First Blair, Then Bush
Some MPs in the UK are tabling a motion to impeach Tony Blair. Read it here, from the Guardian. While the motion currently does not enjoy enough support to actually cause impeachment, this is significant because it marks the first time in 100 odd years it has been done. Once Blair is done there will be no real ally for Bush, Poland be damned. With no allies, will Bush change tactics? Or more likely, set himself up for impeachment as well.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Get Loaded, You Wanks!
Yes, Afghanistan is proud to report another bumper year for opium production, in fact, it's their best year ever! Read about it here, from The Economist. Explain how the US victory in Afghanistan and the new gov't equals the highest opium growing ever? "What the fuck" is right. All this Bush shit just makes me want to listen to my Crass albums and throw bricks.
Yes, Afghanistan is proud to report another bumper year for opium production, in fact, it's their best year ever! Read about it here, from The Economist. Explain how the US victory in Afghanistan and the new gov't equals the highest opium growing ever? "What the fuck" is right. All this Bush shit just makes me want to listen to my Crass albums and throw bricks.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
FALLUJAH
The assault on Fallujah to "liberate" it from the Iraqis, has been reported in the NY Times as causing many civilian casualties. The following is from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), a media watchdog group concerning the Times and its coverage of the civilian deaths.
ACTION ALERT:
New York Times Rewrites Fallujah History
November 16, 2004
In three recent reports about the military invasion of the Iraqi city of
Fallujah, the New York Times has misreported the facts about the April
2004 invasion of the city and the toll it took on Iraqi civilians.
On November 8, the Times reported: "In April, American troops were closing
in on the city center when popular uprisings broke out in cities across
Iraq. The outrage, fed by mostly unconfirmed reports of large civilian
casualties, forced the Americans to withdraw. American commanders regarded
the reports as inflated, but it was impossible to determine independently
how many civilians had been killed."
The next day, the Times made the same point, reporting that the U.S. "had
to withdraw during a previous fight for the city in April after
unconfirmed reports of heavy civilian casualties sparked outrage among
both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis." And on November 15, the Times noted that
the current operation "redressed a disastrous assault on Fallujah last
April that was called off when unconfirmed reports of large civilian
casualties drove the political cost too high."
It's unclear why the Times considers those civilian deaths "unconfirmed."
While there is some debate over precise figures, this wording leaves the
impression that nothing can be reasonably known about deaths in Fallujah.
The head of Fallujah's hospital, Dr. Rafie al-Issawi, has consistently
maintained that more than 600 people were killed in the initial U.S. siege
of Fallujah in April 2004, a figure that rose to more than 800 as the
siege was lifted and people pinned down by the fighting were able to
register their families' deaths (Knight-Ridder, 5/9/04). More than 300 of
the dead, according to al-Issawi, were women and children. The Iraqi
Health Ministry in Baghdad, part of the U.S.-installed government, gave a
lower figure of about 271 killed, with 52 of the dead being women and
children. On October 26, the independent British-based group Iraq Body
Count reported that the civilian death toll in Fallujah in April was about
600, based on their extensive evaluation of the numbers reported by local
hospital officials and the Health Ministry, as well as mainstream media
accounts.
Other journalistic investigations depict the reality of widespread
civilian death in Fallujah: An Associated Press tally of the dead in Iraq
(4/30/04) discovered that in Fallujah "two football fields were turned
into cemeteries, with hundreds of freshly dug graves, marked with wooden
planks scrawled with names -- some with names of women, some marked
specifically as children. At one of the fields, an AP reporter was told by
volunteer gravediggers on April 11 that more than 300 people had been
buried there." A Reuters report (4/13/04) quoted researchers from Human
Rights Watch calling for an investigation based on reports they received
from residents fleeing the violence in Fallujah.
Even the lower estimates provided by the Health Ministry debunk the Times'
repeated assertion that reports of "large civilian casualties" are
"unconfirmed"-- unless the paper wants to maintain that 52 women and
children killed in an attempt to "liberate" their city are
inconsequential. But the Times should know from its own reporting that
the higher casualty figures are much more realistic.
On October 19, the Times reported: "There are no agreed figures for
civilian deaths in Iraq over all since the war began in early 2003, but
the best estimates, by private groups and independent news organizations,
place the figure in the 10,000 to 15,000 range." It would seem obvious,
then, that the bombing of a large civilian population in Iraq in what the
Times called "the most intense aerial bombardment in Iraq since major
combat ended" (4/30/04) would produce significant civilian casualties.
Since substantial numbers of civilians did in fact die in Fallujah in
April, even if the exact number cannot be pinned down, readers might
wonder if the Times' policy is that things that cannot be confirmed with
numerical precision are essentially "unconfirmed." But this would be a
double standard on the part of the Times; in its November 8 report, the
paper noted: "The number of insurgents in the city is estimated at 3,000,
although some guerrillas, terrorist fighters and their leaders escaped the
city before the attack. American military officials estimated that of a
usual population of 300,000, 70 percent to 90 percent of civilians had
fled."
Surely there is no way to determine exactly how many insurgents are in
Fallujah, or how many civilians have fled. To be consistent, shouldn't
the Times be reporting that accounts of civilians leaving the city are
"unconfirmed"?
In its November 8 report, the Times matter-of-factly noted that U.S forces
targeted a Fallujah hospital early in the campaign "because the American
military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy
casualties." The Times added: "This time around, the American military
intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what
has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons."
If part of that "information war" means convincing Americans that
civilians are not victims of the Fallujah invasion, the Times has signed
up on the side of the Pentagon.
ACTION: Please contact New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent and ask
him to investigate why the Times treats credible reports of hundreds of
civilian casualties in Fallujah as "unconfirmed."
CONTACT:
New York Times
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
mailto:public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please send a copy of your correspondence to
fair@fair.org .
The assault on Fallujah to "liberate" it from the Iraqis, has been reported in the NY Times as causing many civilian casualties. The following is from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), a media watchdog group concerning the Times and its coverage of the civilian deaths.
ACTION ALERT:
New York Times Rewrites Fallujah History
November 16, 2004
In three recent reports about the military invasion of the Iraqi city of
Fallujah, the New York Times has misreported the facts about the April
2004 invasion of the city and the toll it took on Iraqi civilians.
On November 8, the Times reported: "In April, American troops were closing
in on the city center when popular uprisings broke out in cities across
Iraq. The outrage, fed by mostly unconfirmed reports of large civilian
casualties, forced the Americans to withdraw. American commanders regarded
the reports as inflated, but it was impossible to determine independently
how many civilians had been killed."
The next day, the Times made the same point, reporting that the U.S. "had
to withdraw during a previous fight for the city in April after
unconfirmed reports of heavy civilian casualties sparked outrage among
both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis." And on November 15, the Times noted that
the current operation "redressed a disastrous assault on Fallujah last
April that was called off when unconfirmed reports of large civilian
casualties drove the political cost too high."
It's unclear why the Times considers those civilian deaths "unconfirmed."
While there is some debate over precise figures, this wording leaves the
impression that nothing can be reasonably known about deaths in Fallujah.
The head of Fallujah's hospital, Dr. Rafie al-Issawi, has consistently
maintained that more than 600 people were killed in the initial U.S. siege
of Fallujah in April 2004, a figure that rose to more than 800 as the
siege was lifted and people pinned down by the fighting were able to
register their families' deaths (Knight-Ridder, 5/9/04). More than 300 of
the dead, according to al-Issawi, were women and children. The Iraqi
Health Ministry in Baghdad, part of the U.S.-installed government, gave a
lower figure of about 271 killed, with 52 of the dead being women and
children. On October 26, the independent British-based group Iraq Body
Count reported that the civilian death toll in Fallujah in April was about
600, based on their extensive evaluation of the numbers reported by local
hospital officials and the Health Ministry, as well as mainstream media
accounts.
Other journalistic investigations depict the reality of widespread
civilian death in Fallujah: An Associated Press tally of the dead in Iraq
(4/30/04) discovered that in Fallujah "two football fields were turned
into cemeteries, with hundreds of freshly dug graves, marked with wooden
planks scrawled with names -- some with names of women, some marked
specifically as children. At one of the fields, an AP reporter was told by
volunteer gravediggers on April 11 that more than 300 people had been
buried there." A Reuters report (4/13/04) quoted researchers from Human
Rights Watch calling for an investigation based on reports they received
from residents fleeing the violence in Fallujah.
Even the lower estimates provided by the Health Ministry debunk the Times'
repeated assertion that reports of "large civilian casualties" are
"unconfirmed"-- unless the paper wants to maintain that 52 women and
children killed in an attempt to "liberate" their city are
inconsequential. But the Times should know from its own reporting that
the higher casualty figures are much more realistic.
On October 19, the Times reported: "There are no agreed figures for
civilian deaths in Iraq over all since the war began in early 2003, but
the best estimates, by private groups and independent news organizations,
place the figure in the 10,000 to 15,000 range." It would seem obvious,
then, that the bombing of a large civilian population in Iraq in what the
Times called "the most intense aerial bombardment in Iraq since major
combat ended" (4/30/04) would produce significant civilian casualties.
Since substantial numbers of civilians did in fact die in Fallujah in
April, even if the exact number cannot be pinned down, readers might
wonder if the Times' policy is that things that cannot be confirmed with
numerical precision are essentially "unconfirmed." But this would be a
double standard on the part of the Times; in its November 8 report, the
paper noted: "The number of insurgents in the city is estimated at 3,000,
although some guerrillas, terrorist fighters and their leaders escaped the
city before the attack. American military officials estimated that of a
usual population of 300,000, 70 percent to 90 percent of civilians had
fled."
Surely there is no way to determine exactly how many insurgents are in
Fallujah, or how many civilians have fled. To be consistent, shouldn't
the Times be reporting that accounts of civilians leaving the city are
"unconfirmed"?
In its November 8 report, the Times matter-of-factly noted that U.S forces
targeted a Fallujah hospital early in the campaign "because the American
military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy
casualties." The Times added: "This time around, the American military
intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what
has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons."
If part of that "information war" means convincing Americans that
civilians are not victims of the Fallujah invasion, the Times has signed
up on the side of the Pentagon.
ACTION: Please contact New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent and ask
him to investigate why the Times treats credible reports of hundreds of
civilian casualties in Fallujah as "unconfirmed."
CONTACT:
New York Times
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
mailto:public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please send a copy of your correspondence to
fair@fair.org .
Monday, November 15, 2004
UFOs
MUFON Orange County is sponsoring a seminar this week. Info below. Get all the juice on Forrestal, Bentwaters, Rendlesham, all the hot UFO gossip.
Peter Robbins
Bentwaters UFO Incident &
The Strange Death of James Forrestal
England's Bentwaters/Woodbridge Incident of 1980 (aka the Rendlesham Forest incident) is now regarded as the most significant and best documented UFO event in the history of the United Kingdom, in part through the efforts of Peter Robbins. Robbins, an American investigative researcher, spent nine years working the case. His efforts resulted in the publication of the British best seller Left At East Gate, co-authored by Bentwaters military eyewitness and whistleblower Larry Warren.
Early on the morning of May 22, 1949, a despondent James Vincent Forrestal, former Secretary of the Navy, threw himself to his death from the 13th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital where he was being held while being treated for depression. Peter Robbins will take us through a diverse body of evidence that counter the Navy's contention and makes the case for officially-sanctioned murder, with a most compelling motive.
UFO Landings? Murder of a Government Official? Join Us for this Expose!
Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2004 — 7:30 pm Neighborhood Community Center
Information: 714-520-4UFO http://www.mufonoc.org 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa
Book & Video Sales — Refreshments — Raffle Drawings
General Admission: $12.00 Members & Students: $7.00
First Time Visitors $5.00! Bring Your Friends!
MUFON Orange County is sponsoring a seminar this week. Info below. Get all the juice on Forrestal, Bentwaters, Rendlesham, all the hot UFO gossip.
Peter Robbins
Bentwaters UFO Incident &
The Strange Death of James Forrestal
England's Bentwaters/Woodbridge Incident of 1980 (aka the Rendlesham Forest incident) is now regarded as the most significant and best documented UFO event in the history of the United Kingdom, in part through the efforts of Peter Robbins. Robbins, an American investigative researcher, spent nine years working the case. His efforts resulted in the publication of the British best seller Left At East Gate, co-authored by Bentwaters military eyewitness and whistleblower Larry Warren.
Early on the morning of May 22, 1949, a despondent James Vincent Forrestal, former Secretary of the Navy, threw himself to his death from the 13th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital where he was being held while being treated for depression. Peter Robbins will take us through a diverse body of evidence that counter the Navy's contention and makes the case for officially-sanctioned murder, with a most compelling motive.
UFO Landings? Murder of a Government Official? Join Us for this Expose!
Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2004 — 7:30 pm Neighborhood Community Center
Information: 714-520-4UFO http://www.mufonoc.org 1845 Park Ave., Costa Mesa
Book & Video Sales — Refreshments — Raffle Drawings
General Admission: $12.00 Members & Students: $7.00
First Time Visitors $5.00! Bring Your Friends!
ATLANTIS Found!
The BBC News service reported yesterday that some scientists have discovered an area off the coast of Cyprus that matches the descriptions of Atlantis given by Plato. Read it here, BBC.
Or maybe ATLANTIS is over here...
In June of this year, a different group of scientists using satellite imaging found Atlantis off the coast of Spain. Read about their find, here.
Which isn't to say ATLANTIS isn't here...
In October of last year, a team who found the Titanic announced they have pinned the location of Atlantis to Spartel Island, a submerged mud shoal near the Straits of Gibraltar. Read about this, here.
The legend of Atlantis is basically that an island nation with fabulous wealth, technology and beauty was destroyed by geological, technological, or supernatural forces. The nation of Atlantis had a longstanding war with enemies to the East, and it was this war that was in their day the war of civilizations. Were the Atlanteans the ancient Sea Kings that raided Carthage and Egypt 800 BC? Did they fly groovy flying saucers? Stay tuned.
The BBC News service reported yesterday that some scientists have discovered an area off the coast of Cyprus that matches the descriptions of Atlantis given by Plato. Read it here, BBC.
Or maybe ATLANTIS is over here...
In June of this year, a different group of scientists using satellite imaging found Atlantis off the coast of Spain. Read about their find, here.
Which isn't to say ATLANTIS isn't here...
In October of last year, a team who found the Titanic announced they have pinned the location of Atlantis to Spartel Island, a submerged mud shoal near the Straits of Gibraltar. Read about this, here.
The legend of Atlantis is basically that an island nation with fabulous wealth, technology and beauty was destroyed by geological, technological, or supernatural forces. The nation of Atlantis had a longstanding war with enemies to the East, and it was this war that was in their day the war of civilizations. Were the Atlanteans the ancient Sea Kings that raided Carthage and Egypt 800 BC? Did they fly groovy flying saucers? Stay tuned.