an inquiring one (yhe'ah, I know, I know, you'll jump right back at me on that one, but I care not).
However, I do not like being told I cannot believe my own eyes re THE WALL. And let's not be outrageous here, man. A barrier? A fence? It's a damn wall, and call it whatever you want. It would be one hell of a damn awful world if every nation on earth decided it needed a WALL and started swiping other people's lands now, wouldn't it?
Can't attempt to discredit Uri enough, can you? As if that will prove anything. Nah, lad. You haven't got a prayer in hell of doing that. Heaven knows Irsael tried hard enough over the past fifty plus years.
And whether he's a Jew living in Tel Aviv or an Arab living in Gaza means sweet nothing. It's his intelligence that matters, his honesty, his vision, and most of all, his wonderful caring heart.
And if you're expecting me to sit here and go on beating my brains against your closed mind, well, then, pack a lunch.
Or, good GOD, are you Mr. Gehrig in disguise? EEEK!!
Anyway, "Bull" I'm afraid there's little to be added here. You have your closed mind, I have an inquiring one (yhe'ah, I know, I know, you'll jump right back at me on that one, but I care not).
However, I do not like being told I cannot believe my own eyes re THE WALL. And let's not be outrageous here, man. A barrier? A fence? It's a damn wall, and call it whatever you want. It would be one hell of a damn awful world if every nation on earth decided it needed a WALL and started swiping other people's lands now, wouldn't it?
Can't attempt to discredit Uri enough, can you? As if that will prove anything. Nah, lad. You haven't got a prayer in hell of doing that. Heaven knows Irsael tried hard enough over the past fifty plus years.
And whether he's a Jew living in Tel Aviv or an Arab living in Gaza means sweet nothing. It's his intelligence that matters, his honesty, his vision, and most of all, his wonderful caring heart.
And if you're expecting me to sit here and go on beating my brains against your closed mind, well, then, pack a lunch.
If I had a closed mind I wouldn't be able to acquire all the broad knowledge that enables me to detect all your bullshit and point it out.
I don't care what you dislike; less than 10% of the separation barrier is made of a wall. The discussion over this fact is over.
Go play with your Freedom (whatever that may be).
I don't care what you dislike; less than 10% of the separation barrier is made of a wall. The discussion over this fact is over.
Go play with your Freedom (whatever that may be).
I'll deal with you when I return from work later today, "bull". I see you're pretty much at a loss for words! (That's a start!)
Incidentally, if you'd paid attention over the past five months, you'd know that Freedom is my almost twelve year old all white Angora cat who, we like to brag, is smarter than GWB. I'm going to post his photo one of these days! Maybe start a thread entitled "Those Smarter than GWB". Think of how much fun that would generate, dear "bull"!
Incidentally, if you'd paid attention over the past five months, you'd know that Freedom is my almost twelve year old all white Angora cat who, we like to brag, is smarter than GWB. I'm going to post his photo one of these days! Maybe start a thread entitled "Those Smarter than GWB". Think of how much fun that would generate, dear "bull"!
I'm leaving this site soon and won't be here untill Tuesday.
You see, I'm Jewish, I value this holiday and have got to prepare for the Day of Atonement. I have now better things to do than deal with your bullshit.
And I'm not like you who thinks lots of prattle by an opponent is a sign of wisdom.
You see, I'm Jewish, I value this holiday and have got to prepare for the Day of Atonement. I have now better things to do than deal with your bullshit.
And I'm not like you who thinks lots of prattle by an opponent is a sign of wisdom.
Yeah Fisk is so reliable in his reporting. I am sure you forgot about this,
Iraqi Army’s Defenses Seem Impenetrable
Thursday, April 03 2003 @ 07:11 AM GMT
By Robert Fisk, The Independent
In Al-Mussayib, central Iraq — The road to the front in central Iraq is a place of fast-moving vehicles, blazing Iraqi anti-aircraft guns, tanks and trucks hidden in palm groves, a train of armored vehicles bombed from the air and hundreds of artillery positions dug into revetments to defend the capital. Anyone who doubts that the Iraqi Army is prepared to defend its capital should take the highway south of Baghdad.
How, I kept asking myself, could the Americans batter their way through these defenses? For mile after mile they go on, slit trenches, ditches, earthen underground bunkers, palm groves of heavy artillery and truck loads of combat troops in battle fatigues and steel helmets. Not since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War have I seen the Iraqi Army deployed like this; the Americans may say they are “degrading” the country’s defenses but there was little sign of that here Wednesday.
That a Western journalist could see more of Iraq’s military preparedness than many of the reporters supposedly “embedded” with British and American forces says as much for the Iraqi government’s self-confidence as it does for the need of Saddam’s government to make propaganda against its enemies.
...
Iraqi Army’s Defenses Seem Impenetrable
Thursday, April 03 2003 @ 07:11 AM GMT
By Robert Fisk, The Independent
In Al-Mussayib, central Iraq — The road to the front in central Iraq is a place of fast-moving vehicles, blazing Iraqi anti-aircraft guns, tanks and trucks hidden in palm groves, a train of armored vehicles bombed from the air and hundreds of artillery positions dug into revetments to defend the capital. Anyone who doubts that the Iraqi Army is prepared to defend its capital should take the highway south of Baghdad.
How, I kept asking myself, could the Americans batter their way through these defenses? For mile after mile they go on, slit trenches, ditches, earthen underground bunkers, palm groves of heavy artillery and truck loads of combat troops in battle fatigues and steel helmets. Not since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War have I seen the Iraqi Army deployed like this; the Americans may say they are “degrading” the country’s defenses but there was little sign of that here Wednesday.
That a Western journalist could see more of Iraq’s military preparedness than many of the reporters supposedly “embedded” with British and American forces says as much for the Iraqi government’s self-confidence as it does for the need of Saddam’s government to make propaganda against its enemies.
...
This is what Fisk saw in reality
Read this from PAUL MCGEOUGH
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s825145.htm
"Robert gets a bit windy from time to time, Mark. I was on the same bus as him and we saw some tanks, you wouldn't say that we saw an army of tanks.
We saw two or three tanks on that bus run. We saw multiple rocket launchers. We saw a convoy of two or three trucks of soldiers pausing to wash and eat by a creek. But we didn't see an army forming up for war."
You cant even trust fisk to get his objective facts right.
Read this from PAUL MCGEOUGH
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s825145.htm
"Robert gets a bit windy from time to time, Mark. I was on the same bus as him and we saw some tanks, you wouldn't say that we saw an army of tanks.
We saw two or three tanks on that bus run. We saw multiple rocket launchers. We saw a convoy of two or three trucks of soldiers pausing to wash and eat by a creek. But we didn't see an army forming up for war."
You cant even trust fisk to get his objective facts right.
Angie
I think the point is that if you make a statement like " We already know that 10 [or 12] percent more of the land supposedly to become a Palestinian state has been taken by Israel "
This is clearly a figure that must have been worked out at some stage from facts (if not it is worthless) It would be good form if you would provide us with who said it and if they would explain how they worked it out second as you often point out we are interested in what you mean by "WE already know" (particularly in the context of you have not provided the proof that underlies the assumption).
I think the point is that if you make a statement like " We already know that 10 [or 12] percent more of the land supposedly to become a Palestinian state has been taken by Israel "
This is clearly a figure that must have been worked out at some stage from facts (if not it is worthless) It would be good form if you would provide us with who said it and if they would explain how they worked it out second as you often point out we are interested in what you mean by "WE already know" (particularly in the context of you have not provided the proof that underlies the assumption).
I wonder if Robert was being told what to say by saddam's men. It seems to be a strategy some journalists use in order to get the good interviews with the saddams of this world.
What a disgusting little mind you have, lad. What do you do? Stay up all night seeking inspiration in order to condemn Robert Fisk? At least he wasn't "embedded" with ANY army as the US mainstream media were, being told what scenes to show, what to say more or less, etc., etc. Robert Fisk has been in the middle east over twenty years. I daresay he knows one or two people by now.
I posted the Fisk piece. It's funny how people like you put this guy up on a pedestal when he writes absolute nonsense.
"Iraqi Army’s Defenses Seem Impenetrable"
LMFAO
"Iraqi Army’s Defenses Seem Impenetrable"
LMFAO
Angie,
I respect your posts they are normally well thought out. And you are normally quite well mannered. I honestly do enjoy reading your posts. However, I must disagree regarding the post on Fisk from Scottie - I think you were a bit harsh.
Fisk's writings from Iraq were, well, wrong. The powerful army he saw just wasn't there. Evidence presented here has shown that at least one other journalist at the same site viewed things very, very differantly. And of course the ultimate test, the battlefield, showed that he was quite off base with his predictions of at least the 'set piece' battle.
When I re-read his columns now I feel he was wearing rose colored glasses rather than journalist clear glasses. Do others do that? of course but we're talking Bob Fisk right now. I feel he should be classified more as a columnist than as a journalist.
A journalist writes what he sees (and there are very few journalists around) while a columnist gathers information to support a point - often a very valid point, but a point none the less - presents an argument in favor of that point. If you read Fisk's columns you'll see that he tries to build each article around a central theme or point. Good reading but not really newsman stuff. Good columnist, very much so.
I don't think Fisk is an idiot, or stupid, yet what he wrote was terribly off base. Perhaps Scottie was right.
I respect your posts they are normally well thought out. And you are normally quite well mannered. I honestly do enjoy reading your posts. However, I must disagree regarding the post on Fisk from Scottie - I think you were a bit harsh.
Fisk's writings from Iraq were, well, wrong. The powerful army he saw just wasn't there. Evidence presented here has shown that at least one other journalist at the same site viewed things very, very differantly. And of course the ultimate test, the battlefield, showed that he was quite off base with his predictions of at least the 'set piece' battle.
When I re-read his columns now I feel he was wearing rose colored glasses rather than journalist clear glasses. Do others do that? of course but we're talking Bob Fisk right now. I feel he should be classified more as a columnist than as a journalist.
A journalist writes what he sees (and there are very few journalists around) while a columnist gathers information to support a point - often a very valid point, but a point none the less - presents an argument in favor of that point. If you read Fisk's columns you'll see that he tries to build each article around a central theme or point. Good reading but not really newsman stuff. Good columnist, very much so.
I don't think Fisk is an idiot, or stupid, yet what he wrote was terribly off base. Perhaps Scottie was right.
"I am not Scottie".
Who said you were? In fact, who the hell is speaking to you at all? I'm not.
I am referring to Scottie's "Ahah" comment above. Either he wrote that or there is one hell of an excellent Scottie impersonator on the Board.
Either way he will be responding in his own good time.
Who said you were? In fact, who the hell is speaking to you at all? I'm not.
I am referring to Scottie's "Ahah" comment above. Either he wrote that or there is one hell of an excellent Scottie impersonator on the Board.
Either way he will be responding in his own good time.
>> What a disgusting little mind you have, lad. What do you do? Stay up all night seeking inspiration in order to condemn Robert Fisk? At least he wasn't "embedded" with ANY army as the US mainstream media were, being told what scenes to show, what to say more or less, etc., etc.
- He was in a sense "embedded" with saddams people ... do you really think that is "better" or will produce more "objectivity" than being embedded with the US forces? Just like peter arnette and the CNN people in Iraq, fisk would have been strongly encouraged to publish certain things and not publish other things in the same way as embedded forces but with less scruples. the fact that you would accuse the US forces of doing it and think that saddams were not is confusing.. Note there was NO recourse against saddams forces if they threatened you.
>> Robert Fisk has been in the middle east over twenty years. I daresay he knows one or two people by now.
yup like saddam.
I think that it is very difficult not to be somewhat compromised when you know a sympathetic story to the leader may get you a famous interview and a bad one may result in harm to you or other journalists. As a result one starts to take the favourable view of everything and like a snow ball it just keeps building on itself. Thus a fisk or pilger or arnette becomes increasingly pro the most dangerous people (in this case the saddamites)
Finally the journalist engages in reverse justification where they find a reason for believing what they have said after they have said it.
That is my best explanation why fisk would say what amounts to lie about Iraqi forces (amongst other things) etc..
as JanNet defines them it would be much better if we had more journalists who rigorously keep themselves above these things. Colomists back in the US or wherever can then do the slanted analysis.
- He was in a sense "embedded" with saddams people ... do you really think that is "better" or will produce more "objectivity" than being embedded with the US forces? Just like peter arnette and the CNN people in Iraq, fisk would have been strongly encouraged to publish certain things and not publish other things in the same way as embedded forces but with less scruples. the fact that you would accuse the US forces of doing it and think that saddams were not is confusing.. Note there was NO recourse against saddams forces if they threatened you.
>> Robert Fisk has been in the middle east over twenty years. I daresay he knows one or two people by now.
yup like saddam.
I think that it is very difficult not to be somewhat compromised when you know a sympathetic story to the leader may get you a famous interview and a bad one may result in harm to you or other journalists. As a result one starts to take the favourable view of everything and like a snow ball it just keeps building on itself. Thus a fisk or pilger or arnette becomes increasingly pro the most dangerous people (in this case the saddamites)
Finally the journalist engages in reverse justification where they find a reason for believing what they have said after they have said it.
That is my best explanation why fisk would say what amounts to lie about Iraqi forces (amongst other things) etc..
as JanNet defines them it would be much better if we had more journalists who rigorously keep themselves above these things. Colomists back in the US or wherever can then do the slanted analysis.
There are times when Scottie deserves a "harsh" tone from myself, and this is one of them.
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that Scottie and I have seen fit to disagree, and when it comes to "harsh" tones directed at myself on occasion, the lad is no slouch. There have been incidents wherein we've even vowed not to "speak" to each other again, but we never hold grudges, and this too will pass. It always does.
Scottie wrote above:
"I wonder if Robert was being told what to say by Saddam's men? It seems to be a strategy some journalists use in order to get the good interveiws with the Saddams of this world".
This is a very unfounded and unnecessary remark, totally unjustified. It reeks of bad taste and innuendo, suggesting rather obliquely that Robert Fisk has been catering to the wishes of Saddam (and presumably others if you note the "s" attached to his use of Saddam). If Scottie has any proof that Robert Fisk is anything but an independent correspondent (from the Independent), let him show us what that is.
One may like or dislike Robert's work, agree or disagree with his reports, call him a journalist or a columnist (he's been called worse by a certain element of society), but I hardly think that making snide and unproven comments about the character of the person and his integrity as a human being is warranted.
And, my friend, if you stay on this board long enough you will note two things for certain. When there is a Robert Fisk article posted, I will comment. When I comment on a Robert Fisk article, Scottie will comment on my comment.
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that Scottie and I have seen fit to disagree, and when it comes to "harsh" tones directed at myself on occasion, the lad is no slouch. There have been incidents wherein we've even vowed not to "speak" to each other again, but we never hold grudges, and this too will pass. It always does.
Scottie wrote above:
"I wonder if Robert was being told what to say by Saddam's men? It seems to be a strategy some journalists use in order to get the good interveiws with the Saddams of this world".
This is a very unfounded and unnecessary remark, totally unjustified. It reeks of bad taste and innuendo, suggesting rather obliquely that Robert Fisk has been catering to the wishes of Saddam (and presumably others if you note the "s" attached to his use of Saddam). If Scottie has any proof that Robert Fisk is anything but an independent correspondent (from the Independent), let him show us what that is.
One may like or dislike Robert's work, agree or disagree with his reports, call him a journalist or a columnist (he's been called worse by a certain element of society), but I hardly think that making snide and unproven comments about the character of the person and his integrity as a human being is warranted.
And, my friend, if you stay on this board long enough you will note two things for certain. When there is a Robert Fisk article posted, I will comment. When I comment on a Robert Fisk article, Scottie will comment on my comment.
evenif gehrig(an obvious zionasty) isnt:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said overnight the security barrier Israel is building in the West Bank was a major setback to the peace process.
"The secretary general is deeply disturbed by the government of Israel's decisions to proceed with the construction," his spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
"He views both the security wall and settlements in the West Bank built on Palestinian land as serious obstacles to the achievement of a two-state solution," Eckhard said.
The so-called Middle East "road map" backed by the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia envisions a Palestinian state by 2005 as part of a step-by-step comprehensive peace deal.
The Israeli cabinet Wednesday approved the route of the barrier's next section.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7447050%255E1702,00.html
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said overnight the security barrier Israel is building in the West Bank was a major setback to the peace process.
"The secretary general is deeply disturbed by the government of Israel's decisions to proceed with the construction," his spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
"He views both the security wall and settlements in the West Bank built on Palestinian land as serious obstacles to the achievement of a two-state solution," Eckhard said.
The so-called Middle East "road map" backed by the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia envisions a Palestinian state by 2005 as part of a step-by-step comprehensive peace deal.
The Israeli cabinet Wednesday approved the route of the barrier's next section.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7447050%255E1702,00.html
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has accused Israel of constructing a "Berlin Wall" around Jerusalem.
French newspaper Le Parisien reported the comments in an interview with Mr Arafat which was also published on its web site.
In the following excerpts, Mr Arafat told the newspaper that international bodies must intervene if there is to be peace in the Middle East.
They are destroying us so that they are better able to start building a wall
"Like all sensible people, I want peace. Not only in this bit of the world, which has played such a crucial role in the history of humanity - the Holy Land - but also for all people on Earth. Because throughout the world, everyone is now affected by everything that happens, wherever it happens, but especially here, in Palestine.
"Nobody should be content with being a distant, passive witness. It is vital that each person should share the problems which affect everyone.
"Right now, the Israelis do whatever they want, and their sole aim is to strangle us. They are destroying us so that they are better able to start building a wall.
"The wall will be longer than 350 km. The line followed by the wall cheats considerably with regard to the 'green line' which was established as a border in 1967.
In order for our children to live in peace, the solution has to come from international bodies
"They have already started building it in the north and construction work is beginning near Jerusalem. How can they be allowed to build this 'Berlin Wall' around Jerusalem, the Holy City of three religions? It's unacceptable!
"Public opinion needs to realise what's happening. People need to react soon because no matter how morally strong the Palestinian people may be, there are limits to everything.
"The economic collapse and psychological harassment are such that they must be careful not to push us to the limit.
"In order for our children to live in peace, the solution has to come from international bodies. And especially from (US president) Mr (George) Bush."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2627187.stm
French newspaper Le Parisien reported the comments in an interview with Mr Arafat which was also published on its web site.
In the following excerpts, Mr Arafat told the newspaper that international bodies must intervene if there is to be peace in the Middle East.
They are destroying us so that they are better able to start building a wall
"Like all sensible people, I want peace. Not only in this bit of the world, which has played such a crucial role in the history of humanity - the Holy Land - but also for all people on Earth. Because throughout the world, everyone is now affected by everything that happens, wherever it happens, but especially here, in Palestine.
"Nobody should be content with being a distant, passive witness. It is vital that each person should share the problems which affect everyone.
"Right now, the Israelis do whatever they want, and their sole aim is to strangle us. They are destroying us so that they are better able to start building a wall.
"The wall will be longer than 350 km. The line followed by the wall cheats considerably with regard to the 'green line' which was established as a border in 1967.
In order for our children to live in peace, the solution has to come from international bodies
"They have already started building it in the north and construction work is beginning near Jerusalem. How can they be allowed to build this 'Berlin Wall' around Jerusalem, the Holy City of three religions? It's unacceptable!
"Public opinion needs to realise what's happening. People need to react soon because no matter how morally strong the Palestinian people may be, there are limits to everything.
"The economic collapse and psychological harassment are such that they must be careful not to push us to the limit.
"In order for our children to live in peace, the solution has to come from international bodies. And especially from (US president) Mr (George) Bush."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2627187.stm
the proof is the disagreement on facts between him and the other journalist (for one example). I am also waiting to see your proof agaisnt "embedded journalists" (which is a pretty big brush to be painting with so you will have a hard job proving it)
http://www.counterpunch.org/gwynne03152003.html
with lovely watch tower(looks like inspired by a gulag)
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/08/275157.html
gush-shalom calls it a WALL:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/seperationmap_eng.swf
an aerial view of the WALL in progress:
http://galleries.news24.com/daily/20030729/04.asp
A wall, barrier, or fence? There has been much debate between pro-"fence" and anti-"wall" people about the nature of this beast. William Safire in a particularly chilling editorial refered to it as the "defence fence," chosing to ignore its more sinister results and on whose land it is being built. In some places, it is a multilayered barbed wire and electronic fence system 30 to 100 meters wide with patrol roads and ditches and no-man's land. In other places, it is a 24 foot tall concrete wall complete with guard towers and patrol roads and no-man's land. This wall will be longer than the Berlin wall and confiscates wide swaths of Palestinian land. Whatever you call it, fence or wall or barrier, it's path through the West Bank shows utter disregard for the rights and humanity of Palestinians.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:3Eoy1kzfdk0J:www.auphr.org/thewall/+israel+fence+pictures&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
with lovely watch tower(looks like inspired by a gulag)
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/08/275157.html
gush-shalom calls it a WALL:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/seperationmap_eng.swf
an aerial view of the WALL in progress:
http://galleries.news24.com/daily/20030729/04.asp
A wall, barrier, or fence? There has been much debate between pro-"fence" and anti-"wall" people about the nature of this beast. William Safire in a particularly chilling editorial refered to it as the "defence fence," chosing to ignore its more sinister results and on whose land it is being built. In some places, it is a multilayered barbed wire and electronic fence system 30 to 100 meters wide with patrol roads and ditches and no-man's land. In other places, it is a 24 foot tall concrete wall complete with guard towers and patrol roads and no-man's land. This wall will be longer than the Berlin wall and confiscates wide swaths of Palestinian land. Whatever you call it, fence or wall or barrier, it's path through the West Bank shows utter disregard for the rights and humanity of Palestinians.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:3Eoy1kzfdk0J:www.auphr.org/thewall/+israel+fence+pictures&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Doesnt matter what you call it but I guess it looks like a wall to me. its kind of like the great wall of china.. and hte other ancient walls. supposed to keep barbarians out.
hey do you know where is your wife now?
I hate you
I"m not your chicken any more
I hate you
I"m not your chicken any more
is a cheap dig at a people who have been dispossed of their land, but i admit i havent heard that twist before. usually its: palestinians dont exist, palestinians left of their own accord, palestinians are terrorists etc . The comparison with china is not apt, a more apt compariso is with thieves who have progressely taken over somone elses home, while calin gthe dispossessed thieves and murderers. But then lying and subtle provocation are some of the strategies of the thieving zionists.
> is a cheap dig at a people who have been dispossed of their land.
A) the "barbarians" that I was refering to are the suicide bombers and their ilk as opposed to "the people". I was fully aware of that distinction when I wrote the line.
> The comparison with china is not apt.
Why not?
> a more apt comparison is with thieves who have progressely taken over somone elses home
You are grasping at straws here since this analogy doesnt even refer to a nation.
A) the "barbarians" that I was refering to are the suicide bombers and their ilk as opposed to "the people". I was fully aware of that distinction when I wrote the line.
> The comparison with china is not apt.
Why not?
> a more apt comparison is with thieves who have progressely taken over somone elses home
You are grasping at straws here since this analogy doesnt even refer to a nation.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network