• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

zaterdag 25 juli 2009

11 september 2001 (50)

Ik zet het allemaal nog even op een rijtje:

11 september 2001 (48)

Geachte collega's,

Voor degenen die rotsvast geloven in de juistheid van de officieel gepropageerde complottheorie betreffende 11 september 2001.

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 –

This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. http://teamliberty.net

NOTES
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3184 [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1711874.stm [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/ [Accessed June 5, 2006]

Comments section added on July 23, 2009


11 september 2001 (49)

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”



De NRC:

Bin Laden vond tien vliegtuigen te veel voor 11/9

artikel | Maandag 22-09-2003 | Sectie: Buitenland | Pagina: 5
WASHINGTON, 22 SEPT., De eerste ideeën voor wat de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 zouden worden, werden in 1996 aan Osama bin Laden gepresenteerd. Dat heeft Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, brein van de zelfmoordaanslagen met vier vliegtuigen in New York en in Washington, aan zijn Amerikaanse ondervragers verteld


Wat moet de NRC-lezer hier allemaal van denken? Terwijl de 'kwaliteitskrant' zich toch afficheert als de 'slijpsteen voor de geest'. Zal de NRC deze valse informatie nu ruim drie jaar later eindelijk eens gaan weerleggen door te melden dat de FBI 'geen harde bewijzen' heeft?Ik blijf benieuwd.

Nog een ander punt. Voor mijn boek 11 september. het keerpunt citeerde ik op dinsdag 4 oktober 2001 het volgende bericht uit de Volkskrant: 'Nederland heeft dinsdag in de NAVO-raad vergeefs bedenktijd gevraagd om het bewijsmateriaal over de betrokkenheid van Bin Laden bij de aanslagen in de VS te bestuderen. NAVO-ambassadeur Patijn kreeg nul op het rekest. Volgens diplomaten in Brussel beschikken de VS niet over harde bewijzen tegen Bin Laden, hooguit over sterke aanwijzingen... Patijn vroeg dinsdag op verzoek van minister Van Aartsen van Buitenlandse Zaken een uur bedenktijd nadat de Amerikaanse gezant Frank Taylor de NAVO-raad bewijzen had overlegd van de betrokkenheid van Bin Laden bij de terroristische aanslagen. Ook enkele andere landen, waaronder Luxemburg, vroegen om een "stilteprocedure" ... Volgens goed geinformeerde bronnen wees NAVO-chef Robertson het verzoek meteen af met de woorden dat een NAVO-bondgenoot om onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwen vroeg en dat dit onverwijld gehonoreerd moest worden... Het "bewijs" tegen Bin Laden dat Taylor de NAVO-raad presenteerde, zou in een rechtszaal nooit standhouden... Dit stellen diplomaten en ambtenaren bij de NAVO en ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken die de presentatie bijwoonden... Bij de NAVO brengen diplomaten daar tegenin dat "we op dit moment geen rechtzaak aan het voeren zijn. Dus juridisch spijkerhard hoeft het ook niet te zijn. We staan voor een politiek besluit, dat politieke argumenten behoeft. En die hebben we voldoende gekregen," meent een diplomaat ... Dat is ook het verweer van de Amerikaanse regering. "Het is niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren," zegt een Amerikaanse functionaris... De Amerikaanse regering wil de beschikbare gegevens niet openbaar maken,' aldus de Volkskrant destijds.

Ik schreef erbij: 'Met andere woorden: om 1 misdadiger op te hangen of te vergassen moet de VS een "spijkerhard juridisch bewijs" overleggen van de schuld van de ter dood veroordeelde, maar om een heel land te kunnen bombarderen is "het niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren". In 1 vergadering is de mensheid weer terug bij af en kan het zwaar bevochten internationaal recht terzijde worden geschoven. En men is er nog eerlijk over ook, het argument is domweg dat "we voor een politiek besluit staan," en daarbij staat het recht alleen maar in de weg,' aldus de tekst in mijn boek.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article905961.ece/NAVO-chef_dwingt_steun_aan_VS

Kortom: Waarom zit het Nederlandse leger in Afghanistan?


Waarom onderzoeken de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia dit niet? Er worden miljarden aan belastinggeld aan dit zinloze geweld besteed. Me dunkt dat dit toch een doorslaggevend argument is voor Nederlanders die altijd bang zijn dat er teveel geld wordt uitgegeven aan buitenlanders, of ze nu vluchteling zijn of niet.

Oke, zelfs de grootste dwaas kan zien dat er iets niet klopt. Het handelt hier niet om een futiliteit, om een akkefietje, om een detail. Het betreft hier de kern van ons systeem. De parlementaire democratie, voor wat het waard is, is bedrogen op grote schaal. Tienduizenden mensen zijn als gevolg van die leugen vermoord of zijn zwaar verminkt geraakt, het kost de belastingbetaler miljarden om de leugen in stand te houden. Iedereen speelt het spel mee, de politici, de generaals, de ambtenaren, het bedrijfsleven, en niet te vergeten, de meesten van mijn collega's, die uit lafheid, uit financiele noodzaak of uit onnozelheid het spel meespelen. Tot straks de wal het schip gaat keren, want 1 ding kan geen van de spelers veranderen, en dat is het natuurlijke proces van oorzaak en gevolg. De corruptie gaat net zolang door tot het zichzelf geheel uitgehold heeft. Zo is het altijd geweest.

Ik vertrek maandag met mijn 19-jarige zoon Dylan naar New York en Washington, naar het centrum van de moderne macht. Ik wil hem de symbolen van de macht laten zien, het machtsspel zelf heeft hij inmiddels al door. De symbolen van de macht, want de macht kan niet zonder symbolen. De machtelozen wel, de machtigen nooit. Sterker nog: een deel van de macht ontleent de macht juist aan die symbolen. Bij omwentelingen gaan dan ook altijd de symbolen van de macht er het eerst aan. Ik zal een tijdje weg zijn, ik wens u een prettige zomer.

September 1, 1939


by W. H. Auden


I sit in one of the dives

On Fifty-second Street

Uncertain and afraid

As the clever hopes expire

Of a low dishonest decade:

Waves of anger and fear

Circulate over the bright

And darkened lands of the earth,

Obsessing our private lives;

The unmentionable odour of death

Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can

Unearth the whole offence

From Luther until now

That has driven a culture mad,

Find what occurred at Linz,

What huge imago made

A psychopathic god:

I and the public know

What all schoolchildren learn,

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew

All that a speech can say

About Democracy,

And what dictators do,

The elderly rubbish they talk

To an apathetic grave;

Analysed all in his book,

The enlightenment driven away,

The habit-forming pain,

Mismanagement and grief:

We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air

Where blind skyscrapers use

Their full height to proclaim

The strength of Collective Man,

Each language pours its vain

Competitive excuse:

But who can live for long

In an euphoric dream;

Out of the mirror they stare,

Imperialism's face

And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar

Cling to their average day:

The lights must never go out,

The music must always play,

All the conventions conspire

To make this fort assume

The furniture of home;

Lest we should see where we are,

Lost in a haunted wood,

Children afraid of the night

Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash

Important Persons shout

Is not so crude as our wish:

What mad Nijinsky wrote

About Diaghilev

Is true of the normal heart;

For the error bred in the bone

Of each woman and each man

Craves what it cannot have,

Not universal love

But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark

Into the ethical life

The dense commuters come,

Repeating their morning vow;

"I will be true to the wife,

I'll concentrate more on my work,"

And helpless governors wake

To resume their compulsory game:

Who can release them now,

Who can reach the deaf,

Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice

To undo the folded lie,

The romantic lie in the brain

Of the sensual man-in-the-street

And the lie of Authority

Whose buildings grope the sky:

There is no such thing as the State

And no one exists alone;

Hunger allows no choice

To the citizen or the police;

We must love one another or die.

Defenceless under the night

Our world in stupor lies;

Yet, dotted everywhere,

Ironic points of light

Flash out wherever the Just

Exchange their messages:

May I, composed like them

Of Eros and of dust,

Beleaguered by the same

Negation and despair,

Show an affirming flame.


De Pro Israel Lobby 148

Paul2 heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "De Israelische Terreur 938" achtergelaten:

Nou Stan ,dat wordt gevangenisstraf voor kritische bloggers






New Report out ~Today Israeli Zionists are tightening their grip even MORE on our freedom of speech.Israel will use this to take the cause to America next. Very serious stuff to report today, we are loosing our right to free speech against Israel. A Zionist “think tank” in England that has US ties is submitting a report to re-define the term “Anti-Semitism” and make those “new terms” illegal. Sit down, take a deep breath and get ready to be stunned. I came across this recent 38 page PDF publication which is being submitted to the British Government from the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA) the Zionist think-tank which sets out to “monitor” Anti-Semitism in the “World.” This will be used against the Government, the Media, Universities and hundreds of Pro-Palestinian organisations, not to mention blogs and any protests the public decide to hold against the Zionist state Military actions in Palestine.


This group has influential power within the British Government, indeed, one Rt Hon Denis MacShane, MP, is the Chairman of the group.

They have just delivered a “new” report In which they are “re-defining” Anti-Semitism to include just about anything one may say to criticize Israel. Such as Anti-Zionism; Holocaust denial and Holocaust related abuse; conspiracy theories; dual loyalty and the blood libel. More importantly, they take this one step further and are now including “Zionism” in this definition.

The report calls for the adoption of this new definition into law, which would then make it a “crime” to discuss or use any of the phrases, terms, arguments, theories or cases covered this new “definition.” They want the UK to adopt the EUMC (now the European Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA]) definition of “anti-Semitism” so as to outlaw the use of the word “Nazi” when referring to Israel, its government, and Zionists. But that is NOT all they are after, there are many more “demands” which are quite shocking indeed, such as any conspiracy theories about Israel and 9-11, Zionism, or the Israeli Lobby in American Politics control in Washington. Additionally they want your Children to be “re-educated when they attend University (Sounds like Nazi’s to me!) They are also calling for media controls as well. Almost all criticism of Israel AND/OR Zionism will be “branded” as Anti-Semitism and illegal, so keep reading. This definition will target all aspects of discussion on the Israel/Palestine conflict, including media, universities, demonstrations, freedom of speech and much more. Here are excerpts of the new “Zionist Big Brother” PDF report:
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
The report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism drew attention to five themes of antisemitic discourse: anti-Zionism; Holocaust denial and Holocaust related abuse; conspiracy theories; dual loyalty and the blood libel. This report combines them into one overarching theme- playing the Nazi card.
So as we can see, every single aspect of this new form of censorship will now come under one all encompassing heading of "Playing The Nazi Card" So they are effectively lumping hundreds of very real and accurate criticisms against the IDF, the State of Israel, the Gaza Genocide, the Israeli Government and any one critical of Zionism into one little sentence with the word "Nazi" in it. How clever!! Therefore you MUST remember when reading this below that each time they use the phrase "Using the Nazi Card" they are including ALL of this as well: Any criticisms against the IDF, the State of Israel, the Gaza Genocide, the Israeli Government and any one critical of Zionism That is the danger in what they are attempting here folks. With that in mind keep reading:
THE NAZI CARD
In the case of the United Kingdom, the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism recommended that the working definition be “adopted by the government and law enforcement agencies”.

When the Nazi card is played against the Israeli State, its leaders, its military practices, or its founding ideology of Zionism, it is clearly antisemitic.

Four different variants of the problem are examined in the report:
- The Nazi card as abuse against Jews.
- The Nazi card as abuse against the collective memory of the Holocaust.
- The Nazi card in the casting of Jews as conspirators and collaborators with the Nazis.
- The Nazi card manifest in discourse about Israel and Zionism.
Each of these variants of the Nazi card has harmful consequences that constitute a significant common denominator and the rationale for why this type of discourse needs to be addressed. (note that Zionism is now included in the Definition)
GAZA PROTESTS:
Placards carrying images of swastikas superimposed on the Star of David and the Israeli flag were commonplace in street-level protests about the recent Israeli military actions and the conflict in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. Allusions between Nazi genocidal practices and the activities of the Israeli state were also drawn in some of the speeches at protest meetings and press commentary on the conflict.
AND THIS WONT BE ALLOWED ANY MORE:
Richard Falk, the then incoming United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, published an article in 2007 titled ‘Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust’ whereby, for instance, Palestinian territories have been compared to the “Warsaw ghetto”, Libya’s deputy UN ambassador, Ibrahim Dabbashi, reportedly drew a comparison between conditions in Gaza and the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. This occasion was not the first time officials associated with the UN had drawn parallels between Israeli military actions and atrocities committed by the Nazis.
UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE
The project’s aims were to:
● Identify and illuminate the main component parts of antisemitic discourse.
● Include an examination of how criticism of Israel and Zionism can crossover into and become polluted by antisemitism through the expression or assumption of core antisemitic concepts.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE
This report attempts to shift the focus of analysis of contemporary antisemitism onto new ground: away from labelling and defining the problem to an understanding of the consequences of discourse against Jews, Israel and Zionism.
YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE ZIONISM:
PLAYING THE NAZI CARD AGAINST ISRAEL AND ZIONISM
One of the most challenging components of antisemitic discourse in general, and the discursive theme of the Nazi card in particular, concerns the problem of when the Nazi card is played against Israel and its founding movement, Zionism.

INTRODUCTION: THE NAZI CARD AS ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE
Playing the Nazi card refers to the use of Nazi or related terms or symbols (Nazism,
Hitler, swastikas, etc.) in reference to Jews, Israel, Zionism or aspects of the Jewish experience.

● It would be timely for the government to commission a rapid evidence assessment into the practical experience of using the criminal law against racist and antisemitic speech in countries where such provisions have been established.

● The Home Office, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service, should prepare and issue guidance for police forces and crown prosecutors about the circumstances in which playing the Nazi card, and other forms of antisemitic discourse, amounts to unlawful incitement to racial hatred.
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE TARGETTED:
UNIVERSITIES-RE-EDUCATION OF YOUR CHILDREN:
UK universities and colleges should be encouraged to debate and utilise the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) working definition of antisemitism to inform their race equality and harassment policies.

● In seeking advice from scholars with experience in the matter, the government should commission and promote educational materials for university-level
lectures/seminars/workshops on Holocaust denial which examine how Holocaust denial in its explicit and more subtle manifestations constitutes antisemitic discourse.

● The European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism should produce a model statement that refutes the Nazi card point-by-point so that it can aid and inform those who seek to challenge it.(Soon the Government will be paying for these to be handed out to every kid at University!)
No more talking about AIPAC,the Jewish-Zionist Lobby, it's influence, Jane Harman affair, Israeli spies, all will be considered "anti-Semitic" soon:
JEWISH/ZIONIST LOBBY IN AMERICA
It has been suggested that in recent discourse regarding the alleged role of Zionists or an Israel lobby in Western societies, the language and terms of reference used to depict their alleged actions has sometimes been reminiscent of language and themes similar to those identified by Klug when discussing the traditional depiction of the conduct of the mythical Jew. Zionists and
The Zionist lobby have periodically been depicted as conspirators, controllers of the media, and of wielding undue power and influence over governments. It might therefore be suggested that such sentiment, when echoing traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories but ostensibly targeting Zionists is likewise not grounded in any real sense of ‘what they are,’ but has similarly come to reflect a discourse of hatred against Zionists as ‘Zionists’.
AND DON'T BE TALKING ABOUT BERNIE MADE-OFF ANYMORE EITHER,MORE HERE:
In addition to such conspiracies that allege Jewish and Israeli hands behind major international calamities have been references to longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories alleging orchestrated Jewish control of world financial markets.
And they are going after the Media:
THE PRESS AND MEDIA:
The media in Britain have also played a hand in reproducing antisemitic conspiracy theories - even inadvertently. Most famously, the cover of the 14January 2002 edition of the New Statesman used a large glistening golden Star of David piercing a prostate Union Jack and the words ‘A kosher conspiracy?...Britain’s pro-Israel lobby’.

The Press Complaints Commission should be encouraged to utilise the EUMC working definition of antisemitism to inform guidance in its Code of Practice

● The National Union of Journalists at national and branch level should be encouraged to debate and utilise the EUMC working definition of antisemitism to inform guidance about how particular discourse can lead to hatred or discrimination against Jews.

● The Press Complaints Commission should be encouraged to utilise the EUMC working definition of antisemitism to inform guidance in its Code of Practice about how particular discourse can lead to hatred or discrimination against Jews.

● When the Nazi card is played as abuse against Jews individually or collectively, it involves a discursive and targeted hurtful act of raw explicit insult and potentially serves as a threat of future violence.
So, How insane is that statement, they are calling for a law to be passed to stop a violent crime that may not take place, or has not taken place yet? So perhaps we should start arresting people who "may" in future commit a crime because of their thoughts and opinions? ZIONIST BIG BROTHER STATE COMING SOON TO YOU
● When the Nazi card is played as abuse against the collective memory of the Holocaust, the offender ‘de-Nazifies’ the role of the Nazis and casts Jews as conspirators.

● When the Nazi card is played by casting Jews as conspirators and collaborators with the Nazis, Jews are portrayed as beneficiaries of Nazi genocidal policies.

● When the Nazi card is played against Israel and Zionism, Israel as a state is cast in the role of the Nazis with Palestinians cast as victims of eliminationist policy and practice.
So in the above statements they make it crystal clear, the “Holocaust” excuse will “never” end. In other words, there will never come a time when it can be viewed as a historical event, and there will never come a time when you can be critical of it, or have an opposing opinion of that historical event. Now, to effectively rule that people cannot have their own opinions or questions, no matter how far out, is just another form of Big Brother Control of the masses by Israel world wide. Taking that one step further, what about people who believe that 9-11 was an inside job and that Jews were involved. So, that “form” of thought will also be outlawed as illegal. SEE HERE:
In the aftermath of several recent international terrorist attacks, allegations of Jewish conspiracies spread. Since the events of 9/11, antisemitic conspiracy theories have variously alleged that Jews or Zionists were responsible for the attacks or were aware of the attacks in advance. Together with such allegations has been the suggestion that thousands of Jews were secretly warned not to arrive at work on the day of the 9/11 attacks.
AND THIS WILL ALSO BECOME ILLEGAL AS WELL:
JEWS AS CONSPIRATORS AND COLLABORATORS WITH THE NAZIS
Conspiracy theories about Jews have historically provided the mainstay of antisemitic discourse. New conspiracies are promoted with varying malevolence often in reaction to prevailing social, political and economic calamities. Once given life, the conspiracy theories become part of the everyday ideology and discourse of what it is to be a Jew.
Can't have the truth about the Genocide in Gaza being reported in public, people may find out the truth!AND THEY WILL BE GOING AFTER BOOKS AS WELL, SO WATCH OUT:
In one of the earliest British contributions to the Holocaust-denial literature, Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth at Last,38 published in 1974, Richard Harwood claimed that the “deception” committed by “the Jewish people” had brought an “incalculable benefit” in that the “alleged extent of their persecution quickly aroused sympathy for the Jewish national homeland they had sought for so long”.

“The language is significant - ‘hoax’, ‘swindle’, ‘racket’ -
All in themselves implying ‘Jew’ through the historical accumulation of antisemitic connotations (money grabbing, Jewing, Shylock, etc.)”.41
PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION (also will be illegal)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Henry Ford’s The International Jew, are exemplars of such a depiction of the Jew. And more recent conspiracy theories about Jews manifest this malevolent discursive characterisation.
AND LASTLY, MORE EXPRESSIONS THAT WILL BECOME ILLEGAL:
● Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
LOOKOUT, that sweeping statement covers everything about the Zionist Lobby's control inside America. So, will we see books such as THIS by JOHN MEARSHEIMER and STEPHEN WALT and books like THIS by James Petras becoming illegal under the guise of "Anti-Semitism"?? MORE...
● Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

● Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Don't you love that one? If it was even remotly NOT true we'd not have AIPAC, ZOA, ADL and hundreds of other "lobby" groups contolling America and it's worldwide policies! They advocate for ISRAEL not AMERICA. AIPAC spies and Jane Harman anyone? Sadly there's more:
● Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

● Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

● Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Please pass this post on...If you are NOT Angry then you are NOT paying attention. BIG BROTHER is already here, in the name of worldwide Zionism! READ IT ALL HERE
written by irish4palestine

http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com/2009/07/must-readcriticizing-israel-to-be.html

11 september 2001 (49)

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2009/07/11-september.html


De NRC:

Bin Laden vond tien vliegtuigen te veel voor 11/9

artikel | Maandag 22-09-2003
| Sectie: Buitenland | Pagina: 5
WASHINGTON, 22 SEPT.

De eerste ideeën voor wat de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 zouden worden, werden in 1996 aan Osama bin Laden gepresenteerd. Dat heeft Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, brein van de zelfmoordaanslagen met vier vliegtuigen in New York en in Washington, aan zijn Amerikaanse ondervragers verteld

http://archief.nrc.nl/?modus=l&text=osama+bin+laden&hit=710&set=2

Wat moet de NRC-lezer hier allemaal van denken? Terwijl de 'kwaliteitskrant' zich toch afficheert als de slijpsteen voor de geest. Zal de NRC deze valse informatie nu gaan weerleggen door te melden dat de FBI 'geen harde bewijzen' heeft? Ik ben benieuwd.

Nog een ander punt. Voor mijn boek 11 september. het keerpunt citeerde ik op dinsdag 4 oktober 2001 het volgende bericht uit de Volkskrant: 'Nederland heeft dinsdag in de NAVO-raad vergeefs bedenktijd gevraagd om het bewijsmateriaal over de betrokkenheid van Bin Laden bij de aanslagen in de VS te bestuderen. NAVO-ambassadeur Patijn kreeg nul op het rekest. Volgens diplomaten in Brussel beschikken de VS niet over harde bewijzen tegen Bin Laden, hooguit over sterke aanwijzingen... Patijn vroeg dinsdag op verzoek van minister Van Aartsen van Buitenlandse Zaken een uur bedenktijd nadat de Amerikaanse gezant Frank Taylor de NAVO-raad bewijzen had overlegd van de betrokkenheid van Bin Laden bij de terroristische aanslagen. Ook enkele andere landen, waaronder Luxemburg, vroegen om een "stilteprocedure" ... Volgens goed geinformeerde bronnen wees NAVO-chef Robertson het verzoek meteen af met de woorden dat een NAVO-bondgenoot om onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwen vroeg en dat dit onverwijld gehonoreerd moest worden... Het "bewijs" tegen Bin Laden dat Taylor de NAVO-raad presenteerde, zou in een rechtszaal nooit standhouden... Dit stellen diplomaten en ambtenaren bij de NAVO en ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken die de presentatie bijwoonden... Bij de NAVO brengen diplomaten daar tegenin dat "we op dit moment geen rechtzaak aan het voeren zijn. Dus juridisch spijkerhard hoeft het ook niet te zijn. We staan voor een politiek besluit, dat politieke argumenten behoeft. En die hebben we voldoende gekregen," meent een diplomaat ... Dat is ook het verweer van de Amerikaanse regering. "Het is niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren," zegt een Amerikaanse functionaris... De Amerikaanse regering wil de beschikbare gegevens niet openbaar maken,' aldus de Volkskrant destijds.

Ik schreef erbij: 'Met andere woorden: om 1 misdadiger op te hangen of te vergassen moet de VS een "spijkerhard juridisch bewijs" overleggen van de schuld van de ter dood veroordeeld, maar om een heel land te kunnen bombarderen is "het niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren". In 1 vergadering is de mensheid weer terug bij af en kan het zwaar bevochten internationaal recht terzijde worden geschoven. En men is er nog eerlijk over ook, het argument is domweg dat "we voor een politiek besluit staan," en daarbij staat het recht alleen maar in de weg,' aldus de tekst in mijn boek.

Met andere woorden: Waarom zit het Nederlandse leger in Afghanistan?


Zie: http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2007/05/laura-starink.html

Waarom onderzoeken de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia dit niet? Er worden miljarden aan belastinggeld aan dit zinloze geweld besteed. Me dunkt dat dit toch een doorslaggevend argument is voor Nederlanders die altijd bang zijn dat er teveel geld wordt uitgegeven aan buitenlanders, of ze nu vluchteling zijn of niet.

11 september 2001 (48)

Geachte collega's,

Voor degenen die rotsvast geloven in de officieel gepropageerde complottheorie betreffende 11 september 2001.

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 –

This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. http://teamliberty.net

NOTES
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

Comments section added on July 23, 2009

Osama bin Laden


"Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive?"

Audio Interview with Dr. David Ray Griffin

Guns and Butter - Broadcast - July 22, 2009

"Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive?" with Dr. David Ray Griffin on his new book by the same name. We examine all the evidence, both that indicating bin Laden died, and that suggesting he is still alive; the important bin Laden videos and audio recordings, the significance, if any, in the timing of their release; statements by significant political and intelligence figures; and why the hunt for bin Laden must proceed.

Audio archive file here http://informationclearinghouse.info/20090722-Wed1300.mp3


Report: Bin Laden Already Dead

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."


Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633

News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago

Islamabad -
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden. http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/

This item posted July 22, 2009

Het Neoliberale Geloof 464

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest

An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.

In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth.

Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff: Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff: Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.

Wealth — strictly financial savings — provides security to individuals in the event of sickness, job loss or marital separation. Assets provide a kind of safety blanket that people can rely on in case their income gets interrupted.

Wealth is also more directly related to political power. People who have large amounts of wealth can make political contributions. In some cases, they can use that money to run for office themselves, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

MM: What are the best sources for information on wealth?
Wolff: The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.

Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.

They have a special supplement sample that they rely on to provide information about high income households. Wealth turns out to be highly skewed, so that a very small proportion of families owns a very large share of total wealth. Most surveys miss these families. But the Survey of Consumer Finances uses information provided by the Internal Revenue Service to construct a special supplemental sample on high income households, so they can zero in on the high wealth holders.

MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?
Wolff: The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.

This is the most easily understood measure.

There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, which is pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.

MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?
Wolff: We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.

Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.

Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

This is a very concentrated distribution.

MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?
Wolff: The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.

MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?
Wolff: Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can’t really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.

The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.


Het Neoliberale Geloof 463

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).


Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2004
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%

Lees verder: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

'According to the book Who Rules America?, by Domhoff, the distribution of wealth in America is the primary highlight of the influence of the upper class. The top 1% of Americans own around 34% of the wealth in the U.S. while the bottom 80% own only approximately 16% of the wealth. This large disparity displays the unequal distribution of wealth in America in absolute terms.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_class

The Empire 467

1-Percenters Launch Attack On Health Care

By David Sirota

July 24, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- - Here's a truism: The wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good.

According to government figures, 1-percenters' share of America's total income is the highest it has been since 1929, and their tax rates are the lowest they've faced in two decades. Through bonuses, many 1-percenters will profit from the $23 trillion in bailout largesse the Treasury Department now says could be headed to financial firms.

And, most of them benefit from IRS decisions to reduce millionaire audits and collect zero taxes from the majority of major corporations.

But what really makes the ultra-wealthy so fortunate, what truly separates this moment from a run-of-the-mill Gilded Age, is the unprecedented protection the 1-percenters have bought for themselves on the most pressing issues.

To review: With 22,000 Americans dying each year because they lack health insurance, Congress is considering universal health care legislation financed by a surcharge on income above $280,000 — that is, a levy almost exclusively on 1-percenters. This surtax would graze just 5 percent of small businesses and would recoup only part of the $700 billion the 1-percenters received from the Bush tax cuts.

In fact, it is so minuscule, those making $1 million annually would pay just $9,000 more in taxes every year — or nine-tenths of 1 percent of their 12-month haul.

Nonetheless, the 1-percenters have deployed an army to destroy the initiative before it makes progress.

The foot soldiers are the Land Rover Liberals. These Democratic lawmakers secure their lefty labels by wearing pink-ribbon lapel pins and supporting good causes like abortion rights. However, being affluent and/or from affluent districts, they routinely drive their luxury cars over middle-class economic interests. Hence, this week's letter from dot-com tycoon Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder, Colo., and other Land Rover Liberals calling for the death of the surtax.

Echoing that demand are the Corrupt Cowboys — those like Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who come from the heartland's culturally conservative and economically impoverished locales. These cavalrymen in both parties quietly build insurmountable campaign war chests as the biggest corporate fundraisers in Congress. At the same time, they publicly preen as jes' folks, make twangy references to "voters back home," and now promise to kill the health care surtax because they say that's what their communities want. Cash payoffs made, re-elections purchased, the absurd story somehow goes that because blue-collar constituents in Flyover America like guns and love Jesus, they must also reflexively adore politicians who defend 1-percenters' bounty.

That fantastical fairly tale, of course, couldn't exist without the Millionaire Media — the elite journalists and opinionmongers who represent corporate media conglomerates and/or are themselves extremely wealthy. Ignoring all the data about inequality, they legitimize the assertions of the 1-percenters' first two battalions, while actually claiming that America's fat cats are unfairly persecuted.

For example, Washington Post editors deride surtax proponents for allegedly believing "the rich alone can fund government." Likewise, Wall Street Journal correspondent Jonathan Weisman wonders why the surtax "soak(s) the rich" by unduly "lumping all of the problems of the finances of the United States on 1 percent of (its) households?"

And most brazenly, NBC's Meredith Vieira asks President Obama why the surtax is intent on "punishing the rich?"

For his part, Obama has responded with characteristic coolness — and a powerful counter-strike. "No, it's not punishing the rich," he said.

"If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that's part of being a community."

If any volley can thwart this latest attack of the 1-percenters, it is that simple idea.
# David Sirota is the bestselling author of "Hostile Takeover" (2006) and "The Uprising" (2008). Contact him at ds@davidsirota.com.

Nederland en Afghanistan 209

Majority in US oppose both wars

By The Associated Press

July 24, 2009 --- (AP) -A majority of Americans oppose both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, though the war in Afghanistan is a little more popular. Here are details:

OVERALL RESULTS: 34 percent favor the war in Iraq and 63 percent are opposed; 44 percent favor the war in Afghanistan and 53 percent are opposed.

PARTISAN DIFFERENCES: 64 percent of Republicans are in favor of the war in Iraq and just 10 percent of Democrats are; 66 percent of Republicans favor the war in Afghanistan, as do 26 percent of Democrats.

PRESIDENT'S RATING: 56 percent of Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the situation in Iraq, and 55 percent approve of his handling of Afghanistan. Both numbers are down just slightly since April.

THE FUTURE: 68 percent think it is likely that Obama will be able to pull most troops out of Iraq in the next four years, but that's down from 83 percent before his inauguration.

METHODOLOGY: The AP-GfK Poll was conducted July 16-20 and involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 adults nationwide. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Nederland en Afghanistan 208

Hoe meer westerse soldaten omkomen des te sneller is de oorlog afgelopen.

Rising Casualties Raise Doubts Abroad on War

By ELAINE GANLEY and MATT MOORE

July 24, 2009 -- (AP) -- BERLIN — Rising casualties in Afghanistan are raising doubts among U.S. allies about the conduct of the war, forcing some governments to defend publicly their commitments and foreshadowing possible long-term trouble for the U.S. effort to bring in more resources to defeat the Taliban.

Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers' bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan.

Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war — or at least their involvement in combat operations — even as President Barack Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq.

The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan — nearly double the number a year ago — and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops currently in the country.

The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting — and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons. Most have been killed in southern Afghanistan, scene of major operations against Taliban fighters in areas that had long been sanctuaries.

The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election.

They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give al-Qaida more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction.

It is clear that in European countries "there is a fatigue with the mission," said Etienne de Durand, an Afghanistan expert at the French Institute for International Relations.

The surge in casualties has set off a heated debate in Britain about troop levels and the conduct of the war.

This week, Foreign Office minister Mark Malloch Brown said British troops in Afghanistan had too few helicopters, becoming the first government minister to publicly challenge Prime Minister Gordon Brown's contention that troops have the equipment they need.

Still, a 24-nation poll on global attitudes to Obama's policies by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that only about half of the British respondents favored withdrawing from Afghanistan altogether. Forty-six percent wanted to keep British troops deployed while 48 percent said they should pull out.

The poll of nearly 27,000 people was conducted May 18 to June 16, with a margin of error in most countries of 3 to 4 percentage points.

Stronger still is Canadian opposition to their deployment of 2,500 soldiers in Kandahar province, the Taliban heartland. Forty-three percent of Canadians favored remaining in Afghanistan while 50 percent supported withdrawing.

In Germany, virtually all mainstream politicians still support the deployment of 4,000 troops in Afghanistan's relatively quiet northern regions. But government officials have frequently found themselves on the defensive in the face of polls finding that a majority of Germans oppose their involvement in combat missions.

Since they deployed in 2002, 35 Germans have been killed, including three men who died June 23 when their armored vehicle crashed into a stream near Kunduz after being attacked by insurgents.

Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said at their funeral this month that the deaths "confront us all with the question of the sense of this mission in Afghanistan."

Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing general elections in September, said afterward that "there is no sensible alternative" to the NATO deployment and that "we will not run away from this task."

In addition to pouring thousands more troops into Afghanistan, the Obama administration is in the midst of a strategy reassessment, trying to shift more work to civilian authorities and protect Afghan civilians.

Vice President Joe Biden warned in an interview broadcast Thursday that international casualties can be expected to climb, but "in terms of national interest of Great Britain, the U.S. and Europe, (the war) is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt."

But Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged that the new strategy must show results in 18 months to two years or the administration will risk losing public support.

The Pew poll showed that 57 percent of American respondents favored keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan while 38 percent said they should be withdrawn. An AP-GfK poll found very different results, however, with 44 percent favoring the war and 53 percent opposed; the survey was conducted July 16-20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Christopher Langton, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said he saw an "underlying resilience level of support" for the war among voters in U.S. allies with troops in Afghanistan but that may not include backing for a high level of combat operations.

The Netherlands plans to pull out its 1,650 troops next year. And there are signs that noncombat missions look increasingly appealing for American's allies.

With 27 dead including 10 killed in an ambush last August, France has turned down Obama's request to add to its 2,900 troops in central Afghanistan and is emphasizing reconstruction aid, police training and other humanitarian elements of its efforts there.

Italy pledged to keep its 2,800 soldiers in Afghanistan after one was killed and three wounded by a roadside bomb last week. Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa visited the troops stationed in the western region of Herat on Tuesday, promising to increase security for soldiers by deploying more unmanned aircraft and sturdier vehicles.

Australia, with about 1,550 troops in Afghanistan, lost its 11th soldier last week. Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston said Tuesday that a multilateral withdrawal would lead to civil war with "a very strong possibility the Taliban would prevail."

Ganley reported from Paris. Associated Press writers Geir Moulson in Berlin, Jill Lawless in London, Ariel David in Rome, Karel Janicek in Prague, Charmaine Noronha in Toronto, Tanalee Smith in Sydney, Toby Sterling in Amsterdam, Jan Olsen in Copenhagen, Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm and Ian MacDougall in Oslo contributed to this report.