.. the Americans are the real terrorists ..

Posted by: DM | Mar 27 2006 9:20 utc | 3

Hmm – Philosopher Stanislaw Lem died today.

Posted by: b | Mar 27 2006 19:38 utc | 5

Just to remind you: Germans ‘cleverest in Europe’ 🙂
Somehow nice to see such headlines, but of course it’s utter bullshit.

Posted by: b | Mar 27 2006 19:58 utc | 7

Our relationship with the “third” world is like a sexist pig’s relationship with women: First, he f*cks them, then he beats them, then he wants them out of his sight because they are so pitiful. And he certainly never wants to get caught paying child support for his actions. The world is suffering from ‘Battered Woman Syndrome.’ You have to admit, b, that Israel does have a more open press than the US. You would never find an article like that in, say, the LA Times. How does it compare to Germany?

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 27 2006 20:20 utc | 9

This is funny: Did Rove spill the beans on Cheney? How will Ceney fight back? He WILL DO SO.
Rove said cooperating in CIA leak inquiry

Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff and special adviser to President George W. Bush, has recently been providing information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the ongoing CIA leak investigation, sources close to the investigation say.
According to several Pentagon sources close to Rove and others familiar with the inquiry, Bush’s senior adviser tipped off Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to information that led to the recent “discovery” of 250 pages of missing email from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Posted by: b | Mar 27 2006 20:50 utc | 11

@Bernhard: “the German press was more pro-Palestinian, but it is changing rapidly with the change of government here.”
What I meant is, how open is it to covering issues, similarly sensitive, that go against official German government policy?

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 27 2006 22:34 utc | 13

Moussaoui Says He Was Part of Plot to Attack White House

Zacarias Moussaoui testified in Federal District Court here today that he knew of Al Qaeda’s plans to fly jetliners into the World Trade Center and that he was to have piloted an airliner into the White House on Sept. 11, 2001.
Taking the stand before the jury that will determine whether he is put to death or spends the rest of his life in prison, Mr.
Moussaoui related in calm, measured language that he was to have been accompanied on his death-dive into the White House by Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, among others.

That guy is lying his ass off.

Posted by: b | Mar 28 2006 3:24 utc | 15

Meant to post the above on Si se puede. Sorry.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 28 2006 3:44 utc | 17

Are they looking at weaponizing this?
You really ask that question? Is there anything they won´t weaponize?

Posted by: b | Mar 28 2006 5:17 utc | 19

First they develop the virus. Then they develop a vaccine, turn the virus loose then charge $100,000 a shot for the vaccine. (Free of course for insiders.)

Posted by: pb | Mar 28 2006 5:32 utc | 21

@pb:

That would be a great plan, if flu were stable. It isn’t. There is pretty good reason to believe that the 1918 flu epidemic came in two distinct waves, the second one likely being a mutation of the first. People who had the first one (which was notably less fatal) did not have any extra immunity to the second one — there were people who got sick twice.

That’s what I mean about the flu being a really stupid weapon. There are more people today than there were in 1918, and there are more large, dense cities with insufficient sanitation. Hence more likelihood of rapid spread, which means more chances for mutation. It wouldn’t even be like nuclear war, where someone has to fight back in order to make a first strike overtly dangerous.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Mar 28 2006 6:14 utc | 23

Rebuilding America’s Defenses
” advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

Posted by: annie | Mar 28 2006 7:41 utc | 25

A couple things from Juan Coles blog:
Some Shiites, according to al-Hayat, are saying that the US is deliberately attempting to provoke a civil war in Iraq. Among their concerns was the US military’s announcement that the attack on the Mustafa Husayniyah in Ur was the work of an Iraqi military unit. Which unit? Where? To whom does it report? Is it little more than a death squad? Is it commanded by the Americans? Why didn’t the Prime Minister know about this attack, which spilled over on Dawa Party offices? PM Jaafari is a member of the Dawa Party.
The Badr Organization, a political party that represents the paramilitary Badr Corps, the Shiite militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, demanded Monday that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, be expelled from that country.
……………………………………………………………
Today two smart observers in Iraq or its environs, International Crisis Group’s Joost Hilterman and NPR’s Anne Garrels, say Iraqi Shiites perceive that the US has abandoned them and is now favoring Sunnis.  Hilterman has Shiites calling this the “second betrayal,” a reference to the US failure to intervene in Iraqi Shias’ post-Gulf War uprising 15 years ago.
Garrels has Shiites accusing* US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of trying to “undermine” them and reverse their electoral gains.  She cites a big turnaround under which Sunnis now see the US as their protector and Shiites feel betrayed, as above.
……………………………………………………………
As they would say in Jamaica “the bottle gettin hotter”.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 28 2006 9:36 utc | 27

@anna missed:
As we say in St. Croix:
“Yo’ lie down wid dog, yo’ get up wid flea.”
Take care with whom you associate. Choosing the wrong friends can get you in trouble.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 28 2006 15:07 utc | 29

So Stanislaw Lem was alive just days ago? I always figured he was dead.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Mar 28 2006 15:37 utc | 31

The Left Coaster Anonymous Liberal has a real scoop:

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Court will be called upon to determine–among other things–whether a provision in last year’s Detainee Treatment Act (“DTA”) effectively strips the Court of jurisdiction to hear Hamdan’s case. The Government contends that it does and in support of this position, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John Kyl have filed an amicus brief with the Court.
This amicus brief argues that the legislative history of the DTA supports the Government’s position. Specifically, the brief cites a lengthy colloquy between Senators Kyl and Graham themselves which purportly took place during a Senate floor debate just prior to passage of the bill. In the exchange, both Kyl and Graham suggest that the bill will strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending detainee cases such as Hamdan. But here’s where the story gets interesting.
Apparently this entire 8 page colloquy–which is scripted to read as if it were delivered live on the floor of the Senate, complete with random interruptions from other Senators–never took place. It was inserted into the Congressional Record in written form just prior to passage of the bill.
…
Hamdan’s attorneys pointed out that the C-SPAN footage for Dec. 21, 2005–the date this debate supposedly took place–shows no sign of Senators Kyl or Graham (or, for that matter, the other Senators who appear in the record).

Senators lying to SCOTUS to take away constitutional rights from prisoners. Let`s hope the judges get as upset as they should be.

Posted by: b | Mar 28 2006 16:18 utc | 33

W/regards to Moussaoui’s recent odd behavior it might be interesting to note:
MSNBC VIDEO: Moussaoui wore ‘stun belt’ for new testimony

If you’re looking for a reason why Zacarias Moussaoui suddenly testified today to a version of the 9/11 plotline that sounds more like the Official story than even the official Whitewash Commission report, (direct link to video) this video may have the answer.
In it, NBC news reporter Pete Williams lets slip that Moussaoui is wearing a “Stun belt” underneath his clothing controlled by US Marshals. MSNBC host Dan Abrams gets some more details on the stun belt.
A taste of the exchange:
WILLIAMS: The old outbursts were gone… He was very docile today… We believe that he’s wearing one of those stun belts, and it may be that he was very worried about doing anything that would cause those Marshals to press the button….
ABRAMS: A stun belt? They literally have sOmething around his waist? That they can push a button and?
WILLIAMS: [Pause] Well…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 28 2006 19:23 utc | 35

Bush repeats what he is often told.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 28 2006 21:19 utc | 37

Here’s a story that contains all the elements of the human condition. The stratification of even ‘revolutionary organizations’ which ostensibly exist to promote the rights of the common man.
It seems to be in the nature of all groups of humans to develop unspoken rituals which determine one’s status within a particular group. The resulting alienation of individuals causes that stratification get to the point where in their desperation to be accepted a situation develops where both the individual and the group blatantly risk a successful outcome of the group’s raison d’etre in a fight over social structure. Quite often the faux-pas that the ‘reject’ has made is beyond his/her real comprehension, because the faux pas has been to believe.
To believe passionately in a way that the more cynical socially achieving members of the group never could. In fact one could argue that this is the root cause of the rejection. This member believes so passionately and unquestioningly in the cause that he/she shames the pragmatic leadership who regularly compromise ideals for what they call “long term benefit”
Here is an account of sworn testimony from senior members of al-Quaeda about Zacarias Moussaoui’s involvement in that organization.
None of the leadership held in custody by the USuk imperialists were allowed to testify in person at the trial so they submitted sworn statements about Zacarias Moussaoui which were handed up by his defense.
Things like:
“Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al Qaeda’s military committee, who said Moussaoui was “absolutely not” going to take part in the September 11 mission.”. . . .
OR
. . . .”Mustafa al Hawsawi, the financier who gave several of the hijackers airline tickets to the United States, said he had “no knowledge” of Moussaoui’s financial dealings.”. . . . .
OR
. . . . “A senior al Qaeda operative, known as Khallad, said Moussaoui broke security by phoning him every day during a trip to Malaysia in 2000.
Khallad, who was connected with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa and masterminded the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, was eventually forced to turn off his telephone.”. . . .
AND
. . . . “In testimony from Riduan Isamuddin — better known as Hambali — a top member of Jemaah Islamiah, an Asian group linked to al Qaeda, Moussaoui was depicted as “not bright in the head and having a bad character.”
“According to Hambali, Moussaoui managed to annoy everyone he came in contact with,” Hambali’s testimony said, adding that Hambali said he did not trust Moussaoui.” . . . .
Of course it is unlikely that these statements will do much to avert the tragedy which is implacably heading toward Moussaoui.
A jury under pressure from those relatives of 911 casualties who advocate “an eye for an eye” will interpret these statements as an attempt by al-Queda to help a ‘brother’ escape the consequences of his fell deeds.
The fact that Moussaoui’s story is a severe embarrassment to those security organs of the US state that were charged with protecting the country from terrorist attack makes the chances of his one last attempt to be accepted by his culture as a martyr successful in the sense that he will die, but ultimately unsuccessful because he will never be regarded by his idols, (senior al-Queda leaders), as a martyr. Of course those of them who believe that martyrs do go to paradise will also regard Moussaoui’s inability to comprehend reality as making it unlikely that Allah would regard him a martyr.
It seems the only person who can’t comprehend that is Moussaoui himself. In this instance whether or not the FBI’s failure to act on the information obtained after his arrest was because they were incompetent and asked the wrong questions, or deliberate and wanted to hush Moussaoui up so the real attack could happen, are irrelevant either way Moussaoui is a loose end the FBI doesn’t want hanging around.
The really interesting issue and the one that will almost guarantee his execution is why didn’t al_Queda have Moussaoui killed long before? Back in Indonesia say, when it was obvious he was a loose cannon that needed to be got rid of.
It may be that he has good connections through his clan or family but the subsequent lack of support for him belies that. It is not unimaginable that these sociopaths who casually destroyed so many innocent lives actually felt some sympathy for Moussaoui. Probably because they knew him.
Just like so many other mass murderers throughout history, they have no problem killing those who they only consider in abstract terms such as the pawns of the imperialist infidels who work in the military or corporations which have been oppressing Muslims for centuries. These same cold killers struggle to have a sick pet ‘put down’ (see Adolf Hitler).
Equally ‘interesting’ is the hints by Moussaoui’s lawyer(who Moussaoui refuses to co-operate with), that he suffers from some psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. I find this difficult to take seriously. This is chiefly because people with psychotic illnesses rarely elicit much empathy from those around them. It is more likely Moussaoui has some sort of intellectual disability, a condition that is both regarded as being ‘more socially acceptable’ than psychotic illness and one which is relatively common in those parts of the world where people have suffered generations of deprivation and poor nutrition.
Of course it is also possible that the defense has chosen to go with the psychotic thing because the State in the US has recognised ordinary people’s empathy for those amongst us who do have an intellectual disability and therefore made the case for arguing diminished responsibility because of an intellectual disability very tough to win.
If this jury does see all this and decides not to murder Moussaoui then one could say there is still some hope for US culture and society, but there have been few if any indications that many within that society still have the insight into humanity required to make that judgement.
Decades of human dilemmas being reduced to 90 minute ‘feel good’ fantasies makes it almost inevitable that this drama goes to it’s foregone, scripted conclusion. We are all going to witness the tackiest B grade soap opera/terrarist thriller to come out of the Bruckheimer/Bush production house yet.
“DEATH OF A GROUPIE”

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 28 2006 23:25 utc | 39

The alarm bell went off for me when he said Richard Ried and himself were to pilot another plane into the white house.
Your post (anom) is the most interesting take on this I’ve seen anywhere — drop by again.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 29 2006 1:40 utc | 41

@malooga,
i am going to have to side w/ chomsky on this one. nowhere in that article does he state or imply that we should not address the influence of “the lobby”, nor is he an apologist for israel. rather, the point he does make is that M-W, as proponents of american policy intellectualism, offer a very limited thesis which “leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility.” theirs is not a position from which we will meaningfully admit & address our real problems.
M-W use a realist frame w/i which to view international relationships – focusing on states as the sole rational actors, pursuing their own security interests. what realists leave out, aside from ideological representations/perceptions, is any analysis from a capitalist economic context, esp economic globalization. i didn’t read their full study, only the LRB version, but any geopolitical interests in the region were shrugged off rather quickly.

So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel, how are we to explain it? The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.

a bit reductionist, isn’t it?
here’s one portion of their report that chomksy appears to be addressing explicitly, which flies in the face of a subject he has spoken on repeatedly over the years

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. [emphasis mine]

chomsky has taken intellectuals to task for decades for this kind of dishonesty & apologetics for imperialism & state terror. you would think that any ideology that labels itself “realist” would be able to see clearly & cogently what role the u.s. holds in the world as reigning global hegemon, but apparently their blinders limit them to struggles over regional national security interests.
M-W pile it on,

Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed. … Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians.

of course, it’s all the lobby’s fault. otherwise, we all know how benevolent the u.s. is in their policies throughout the rest of the planet (hell, even at home…). the jewish lobby is only complicating our real battle – the global war on islam…i mean AQ…i mean terror.
this does not mean we ignore the role that israel plays in influencing u.s. policies, but we do not benefit by exaggerating it to extremes either. in this particular article, chomsky comes across as the more realistic view.

Posted by: b real | Mar 29 2006 2:14 utc | 43

CITIZEN ACTION:
in case anyone here is interested, firedoglake is organizing a citizen action this week. it involves ordering a rubber stamp that says “rubber stamp republican congress” and having it shipped to an address in dc. when enough have collected they have made arrangements to have them delivered, but are being a bit secretive about to whom they will be delivered. having observed jane hamsher’s relentless hammering of the post, etc., it should be interesting watching this unfold. more details and a link to the stamp company are here. stamps are about $6.50 including shipping and they hope to have orders placed by 11 EST wednesday if you plan to participate.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 29 2006 2:34 utc | 45

@Malooga
Truth is, it was a pre-coffee typo. Of course, after the NSA goons spot it and slip a shock belt around my waist, I’ll have to testify that I am really an Al Quaeda operative sending out encrypted messages and that I had a whirlwind romance with Zacarias Moussaoui while we were in flight school together.
Anyway, good catch. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 29 2006 3:15 utc | 47

On the March 23rd anniversary of the coup in Argentina, the “National Security Archives
posted a series of declassified U.S. documents and, for the first time, secret documents from Southern Cone intelligence agencies recording detailed evidence of massive atrocities committed by the military junta in Argentina. The documents include a formerly secret transcript of Henry Kissinger’s staff meeting during which he ordered immediate U.S. support for the new military regime, and Defense and State Department reports on the ensuing repression. The Archive has also obtained internal memoranda and cables from the infamous Argentina intelligence unit, Battalion 601, as well as the Chilean secret police agency, known as DINA, which was secretly collaborating with the military in Buenos Aires…
…although the military repression in Argentina drew less international attention than the Pinochet regime’s in Chile, it far exceeded it in terms of human rights violations. By mid 1978, according to a secret cable from the DINA station in Buenos Aires, posted here publicly for the first time, the secret police battalion 601 had “counted 22,000 between dead and disappeared, from 1975 to the present date [July 1978].” Thousands of additional victims were killed between 1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.
Background information on the disappeared is here.
Suspected activists, their friends, and relatives were often abducted from their homes in the middle of the night and moved to government detention centers in which they were tortured and eventually killed. These individuals who disappeared without a trace are referred to as the Disappeared. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 individuals disappeared over this time period. In March,1976, nine people disappeared for every two found murdered. People who protested these atrocities soon became one of the Disappeared or were murdered themselves.
Abducted women who were pregnant were kept captive in detention centers and military hospitals until the birth of their children, and then murdered shortly after delivery. Babies and young children of abducted individuals were also abducted, based on the assumption that subversives breed subversives. Abducted children were handed over to neighbors, given to orphanages or retained as war booty for childless couples who were part of the security forces. An estimated 220 children were abducted with their parents or born in captivity to abducted women.
Here is some history from the era that was written in 1998.
What is your favorite book,” a journalist asked Gen. Rafael Videla, after he ascended to power in Argentina in 1976.
“Book?” Videla replied.
The journalist was perspiring. He didn’t think it was a hard question to ask someone leading the nation. But suddenly the journalist felt that the question could jeopardize not only his career but his life.
It was embarrassing that the new president could not come up with at least one title of one book. So the journalist tried to help out with suggestions: “The Bible perhaps? Martin Fierro (the most important book in Argentina’s literature)?”
Videla said something about his first-grade reading book, but … he could not remember its title. [Diario Perfil, an article by Omar Bravo, July 10, 1998]
Videla was finally arrested for “baby harvesting,” a situation that was noted long ago in The Official Story.
Videla and others justified the torture of pregnant women and fetuses by claiming that they were saving western civilization.

Posted by: fauxreal | Mar 29 2006 6:57 utc | 49