Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Keith Addison wrote: Hello Robert Keith Addison wrote: Hello Robert Really excellent stuff snipped, I just wanted to make an apparently obvious observation that I've come to over my short half-a-century; There is no us and them, There is only us, and we're all we have, quod erat demonstrandum ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hi Chip Keith Addison wrote: Hello Robert Keith Addison wrote: Hello Robert Really excellent stuff snipped, Thankyou, for my part, glad you think so. I just wanted to make an apparently obvious observation that I've come to over my short half-a-century; There is no us and them, There is only us, and we're all we have, quod erat demonstrandum Yea verily. Too obvious, maybe, every culture knows that, but if they really knew it what a different place our world would be. WILL be, IMHO, we're en route, I do believe, appearances to the contrary. Regards Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Keith Addison wrote: (living over the line.) I know. It happened to me when I was 23 and a little blue-eyed boy in the eyes of my family and so on because of my stellar progress up the rungs of the journalism career ladder, but then I went and altogether blew it by chucking aside a great job on a national paper and joined a black paper instead. Then it all changed, they always knew there was something basically unsound about Keith... It was never discussed, an unmentionable. When I was with them (where I wasn't quite a pariah, immediate family and a few others) I had to pretend it just didn't exist, and, very considerately I'm sure they thought, so did they. Polite, you know. Ah, that sounds like an important experience for you, Keith! I had black teachers in elementary school, so I had the good fortune of long term exposure to their intellect and humanity. My best friend is a dead ringer for the actor Will Smith. We've been friends since we were 13, but unlike your story, my family was openly hostile to him. They even went as far as to accuse us of being gay! (Good, upstanding, church-attending people that they are!) I don't think of him as black. He's my friend. I don't care WHAT color he is. But the common thread between your story and mine is that attitudes and beliefs which were imparted to us as children didn't hold up when examined critically. Sometimes that process happens quickly, as it did with me in rejecting racism (though I still suffer from my upbringing), and other times the change is much more gradual. I feel I've been going through this with respect to my beliefs about what it means to be an American. I'm finding it very hard to let go of attitudes I've cherished over the years. It's strangely irrational. So the gap grew, as there was more and more I didn't and couldn't talk about. Though I was ever more deeply involved in them, it was not possible to discuss any of the huge issues challenging life in South Africa with anyone in my family or any of the people I grew up with. That never changed, even though South Africa did, bringing what you'd've thought would be vindication. But then, it just occurred to me that they'd probably have behaved exactly the same way if I'd turned out to be gay. Not the only such example, and not only with those people. I understand--maybe not to the same extent that you do, but I hear a harmonic resonance in what you've written that blends well with my own experience. Never did like ladders. Ever noticed how the higher you go the narrower the rungs get? I've never been one for climbing ladders anyway. I've always found trees much more satisfying!!! Maybe with that bit of background you can understand why I think it's kind of useless to complain to senators and so on. Er, excuse me Mr Vorster... LOL! Not much different anywhere else, just a matter of degree. Yes, I'm beginning to hear you more clearly now. That death of cherished values to which I referred earlier is in progress as I write and think on these things. I've habitually contacted senators and congressmen concerning my views on a wide variety of issues, and in some instances they've been helpful. Once, for example, the dreaded Immigration and Naturalization Service wanted to deport my sweetheart when we were living in California because they'd mucked up her immigrant application. I simply couldn't make progress with the INS people, so I contacted my senator, whose staff promptly lit a fire beneath someone's posterior and the paperwork sailed through without difficulty. We still had to go to the deportation hearing because it took time to straighten everything out. When the judge looked at us she said: What are YOU doing here? I have an Hispanic name, and Benita's name means blessed in Spanish. (Though I'm the one who is blessed!) My family is from Brasil. Portuguese is my native tongue, and I grew up eating rice and beans. But my skin is so pale that it creates glare on a sunny day. When I was in the California Boy's Choir, singing Carmen and der Rosencavalier with the New York City Opera Company on tour, the make up ladies used to joke that if they didn't put the darkest shade of base color on my face, I'd simply disappear in the stage lighting . . . So the INS assumed that my wife was in the United States illegally. My senator's staff straightened that out for me, and that's one instance where the government actually worked in my favor. There was no such thing as a peace network, nor even a left wing, they were all in jail, in exile or dead, or living secret lives and very bothered about the spies among us. The so-called left wing was a right of centre party backed by Anglo American. All a little isolating, yes. My situation is not that extreme, but over here it doesn't have to be in order to marginalize opposition. (strenuous
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hi Frank Hi Robert and Keith, I know. It happened to me when I was 23 It happened to me, too. I think it is exiting the allegorical cave, seeing the truth and not turning away from it. It then becomes a burden and a responsibility to uphold, but ultimately, the only thing that matters. Yes, I'd agree with that, it's the only thing that matters. So the gap grew, as there was more and more I didn't and couldn't talk about. Aye, there's the rub! What no one wants to do is talk about the truth if it undermines the premise by which they justify their beliefs. The premise being undermined was that blacks are sub-human. In fact the black society I was becoming so involved with completely redefined for me what it is to be human. I learnt so much from them. Then they had to teach me not to hate whites! Of course the family et al's way of seeing it was that it was me who was undermined, not the truth. Quite true, I was most certainly undermined, and I'm most grateful for it. Everyone should talk about everything! I think you just have to endure Robert. Keep bringing up these controversial points of view with those around you, and soon enough maybe they will sink in. It's lonely being objective, but truth is our highest responsibility. No Christian could argue that point with you! This wouldn't apply to Robert's circle, but so many so-called Christians are strangers to any truth that's not in their dogma, even if it is in their Bible. I think it's quite easy to tell who's a real Christian, you can see if they really think that God is love, and if they don't think that they're not real Christians, IMHO. It's not only Christians who think God is love though, all great souls do, and you find them everywhere. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. I think all societies know that, deep in their communal hearts. Thanks to both of you, And to you Frank. Regards Keith Frank ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hi Robert and Keith, I know. It happened to me when I was 23 It happened to me, too. I think it is exiting the allegorical cave, seeing the truth and not turning away from it. It then becomes a burden and a responsibility to uphold, but ultimately, the *only *thing that matters. So the gap grew, as there was more and more I didn't and couldn't talk about. Aye, there's the rub! What no one wants to do is talk about the truth if it undermines the premise by which they justify their beliefs. Everyone should talk about everything! I think you just have to endure Robert. Keep bringing up these controversial points of view with those around you, and soon enough maybe they will sink in. It's lonely being objective, but truth is our highest responsibility. No Christian could argue that point with you! Thanks to both of you, Frank ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hello Robert I didn't reply to this because I was a bit taken aback. Anyway I'll try. Lots of snips. Good for you with your attempt to complain to Feinstein, but why work in a vacuum? A lot of folks enjoyed those Oz videos about Stupid Americans but I thought they were very depressing! None of those folks could pinpoint Iran on a map, they thought Australia was Iran. But they wanted to nuke it anyway. If I was an Australian that would've worried me deeply! Ooops! Sorry! You detect no bias in that film? Of course! Had they asked ME those questions, I'd have been able to answer them without difficulty, and I'm an American, too! Yet it sends a funnier, and in some ways more sobering, message to only show the half-wits and characterize the rest of us as existing within the same intellectual framework. But you do. There are what, 40 million of them? 60 million maybe? Their manufactured consent is part of the national intellectual framework within which these actions become possible. You're not represented by the fundamentalist so-called Christian right either, but they're a disproportionate part of setting that framework too. No need to fool all of the people all of the time as long as you fool enough of them enough of the time. Those of us who oppose the stupidity going on in my country are routinely shouted down by those who are perpetrating it, as well as their devoted minions. The filmakers didn't show any people with contrasting capabilities, and that omission makes it look like the average American is a dolt. What sticks about it is that a similar level of ignorance is displayed by prospective senior diplomats answering questions at the Senate who can barely finger the country they're going to be ambassador to on the map. The name Chester Crocker rings a bell, eg, IIRC, but there've been many of them. Such fiascos get wide coverage in the world press (high aghast value, makes good copy), and so do the ensuing disasters. Anyway, that video crew knew what they were looking for and were confident they'd find it, as they did. Where else in the world can you go out on the street and be confident of finding folks with such a doltish world-view? Anywhere else where the per capita expenditure on education compares with the US? Anywhere else at all? Maybe that's the point. Sure, they could have found a bunch of really switched-on folks too, but you can find those anywhere. You're right that it's up to us Americans to agitate for change, but I'm sad to say that the driving force behind my government has very little concern for my view as a citizen. Yes, Robert, that's one of the things Americans are agitating to change. Other people have been calling the Global Village the Other Superpower for a few years now, but the Business Party mouthpiece thinks it's an authority deficit, the end of CAWKI, aarghh, we'll all be murdered in our beds. Well let's hope it is, CAWKI's past its use-by date anyway. You can shoot these guys on suspicion Robert, if it's deep suspicion use a refined roadside bomb, LOL! Me? Advocate violence? My fighting days are a dim and unpleasant memory! That's the bit that left me nonplussed. You seriously think I meant that literally? Maybe you were just feeling tender because you felt America was being got at. (Actually it was global corporatism that was being got at, but indeed Wall Street is not far from Washington.) Robert, we're talking about a war of words. Eg.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17148.htm US ratchets up 'psy-ops' against Tehran 02/22/07 SaudiDebate -- Psychological warfare is fast emerging as the key component of the conflict between Iran and the United States. It is being used extensively by the latter to influence Iranian behavior in Iraq and secure a climbdown by the Islamic Republic in the intricate negotiations over the country's controversial nuclear program. He calls it a War of words, but he's only looking at a part of it, the Middle East bit, the target. Another part is the diplomatic (so to speak) offensive aimed at the UN, the EU etc, on the world stage outside the Middle East and outside the US. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17149.htm US Iran intelligence 'is incorrect' Vienna 02/22/07 Guardian -- -- Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today. And so on. The third part of the war, maybe the most important part, is the domestic offensive - the lying and cynical campaign of spin and disinfo to manufacture consent in the US for a killing war against Iran, which so many people have said is just a replay of the pre-Iraq spin and disinfo. Outside the US people have difficulty grasping the fact that you're actually doing the same thing all over again, it's beyond belief. But that's what's happening. When you shoot known
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Keith Addison wrote: Hello Robert I didn't reply to this because I was a bit taken aback. Anyway I'll try. Lots of snips. Good for you with your attempt to complain to Feinstein, but why work in a vacuum? It's a little isolating to live "over the line." My social network is primarily comprised of people who strenuously disagree with me. I've never been much of an activist, preferring to be left alone, and that reticence works against me in this realm. (Bias in the OZ films) Of course! Had they asked ME those questions, I'd have been able to answer them without difficulty, and I'm an American, too! Yet it sends a funnier, and in some ways more sobering, message to only show the half-wits and characterize the rest of us as existing within the same intellectual framework. But you do. There are what, 40 million of them? 60 million maybe? Their manufactured consent is part of the national intellectual framework within which these actions become possible. You're not represented by the fundamentalist so-called Christian right either, but they're a disproportionate part of setting that framework too. Yes, I hear your point. If I'm sensitive to this, it's only because I don't like being lumped into the same category with a bunch of dolts! No need to fool all of the people all of the time as long as you fool enough of them enough of the time. The lies are so pervasive, so compelling, and they're told with such straight faces that even our journalists repeat them without challenge. Here's an interview conducted by Robert Siegel with the Israeli ambassador on NPR yesterday. I've inserted my comments in parentheses. *** Middle East Israeli Envoy Calls for Resolve on Iran, Hamas All Things Considered, February 22, 2007 Sallai Meridor recently arrived in Washington to serve as Israel's ambassador to the United States. His tenure begins at an important juncture: The Middle East peace process is in a multi-sided stalemate. And the region is adjusting to the news that Iran has defied the United Nations in enriching uranium. Asked if Israel a country that many believe already has nuclear weapons of its own would act unilaterally if Iran persists with its development plans, Meridor takes a different tack. "I think it's critical that the Iranians know that they should not be allowed to have [a] nuclear weapon," the ambassador says, "and that all options are on the table." If Iran succeeds in developing a nuclear weapon, Meridor says, "it would be a mortal threat to the world, and the world should get their act together to stop it now." (insert: Where's the evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon??? And even if they were, why would that be a mortal threat to the world?) Robert Siegel talks with Meridor. A transcript of the interview follows: ROBERT SIEGEL: The Middle East peace process, which has long been in a state of suspended animation, is now in a kind of multisided stalemate. The quartet, which is made up of the U.S., the European Union, the U.N. and Russia, reminded the Palestinians last night that their government must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and accept previous agreements and obligations. The Palestinian Islamist group, Hamas, which won the last parliamentary election, does not meet those requirements. (insert: See, that last statement is accepted as a given. Hamas is bad. There is no inclusion of the cease-fire, and NOTHING is mentioned from the perspective of the Palestinians. The "world" is portrayed as unified against Hamas, but that's not what I'm hearing in this forum!) A Palestinian government of national unity that includes Hamas that was brokered by Saudi Arabia and the President Mahmoud Abbas says is the best they can possibly do does not yet satisfy the quartet's terms. And that is just the barrier to getting back to serious negotiations. The issues that Israel and the Palestinians would actually negotiate are no easier today than they were a few years ago. Joining us to talk about those and other issues is Sallai Meridor, who recently arrived in Washington to serve as Israeli's ambassador to the United States. Welcome to the program. AMBASSADOR SALLAI MERIDOR: Thank you. And thank you for having me. MR. SIEGEL: First off, is there any declaration or commitment that Hamas could say or make that would satisfy Israel that a Palestinian government, including Hamas, could be a partner for peace, or does Hamas being Hamas preclude that. AMB. MERIDOR: Well, Hamas is today a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. What it would take for us to be able to move forward is to have a Palestinian government that recognizes the right of Israel to exist, that renounces terrorism and violence, and that is committed to adhering to previous
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hello Robert Keith Addison wrote: Hello Robert I didn't reply to this because I was a bit taken aback. Anyway I'll try. Lots of snips. Good for you with your attempt to complain to Feinstein, but why work in a vacuum? It's a little isolating to live over the line. I know. It happened to me when I was 23 and a little blue-eyed boy in the eyes of my family and so on because of my stellar progress up the rungs of the journalism career ladder, but then I went and altogether blew it by chucking aside a great job on a national paper and joined a black paper instead. Then it all changed, they always knew there was something basically unsound about Keith... It was never discussed, an unmentionable. When I was with them (where I wasn't quite a pariah, immediate family and a few others) I had to pretend it just didn't exist, and, very considerately I'm sure they thought, so did they. Polite, you know. So the gap grew, as there was more and more I didn't and couldn't talk about. Though I was ever more deeply involved in them, it was not possible to discuss any of the huge issues challenging life in South Africa with anyone in my family or any of the people I grew up with. That never changed, even though South Africa did, bringing what you'd've thought would be vindication. But then, it just occurred to me that they'd probably have behaved exactly the same way if I'd turned out to be gay. Not the only such example, and not only with those people. Never did like ladders. Ever noticed how the higher you go the narrower the rungs get? Maybe with that bit of background you can understand why I think it's kind of useless to complain to senators and so on. Er, excuse me Mr Vorster... LOL! Not much different anywhere else, just a matter of degree. There was no such thing as a peace network, nor even a left wing, they were all in jail, in exile or dead, or living secret lives and very bothered about the spies among us. The so-called left wing was a right of centre party backed by Anglo American. All a little isolating, yes. My social network is primarily comprised of people who strenuously disagree with me. At least they still talk to you. I've never been much of an activist, preferring to be left alone, and that reticence works against me in this realm. So why do you confine yourself to that realm? In fact you don't, or you wouldn't be here. Here's a bit you snipped from the previous: The propaganda machine is SO well oiled and widespread it's becoming nearly impossible to find truth in news reporting . . . That's one reason I find this forum so valuable. Yes, me too! Do any of the peace networks have local branches in your area Robert? Are you put off? If so, why? Actually all the peace networks have local branches in your area, right there in the computer you're staring at right now. Just like this forum. Don't you think they might have been able to offer a more effective approach than just calling Senator Feinstein, perhaps one that coordinated with other efforts? Or maybe some specific information on how to get through to Feinstein or someone like her instead of getting a brush-off? These groups do have such resources within their sphere of interest, just as this one does within our sphere. (Bias in the OZ films) Of course! Had they asked ME those questions, I'd have been able to answer them without difficulty, and I'm an American, too! Yet it sends a funnier, and in some ways more sobering, message to only show the half-wits and characterize the rest of us as existing within the same intellectual framework. But you do. There are what, 40 million of them? 60 million maybe? Their manufactured consent is part of the national intellectual framework within which these actions become possible. You're not represented by the fundamentalist so-called Christian right either, but they're a disproportionate part of setting that framework too. Yes, I hear your point. If I'm sensitive to this, it's only because I don't like being lumped into the same category with a bunch of dolts! We're all in the same lifeboat. No need to fool all of the people all of the time as long as you fool enough of them enough of the time. The lies are so pervasive, How did it get to be that way, do you think it just suddenly happened? so compelling, and they're told with such straight faces that even our journalists repeat them without challenge. Not even other journalists, primarily other journalists. Here's an interview conducted by Robert Siegel with the Israeli ambassador on NPR yesterday. I've inserted my comments in parentheses. I've snipped it, but yes, quite! The usual story. But not the only story around. snip Now I believe that NPR represents the pinnacle of journalism in the United States, The pinnacle of journalism. Where would one look for the pinnacle of journalism these days? In the mainstream media? Actually you do find examples of
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=12139 ZNet |Iran | IED Lies by Milan Rai February 16, 2007 The US claims that Iran supplies Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) to Iraqi insurgents. No serious evidence has been provided. SUMMARY On Sunday 11 February, anonymous US officials presented roadside bombs, and components and fragments of bombs, and other weapons used by Iraqi insurgents, claiming that they had been manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq on the orders of the highest levels of the Iranian Government. The language used by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and by the briefers themselves, however, was tentative rather than conclusive. Dramatic 'evidence' that had been promised failed to materialize. Claims that the serial numbers and quality of machining of weapons and components could only have originated in Iran were not substantiated with any detail. No evidence was produced that the weapons and components had come via government channels rather than through criminal markets or informal and irregular contacts with Iranian military units. The Iraqi party and militia closest to Iran has actually been recognized for its support for the US occupation. One previous claim as to the Iranian provenance of insurgent technology actually traces back to the IRA, who apparently acquired the bomb-triggering capability with the knowledge and facilitation of the British Government. Curiously, none of the British national 'quality' dailies reports the admission of one of the US briefers that there was 'no smoking gun linking Tehran and Iraqi militants'. INTRODUCTION On Sunday 11 February, after days of press leaks, US military officials in Baghdad made allegations of high-level Iranian Government involvement in the supply of weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents. Most of these allegations centred on the increasing sophistication of 'improvised explosive devices' (IEDs) used as roadside bombs by Iraqi insurgents targeting US military convoys. The 'evidence' produced to support these claims in fact amounted to little more than assertion. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the gap between what we had been promised and what was actually unveiled. Months earlier, it has been excitedly reported that there was 'smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories.'[1] When it came to it, on 11 February, the 'senior US defence analyst' presenting the 'evidence' said (in an apparently little-reported admission - see end of briefing) that there was 'no smoking gun linking Tehran and Iraqi militants'.[2] WHAT WAS PROMISED A number of dramatic claims were made before the press conference. The Associated Press reported the day before that evidence to be presented included 'documents captured when U.S.-led forces raided an Iranian office Jan. 11 in Irbil in northern Iraq'. According to this advance briefing, the materials to be displayed included '2 inches of documents' demonstrating Iran's role in supplying Iraqi militants with highly sophisticated and lethal improvised explosive devices and other weaponry.[3] The New York Times reported on 10 February that the presentation would include 'information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.'[4] A few days earlier, a senior US military intelligence official told reporters that 'shaped charges' had been discovered 'in the presence of Iranians captured in the country.' He declined to elaborate but noted that US operators who raided an Iranian office in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil in January 2007 captured documents and computer drives he called a 'treasure trove' on Iran's 'networks, supply lines, sourcing and funding.'[5] Documents, possibly interviews, computer files, even 'shaped charge' explosives. Much was promised. WHAT WAS DELIVERED According to the BBC account of the Baghdad press conference, none of this materialized. There were no documents from the US raids in Arbil or Baghdad, certainly no 'two-inch' stack of documents. No massive intelligence-based 'dossier' was offered. US officials said at the press conference that incriminating documents had been discovered in these raids (including 'inventory sheets of weaponry and equipment that had been brought into Iraq'), but none were produced for journalists to assess. There was no mention of any other evidence 'gleaned' from the Iranians or Iraqis kidnapped by the US in these raids. No 'shaped charges' captured with these alleged operators were presented or even referred to.[6] What was on display, according to Reuters[7]: a) Fragments of an allegedly Iranian-made roadside bomb. b) Fragments of fins from 81-mm and 60-mm mortar bombs. One grenade from a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. c) Slides showing other weapons, including a shoulder-fired surface-to-air
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda? on Iran
See letter to Frederick news-post below... Michael @ http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=56861 Media willingly promoting a war with Iran Originally published February 15, 2007 It is or should come as no surprise that Iran is supplying weapons in Iraq. What is surprising is the timing of this news. It has been apparent for at least a couple of years now. During the Vietnam War, China was supplying most of the arms to those we were fighting, and yet we did not invade China. The same goes for the Korean War. Also, let us not forget that the government is supplying Israel with the weapons they are using to kill and maim Palestinians and Lebanese. We also supplied weapons to the Taliban and others when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The media is missing the most important part of the Iran weapons story. Neither the U.S. nor Iraq is able to control Iraq's borders. Why is the media not reporting these facts? I guess we are just looking for an excuse to invade Iran. Again the media is being played like a musical instrument in drumming up support for another war and they are more than willing to do so. PAUL E. LEHMANN Brunswick - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda? http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=12139 ZNet |Iran | IED Lies by Milan Rai February 16, 2007 The US claims that Iran supplies Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) to Iraqi insurgents. No serious evidence has been provided. SUMMARY On Sunday 11 February, anonymous US officials presented roadside bombs, and components and fragments of bombs, and other weapons used by Iraqi insurgents, claiming that they had been manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq on the orders of the highest levels of the Iranian Government. The language used by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and by the briefers themselves, however, was tentative rather than conclusive. Dramatic 'evidence' that had been promised failed to materialize. Claims that the serial numbers and quality of machining of weapons and components could only have originated in Iran were not substantiated with any detail. No evidence was produced that the weapons and components had come via government channels rather than through criminal markets or informal and irregular contacts with Iranian military units. The Iraqi party and militia closest to Iran has actually been recognized for its support for the US occupation. One previous claim as to the Iranian provenance of insurgent technology actually traces back to the IRA, who apparently acquired the bomb-triggering capability with the knowledge and facilitation of the British Government. Curiously, none of the British national 'quality' dailies reports the admission of one of the US briefers that there was 'no smoking gun linking Tehran and Iraqi militants'. INTRODUCTION On Sunday 11 February, after days of press leaks, US military officials in Baghdad made allegations of high-level Iranian Government involvement in the supply of weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents. Most of these allegations centred on the increasing sophistication of 'improvised explosive devices' (IEDs) used as roadside bombs by Iraqi insurgents targeting US military convoys. The 'evidence' produced to support these claims in fact amounted to little more than assertion. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the gap between what we had been promised and what was actually unveiled. Months earlier, it has been excitedly reported that there was 'smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories.'[1] When it came to it, on 11 February, the 'senior US defence analyst' presenting the 'evidence' said (in an apparently little-reported admission - see end of briefing) that there was 'no smoking gun linking Tehran and Iraqi militants'.[2] WHAT WAS PROMISED A number of dramatic claims were made before the press conference. The Associated Press reported the day before that evidence to be presented included 'documents captured when U.S.-led forces raided an Iranian office Jan. 11 in Irbil in northern Iraq'. According to this advance briefing, the materials to be displayed included '2 inches of documents' demonstrating Iran's role in supplying Iraqi militants with highly sophisticated and lethal improvised explosive devices and other weaponry.[3] The New York Times reported on 10 February that the presentation would include 'information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.'[4] A few days earlier, a senior US military intelligence official told reporters that 'shaped charges' had been discovered 'in the presence of Iranians captured
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
oh, PLEASE! a few plumbing bits, some assorted cleaning chemicals, and a lead slug could level a truck easily. this is assuming that nobody touched any weapons stash, and everyone was dealing with what they had on hand. why would the Iraqi rebels need Iran's help blowing stuff up? more lies, as usual. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 4:17 PM ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Or, it could well be tue. Iran's current rulers are no bunch of schoolgirls on a picnic - just ask any Bahai. Of course, now no one believes anything Bush says - which is own fault. Woolf! Jason Katie wrote: oh, PLEASE! a few plumbing bits, some assorted cleaning chemicals, and a lead slug could level a truck easily. this is assuming that nobody touched any weapons stash, and everyone was dealing with what they had on hand. why would the Iraqi rebels need Iran's help blowing stuff up? more lies, as usual. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hi Robert Keith Addison wrote: Fool you twice, Robert? It's the same BS as last time. Well, I wasn't fooled the first time and I'm deeply suspicious now! Be more than deeply suspicious! This is a VERY unpopular stance to hold among the people with whom I generally associate--especially family members. But if your eyes are open you don't have a choice, you have to speak, and act. The whole world, well, the rest of it anyway, is gobsmacked that Americans are falling for this very same BS all over again, like some sort of ghastly repetitive nightmare that gets worse every time. Seems to me they're (we're) lost for a response - throw up your arms in total disgust and go out and get hopelessly pissed is probably the apt thing to do, not very useful though. A lot of folks enjoyed those Oz videos about Stupid Americans but I thought they were very depressing! None of those folks could pinpoint Iran on a map, they thought Australia was Iran. But they wanted to nuke it anyway. If I was an Australian that would've worried me deeply! Ooops! Sorry! I've been yelling about this here for a year, posting good info, asking what Americans are doing to stop it. They're doing little or nothing to stop it. Juan Cole seems to be getting short-tempered about it, can't blame him. Ms Alexandrovna says this: What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department. She's not the only one saying that. I've been yelling about that here even longer, and not just yelling. But with all the lying exposed and the professional and moral bankruptcy of the mainstream press with it, the media in the Land of the Free is even more corporate and even less free than it was a year ago, and so utterly useless that the average citizen thinks the country their glorious military should nuke next is in Australia. But there are growing signs everywhere that the whole shambolic edifice is on the point of collapse - whether you're a White House criminal or a corporate suit, widening cracks are spreading in your concrete. A whole year after we were discussing it here, even the Economist is saying there's an authority deficit. ROFL! The world has an authority deficit. Authority is draining away from international institutions, from the big world powers (including the superpower) and ... IMHO the moral thing to do is to kick 'em while they're down, and keep right on kicking until they can't get up again. But do it NOW! Other people have been calling the Global Village the Other Superpower for a few years now, but the Business Party mouthpiece thinks it's an authority deficit, the end of CAWKI, aarghh, we'll all be murdered in our beds. Well let's hope it is, CAWKI's past its use-by date anyway. You can shoot these guys on suspicion Robert, if it's deep suspicion use a refined roadside bomb, LOL! snip I guess Larisa Alexandrovna's got it about right: http://www.atlargely.com/2007/02/propaganda_extr.htmlhttp://www.at largely.com/2007/02/propaganda_extr.html February 12, 2007 Propaganda Extravaganza snip Former CIA Middle East expert Riedel said that he never heard that Iran had authorized its operatives to kill Americans. I don't know of any such instructions being passed, Riedel said. If [the Bush administration] had this kind of information you would think they would put it out. That's about it for sensible. I won't bother listing the articles that went off a cliff with this thing. To NPR's credit, they DID report that these allegations against Iran resulted from administration pressure on the Pentagon to release these findings, and that military officials were reluctant to reveal them directly. (Hence, no one would go on record directly linking Iranian-supplied weapons with American casualties.) This suggests that even the high ranking military leaders remain skeptical about the claim, but this type of implication is normally attributed to left-wing bias by the right-wing media in the U.S. without even giving the military people some credit for their own skepticism. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4549235.html U.S. general: No evidence of Iran giving arms to Iraqis | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle Associated Press 02/13/07 AP -- -- JAKARTA, Indonesia - A top U.S. general said today there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials. [more] (Isn't he THE top U.S. general?) On the other hand, see what truth you can find in this (or an actual refined Taliban roadside bomb would do). http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L13172736 World Crises | Reuters.co.uk Taliban switching to roadside bomb tactics - NATO Tue 13 Feb 2007 12:33:29 GMT MONS, Belgium, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are turning to sophisticated
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
http://www.alternet.org/stories/47994/ Fool Us Twice? From Iraq to Iran By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted February 14, 2007. Hyped claims of nuclear weapons with no evidence to back it up ... Why does that sound familiar? It's déja vu. This time the Bush gang wants war with Iran. Following a carefully orchestrated strategy, they have ratcheted up the threat from Iran, designed to mislead us into a new war four years after they misled us into Iraq. Like its insistence that Iraq had WMD, the Bush administration has been hyping claims that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, has found no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says there is plenty of time for negotiation with Iran. Bush has sent two battle carrier groups, replete with nukes, to the Persian Gulf, and a third is reportedly preparing to follow. In support of Bush's case that Iran poses a danger to the U.S., three unnamed American officials ceremoniously trotted out metal parts found in Iraq and claimed Iran supplied them to kill our soldiers in Iraq. This evidence -- or packaging, as the Associated Press calls it -- doesn't pass the straight face test with most reputable observers. The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops, according to Monday's Washington Post. Saturday's New York Times cited information gleaned from interrogation reports from Iranians and Iraqis captured in the recent U.S. raid on the Iranian embassy in northern Iraq. They allegedly indicated money and weapons components are brought into Iraq over the Iranian border at night. If those people indeed provided such information, query what kind of pressure, i.e. torture, might have been applied to encourage their cooperation. Recall the centerpiece of Colin Powell's 2003 lies to the Security Council about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda came from false information tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Any Iranian weapons in Iraq may belong to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite resistance group the U.S. used to support. There could be old Iranian munitions lying around which are left over from the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s. A former high-level U.S. military officer told me it was not uncommon to find large caches of weapons around Iraq. He cited the 2004 discovery of 37,000 American Colt 45 handguns in a warehouse near the Iranian border on the Iraq side, likely procured when Saddam was our friend. The United States armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is not likely to be a major driver of violence in Iraq. Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq, you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents -- and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths. Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But as Krugman mentions, the Bush administration's close personal and financial ties to the Saudis have caused it to downplay Saudi connections to America's enemies. American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. Yet the Bush administration hasn't complained about the Taliban attacks on Afghanistan that originate in Pakistan, a country with documented nuclear weapons. Of course the Bush administration is cozy with the Pakistani regime. The government of Israel, which also has nukes, is fueling the call for an invasion of Iran. On February 7, the Los Angeles Times cited Israeli politicians and generals warning of a second Holocaust if no one fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes. Israel would like to start a war with Iran and supports this desire by citing a quote from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. But this is an erroneous translation of what he said. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. Cole said this does not imply military action or killing anyone at all. Journalist Diana Johnstone points out the quote is not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Coming from a Muslim religious leader, Johnstone wrote, this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms. Iran has not threatened to invade Israel. Indeed, only 36 percent of the Jews in Israel told pollsters last month they thought a nuclear attack by Iran posed the biggest threat to Israel. Americans
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Wolf. Wooolf! Woollff! Keith Addison wrote: http://www.alternet.org/stories/47994/ Fool Us Twice? From Iraq to Iran By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted February 14, 2007. Hyped claims of nuclear weapons with no evidence to back it up ... Why does that sound familiar? It's déja vu. This time the Bush gang wants war with Iran. Following a carefully orchestrated strategy, they have ratcheted up the threat from Iran, designed to mislead us into a new war four years after they misled us into Iraq. Like its insistence that Iraq had WMD, the Bush administration has been hyping claims that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, has found no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says there is plenty of time for negotiation with Iran. Bush has sent two battle carrier groups, replete with nukes, to the Persian Gulf, and a third is reportedly preparing to follow. In support of Bush's case that Iran poses a danger to the U.S., three unnamed American officials ceremoniously trotted out metal parts found in Iraq and claimed Iran supplied them to kill our soldiers in Iraq. This evidence -- or packaging, as the Associated Press calls it -- doesn't pass the straight face test with most reputable observers. The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops, according to Monday's Washington Post. Saturday's New York Times cited information gleaned from interrogation reports from Iranians and Iraqis captured in the recent U.S. raid on the Iranian embassy in northern Iraq. They allegedly indicated money and weapons components are brought into Iraq over the Iranian border at night. If those people indeed provided such information, query what kind of pressure, i.e. torture, might have been applied to encourage their cooperation. Recall the centerpiece of Colin Powell's 2003 lies to the Security Council about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda came from false information tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Any Iranian weapons in Iraq may belong to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite resistance group the U.S. used to support. There could be old Iranian munitions lying around which are left over from the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s. A former high-level U.S. military officer told me it was not uncommon to find large caches of weapons around Iraq. He cited the 2004 discovery of 37,000 American Colt 45 handguns in a warehouse near the Iranian border on the Iraq side, likely procured when Saddam was our friend. The United States armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is not likely to be a major driver of violence in Iraq. Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq, you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents -- and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths. Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But as Krugman mentions, the Bush administration's close personal and financial ties to the Saudis have caused it to downplay Saudi connections to America's enemies. American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. Yet the Bush administration hasn't complained about the Taliban attacks on Afghanistan that originate in Pakistan, a country with documented nuclear weapons. Of course the Bush administration is cozy with the Pakistani regime. The government of Israel, which also has nukes, is fueling the call for an invasion of Iran. On February 7, the Los Angeles Times cited Israeli politicians and generals warning of a second Holocaust if no one fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes. Israel would like to start a war with Iran and supports this desire by citing a quote from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. But this is an erroneous translation of what he said. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. Cole said this does not imply military action or killing anyone at all. Journalist Diana Johnstone points out the quote is not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Coming from a Muslim religious leader, Johnstone wrote, this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms. Iran has not threatened to invade Israel. Indeed, only 36 percent of the Jews in Israel told pollsters last month they thought a nuclear attack by
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Keith Addison wrote: Be more than deeply suspicious! There doesn't seem to be a whole lot I can do about this. The president isn't listening. I phoned Senator Feinstein's office and spoke to a rather laconic staffer about my concerns, telling him that I do not support the administration's troop surge and would like the honorable senator (if there actually IS such a person!) to not only voice her opposition to the escalation, but also to cut funding for the war and bring the troops home. (That's how we finally got out of Vietnam.) Further, I mentioned the saber rattling with respect to Iran and told the staffer that the body of evidence being put forth to support a threat reeks of the same manure pile that got us into Iraq. He didn't say anything about the senator's position on either of these issues, and I sensed from his tone of voice that he could simply dismiss me as part of the lunatic fringe. So much for democracy in action . . . But if your eyes are open you don't have a choice, you have to speak, and act. And for doing that, I put up with a LOT of hostility from upstanding, church-attending people who are SUPPOSED to love and respect me! It's astonishing, really. The whole world, well, the rest of it anyway, is gobsmacked that Americans are falling for this very same BS all over again, like some sort of ghastly repetitive nightmare that gets worse every time. Seems to me they're (we're) lost for a response - throw up your arms in total disgust and go out and get hopelessly pissed is probably the apt thing to do, not very useful though. Indeed! And with all the other problems we're facing as a nation, the myopia of our foreign policy only makes matters worse. It's awfully hard to deal with disasters at home when the vast majority of money in the federal coffers is flowing to support violence overseas. A lot of folks enjoyed those Oz videos about Stupid Americans but I thought they were very depressing! None of those folks could pinpoint Iran on a map, they thought Australia was Iran. But they wanted to nuke it anyway. If I was an Australian that would've worried me deeply! Ooops! Sorry! You detect no bias in that film? Had they asked ME those questions, I'd have been able to answer them without difficulty, and I'm an American, too! Yet it sends a funnier, and in some ways more sobering, message to only show the half-wits and characterize the rest of us as existing within the same intellectual framework. Those of us who oppose the stupidity going on in my country are routinely shouted down by those who are perpetrating it, as well as their devoted minions. The filmakers didn't show any people with contrasting capabilities, and that omission makes it look like the average American is a dolt. I've been yelling about this here for a year, posting good info, asking what Americans are doing to stop it. They're doing little or nothing to stop it. Juan Cole seems to be getting short-tempered about it, can't blame him. Ms Alexandrovna says this: What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department. She's not the only one saying that. I've been yelling about that here even longer, and not just yelling. But with all the lying exposed and the professional and moral bankruptcy of the mainstream press with it, the media in the Land of the Free is even more corporate and even less free than it was a year ago, and so utterly useless that the average citizen thinks the country their glorious military should nuke next is in Australia. But Randy Newman says: We'll save Australia Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo We'll build an All American amusement park there They got surfin', too : - ) But there are growing signs everywhere that the whole shambolic edifice is on the point of collapse - whether you're a White House criminal or a corporate suit, widening cracks are spreading in your concrete. A whole year after we were discussing it here, even the Economist is saying there's an authority deficit. ROFL! The world has an authority deficit. Authority is draining away from international institutions, from the big world powers (including the superpower) and ... IMHO the moral thing to do is to kick 'em while they're down, and keep right on kicking until they can't get up again. But do it NOW! Someone here posted an article just yesterday that suggests all this hand-wringing (or wishful thinking) about the imminent demise of the United States doesn't take into account the deeply entrenched, worldwide economic structure that holds my country up. Long ago I heard someone liken the economy of the world to a huge wheel. All the spokes lead to the center, and at the center is the United States. Take away the U.S. and the whole thing will collapse. While
[Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
I've been reading a lot of discussion on this list lately concerning a build-up of military forces in the Persian Gulf, ostensibly in prelude to an attack against Iran. Projecting power from afar requires the United States to build forces, but we don't ALWAYS attack a nation just because we've got carrier groups in the region. Sometimes these maneuvers are part of a threat posture designed to intimidate our adversaries, and it's possible that this is what's going on right now. Because I don't consider myself a war monger, this kind of discussion is disconcerting. Yet I'm hearing more and more stories on the radio that implicate Iran for all manner of woes in the region, and yesterday, I listened to the following on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371750 What makes this kind of story especially hard to hear is that, on the one hand, I don't like to see my nation's warriors sent overseas and slain for what I view as a misguided and foolish attempt to assert authority over oil resources. (I've been complaining about this for better than 25 years to anyone who will listen!) Complicating this sentiment is a simmering anger over the duplicity of neighboring nations (including Iran) in fomenting an insurgency that gives the war mongers in my country a litany of reasons to have our military forces linger there. The Iraqis themselves are caught in the middle of this. If the violence would stop and the Iraqis could govern themselves, it would be easier for us to pressure our government to get the troops out. (Unless we became complacent and our soldiers, because they're not being killed on a daily basis, would drop from the collective radar of American citizen interest.) I'm confident that local people in Iraq, Iran and Syria don't see it that way. We're building big bases that suggest our forces intend to occupy the country PERMANENTLY. My son, listening to the same story, remarked: Do the Americans think they can take on the whole world? Yes, I replied. But in order to win, we'll have to turn the entire planet into a wasteland. He shook his head. That's stupid! Nobody wins that way. Smart kid, huh? Pesonally, I'd like to see our forces come home NOW, but if we pull our military out, Iraq will likely denigrate even further into chaos and come under the influence of Iran and Syria--two nations who might appreciate a stake in the oil resources of their neighbor. Of course, the Turks--with a large and vocal Kurdish minority--might want a stake in keeping the Iraqi Kurds under their heel . . . Until we deal with our energy problem, we're wedged into complex and intractable conflicts that are impossible for us to win. I simply don't know what to make of information presented in articles like the one I've cited above. Is this propaganda? Is this part of a concerted (and more sophisticated) effort on the part of the administration to manipulate loyal citizens? How should our military respond? If we launch a preemptive attack against Iran I believe we will be dealing with a much more powerful adversary than we faced in Iraq, which had already been pummeled by our military forces and essentially starved of materiel (can't put that accent where it belongs!) during the years of economic sanctions. We can attack Iran from the air, but such a strike would have to be MASSIVE and sustained in order to knock out their layered air defenses. And of course, doing so puts our navy at risk of retaliation by anti-ship missile, puts our economy at risk by the possibility of shutting down the Persian Gulf to oil exports, exposes our warriors in Iraq to increased danger and further denigrates what's left of our credibility among allies and enemies alike. This looks like an increasingly ugly situation from where I sit! Sigh . . . When will spring be here? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Hotlinked xrefs in the online version. - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17036.htm New York Times Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around - Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal By Juan Cole 02/12/07 ICH -- -- This NYT article depends on unnamed USG sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.' This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in East Baghdad and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops: Robert Burns of AP observes, The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the course of the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP count. That compares with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there were more in Baghdad than in Anbar - 33 to 31. Over all, only a fourth of US troops had been killed Baghdad (713 or 23.7 percent of about 3000) through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else-- Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of Shiites! The US military often does not announce exactly where in Baghdad a GI is killed and so I found it impossible to do a count of Sunni versus Shiite neighborhoods. But we know that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was running interference for the Mahdi Army last fall, and it seems unlikely to me that very many US troops died fighting Shiites in Baghdad. The math of Gordon's article does not add up at all if this were Shiite uses of Iran-provided EFPs. So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real! Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently. It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling these things than that there is direct government- to- militia transfer. It is possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't have been Iran's fault. Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers bring in from Iran. We now know that Iran came to the US early in 2003 with a proposal to cooperate with Washington in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that VP Richard Bruce Cheney rebuffed it. The US could have had Iran on its side in Iraq! The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn't Iran. Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here. For more skepticism, see this column at Huffington; and Glenn Greenwald and Think Progress . Labels: Black psy-ops, Iran Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute.
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2261526.ece Independent Online Edition World Politics Target Tehran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation By Patrick Cockburn Published: 12 February 2007 The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the highest levels of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620. The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003. Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank. The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf. We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government, said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq. The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran. The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children's toys or to open garage doors. Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when shaped charges, similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name - explosive formed penetrators - may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed. At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq. In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations. The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein's elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces. The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help. The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents. It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein.
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Fool you twice, Robert? It's the same BS as last time. ... Yet I'm hearing more and more stories on the radio that implicate Iran for all manner of woes in the region, and yesterday, I listened to the following on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371750 I guess Larisa Alexandrovna's got it about right: http://www.atlargely.com/2007/02/propaganda_extr.html February 12, 2007 Propaganda Extravaganza So I have spent a good deal of this evening reading the accounts of the highly secretive, ultra-classified and on monumental background Iran briefing that the White House orchestrated today, just in time for Monday's breaking news. What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department. Under what circumstances would the following criteria for a news story ever be considered journalism: 1). Reporters met with experts http://snipurl.com/1a2nr and analysts who would not provide their names, background, or any identifying information - even off the record. There is no way to know who these unnamed experts were, what made them experts, or anything that could be used to confirm or debunk their allegations. In other words, the sources were not vetted and unknown. 2). The allegations that Iran was responsible for the downing of US helicopter in Iraq by using advanced weapons were based on a set of photographs of unknown origin, date, time, or any other contextual information that could be confirmed or debunked. In other words, the facts of the story are unsupportable and cannot be in any way explored. 3). The White House led officials present at the briefing would not give their names either, despite this presentation being cleared by the White House. In other words, despite this not being a leak, no one would stand by the story. 4). The alleged intelligence was put together like a presentation one would find at a new product roll out, planned weeks in advance even. Yet the reason given for providing this information to the press is concern for US troops on the ground in Iraq. Obviously something is wrong with either the motive (when one works a story, one wants to understand motive for informaton provided). The motive, as claimed, is concern for the troops - but if there was concern for the troops, why did this presentation require weeks of planning? If there was enough evidence to support a full blown briefing such as this, then instead of planning for a public relations extravaganza, one would think that the White House might be doing something more important - for example, holding emergency briefings for Congress. 5). White House officials, however, caution that this information cannot be independently verified. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6352899.stm So, we have source of unknown credentials, allegations based on evidence that cannot be vetted or properly investigated, officials who despite being authorized to present this information to the press are unwilling to go on the record, and a motive for providing this information that appears to be disingenuous. What then, I ask, makes this news? Furthermore, what makes this front page material with titles ranging from the mild Iran arming insurgents sources say to the absurd Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq? If the White House wants to stage a public relations event, they can do so by the light of day. Journalists agreeing to attend this charade and then reporting on it as though it were a). news and b). credible, need to resign. I am really ashamed at the way my colleagues have presented themselves today. There are, however, a few exceptions... some who did show up, at least covered the farce as it should have been covered, with subtle I call bullshit: LA Times http://snipurl.com/1a2nr made this observation: The briefing seemed deliberately limited. The officials appeared to back away from previous U.S. claims that Iran, a mostly Shiite country, was supporting the Sunni Arab insurgents who have by far killed the largest number of U.S. troops. Instead, the officials alleged that Shiite groups ostensibly loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr were involved in the smuggling and use of the weapons. Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17033813/site/newsweek/page/2/ said this: A U.K. official familiar with the views of M.I.6, Britain's foreign-intelligence service, said the British-whose troops in southern Iraq are as close to front-line encounters with possible Iranian agents as U.S. forces-cannot confirm that Iran has instructed its operatives to attack U.S. troops. snip Former CIA Middle East expert Riedel said that he never heard that Iran had authorized its operatives to kill Americans. I don't know of any such instructions being passed, Riedel said. If [the Bush administration] had this kind of information you would think they would put it out. That's about it for
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Keith Addison wrote: Hotlinked xrefs in the online version. - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17036.htm New York Times Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around - Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal By Juan Cole Thanks, Keith! You're a waterfall of information!!! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Truth or Propaganda?
Keith Addison wrote: Fool you twice, Robert? It's the same BS as last time. Well, I wasn't fooled the first time and I'm deeply suspicious now! This is a VERY unpopular stance to hold among the people with whom I generally associate--especially family members. snip I guess Larisa Alexandrovna's got it about right: http://www.atlargely.com/2007/02/propaganda_extr.html February 12, 2007 Propaganda Extravaganza snip Former CIA Middle East expert Riedel said that he never heard that Iran had authorized its operatives to kill Americans. I don't know of any such instructions being passed, Riedel said. If [the Bush administration] had this kind of information you would think they would put it out. That's about it for sensible. I won't bother listing the articles that went off a cliff with this thing. To NPR's credit, they DID report that these allegations against Iran resulted from administration pressure on the Pentagon to release these findings, and that military officials were reluctant to reveal them directly. (Hence, no one would go on record directly linking Iranian-supplied weapons with American casualties.) This suggests that even the high ranking military leaders remain skeptical about the claim, but this type of implication is normally attributed to left-wing bias by the right-wing media in the U.S. without even giving the military people some credit for their own skepticism. The propaganda machine is SO well oiled and widespread it's becoming nearly impossible to find truth in news reporting . . . That's one reason I find this forum so valuable. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
