Peter King’s Islamic radicalization hearings against Muslims is meaningless and ineffective. He leaves out discussion of the United States long history of collaborating with Jihadis, propping up dictators and toppling democratic regimes (like in Iran in 1953). Robert Dreyfuss, author of Devils Game, discusses history of US and Middle East.
Dreyfuss’ book is just the tip of the iceberg. How many people are aware that the United States spent millions of dollars on violent, extremist textbooks that were given to Afghan Children? See From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad in The Washington Post (Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01)
The United States funded and supported Islamic extremists during the Afghan-Russian War in order to give the Soviet Union its “Vietnam.” The US could have supported pro-democracy Afghan groups, but instead chose the most brutal extremists from around the world to create death and destruction in Afghanistan.
While people accuses CAIR of supporting Hamas, people forget how Israel allowed Hamas to flourish as a rival to the secular Palestinian Nationalist movement. See “How Israel and the United States Helped to Bolster Hamas” from the Democracy Now program for more about this issue.
So basically, while the United States preaches human rights and democracy, it supports kings, dictators and extremists who do its bidding. And just so that we can live comfortably, Muslims are supposed to accept and be happy about being oppressed and killed by their leaders (that we armed and supported).
I’d like to see people put their money where their mouth is and demand USA stop accepting billions of dollars in investment money from the Saudis.
There are 9/11 victims families that are demanding a reopening of the 9/11 investigation. But Peter King is ignoring them
King chooses to place all the blame on voiceless and powerless Muslims because it is the easy and cowardly thing to do.
Peter King thinks that it was OK to support Irish terrorists because the terrorist acts did not occur in the United States. How does that look to the world that our elected politicians have double standards. What does Britain, an ally on the war on terror, think of our government supporting people who commit terrorists in their country. Peter King should be made to step down as head of House Homeland Security Committee.
FIlm discusses how United States government has betrayed our soldiers through the use of chemical weapons, but did not educate or provide protection to solders. In addition, millions of innocent Iraqis have suffered disease, deformities and death from the USA’s use of chemical weapons. Film discusses how USA sold to Iraq many of the weapons, which the USA later used as an reason for invading Iraq. I doubt our “brave” Peter King, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, will be investigating this.
This information has been on the internet since after 9/11. While people will bring up the cheering Palestinians on 9/11, people are in denial (even those on the political left) of the Israelis’ action, in New Jersey, on 9/11
You won’t be seeing our “brave” Peter King, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, investigating this.
Here is a report from Fox News, a source you’d least expect to discuss this issue, on the 9/11-Israeli connection
Gold9472 posted this video on youtube. He writes:
This is a very brief clip from a question and answer session Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton gave at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on 9/11/2006. As representatives of the family members, and family members themselves called for a new investigation right across the hall.
On the video, Kean says
“Lee and I write in our book [Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission] that we think Commission was set up to fail because we had not enough money, we didn’t have enough time, we had been appointed by the most partisan people in Washington: The leaders of the House and Senate”
Mainstream media and politicians spends more time questioning White house party crashers, then 9/11
Here is website that provides a lot of information on worldwide 9/11 truth movement
Talk radio host Sean Hannity always likes to describe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a Holocaust denier, but it doesn’t seem to bother him that his good friend Pat Buchanan is a Holocaust denier. Sean has interviewed Pat several times on his show and this issue has not come up.
Here are some articles about Pat Buchanan’s views on the Holocaust:
Pat Buchanan and the Holocaust
Pat Buchanan, Antisemitism and the Holocaust
Sean criticizes President Obama’s willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad, but he leaves out a discussion of U.S. past actions in Iran. Such as when in 1953 the US toppled the democratically elected government in Iran, for oil in and he also leaves out how the US had given false strategic advice and sold weapons to both sided of the Iran-Iraq War. (See review of the book All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
and the article Fueling the Iran-Iraq Slaughter By Larry Everest
This is not to say that we shouldn’t be careful and question what the Iranian President says, but considering US past actions in Iran, the Iranian leadership has a lot of reason to be suspicious of US intentions, as well.
Review of Mahmood Mamdani book by Howard French
from The New York Times, March 29. 2009
Clearly, the African disaster most in view today is Sudan, or more specifically the dirty war that has raged since 2003 in that country’s western region, Darfur.
Rare among African conflicts, it exerts a strong claim on our conscience. By instructive contrast, more than five million people have died as a result of war in Congo since 1998, the rough equivalent at its height of a 2004 Asian tsunami striking every six months, without stirring our diplomats to urgency or generating much civic response.
More interestingly, the author maintains that much of what we see today as a racial divide in Sudan has its roots in colonial history, when Britain “broke up native society into different ethnicities, and ‘tribalized’ each ethnicity by bringing it under the absolute authority of one or more British-sanctioned ‘native authorities,’ ” balancing “the whole by playing one off against the others.”
Mr. Mamdani calls this British tactic of administratively reinforcing distinctions among colonial subjects “re-identify and rule” and says that it was copied by European powers across the continent, with deadly consequences — as in Rwanda, where Belgium’s intervention hardened distinctions between Hutu and Tutsi.
In Sudan the result was to create a durable sense of land rights rooted in tribal identity that favored the sedentary at the expense of the nomad, or, in the crude shorthand of today, African and Arab.
Other roots of the Darfur crisis lie in catastrophic desertification in the Sahel region, where the cold war left the area awash in cheap weapons at the very moment that pastoralists could no longer survive in their traditional homelands, obliging many to push southward into areas controlled by sedentary farmers.
He also blames regional strife, the violent legacy of proxy warfare by France, Libya and the United States and, most recently, the global extension of the war on terror.
This important book reveals much on all of these themes, yet still may be judged by some as not saying enough about recent violence in Darfur.
Mr. Mamdani’s constant refrain is that the virtuous indignation he thinks he detects in those who shout loudest about Darfur is no substitute for greater understanding, without which outsiders have little hope of achieving real good in Africa’s shattered lands.
Here’s an article by Keith Harmon Snow with more information about Darfur that is not discussed in the mainstream media
It seems it’s okay to teach children hate and violence when it serves the United States interest.
From the U.S., the ABC of Jihad
By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.
As Afghan schools reopen today, the United States is back in the business of providing schoolbooks. But now it is wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence.
Last month, a U.S. foreign aid official said, workers launched a “scrubbing” operation in neighboring Pakistan to purge from the books all references to rifles and killing. Many of the 4 million texts being trucked into Afghanistan, and millions more on the way, still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.
Look at this hilarious part of the article where it says,
A 1991 federal appeals court ruling against AID’s former director established that taxpayers’ funds may not pay for religious instruction overseas, said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law expert at American University, who litigated the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Ayesha Khan, legal director of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the White House has “not a legal leg to stand on” in distributing the books.
“Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious,” she said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State were concerned about money being spent on religious books but they were not too concerned about the millions of Afghans killed or disabled by a war that was instigated by the U.S. so that the Soviet Union would get its “Vietnam.” This is why the mainstream political left is no better than the political right. Neither is conscience enough to recognize the great suffering of others. The United States recruited and trained Muslim extremists to fight its proxy war against the Russians. (See
) With the defeat of the Russians came the collapse of the Soviet Union, making the United States the number one superpower in the world, but the U.S. did nothing to help reconstruct Afghanistan
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”
What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.
The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.
This post title was inspired by Stephan Kinzer’s column titled “Iraq’s gift to Latin America” at
“With the United States so totally consumed by the Iraq conflict, it has no time, energy or political capital to crack down on challenges south of the Rio Grande. Sensing their historic chance, many Latin nations have embarked on experiments that the US would in past eras have instantly stepped in to crush.
The independence that many Latin American countries have shown in the last five years borders on outright defiance of US power. Yet to a degree unprecedented in modern history, Washington is allowing them to do as they please.”
While US involvement in Iraq appears in the mainstream media everyday, US involvement in Africa does not.
Here are articles about African countries that the United States is politically/militarily involved with. Using Kinzer’s way of thinking, these are gifts to Latin America
This cartoon is by Ward Sutton that appears in the May 12, 2008 issue of THE NATION
In the first panel, that “average Joe’s” viewpoint is held by many highly educated people. There are Senators and Congresspersons ( Republicans and Democrats) who have the same point of view.
Here is information about what the US is doing in Iraq that you won;t find in the mainstream media
Here is an article about “Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam’s Party in Power”
Here is an article about how the United States sold weapons and gave false strategic advice to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.