Archive | September 18th, 2010




“Oh, Superior Zionist! Please accept me as your slave!”

crescentandcross | September 18, 2010  Categories: Uncategorized | URL:

As I watch this and listen to the delusion on the part of these Gentiles, certain words from the book of the Apocalypse become hauntingly relevant–

 “. . . And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, and on each head a blasphemous name. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and his great authority. One of the heads seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed after the beast. Men worshipped the beast saying, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?”

The beast was given a mouth with which to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. All inhabitants of the world will worship the beast, all those whose names have not been written in the book of

Posted in EducationComments Off on CAN I BE YOUR SLAVE?



“One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog, but still there was this nagging worry, so he asked “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

“Alright then” said the frog, “How do I know you won’t just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current. Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back. “I could not help myself. It is, after all, my nature…”

…And then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.”

Alf Shukran


Posted in USAComments Off on THE TRIBE & THE US



Posted in PoliticsComments Off on WE ARE TALKING TO THE WALL



A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray, twice a day, every day, for a long, long time.

So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site.

She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.

“Pardon me, sir, I’m Rebecca Smith from CNN. What’s your name?

“Morris Feinberg,” he replied.

“Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?”

“For about 60 years.”

“60 years! That’s amazing! What do you pray for?”

“I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims. I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop. I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man.”

“How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?”

“Like I’m talking to a fucking wall.”

Moral: I guess that Israelis should stop talking to walls and start to talk to people around them. Alternatively, if they are brave enough, they can also take a look in the mirror. By the time they do that peace will prevail.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on TALKING TO A F***KING WALL


September 18, 2010

by Bob Nichols  

(San Francisco) – It is truly Magic what we can do with a few numbers crunched together, y’know? 9/11, or September the 11th, 2001 is a fairly straightforward search to start with.

Manhattan 9/11 WTC Dust NYTimes Running

Manhattan 9/11 WTC Dust NYTimes Running

What weapon is capable of blowing up a 110 story, half million ton building with one acre concrete and steel floors built around a central core? Not only blow up; but, utterly crush 80 floors into fine dust and surgically slice up the remaining 30 stories of steel I-Beams into 30 ft sections, suitable for trucking outta there. This all has to happen in about 10 seconds, too, in Manhattan, New York. That requires a lot of “Juice,” “Power,” or “Energy,” to say the least.

OK. How much energy is required, what weapon can deliver it on target on time, and what countries have such weapons? Freelancers need not apply, this is a state sponsored job situation. Find the weapon capable of that scale of destruction and you will probably locate the Perps, too.

Any thoughts?

Global Warming.

So-called “Global Warming” is the idea that the temperature of the Earth has increased 0.7 Degrees Centigrade, or 1.3 Degrees Fahrenheit, in the last 130 years, since 1880. That is probably true. The arguments are: “Why has this tiny bit of warming occurred and what does it mean?”

We humans have a normal operating temperature of 37 Deg C, or 98.6 Degrees F. We normally say we have a Fever if our temperature is 37.7 Deg C, or 99.8 F  – almost 100 Deg F. Then, it is just not a good day, is it? 

The Earth is the same way. The question is: “What are the facts and do we agree on the facts?”

NASA Earth Photo from Space

NASA Earth Photo from Space

Former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-NY., famously lectured people that we are all entitled to our own opinion; but, we are not entitled to our own facts. Nothing could be more true, especially when we are talking about a gas we cannot see that is required for life on Earth to exist. That is Carbon Dioxide, it makes plants grow and give off oxygen, required by us. Fact is, we gotta have it on Earth, too.

Always overlooked, but, absolutely crucial to this discussion is the question “How long does a CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) molecule last?” Carbon Dioxide is a hybrid molecule exhaled by all of us seventeen times a minute and crucial to our life processes – how long is it in the air or airtime?

Scientific authorities generally agree on a range of five to twelve years for the airtime of a CO2 molecule. This constitutes a Fact we can all agree on. There are few, if any, compelling reasons to think CO2 lasts longer than that. However, as the “need” for a big evil Green House Gas increased in the United States, voila, articles claiming that the airtime of CO2 was as much as “thousands of years” increased.

Reason: If the airtime increases then the amount of invisible, tasteless, odorless CO2 must be increasing, right? Right! On paper, at least, there is magically much, much more CO2 the longer it’s airtime.

A One thousand or two thousand year airtime produces 200 times to 400 times more CO2 instantly. This is fraud and it produces the CO2 number the fraudster wanted to begin with. The Nuclear Weapons Labs get away with this, too.

Bingo! Lying with numbers. The Pentagon and the Nuclear Weapons Labs are past Masters at this. They, in fact, do it all the time. The Livermore Lab published one of their first big public lies about a month after the Atomic Bombing of civilians in Japan as a demonstration project.

“Radiation [atomic bomb] does not exist,” screamed the New York Times. Some of the boys from the Lab, the University of California at Berkeley, the US War Department and the NY Times cooked up this Hitler like Big Lie and ran it not once; but 12 times in the NY Times. The Lie was never retracted.

Explaining away a “Mushroom Cloud,” and hundreds of thousands of dead and radiologically maimed civilians was not a problem for the Big Lie co-conspirators. A simple thing like “Global Warming” proved to be a piece of cake.

All the Perps had to do was lie to their friends, families, professional colleagues, the United States residents and the world in general. The co-conspirators  changed one number in the science; then, the so-called “newspapers,” TV and radio could be depended on to do the rest of the job.

After all, Americans are purposely dumbed down and really Want to Believe. A lie told with a straight face by an authoritative looking person would definitely work. An international effort by future enemy countries to kill the massive US nuclear weapons program provided the start switch. It was all deemed “OK” since Nuclear Weapons are required for world domination.

The Montreal Protocol.

The Montreal Protocol was initiated on September 16, 1987. It was a dagger held to the throat of the US nuclear Weapons program. The World Wide Treaty was eventually  signed by 196 current and future enemy countries to the US Nuclear Weapons Program. The liberal sounding “Protocol” was accompanied by a massive international liberal publicity campaign about the alleged destruction of the earth’s Ozone layer.

Ozone, they maintained, protects life on Earth from the sterilizing rays of the Sun. They are right, of course, nothing can withstand unshielded radiation from the Sun, which is just a giant H-Bomb. But, that did not count in the fight for world domination and control.

The international Peace-niks said that CFCs were killing the Ozone layer. CFCs are also the Freon in your car air conditioner. They also make the A/C in your house and office buildings work, and Shopping Malls, too.

They are also required by the US nuclear weapons program to cool the heavy centrifuges spinning ‘round in a circle at supersonic speeds. A whopping 55% of all CFCs released into the air in North America are from cooling the US nuclear weapons program. The pro-nukers were absolutely opposed to the Montreal Protocol and knew it had to be killed.

For decades, Sen Gore, Sr., young Al Gore’s Dad and then Al Gore, Jr., as Rep., Senator and Vice President have been the “go to” politicians for political issues related to the US nuclear weapons programs’ nitty gritty problems. The Montreal “Problem”  was no exception and a serious threat to a lot of peoples’ job security. This was really serious.

The rest of the world was conspiring to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That would never do. The “best minds” would solve this problem and that meant the Livermore Nuke Weapons Lab along with the other nuclear weapons labs.

It was from this job threatening situation that the new “problem” invisible, odorless gas, CO2, was called upon to solve. All the “best minds” joined in on the dogpile and in a few years the irksome CFCs and the troublesome Montreal Protocol were forgotten in the “Global Warming – CO2” debate.

The academic science whores got “on board” in no time at all. Not a problem. Any temporary moral discomfort they might have felt was soon taken care of by the most powerful drug on Earth – American hundred dollars bills – their salaries, grants and bonuses. In the end, this was just another lie, ya go along to get along.

After all. The New York Times does it, right? 

Look around at the “Global Warming-CO2” mish mash. See what I mean?

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11, GLOBAL WARMING & OTHER CRIMES



Shattered: As Iraq winds down, U.S. Army confronts a broken force

September 18, 2010

by Michael Leon  

Veterans Suicide Prevention Hotline – 1-800-273-TALK begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-800-273-TALK      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Veterans Press 1

Was Army Report opening salvo on drug war against self-medicating veterans? Blaming anything but the war.-

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — When Lt. Col. Dave Wilson took command of a battalion of the 4th Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, the unit had just returned to Texas from 14 months traveling some of Iraq’s most dangerous roads as part of a logistics mission.

What he found, he said, was a unit far more damaged than the single death it had suffered in its two deployments to Iraq.

Nearly 70 soldiers in his 1,163-member battalion had tested positive for drugs: methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana. Others were abusing prescription drugs. Troops were passing around a tape of a female lieutenant having sex with five soldiers from the unit. Seven soldiers in the brigade died from drug overdoses and traffic accidents when they returned to Fort Bliss, near El Paso, after their first deployment.

“The inmates were running the prison,” Wilson said.

What Wilson had to deal with, however, was hardly an isolated instance.

With the U.S. drawdown in Iraq, the Army is finally confronting an epidemic of drug abuse and criminal behavior that many commanders acknowledge has been made worse because they’d largely ignored it during nearly a decade of wars on two fronts.

The Army concedes that it faces a mammoth problem.

A 350-page report issued in July after a 15-month investigation into the Army’s rising suicide rate found that levels of illegal drug use and criminal activity have reached record highs, while the number of disciplinary actions and forced discharges were at record lows. 

See  Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers.




ANDY WORTHINGTON: Introducing the Definitive List of the Remaining Prisoners in Guantánamo

September 18, 2010

by Debbie Menon  

In reading these articles, I hope that readers will be able to discover the stories of the men behind the statistics of Guantánamo — and the still-repeated and thoroughly unfounded claims that the prison holds “the worst of the worst.”

By Andy Worthington via My Catbird Seat

Over the next month, in an attempt to focus attention more closely on Guantánamo, and on the remaining prisoners who are held there, I’ll be publishing an eight-part series of articles (in conjunction with Cageprisoners, for whom I work as a Senior Researcher), telling, for the first time, the stories of the 176 men who are still held.

The series begins with the stories of 20 men described by the US authorities as part of the “Dirty Thirty,” seized crossing from Afghanistan to Pakistan in December 2001, who are mostly regarded as having been bodyguards for Osama bin Laden, even though there is copious evidence that these allegations were produced by a number of prisoners who were tortured — including Mohammed al-Qahtani, for whom Guantánamo’s version of the CIA’s torture program was devised in the fall of 2002, and approved by then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The articles to follow, covering the rest of the prisoners still held, deal with those seized in particular locations: two cover prisoners seized in Afghanistan; two more tell the stories of prisoners seized crossing from Afghanistan to Pakistan in December 2001; two deal with prisoners seized in Pakistan; and the final article covers the “high-value detainees” transferred to Guantánamo from secret CIA prisons in September 2006, and other prisoners, seized in a variety of countries, who were subjected to “extraordinary rendition” and imprisonment in secret CIA prisons.

In reading these articles, I hope that readers will be able to discover the stories of the men behind the statistics of Guantánamo — and the still-repeated and thoroughly unfounded claims that the prison holds “the worst of the worst.” In the accounts, readers will encounter a variety of different individuals. Many of these men traveled to Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks to fight with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance, and suddenly found themselves to be enemies of America in a “War on Terror,” and others were not even involved in any kind of military conflict, and were, instead, students, humanitarian aid workers, missionaries, or economic migrants, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Many of the 176 men who were still in Guantánamo at the time of writing were rounded up for the substantial bounty payments (averaging $5000 a head) that were paid by the US military for “al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects,” and, given that 596 men have already been released, it should be profoundly troubling that the majority of the men still held were either foot soldiers in an inter-Muslim civil war that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, or civilians still struggling to establish their innocence.

Readers will also encounter many stories of brutality and torture in these accounts, but, I believe, few stories of genuine terrorists, and should bear in mind that, as advised by President Obama’s interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force, only 34 of the remaining 176 men are to be put forward for trials, although 48 others are to be held indefinitely without charge or trial (because they are regarded as too dangerous to release, even though there is insufficient evidence to put them on trial), and 92 others are to be released.

One other man, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, is serving a life sentence in isolation after being convicted in a one-sided trial by Military Commission in November 2008, in which he refused to mount a defense, and another — Ibrahim al-Qosi, a cook in an al-Qaeda compound — is waiting to hear how much longer he will be imprisoned after accepting a plea deal in his trial by Military Commission in July. Another prisoner, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (not included here) was transferred to New York in May 2009 to face a federal court trial for his alleged involvement in the 1998 African embassy bombings. His trial is scheduled to begin in the near future.

58 of the men approved for release (or for “transfer,” to use the Obama administration’s language, learned carefully from the Bush administration) are Yemenis, whose release was halted in January. After the capture of the failed Christmas Day plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian who was reportedly recruited in Yemen, President Obama capitulated to unprincipled criticism and issued a moratorium on any further releases to Yemen that appears to have no end date, and that clearly constitutes “guilt by nationality.”

I find it interesting to speculate on which of the Yemenis have been cleared (and who are the 31 Yemenis recommended for trials or for indefinite detention), as this information has not been made publicly available by the Obama administration, but more generally I’m interested to hear whether readers can figure out, from these articles, why the administration believes that there is a good reason to either charge or to continue holding 82 of these men, as it has never seemed plausible to me that there are 82 men in Guantánamo who pose what might be described as “a clear and present danger.”

The lists also contain references to the prisoners’ ongoing habeas corpus petitions in the US District Court in Washington D.C., where the prisoners have won 38 cases and the government has won only 16. Much of what has been confirmed about unacceptable evidence based on statements made by the prisoners themselves (under torture or duress) or by unreliable witnesses in Guantánamo or in other “War on Terror” prisons (who were subjected to torture, duress, or, in a few cases, the promise of better living conditions), has come from these proceedings, and it is disappointing that, at the time of writing, 12 of the 38 men who have won their petitions are still held.

In addition, it is no less disappointing that the majority of those who have lost their petitions were nothing more than low-level Taliban foot soldiers (and, in two cases, a medic and a cook), whose ongoing detention, on an apparently legal basis, is not a validation of the habeas process, but is, rather, an indictment of the unjust basis for holding “War on Terror” prisoners — neither as criminal suspects, not as prisoners of war — that was conceived by the Bush administration, and that has been largely preserved under President Obama.

Andy Worthington
London, September 2010

Please note: The eight parts of the list contain the stories of three released prisoners who have not been identified — two of unspecified nationality who were released in Georgia in March 2010, and an Afghan released in Spain in July 2010.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in July 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, currently on tour in the UK, and available on DVD here), and my definitive Guantánamo habeas list, and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

Related articles:




September 18, 2010

by Gordon Duff  



Samuel Joseph Byck (January 30, 1930 – February 22, 1974) was an unemployed former tire salesman who attempted to hijack a plane flying out of Baltimore-Washington International Airport on February 22, 1974. He intended to crash into the White House in hopes of killing U.S. President Richard Nixon.

Early life

Born to poor Jewish parents in South Philadelphia, Byck dropped out of high school in the ninth grade in order to support his impoverished family. He enlisted in the US Army in 1954, was honorably discharged in 1956, married shortly thereafter, and had four children. In 1972, Byck began to suffer from severe bouts of depression after his wife divorced him and after experiencing many business failures. Due to his depression, he admitted himself to a psychiatric ward where he stayed for two months.

Byck began to harbor the belief that the government was conspiring to oppress the poor.

Byck first came to the notice of the Secret Service in 1972, when he threatened Nixon, whom he had resented ever since the Small Business Administration had turned him down for a loan. Byck also had sent bizarre tape recordings to various other public figures including scientist Jonas SalkU.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut, and conductor Leonard Bernstein; and had tried to join the Black Panthers. However, the Secret Service considered Byck to be harmless, and no action was taken at this time.

Assassination attempt

In early 1974, Byck made his decision to assassinate Nixon. He planned to do so by hijacking an airliner and crashing it into the White House on a day when Nixon would be there. It has been suggested (for instance, by the 2004 film dramatization of his life) that Byck was inspired by news reports of the February 17, 1974 buzzing of the White House by Army PFC Robert K. Preston in a stolenhelicopter.

Since Byck was already known to the Secret Service, and because legal attempts to purchase a firearm might have resulted in increased scrutiny, Byck stole a .22 caliber revolver from a friend of his to use in the hijacking. Byck also made a bomb out of 2gallon jugs of gasoline and an igniter. All through this process, Byck made audio recordings explaining his motives and his plans; he expected to be considered a hero for his actions, and wanted to fully document his reasons for the assassination.

On February 22, 1974, Byck drove to the Baltimore/Washington International Airport. He shot and killed Maryland Aviation Administration Police Officer George Neal Ramsburg before storming aboard a DC-9Delta Air Lines Flight 523 to Atlanta, which he chose because it was the closest flight that was ready to take off. After pilots Reese (Doug) Loftin and Fred Jones told him they could not take off until wheel blocks were removed, he shot them both and grabbed a nearby passenger, ordering her to “fly the plane.” Jones died as he was being removed from the aircraft after the event was concluded; Loftin survived the attack. Byck told a flight attendant to close the door or he would blow up the plane. Anne Arundel County Police officers attempted to shoot out the tires of the aircraft in order to prevent it from taking off. However, the .38 caliber bullets fired from the Smith & Wesson revolvers issued to the officers at that time period failed to penetrate the tires of the aircraft and instead ricocheted off, some hitting the wing of the aircraft.

After a standoff with police, Charles Troyer, an Anne Arundel County police officer on the jetway, stormed the plane and fired four shots through the aircraft door at Byck with a .357 Magnum revolver taken from the deceased Ramsburg. Two of the shots penetrated the thick window of the aircraft door and wounded Byck. Before the police could gain entry to the aircraft, Byck committedsuicide by shooting himself in the head.

According to a special on the History Channel, he lived for a few minutes after shooting himself, finally dying after saying “help me” to one of the police officers who entered the plane after he had been shot. A briefcase containing the gasoline bomb was found under his body. The plane never left the gate, and Nixon’s schedule was not affected by the assassination attempt.


It was subsequently discovered that Byck had sent a tape recording detailing his plan, which he called “Operation Pandora’s Box“, to news columnist Jack Anderson. A review of records disclosed that Byck had been arrested twice for protesting in front of the White House without a permit, and that he later dressed in a Santa suit for another protest. The flight’s captain recovered and resumed flying airliners three years later.

In 1987, an FAA document entitled Troubled Passage: The Federal Aviation Administration During the Nixon-Ford Term 1973-1977was produced, which mentioned Byck’s failed hijacking: …though Byck lacked the skill and self-control to reach his target, he had provided a chilling reminder of the potential of violence against civil aviation. Under a more relaxed security system, his suicidal rampage might have begun when the airliner was aloft.

After Byck’s failed assassination attempt and subsequent death, his attempt faded into relative obscurity. While the news mediareported on Byck’s actions, they did not disclose the reason why Byck attempted to hijack the plane for fear that it might inspirecopycat crimes.[citation needed] As a result, Byck and his assassination plot remained relatively unknown, except among members of the United States Secret Service and of analogous security organizations in friendly countries.

As a direct result of the assassination attempt by Byck, it is believed that the Secret Service immediately took steps to provideMANPADS to its rooftop observation teams, and that the necessary preparations for using them are kept up-to-date today, with theFIM-92 Stinger once having been the weapon selected for this purpose. Then as now, however, it is privately acknowledged that MANPADS cannot instantly obliterate large-mass aircraft making suicidal attacks from close range. At the very best, a hit by a MANPADS would turn one large incoming object into a number of only slightly smaller incoming objects, which would only serve to enlarge the area of damage and, possibly, cause more deaths than the original attack.

Byck is also one of the (failed) assassins portrayed in Sondheim‘s and Weidman‘s 1991 musical, Assassins. His role in the musical is built largely around the tapes sent to Leonard Bernstein and other famous public figures, which he “records” during two scene-length monologues, the first addressed to Bernstein and the second to Nixon himself.

A movie based on his story, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, was released in 2004.[1] The film starred Sean Penn as Bicke (the surname spelling was changed.) The History Channel also ran a special on Byck entitled, “The Plot to Kill Nixon.”[2]

The 9/11 Commission Report also mentioned Byck’s attempt to fly a plane into the White House. On page 561 in note 21, it says: 

As part of his 34-page analysis, the attorney explained why he thought that a fueled Boeing 747, used as a weapon, “must be considered capable of destroying virtually any building located anywhere in the world.” DOJ memo, Robert D. to Cathleen C., “Aerial Intercepts and Shoot-downs: Ambiguities of Law and Practical Considerations”, Mar. 30, 2000, p. 10. “Also, in February 1974, a man named Samuel Byck attempted to commandeer a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with the intention of forcing the pilots to fly into Washington and crash into the White House to kill the president. The man was shot by police and then killed himself on the aircraft while it was still on the ground at the airport.”[3]


  1. ^ ”The Assassination of Richard Nixon.” Internet Movie Database (2004).
  2. ^ ”The Plot to Kill Nixon.” Internet Movie Database (2005).
  3. ^ “9/11 report notes”9/11 Commission. Retrieved 2007-05-06.


Posted in USAComments Off on WIKIPEDIA: THE FIRST 9/11 WAS 1974



September 18, 2010 by Debbie Menon 

By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach via Global Research
This image provided by the US Defense Department (DOD) shows Iraq’s former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz as the eight of spades in the DOD’s Most Wanted playing cards.

The appearance on August 5 of an interview with former Iraqi diplomat Dr. Tariq Aziz in the Guardian was a minor bombshell, whose repercussions were to be felt worldwide. Like an underground explosion, the interview sent waves throughout international waters, rocking many boats and reaching far distant shores. It was not only what the former top Iraqi diplomat said — although his brief statements were of utmost relevance — but the mere fact that he was allowed to speak out in public, which sent eerie signals across international diplomatic circuits.


Who Is Tariq Aziz?

Dr. Tariq Aziz served as Deputy Prime Minister between 1981 and 2003, and also at times as Foreign Minister. He is the highest ranking member of the former regime still in custody. After the invasion and occupation of Baghdad in 2003, he turned himself in to the U.S. authorities, unlike other members of the regime who fled. According to his own account, Dr. Tariq presented himself to the U.S. forces out of his own free will, on condition that his family be allowed to leave Iraq for Jordan, which permission was granted. Instead of being welcomed by the U.S. forces for his spontaneous gesture and accorded humane treatment, he was thrust into prison, and held de facto incommunicado for years. He was allowed no family visits and no contact with lawyers. Finally, in 2008 he was put on trial, and in March 2009 was sentenced to 15 years in prison on charges of having participated in the execution of merchants who had violated state price controls in 1992.

He was also given a 7-year-sentence for forced relocation of Kurds. Earlier that month, he was found not guilty of killing Shi’ites in 1999. Though afflicted by diabetes, a heart condition, and emphysema, he was denied adequate medical attention or treatment, and left to rot in a dungeon. Repeated appeals by his family, his lawyers, and the Vatican for his release on humanitarian grounds were impudently ignored by the U.S. authorities.

His first approach to the Vatican for help was made in December 2004, and went through Father Jean-Marie Benjamin, a priest who had arranged a momentous meeting between Tariq Aziz and Pope John Paul II a year earlier, in an effort to prevent the war. Fr Benjamin received unofficial approval from Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State, and organized a group of Italian lawyers to provide legal assistance to Aziz, a Chaldean Christian, free of charge.

In January 2007, Aziz sent a letter through his Italian lawyer, Giovanni di Stefano, to Pope Benedict XVI, requesting that the Vatican act as a guarantor for him so that he might stay in Italy while awaiting trial. When di Stefano was allowed to visit him in prison that month, he reported that his client was “coughing up blood” and called for a doctor. In January of this year, he was hospitalized after falling ill. It was later reported that he had suffered a stroke. On July 14 he was transferred along with at least 55 other former government officials to Iraqi custody. Days later he was summoned to court again and charged with squandering public wealth.

It was as part of the process of U.S. “withdrawal” and transfer of power to the Iraqi authorities that the 74-year-old Tariq Aziz entered his new prison regime. And under this new arrangement, politically shaped by the Iraqi government, he came to give an interview to a leading British daily. According to Guardian journalist Martin Chulov, preparations for the interview had taken several months. One not-better identified minister of the Iraqi government facilitated contacts for the interview.

In this, his first (and perhaps last) direct encounter with a representative of the world press, Dr. Tariq had a lot to say — and none of it could have pleased government circles in Washington, London, Baghdad, or other world capitals involved in the military conflicts between 1991 and 2003. Aziz laid bare a number of crucial facts, and identified, in warning tones, the dangers that the declared policy aims of the belligerents — the U.S.-led coalition forces — harbored for the nation and the region.

First he declared his innocence of any “crime against any civilian, military or religious man,” and asserted, “I am proud of my life because my best intention was to serve Iraq.” He did acknowledge that “There were mistakes … there were things that were not completely correct,” without further details. He refrained from expressing regrets or criticizing his former president: “If I speak now about regrets,” he said, “people will view me as an opportunist. I will not speak against Saddam,” he went on, “until I am a free man. Wisdom is part of freedom. When I am free and can write the truth I can even speak against my best friend.” The one regret he did have was that he had surrendered. He recounts that, after having said farewell to Saddam Hussein and assured him his support, he made contact with the U.S. forces “through an intermediary”. “If I could return to that time,” he told the Guardian, “I wish I would be martyred. But the war was here and Baghdad had been occupied.

I am loyal to my family and I made a major decision. I told the Americans that if they took my family to Amman they could take me to prison.” And that is what happened. Regarding the occupation, he is quoted (it is not clear when in the interview, since it appears in the title), saying, “Britain and the U.S. killed Iraq.” At the conclusion of his remarks, he said the occupying forces would be wrong to withdraw. “He [The U.S. president] cannot leave us like this,” he said. “He is leaving Iraq to the wolves. When you make a mistake you need to correct a mistake, not to leave Iraq to its death.”

His reference to what he would or would not say about Saddam Hussein might lead to speculation that, were he freed, he could be prevailed upon to denounce the former Iraqi president, essentially justifying ex post facto the horrendous wars and invasion from 1991 to 2003.

This is not, in my view, likely. Rather, what Tariq Aziz as a free man could tell the world is the true story behind those wars and embargo regimes. First: who looked the other way as Iraq prepared to invade Kuwait in 1990, and provided assurances that whatever actions it took against Kuwait’s monetary and oil price warfare would be treated by the U.S. as an internal Arab affair? The protocol of a meeting between then-U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein is on the record, but Tariq Aziz could fill in a lot of the blanks.(1) Going back even farther in time, he would be in a position to detail who encouraged Iraq to go to war against Iran in 1980, and who provided Baghdad the political, intelligence, and military backup, including chemical weapons.(2)

But, to stick to Desert Storm, the first direct Anglo-American assault on the country: Dr. Tariq could lay out step by step how the war preparations were perceived in Baghdad. After all, he was the one delegated by Saddam Hussein to meet with then-Secretary of State James Baker III in Geneva, ostensibly in a last-ditch attempt to avoid war. What appeared in the world press following that fateful January 9, 1991 meeting was the news that Baker III had threatened Aziz that, unless Iraq withdrew from Kuwait toute suite, his country would be “bombed back to the Stone Age.” Subsequent events confirmed that Baker was not bluffing.

Rendez-vous in Geneva

But what unfolded in that Geneva meeting was far more than what could be summarized in one vicious byte-sized threat by a superpower against a developing country. The full transcript of the meeting, which lasted for over 7 hours, is well worth studying, and in painstaking detail.(3) Now  declassified, the official transcript reveals the real dimensions and contours of a conflict which had been falsely presented as a confrontation between the “West” (U.N.-U.S.-U.K. et al) and a wily regional power (Iraq), to reestablish justice after the unlawful invasion of Kuwait. No, the substance of the discussions that day in Geneva was quite another. It had relatively little to do with Kuwait. The real issue was Israel and the Palestinian question.

Baker made clear he was there to “communicate,” not “negotiate.” The thrust of his “communication” was that the crisis had begun with Iraq’s August 2 invasion of Kuwait, “an action condemned in twelve UNSC resolutions” which “don’t just condemn the act, they demand its reversal.” In a formulation he was to repeat several times, Baker stated, “We cannot negotiate the terms of those resolutions.” And, “the only question is by what path you leave Kuwait – a peaceful withdrawal, or withdrawal by force.” Referring to the “devastatingly superior fire-power and forces” that Iraq would face, were it to refuse, Baker pledged the conflict would “be fought to a swift, decisive conclusion.”

At the opening of the talks, Baker had handed Aziz a letter from President Bush to Saddam Hussein, which presumably “communicated” the same message. Aziz rejected the letter on grounds it was “full of expressions of threat,” and uncivilized.

The argument put forth by Aziz was that the crisis did not begin on August 2, but had its origins in a more distant past. He said that the U.S. had intended all along to deploy its unquestionable military might.  Prior to August 2, Aziz said, there had been “full-scale propaganda against Iraq, abusing the Iraqi leadership,” and he cited a U.S. News and World Report article that characterized Saddam Hussein as “the most dangerous man in the world.” Furthermore, he said, “An economic embargo was in effect” with contracts on grain and agriculture frozen as far back as January 1990. In addition, Iraq was being threatened by Israel. “In March 1990,” he said, “we expected an Israeli attack against Iraq.

Israel threatened to attack our industrial and technological installations.” It was in response, then, that “On April 2, Saddam Hussein said that if Israel attacked us, we would retaliate and burn half of Israel.” Most significantly, Aziz specified: “We were talking about an Israeli nuclear hit.” He elaborated that Saddam had threatened to use “binary chemical weapons” if Israel were to attack Iraq with nuclear weapons (emphasis added). This was what the Iraqi president communicated to Senator Dole and others in Mosul at the time – a fact Baker immediately questioned. (It was that April 2 statement by Saddam Hussein that apparently led to the charge that he was “the most dangerous man in the world.”)

Referring to discussions he had had with U.S. leaders in October 1989 as well as to debate at the May 30, 1990 Baghdad Summit, Aziz summed up the situation as it appeared to Iraq at the time: “So the picture in 1990 was one of Israeli threats to Iraq with the prospect of a war between Israel and Iraq, and an Israeli threat against Jordan, and an Israeli threat to the Palestinian people….” On top of this came the economic warfare launched by Kuwait, which had flooded the oil markets, triggering a drop in the oil price from $21 a barrel to $11 a barrel. Iraq was “on the verge of economic collapse,” Aziz said. Despite an agreement struck at a meeting of oil ministers to return to quota levels, “the Kuwaiti oil minister issued a statement after the meeting which said Kuwait would go back to the old position in two months’ time.” Aziz concluded: “What he was saying constituted war against Iraq.” Thus the move against Kuwait was in self-defense.

Significantly, it was at this point that Tariq Aziz made an interesting offer to Baker, to cooperate to reach a “just, comprehensive and lasting peace for the whole region,” and added that, unless the Palestinian issue were resolved, “our security in Iraq will continue to be threatened.” Aziz concluded his case by rejecting the double standard used by the US. “There are other UN resolutions to be implemented,” he said, obviously referring to those condemning Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. “But there are no forces sent to implement them.”

Baker’s response arrogantly ignored the entire content of the Iraqi’s presentation, and seized only on the last point. “We have no double standard on UNSC resolutions,” Baker barked, and proceeded to develop a formalistic interpretation of UNSC resolutions. “You are aware that the resolutions of the Arab-Israeli conflict provide principles for negotiations. They don’t require immediate unconditional withdrawal as do the resolutions on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait”(emphasis added).  Not only on the formal level did Baker defend the double standard, but in substance; he went on to develop a full defense of Israel’s actions, including the 1967 war.

“We don’t pursue a double standard on enforcing UN resolutions,” he said, “or on weapons of mass destruction.” Then came the astonishing assertion: “You know Israel was the subject of aggression and occupied the territories as a result of a war waged against it; they occupied the territories as the result of defending against a war imposed on them.” Aziz’s response was a classical understatement: “I have great reservations about your description.”

Baker was adamant. When Aziz stated that “Israel’s occupation in 1967 was a result of flagrant military aggression against the Arab world,” Baker called on Dennis Ross to educate Aziz on the 1967 war, “since he [Ross] has studied this.” Ross’s studied version had it that Egypt was threatening Israel, and that therefore “Israel didn’t wait to be attacked. It hit Egypt, and asked Jordan to stay out of the war….”

Several times during the meeting, Aziz proposed cooperation with the U.S. to prevent a new war and to jointly establish a new world order based on justice. Solving the Palestinian issue – the “mother of all problems” –would be at the center of such a “comprehensive settlement,” he said. Early in the conversation, Aziz referred to a proposal Saddam Hussein had made to Senator Dole to agree on the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in the region, including Israel’s. At the height of the crisis on August 12, 1990, Saddam, in fact, had announced that if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories, an arrangement could be found for Kuwait.

In an effort to settle the current crisis over Kuwait peacefully, Aziz proposed regional talks: “if military action were to happen,” he argued, “then all parties in the region will take part. Why not have them sit before the war? If these parties take part, after a while, the war will end…. But after it ends, will the region be left in peace? Will the region be left for more wars? If the answer is, there must be peace, those parties must sit together to make peace. So why not do it now?” And he added: “Not just Iraq and the United States, but the other parties that will take part – the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the others.” Yes – he also said “Israel.”

Baker responded with characteristic sarcasm, saying, well, if that were the case, then why hadn’t all the parties “sat together” on this or that or the other date in the past? Similarly, when Aziz proposed that he go to Washington to discuss the crisis directly with President Bush and report back to Saddam Hussein, Baker dismissed it as too little, too late.

Time and again in the talks, Aziz brought up the 1967 war, and Israel’s occupation as well its annexations of Palestinian land, and complained that the U.S. had never upheld any relevant UNSC resolutions: “The fact is that you have always given Israel political protection through your veto.” Baker repeatedly denied holding a double standard. The session broke up in an atmosphere of tense animosity.

In a later interview, Baker essentially admitted that the meeting had been a set-up, aimed at allowing the U.S. “to be seen in the judgment of history as not having left any stone unturned in the pursuit of peace.” Asked if this were a “plot to avoid the war,” Baker said no, since the decision had already been made. “[T]he meeting with Tariq Aziz in Geneva permitted us to achieve congressional support for something that the President was determined to do in any event….”(4)

The Lessons of Geneva

Studying these documents confirmed me in my belief that Desert Storm had little or nothing to do with Kuwait, but everything to do with a U.S.-U.K.-Israeli commitment to a new policy for the region. That blueprint for a New World Order was the strategic plan adopted by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 as his government policy, known as the Clean Break. It entailed a break with the 1993 Oslo Accords negotiated with the Palestinians and a return to an aggressive policy of confrontation, occupation, settlements, and annexations. Regionally, it called for regime change in every country deemed hostile to Israel (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran), so as to allow it regional hegemony (and implicitly a nuclear monopoly). Since then, there has been regime change in Iraq, (which was the foremost Arab champion of Palestinian rights), and the Israeli wars against Lebanon and Gaza.

None of this is the stuff of academic debate. It is immediately relevant today. For, the same Netanyahu again prime minister in Israel is hell-bent for leather on pursuing the strategic aims of Clean Break, this time by taking on Iran, the last target on the list, with the pretext of eliminating it as a potential nuclear military threat. Reams of articles flooded the internet over the last months on this war danger, and a group of leading former intelligence and military personnel in the U.S. wisely issued a public demand to the White House that it prevent such an apocalyptic move.(5) This broad exposure of the Israeli war plan and intervention by U.S. intelligence officials directly addressing Obama had some effect.

On August 19, the New York Times reported that Gary Samore, Obama’s leading advisor on nuclear matters, had gone on record saying that it would take Iran a year to develop a weapons capability. But what was the purpose of this announcement? To signal to Israel to wait one more year. Almost simultaneously, on August 20, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said she was inviting Israel and the Palestinians to resume direct peace talks. The coincidence is striking; one hypothesis is that the war faction is staging peace talks to curry favor with the Arabs, all in preparation of the move against Iran – one year from now.

Tariq Aziz and War Prevention

Tariq Aziz represents a valuable asset in the effort to stop a new war. Were he freed, through a concerted international campaign, he could speak out and educate world public opinion on what the nature of the Great Game in the region has been over the past three decades at least. Truth has a way of clearing the air. His personal testimony regarding developments involving Iraq, Iran, the U.S., the U.K., Europe, and regional forces since 1980 could blow the lid off the official cover stories related to the conflicts in that period.

Certainly this is the main reason why Aziz, unlike many other members of the Saddam Hussein regime, has been kept in custody, his guardians obviously waiting for him to exit this life and enter the next. Former colleagues of his, be it a former Foreign Minister, or an Information Minister, among many diplomats, are now resting comfortably (some as millionaires, I am told), in Dubai or Abu Dhabi or Amman. Perhaps they made a pact with Mephistopheles to refrain from writing memoirs, in exchange for an easy life in exile. Tariq Aziz is not that sort of person.

On the two occasions that I met him personally, in 1991 and in 1994 in Baghdad, while part of a humanitarian aid effort, I was impressed by his modesty, his intelligence, his personal commitment to defend his nation and people, and above all his deep disappointment that the U.S. — considered Iraq’s ally over decades — had so betrayed their trust, and deliberately destroyed his nation. Tariq Aziz is a precious resource in the pursuit of truth and political justice.

Iraqi Internal Politics

Why was Tariq Aziz allowed to give the Guardian such an interview?

One can only make a few educated guesses on the basis of known facts. First, it occurred after his transfer to the Iraqi authorities, who appear to be treating him better than the Americans did. He mentions in the interview that he has comfortable quarters, friendly guards, and weekly telephone access to his family. Secondly, the interview appeared in the midst of a prolonged political crisis following parliamentary elections. Iyad Allawi, whose secular nationalist faction had won a slim majority over Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s group, was also contacted by the Guardian, and informed of the upcoming interview. “Tell Tariq Aziz that he is my friend and I think of him often,” Allawi is quoted saying. “He is a good man and I know his family well. I wish him all the best and it is wrong to lock him up like this for so long. He is an old man.”

In an interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel, published August 29, Allawi elaborated on his forecast for Iraq: either Iraq “starts political reconciliation, builds full-blown state institutions and security forces and creates an independent foreign policy,” or Iraq will become prey again to civil war – this time without multinational forces on the ground to prevent the worst. Asked about Tariq Aziz’s warning, that after the occupiers left, the country would be left to the wolves, Allawi answered: “He means the predators that have been unleashed all over the Middle East, the lawless people and the terrorists who want to spill as much blood as possible on as many places as possible.”

Allawi’s overall assessment of the failure of U.S. policy is devastating and on the mark. In Iraq, he said, “The biggest mistake committed by the Iraqi government and the multinational forces was to let down the Sahwa forces — the tribal movement which was so decisive in the fight against al-Qaida. They have not been integrated; they have been disenfranchised and pushed back into despair and poverty. This will have consequences.” Furthermore, U.S. strategy for the region has been a failure: in Afghanistan, “it is a total failure. The problem here is not about America leaving Iraq and continuing its fight in Afghanistan. America has to rethink its strategy for the whole region from Central Asia to the Middle East. NATO will have to rethink its strategy and so will Europe.”

Regarding possible agreement on power-sharing, Allawi stressed that, since all power is invested in the Prime Minister, a way must be found to share that power between two political forces. He expressed optimism that Shi’ite militia and political leader Muqtadar al Sadr, whom he had opposed in the past, could and would play a positive role as a nationalist Iraqi. His last comments dealt with Iran, and the enormous fear gripping the region that a new conflict, which he compared to the 1962 Cuba crisis, may break out. Allawi’s advice to the U.S. et al: “the world should engage and talk with Iran, and try to see and feel where the fears of Iran lie. The Iranians are logical people. We should try to convince them that proliferation does not serve their purpose in the end.” He concluded by saying a war over Iran’s nuclear program was “a very high possibility.”

Parallels to Iran.

Both Tariq Aziz and Iyad Allawi have provided valuable insights into the past, present, and future of their tortured country. Although they do not make the connection in such an explicit form, the danger of new wars in the region is intimately linked to the policy followed since 1996 by the U.S., U.K., and Israel.

And the parallels to the current crisis are outstanding: just as Saddam Hussein in Tariq Aziz’s account was denounced a public enemy number one for his threats to retaliate against a threatened Israeli nuclear attack, so today Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is demonized for having allegedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map. This, nota bene, came in response to repeated Israeli threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iraq in both pre-war situations (1990 and 2003) was falsely accused of having weapons of mass destruction; today, against evidence to the contrary documented by the IAEA, Iran is condemned for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

Just as Saddam Hussein had offered cooperation with the U.S. and others, to reach a regional peace settlement, based on a weapons of mass destruction free zone (including Israel) and a comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and Israel, so has the Islamic Republic of Iran repeatedly over the past seven years (at least) made concrete proposals for regional peace, security, and stability. The “grand bargain” which Iran offered the U.S. under the Khatami presidency was not only rejected out of hand. Washington had the chutzpah to claim it had never received any such offer. Recent offers by Ahmadinejad for direct talks with the U.S. on all open issues have been ignored, and not only because his rhetorical style may be deemed offensive to the West.

So it is clear that the war party in the U.S., U.K., and Israel, which brought us the tragedies of Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom (sic), is intent on igniting another war which, this time, would incinerate the entire region. Shedding light on how previous such bloody adventures have been orchestrated and forced on an unassuming world public opinion is of utmost importance. Therefore, Dr. Tariq Aziz should be freed.


1.  Sa’adoon Al-Zubaydi, Saddam Hussein’s official translator from 1987 to 1995(who also attended the Geneva meeting), gave an interview to Activist’s Reader in April 2004, entitled “Lost in Translation,” (, in which he reported: “I was present at all three meetings between Saddam and then U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, during her three-year term. I can say with certainty that the Americans had in fact been notified of the intention to attack Kuwait, and responded with tacit acquiescence.” One meeting took place on July 25th, and “Glaspie arrived breathless at the meeting…. But she had good news for us. It was a message for Saddam from President Bush [senior]. ‘It is not U.S. policy to interfere in inter-Arab affairs,’ she said to us in English.”

2.  On Iran, Al-Zubaydi had the following to say: “Saddam felt betrayed by Israel after the bombing of the nuclear reactor of Osiraq in June of 1981. ‘I wage war on Iran, which is dangerous for the entire Middle East, and they repay me by stabbing me in the back?’ he used to say.” He also recalled a meeting between Saddam and the U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Near East, Richard Murphy, about an Iraqi missile that had accidentally hit a U.S. frigate, killing 37. “I remember my surprise,” translator Al-Zubaydi said, “when I learned that at the time, there was extensive exchange of intelligence between Washington and Baghdad during the war against Iran.” In the Geneva meeting, Tariq Aziz also hinted at Iraqi-U.S. convergence in the Iran war: “Had we failed in confronting Iran,” he said, “you would have sent your forces to confront Iran, not Iraq. So our force was a force made to maintain the balance in the area and to protect the security, stability, and wealth of the region, including your interests.”

3.  “US Department of State Memorandum of Conversation, Secretary James A. Baker III and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, Wednesday, January 9, 1991, Geneva, Switzerland,

4.  Frontline: The Gulf War: Oral History: James Baker,

5.  “Obama has been Warned that Israel May Bomb Iran: Memorandum to the President from former Intelligence Officials,” by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Global Research, August 4, 2010.

The author can be reached at

Related articles:

The Source of America’s Wars – Kristol Clear [VIDEO]

Who’s to blame for the Iraq war?

Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet? 

The Next 9/11—Made in Israel?

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on IRAQ: WHY TARQ AZIZ SHOULD BE RELEASED



Zuheir Andreus: We are all Zuabi

The Palestinians in Israel will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians, the authentic owners of the land here, are an inseparable part of the Arab nation. They were here before Israel, they are not transients and they are certainly not guests in their native land. Read more »

August 18, 2010 | Posted in Israel, Others | Read More »

Gideon Levy: “Arabs, get out”

The fact that [Israeli Arabs] have yet to choose to boycott the state and its institutions and to stop participating in the game of democracy, which is corrupt to begin with, as far as they are concerned – a game from which they are almost completely excluded – is nothing short of amazing. Read more »

August 15, 2010 | Posted in Gideon Levy, Israel | Read More »

Midnight on the Mavi Marmara (new book)

Henning Mankell, aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla: “We have been attacked while in international waters. That means the Israelis have behaved like pirates … The moment they start to steer this ship towards Israel, we have also been kidnapped. The whole action is illegal.” Read more »

August 9, 2010 | Posted in Boycott / Protest / Resistance, Video | Read More »

Israel’s harassment of citizens could ignite uprising, warns Arab politician

Israel’s harassment of citizens could ignite uprising, warns Arab politician

Haneen Zoabi: “It took us 40 years for us to admit that we were even Palestinians. Another 15 years passed before we realised that the peace process started under Oslo had been a disaster. The Zionist project was to domesticate its Arab citizens as the hewers and drawers of water. But the carrot-and-stick approach failed, and now we see Israel is prepared to throw away its liberal side to control us. We were passive once and now we are becoming active about our national identity.” Read more »

July 26, 2010 | Posted in FEATURED NEWS STORIES, Israel | Read More »

Haneen Zoabi: “The largest threat to democracy is Zionism”

Haneen Zoabi: “The largest threat to democracy is Zionism”

They are trying to establish borders on our political identity and say that we cannot have relations with the broader Arab world. They want to redefine the margins of democracy to exclude any political program that calls for full equality. We are calling for equality without Zionism… The fact is, to demand full civic and national equality is actually to demand the end of Zionism. So we don’t hate Zionism. Zionism hates democracy. Read more »

July 22, 2010 | Posted in FEATURED COMMENTARIES, Occupation, Others | Read More »

Israel’s parliament revokes Arab MK Zuabi’s privileges over Gaza flotilla

Haneen Zoabi: “It’s not surprising that a country that strips the fundamental rights of its Arab citizens would revoke the privileges of a Knesset member who loyally represents her electorate… You are punishing me out of vengeance… When you threaten the Arab MKs and the Arabs’ protectors, you threaten democracy and co-existence between Jews and Arabs.” Read more »

July 13, 2010 | Posted in FEATURED NEWS STORIES, Israel | Read More »

International lawmakers may probe Israeli decision to censure Arab MK

The Inter-Parliamentary Union is set to discuss recommendation to strip Balad MK Hanin Zuabi of privileges over Gaza flotilla participation. Read more »

June 16, 2010 | Posted in FEATURED NEWS STORIES, Gaza, Israel | Read More »

Jamal Zahalka, Haneen Zoabi: an Appeal to Parliamentarians Worldwide

MK Haneen Zoabi (BALAD) faces death threats as the Israeli Knesset House Committee votes to revoke her parliamentary privileges for participating in the Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla and protesting against the blockade. Read more »

June 10, 2010 | Posted in Boycott / Protest / Resistance | Read More »

Democracy Now! interviews Haneen ZoabiDemocracy Now! interviews Haneen Zoabi

Hanin Zoabi was aboard the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the flotilla where all nine activists were killed, and she witnessed some of them bleed to death. When she returned to Israel to speak in the Knesset, she was verbally assaulted by parliament members for her participation in the flotilla. Read more »

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on HANEEN ZOABI IN THE MEDIA

Shoah’s pages


September 2010
« Aug   Oct »