"A British mother paraded on state TV. Forced to wear the hijab,"

[lemnitzer]

As if its worse than a mountain of naked people in the Abu Ghraib or
Guantanamo style or with secret prisons according to the WASHINGTON
CONVENTIONS !!!! and she suddenly transmogrified from a UK marine to a
mother ... Brits are truly hilarious !!!

http://www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=43780

Tensions rise between Iran, UK, as sailors remain captive
By: Katie Allison Granju, Producer

LONDON - Britain said Thursday that it would seek United Nations
condemnation of Iran for taking its 15 Royal Navy crewmembers last
week, as the dispute over the fate of the crew grew.
Iran, however, said Britain had mishandled the situation and said it
would not release Britain's lone female crewmember as it said it would
because it was increasing international pressure.

Iran's chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, chastised Britain for having
"an incorrect attitude" and warned that release of any of the captives
may not be imminent.

Iran's Mehr News Agency reported that the promised release of sailor
Faye Turney would be suspended. And Larijani, head of Iran's supreme
national security council, hinted on Iranian state radio that the crew
could be put on trial, saying, "This case may face a legal path."

Britain insisted that it was not seeking a confrontation over the
crew, even as the exchange of words and demands between the two
nations escalated in tit-for-tat fashion.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq | Iran | Iran | London | Britain | British
| Tony Blair | Mottaki | Larijani

ON DEADLINE: Iran backs off release


MORE:Iran delays release of female captive

On Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, had told
BBC television that Turney would be "released very soon." Mottaki also
said that Iran would allow British diplomats to visit the crew,
although he didn't say when.

Iran maintains that the British crew was taken into custody after
trespassing into its territorial waters in a narrow waterway that
separates Iran from Iraq. Britain, however, says the crew was
conducting a routine anti-smuggling inspection of a merchant ship 1.7
miles inside Iraqi waters when the crewmembers were "ambushed" by
Iranian gunboats.

The mounting crisis has kept oil prices near six-month highs on
worries that a prolonged confrontation could disrupt Gulf oil
supplies. It has exacerbated tensions between Iran and the West, which
already were high over disputes about Iran's uranium enrichment
program. Iran says its nuclear program is to generate power. The West
fears that it could be turned into weapon production.

After failing to gain the crew's release through quiet diplomatic
channels, the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair
ratcheted up the pressure on Iran on Wednesday. It cut off trade and
travel contact with Iran, made public the satellite coordinates of the
crew and vowed to bring international pressure on the Iranian
government.

Larijani said, "British leaders have miscalculated this issue" and
were making a "fuss" over the dispute.

British newspapers expressed outrage at having the crew paraded before
television cameras and in response to a letter that Turney allegedly
wrote to her parents, in which she wrote that the crew had
"apparently" entered Iran's territorial waters.

"We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as
we had apparently gone into Iranian waters," the letter, a copy of
which was sent to The Associated Press, said. "I wish we hadn't
because then I'd be home with you all right now."

The Daily Mail of London found the TV footage disgusting. "A British
mother paraded on state TV. Forced to wear the hijab," it blared on
Page One.

And most editorial writers warned that Iran was severely damaging its
credibility in the world at a time when it couldn't afford it by
continuing to insist that the crew had trespassed.

"All it does is isolate Iran further," The Daily Telegraph of London
wrote. "Enlightened self-interest, as well as simple justice, demands
the captives' release immediately."

Although the crisis appeared to be spinning out of control, Middle
East analyst Rosemary Hollis with London's Chatham House international
think tank said that it still could be resolved without further
escalation.

The key, she said, is for Britain to focus on the actual dispute over
the location of the incident and to ensure that the crew is not
punished for any perceived disagreement over their precise location.

The worst scenario, Hollis said, is to give Iran any cause to turn the
incident into a wider fight against the United States and the West
over its nuclear program or allow the crew to be turned into hostages
that could be swapped.

U.S. forces in Iraq are holding five Iranian officials who were taken
into custody in January in northern Iraq in an Iranian liaison office.
The officials had been suspected of having ties aimed at targeting
Iraqi and coalition forces.

So far, Iran has said the current incident is not linked to any other
issue.

Contributing: Wire reports

 

[stj911]

U.S. Officials React to Saudi Condemnation
Abdullah Says Iraq Under "Illigitimate Foreign Occupation" at Arab
Summit
By SANDRA HERNANDEZ Posted 1 hr. 33 min. ago
Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA: Saudi King Abdullah attends the Arab Summit, 28
March 2007 in Riyadh.
Hassan Amar/AFP/Getty
Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA: Saudi King Abdullah attends the Arab Summit, 28
March 2007 in Riyadh.

In the latest sign that traditional U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is charting
its own course in the Middle East, King Abdullah condemned the U.S.
presence in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation" while
speaking at the Arab summit in Riyadh, eliciting restrained reactions
from Washington.

"In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of
illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening
a civil war," King Abdullah said in remarks to the Arab League
Thursday, according to Reuters.

A U.S. official called the remarks extraordinary, "given that Riyadh
has officially recognized the Iraqi government and accepted post-
invasion U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq," the Los Angeles Times
reported.

Still, most U.S. officials were at pains to refute the charge without
antagonizing Saudi Arabia, a longtime U.S. ally and its second-largest
oil supplier after Canada.

"When it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there
under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of
the Iraqi people," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Reactions at the State Department were even more conciliatory.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, testifying before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that King Abdullah's comments
had been misinterpreted or mistranslated and expressed confidence that
the remarks would not upset U.S.-Saudi relations.

"Everyone shares a common interest in seeing an Iraq that is whole and
that is free and that is at peace and prosperous for all Iraqis," said
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in response to the remarks,
according to Reuters.

King Abdullah's remarks were the latest sign that Saudi Arabia is
taking its own initiative in shaping regional politics, rather than
deferring to U.S. policies. Last February, it hosted talks where
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to work with rival faction
Hamas, which the U.S. lists as a terrorist organization.

And earlier this month, Saudi Arabia hosted Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad at a bilateral summit in Riyadh, raising the awkward
prospect of an alliance between the U.S.'s foremost Arab ally and its
strongest antagonist in the region.

A host of topics were discussed in the early rounds of the two-day
summit where King Abdullah made his remarks. Among them was the
standoff between Britain and Iran over the latter's seizure of fifteen
marines in a contested waterway separating Iran and Iraq.

Iran does not belong to the Arab League, a group of 22 mostly Arabic-
speaking nations in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

[thermate2]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/page.php?a=32710

March 28, 2007 at 21:50:23

Breaking my silence on 9/11 Truth

by John Kusumi Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

Initially I preferred to keep silent about the 9/11 Truth Movement, to
not be diverted from my issue. I've been associated with the China
Support Network, being its founder, and in recent years, I give my
speeches in that vein exclusively. That means, I have a cause and I
don't need a spare cause, nor a soapbox, nor a reason to be known in
the public discourse, where I've contributed since 1980. My 9/11
article is written, not oral; in any public appearance, I remain on
the China issue. The article is volunteered and not sponsored; I
simply think it fair to have the question, "What happened on 9/11?",
and to have the indicated investigation that is genuine and impartial,
rather than a whitewash. Read on, to where I suggest a role for Glenn
Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Recently, Rosie O'Donnell raised the issue of 9/11 Truth, questioning
how one or more of the buildings fell in New York City on September
11, 2001. Also, actor Charlie Sheen has come out with his own
questions and concerns about what happened that day, and we've learned
that he will narrate an updated version of Loose Change, a documentary
that questions the official story of 9/11. This led to mentions on
television by Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, top conservative
commentators who seem to have replaced George Will and Bob Novak.
(Note to youngsters: The latter were leading conservative commentators
in the post-Watergate period. What's Watergate? Check Wikipedia.)

I cannot be counted a fanatic on the issue of 9/11 truth. I do my
share of writing, publishing, and speaking; and, but for one related
blog post, this is my first article on the subject. The standard that
I would like to uphold is truth, period -- something that all should
care about, and that journalists in particular should be finicky to
discern and record accurately. The field of journalism at least bills
itself to be concerned about non-fiction and a first draft of history.
I believe that non-fiction and truth are synonyms, and that to sweat
these details ought to be right up the alley of U.S. journalists.

Imagine if you will a bumper sticker that says: "Pearl Harbor:
Roosevelt Knew." In the 1940s, there were many very staunch, patriotic
citizens, who likely had full faith in their President Roosevelt (FDR)
and for whom our hypothetical bumper sticker may hurt, or sting
deeply. The sticker could be rejected on the simple basis that it is
alien to the world view, held by those observers, of FDR as an upright
and above-board U.S. President. More recent research, however, has
convinced many historians that the sticker is indeed accurate. I
believe that even our mainstream commentators have allowed the same,
so that we now have an accepted view of history, to wit that Roosevelt
had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. If so, then
the truth behind Pearl Harbor becomes LIHOP -- Let It Happen On
Purpose.

The above paragraph does NOT prove anything about 9/11. If people make
bumper stickers saying, "9/11: Bush Knew," then they still must make
their case. For those who assert provocatively, there is an onus or a
burden of proof. Words are not "more true" on a bumper sticker, and
"less true" elsewhere. The standard of proof is not in the placement
of the words. However, I believe and would stand behind a bumper
sticker that said: "Tiananmen Square: Bush Knew." (That refers to the
elder President Bush, who gave a nod and a wink to Chinese leaders
before their troops went to Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders MIHOP --
Made It Happen On Purpose.)

For those who are toying with the possibilities, alternate
explanations for 9/11 include (a.) "we were surprised -- they got one
by us (totally innocent);" (b.) "we were warned, but we failed to
connect the dots (totally incompetent);" (c.) LIHOP (partial inside
job, partially sinister); and (d.) MIHOP (an inside job, totally
sinister). The official explanation has already migrated, since the
early days, from (a.) to (b.). Perhaps one reason why I've avoided
9/11 Truth as a topic is due to its parallel with rejecting the
"Roosevelt knew of Pearl Harbor" thought, as above. Explanations (c.)
and (d.) for 9/11 entail the culpability of someone in our own
government. It is alien to the world view that the U.S. Government
protects Americans. In this case, Americans were harmed by
perpetrators who were clearly evil, and it is harsh -- indeed
anguishing -- to contemplate the case if it were that the hand of evil
was partly domestic. Culpability within our own government would make
9/11 the crime of the century.

I will not take up the job of re-iterating the case that's been made
by the 9/11 Truth Movement. But, increasing numbers of questions have
been uncovered, and the awareness of prior warnings, given to the U.S.
government in advance, has increased. The number of warnings reported
has risen since the early days -- the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
This means that we know more now, than previously. For brevity, I'd
care to focus on three points that I'll call, "Tip-off #1, Tip-off #2,
and The Nub Of The Matter."

To me, Tip-off #1 is a point that I earlier blogged: "It seems
ridiculously implausible that the FBI tracked down 19 mug shots of 19
hijackers, and got that to the news media the same day as the attacks!
Again, without inside knowledge, but with general awareness of the
working world, how it goes, and what's plausible -- I look at that,
and I say to myself, 'prepared slide.'" Each airplane had more than
five passengers. Full investigation took less than a day, and the FBI
knew precisely who among the passengers was "in" and "out" of the
conspiracy. This was reported with certitude the same day, and the
official slide with the 19 men remains an enduring memory, seared in
there without additions or deletions. (Where we might have expected a
developing story, the slide did not change, although some of the
hijackers were reported to be alive and well, still living in the
Middle East.) The mere fact that the FBI had those 19 mug shots "tips
off" their prior familiarity with these men.

Tip-off #2 is a recent point. In late February, 2007, the 9/11 Truth
Movement released BBC video from 9/11, in which the BBC reported that
building seven had collapsed IN ADVANCE. That is to say that the
building was still standing while the BBC reported the demise of the
building. The timing of their story was off. Half an hour later, the
building came down and "got on the page." It seems that Aaron Brown
over at CNN made a similar report, that the building was toast before
it was in fact toast. 9/11 was certainly a day of "on the ground"
events happening. But Tip-offs #1 and #2 each strongly suggest that
9/11 was also a day of news being spoonfed by the media. The early
report of building seven collapsing (at BBC and CNN) was not from
eyewitnesses on the ground. The faulty information had to come from
somewhere (A prepared plan? A press release?) other than eyeballs on
the scene. Where did the media get this information, and who was
spoonfeeding it to them?

Let's move to the nub of the matter. Many in the 9/11 Truth Movement
are screaming that controlled demolition brought the buildings down.
The original designs and plans for the World Trade Center were meant
to withstand a jetliner impact, although we can admit that the designs
probably contemplated earlier planes and less jet fuel. Hence, I
believe that the towers natively would have withstood impact from a
circa 1970 Boeing 737, and that the real difference in the case of
9/11 was "all that jet fuel." The official explanation of 9/11 hinges
on the idea that "all that jet fuel" brought the towers down. (And, in
my view, the official explanation cannot explain the fall of building
seven, which did not even have an airplane impact.)

What's true is this: jet fuel has a particular temperature at which it
burns, and steel has a particular temperature at which it melts. These
are empirically measurable, so there need not be different melting
points for liberals, conservatives, mainstreamers, and "loony wack job
internet conspiracy theorists." It is America's chronically-lame news
media that is so quick to be so judgmental -- or at least, it was Bill
O'Reilly and Glenn Beck who, on their shows, seemed to circle the
wagons for "mainstream thinking" -- at the expense of others, who were
the recipients for name-calling and ad hominem attacks. (Note to
youngsters: Ad hominem or "to the man" attacks never prove anything.
If person A says that "X is true," and then person B says "Yah well, A
is a Communist," that does not prove that X is false. X will be true
or false, independently of whether A is a Communist. Even Communists
can say true things --so really, personal details about A are
irrelevant to X.)

In their recent televised statements, O'Reilly and Beck "took sides,"
fulfilling their (God-given? Bush-given?) roles as defenders of
"official truth." And, it seems to me, this taking of sides was in the
absence of kicking the tires or full investigation. (An entire
separate article could be made with the reservations about the 9/11
Commission.) If we actually cared to get to the bottom of 9/11, I
believe that we would measure the temperature of burning jet fuel, and
the melting point of structural steel. I've never done it personally,
so perhaps I could still join Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck -- I do not
know the outcome of the test that I propose. (Are there published
specifications that state these two temperatures? Yes, but the 9/11
Truth Movement is where arguments have broken out over empirical data.
One side or the other might warn me against trusting a high school
chemistry book, so I am now too skeptical for any approach that cannot
"show me." It remains true, for me, that seeing is believing.)

I want to see a test in which they try to melt steel with jet fuel.
While I personally lack a handy supply of either, there are 50 State
Governors who could order their National Guard to undertake this test
(and, if Fox and CNN want to save their credibility, they could fund
this test). A vat of jet fuel should be prepared, perhaps sunken into
the ground as in a foundation or a back yard swimming pool. A steel
girder meeting the same specifications as WTC columns should be placed
across this vat. I don't require a re-creation of the towers; just one
girder. For good measure, one could place a heavy weight like a
wrecking ball atop the girder. Then simply ignite the vat and let the
jet fuel burn. Show me that jet fuel can melt steel. Here, I have
devolved the case to a test of an empirical nature with a boolean
outcome: the test either will, or will not, melt the steel. If it
will, then I will be more ready to believe the official story. If it
will not, then "Houston, we have a problem," and a full explanation of
9/11 must then involve more effort to bring down the towers; more than
merely the thought of letting the jet fuel burn to do its thing.

What's notable about America's news media has been its LACK of
inquiry, curiosity, and skepticism. As one of the biggest atrocities
against Americans on our own soil, 9/11 should logically be the MOST
deserving of investigation, skepticism, and critical inquiry. O'Reilly
and Beck share that "oh so certain" quality of the suave,
sophisticated media announcers who read the news from Easy Street,
while truth-seekers are derided for being "out of the mainstream." How
sure are they, really? How will they react to my proposal of this
test? Are they just smoothies who are putting one past the public?
This test could tell us the answer, and for one more requirement: --I
want it to be Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck who presses the button to
ignite the jet fuel. Either the girder, or their credibility, will
become toast.

www.kusumi.com

John Kusumi, in 1984, was the independent "18-year-old" for U.S.
President. Presidential politics has no earlier introduction of "the
politics of practical idealism," which Kusumi championed with his
"People Are Important" bumper stickers. He continues to work on a
manuscript, 'Genocidal Correctness' to define and debunk "the
reservation" of "mainstream thinking." See Kusumi.com.