Archive for the Outing Liars Category

CAUTION, PSY-OPS AHEAD: Zionist state comes out of WikiLeaks debacle smelling like roses

Posted in Outing Liars on December 3, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘Israel satisfied with Wikileaks portrayal of Iran position’

Agence France-Press; November 29, 2010

JERUSALEM — Israel expressed satisfaction on Monday after the mass release of US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, saying it proved the Jewish state’s position on Iran was consistent — in public and in private.

The trove of documents released via the whistleblower website late on Sunday expose remarks made behind closed doors touching on everything from the Gaza blockade to Israeli views on the Hamas-Fatah divide, to US attempts to collect information on Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

“We come out looking very good,” a senior government official told AFP on condition of anonymity, adding his assessment was only preliminary and came before the full set of leaked documents were released.

The cables “demonstrate that Israel doesn’t speak a double language and that we say in private what we say in public” about the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, he added.

The documents posted online by WikiLeaks and a select group of international media outlets show widespread concern about Iran’s nuclear program and reveal Saudi Arabia “repeatedly” urged a US military strike on the country.

They confirm that the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran,” the Israeli official added. “The Arab countries are pushing the United States towards military action more forcefully than Israel.”

The cables also show that Israel discussed its planned war on Gaza with the Palestinian leadership and Egypt ahead of time, offering to hand them control there if Hamas was overthrown.

The attempt to coordinate its offensive against Gaza’s Islamist rulers was revealed by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in talks with a congressional delegation in May 2009.

“He explained that the GOI (government of Israel) had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas,” he said, referring to the Fatah party of Palestinian president [and Zionist front-man] Mahmud Abbas.

“Not surprisingly, Barak said, the GOI received negative answers from both,” it said.

Israel launched “Operation Cast Lead” on December 27, 2008 with the stated aim of halting rocket attacks from Gaza. During the 22-day war, some 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed as well as 13 Israelis, 10 of them soldiers.

A number of the cables further reveal Israel’s preoccupation with the rivalry between Fatah and Hamas, whose bitter relationship came to a head in June 2007 when the Islamists drove their secular rivals from Gaza and seized control there.

In one document from April 2007, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was opposition leader at the time, describes Abbas as a “nice man who means well” and urges Washington to focus on toppling Hamas through an “economic squeeze” saying it would be “easier to weaken Hamas than to strengthen Abbas.”

Two months later, Hamas forcibly ousted forces loyal to Abbas from the Gaza Strip, and Israel dramatically tightened its economic blockade on the coastal enclave.

[For more on this latter point in particular, see ‘Why Hamas took Gaza (Dayton, Dahlan and the plot against the resistance), Pt. 1’ here:]

The above article can be found here:



‘WikiLeaks fiasco doesn’t embarrass Israel one bit’

Haaretz (Israel); November 29, 2010

The “Israeli portion” of the US government dispatches that were revealed yesterday by the WikiLeaks website revealed almost no new details regarding the exchange of messages between Jerusalem and Washington.

The secret documents sent by the US Embassy in Tel Aviv show that the heads of the Israeli intelligence apparatus and the defense establishment refer to the same talking points when briefing American bureaucrats and congressional delegations as they do when speaking to journalists and Knesset members.

There is no significant discrepancy among the statements made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mossad director Meir Dagan and former Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin in speeches, before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, in background talks with media commentators and the diplomatic conversations the held.

Thus Israel has no reason to be embarrassed by the leak, because there are no large gaps between what it said domestically and what it said for public consumption.

Dagan, Yadlin, and Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad are portrayed in the US diplomatic cables as being at the vanguard of Israel’s public relations efforts, as trying to convince the Americans that Iran is dangerous and that it does not behoove Washington to supply weapons to Arab states.

US officials are not convinced by these arguments, and as a result they repeat their oft-stated stance.

There are no revelations that proved embarrassing, such as American acquiescence to settlement expansion, which would be antithetical to Washington’s official position, or an Israeli statement of support for American dialogue with Hamas.

Kept out of inner chambers

WikiLeaks did not succeed in penetrating the most sensitive channels of US-Israel relations.

Even after yesterday’s revelations, we still do not know what was really said in the meetings between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama, or between former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon during their talks with former US President George W. Bush, or between Dagan and his counterparts at US intelligence agencies.

Either all concerned read from their talking points during these meetings, or the US-Israel relationship is really handled through avenues that have yet to be revealed.

The low level of classification and the lack of importance that is to be attached to these documents find expression in a conversation between Dagan and a White House aide, as cited in a cable dated July 26, 2007.

Seven weeks before the Israel Air Force reportedly destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, the American guest broaches the subject of Damascus’ claims that Israel is on the verge of attacking Syria. Dagan lies to him.

“Despite the fact that Israel has no intention of attacking, said Dagan, the Syrians are likely to retaliate over even the smallest incident, which could lead to quick escalation,” the cable read.

The above article can be found here:



‘WikiLeaks revelations serve Israel, says Turkish minister’

Agence France-Press; December 2, 2010

A senior Turkish minister said on Thursday Israel seemed to be “benefiting” from the impact of US cables disclosed so far by the WikiLeaks website as he questioned whose interests the leaks served.

“One should analyze why this happened, who did it and why, who is benefiting and who is being harmed,” Interior Minister Besir Atalay said in televised comments on the mass leak.

“It seems to us that the country which… is not mentioned much, especially in the Middle East, or which this development seems to favor is Israel… This is how we see it in a way when we look in the context of who is benefiting and who is being harmed,” he said.

The foreign ministry has set up a team to analyze the scandal, he added.

A senior member of the ruling Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) also pointed at Israel on Wednesday.

“One should look at which country is content (with the leaks). Israel is extremely content,” AKP deputy chairman Huseyin Celik said, according to Anatolia news agency.

Turkey’s ties with Israel, once its closest regional ally, plunged into a deep crisis on May 31 when Israeli forces killed nine Turks on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

Relations had been already strained over Israel’s devastating war on Gaza last year, amid Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s frequent outbursts against the Jewish state and his defense of radical Palestinian group Hamas.

Israeli officials have said they are satisfied with the leaks, arguing the cables proved Israel’s position on Iran was consistent and showed “the whole Middle East” worried about Tehran’s nuclear program.

The documents showed widespread concern over Iran and revealed that Saudi Arabia “repeatedly” urged a US military strike on the country.

In contrast, the leaks revealed US and Israeli unease over Turkey’s close contacts with Iran and Erdogan’s criticism of Israel.

Erdogan, a former Islamist, “hates Israel” on religious grounds, a cable by the US embassy in Ankara said, including also the Israeli ambassador’s description of Erdogan as “a fundamentalist.”

Another dispatch said Washington was “wondering if it could any longer count on Turkey to help contain Iran’s profound challenge to regional peace.”

The above article can be found here:



‘WikiLeaks aims to boost Israel image’

Press TV (Iran); November 30, 2010

Iran‘s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some quarters within the US government are behind the release of files posted on the Internet by WikiLeaks.

Ahmadinejad, who made the remarks at a press conference in Tehran, described the files claiming some Arab officials had pushed for a US attack on Iran as worthless.

He went on to say that the documents will not affect brotherly relations between Iran and regional countries.

The following is the transcript of Press TV’s interview with Mark Glenn, author and political commentator from the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement of Coeur d’Alene, about the issue:

Press TV: The whole US military campaign after 9/11 which has affected the whole world presumably is based on US efforts to dismantle a shadow enemy called Al-Qaeda. Isn’t it surprising to you that WikiLeaks has not released anything significant about this issue?

Glenn: Absolutely, and not only al-Qaeda but if Assange was the truth seeker and the truth teller that he tries to make himself out to be with these releases, he would release all sorts of much more damaging information than simply some of these diplomatic cables or the video that were surfaced last summer. For example, the spy network that existed in the United States up to and including September 11, the spy network that was run by Israel. There’s all kinds of just open source information dealing with the hundreds of Israeli spies that were arrested [in the US] on and after 9/11 and in some circumstances as incriminating as being in a position to witness the destruction of the twin towers.

So there are all sorts of information that, if Assange really wanted to embarrass the US government, he could release, including Israel‘s attacks on US Liberty in 1967 that resulted in 34 American servicemen being killed. So I agree that this is an inside operation. However, I would disagree slightly with the comments that your president made, namely, that this was a US operation, because as the comment that was made before I was brought on says, if Julian Assange truly was a threat to the US government he would be taken out immediately. The fact that he’s allowed to continue doing what he’s doing means that he’s serving some purpose here.

I think that, in addition to the fact that this is meant to undermine solidarity in the Middle East between Iran and her neighbors, this is Israel’s attempt at blackmailing the US government and in particular there was information dealing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the fact that she was supposedly running her own little spy network where her diplomatic community was ordered to steal credit card numbers of foreign leaders and diplomats, to try to get their password even to try to get some DNA materials from some of these foreign diplomats and leaders.

So I believe that this is an inside operation that is aimed not only at improving Israel’s image in the world at a time when she really looks quite bad, but also as a means of blackmailing the United States government into going to war against Iran.

Press TV: The history of events in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that one particular form of terrorist attack, in the form of car bombs, came to be known only after the US occupation of those countries. Some experts strongly believe that these attacks are affiliated to or perhaps sponsored by the US intelligence agencies. Has there been any revelation by WikiLeaks about this type of terrorist attacks?

Glenn: That’s the perfect example right there. Obviously, I’ve not been privy to 250,000 pages that were stolen from the United States government, but I have not run into anything like that as of yet. However, we have plenty of documented information over the years involving not just Americans but also Israeli and even British intelligence units who were involved in car bombings and meant to make it look like it was Muslims who were responsible. So that is a perfect point that you are making sir, which is that we know that CIA and Mossad and the British MI6 are up to their eyeballs in terrorist attacks in places such as against Iraq’s Christian community and terrorist attacks taking place in Pakistan.

We know that these intelligence services are behind these. Why isn’t Julian Assange releasing that information? Why only information that makes Israel look better at a time when she’s suffering a serious public relations problem? Let’s face it — if Assange really wanted to bring the United States government down, there are plenty of more embarrassing and incriminating information besides what he just released.

The above article can be found here:



‘Whistle blows hot air’

Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt); December 2, 2010

Last Sunday, WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website, began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables. Among other things, the cables thus far released revealed that Arab leaders — King Abdullah of Jordan, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Hamad of Bahrain– were privately pressing the US to carry out an air strike on Iran. The documents released included references to US diplomats using embarrassing descriptions of world leaders, and voicing growing concerns over Pakistan’s instability and China’s assessment of the situation in the two Koreas.

The question, however, remains as to the true revelatory nature of these cables. After all, it is no surprise that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab states are suspicious of and averse to a militarily expanding Iran as can be surmised from recent arms deals in the oil rich Gulf region. Iran, certainly, will discover nothing new in these revelations — even those highlighting Arab pressure on the US to attack.

The greater part of the leaked cables pertains to Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Israel. Bearing in mind the close relationship between the US and Israel, it is surprising that Israel was not the subject of more revealing material. In fact, the Israelis emerged from Sunday relatively untouched. Binyamin Netanyahu’s comments, few days before the release of the cables, asserted that Israel would not be the “center of international attention”, adding that Jerusalem had not been informed by Washington of any “specific sensitive materials to be disclosed.”

Those cables which did refer to Israel, originating from Tel Aviv, Moscow and Cairo among others, alluded to Russian camaraderie with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, comments made by Amos Gilad, a longstanding Israeli envoy in Cairo, regarding President Hosni Mubarak’s tactics and age and Israeli diplomatic assertions that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a “fundamentalist” driven by his religious hatred of Israel.

As Aluf Benn of the Israeli daily Haaretz asserts (see above): “There is no significant discrepancy among the statements made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mossad Director Meir Dagan and former Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin in speeches, before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, in background talks with media commentators and the diplomatic conversations they held.”

Mossad chief Meir Dagan is quoted in 2005 making rather mundane predictions about the doomed nature of the EU’s dialogue with Iran, the changing tide of the US-led war against Iraqi insurgents and the likely impact of jihadis returning home from the Iraq conflict, likening them to the “men who fought in Afghanistan during the 80s and 90s.”

As Haaretz stressed, there are no embarrassing revelations so far regarding Israel. On the other hand, one can imagine the huge political fallout had the diplomatic cables presented evidence regarding the assassination of Lebanon premier Rafik Al-Hariri, details concerning the 2006 July war in Lebanon or insight into Israeli activity during the second Palestinian Intifada. Suffice to say, the possibilities are endless and excessive rumination is pointless. What is certain, however, is that the dispatches, in the words of Benn “did not succeed in penetrating the most sensitive channels of US-Israel relations.”

Israel though isn’t the only regional player to have dodged a WikiLeaks bullet. Gulf States, close bedfellows of the US, escaped relatively unscathed — barring the rather colorful remark made by Saudi King Abdullah, likening Iran to a serpent. The Saudi kingdom, however, wasn’t the only political actor to be caught out making less than flattering statements about the Islamic Republic or its firebrand president who earned the unflattering comparison to Adolf Hitler.

Egypt and the Palestinian Authority (PA) received minimal fire with the implication that Israel had discussed with them the December 2008 invasion of Gaza. The diplomatic cable, a June 2009 telegram by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, indicates that Israel attempted to coordinate “Operation Cast Lead” with Egypt and the PA — nothing truly eye-opening about that.

Considering the impact of the 90,000 secret US records which highlighted US military incidents in the Afghan war and the 400,000 similar documents on Iraq, the most recent release of confidential and classified US documents seems so far un-insightful. The new leaks lack the frightening and vivid pointedness of the numerous malicious and unlawful acts perpetrated by the US, Iraqi top officials and Iran, which was accused of aiding Al-Qaeda forces within Iraq.

Sunday’s batch of documents, when put into context, appears all too sensational but with very little consequence. At the end of the day, what bearing does Gaddafi’s relation with a voluptuous Ukrainian nurse have on world politics? Indeed, the absence rather than the presence of politically pertinent documents is the more intriguing aspect of this week’s leaks.

The above article can be found here:



‘WikiLeaks and Israel: Quiet relief, louder vindication, for now’

Los Angeles Times (Blog); November 29, 2010

The morning after the first disclosures of WikiLeaks’ trove of diplomatic cables, buzz in Israel was somewhere between relief and vindication, and officials were being thankful by keeping quiet. Relations between Israel and the US are based on a tight weave of shared interests, not local incidents, said deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon.

Gradually, more official voices were heard. The revelations show what some of us knew, said President Shimon Peres — that the Arab countries know they have an enemy, “and it’s not Israel.

A headline in Haaretz was more direct: “Everybody hates Iran.

If WikiLeaks didn’t exist, Israel would have had to invent it, wrote Sever Plocker, noting the big leak backed Israel’s foreign and defense policy and revealed “the shame” that many agree with Israel but “won’t admit it openly.

Sorry we were right,” wrote columnist Dan Margalit.

Israel wasn’t embarrassed “one bit” by the fiasco, writes Aluf Benn.

OK, so the US Embassy in Cairo said that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said he found Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “elegant and charming” but felt Netanyahu never kept his promises. And defense official Amos Gilad thinks Mubarak lives in the past more than the present. Worse things have been said in public.

It’s a tempest in a teapot for Israel, for now, according to finance minister Yuval Steinitz.

In a radio interview Monday, former national security adviser Giora Eiland said Israel can be satisfied that so far no security secrets, operational plans or intelligence capabilities were revealed.

The full text of the above article can be found here:

Hey, Rev — When did they get to you?

Posted in Outing Liars with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

tedpikecapitolReverend Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network has done excellent work in the past exposing both Israeli criminality and the evil Talmudic teachings on which Israeli policy is based. Pike also deserves praise for his efforts in raising opposition to so-called “hate laws” crafted by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in order to stifle free speech and persecute dissenters.

It was with considerable disappointment, therefore, that the 800lb. Gorilla watched Pike’s recent video file, “Hate Law Jihad: Criminalizing Islam’s Critics,” in which the reverend makes the outrageous claim that Muslims represent the chief beneficiaries of current and pending “hate crimes” legislation.

The assertion is ludicrous on its face, as we all know that “hate laws” are the work of religion-hating Zionists, designed for use against their opponents — be they Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

So one has to wonder, Rev — when did they get to you?

As mentioned above, Ted Pike has done some admirable work in the past. His hour-long documentary “The Other Israel” is particularly worth watching as it covers several red-line issues, including the anti-gentile nature of the Talmud/Cabala; the Jewish hand behind the 1913 economic takeover of the United States and the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; Jewish control over most political groups and radical movements in 20th century America; and Jewish control over US mass media. (Download it HERE )

In “The Other Israel,” Pike makes no bones about who’s really calling the shots, explicitly referring to the “Jewish domination of our [western] society.” At one point, he describes Jewish social and political domination in the US as “a demonically-empowered conspiracy.” Amen, reverend.

Yet regrettably, in his recent “Hate Law Jihad” video, Pike, for whatever reason, appears to have jumped aboard the anti-Islam bandwagon.

In the nine-minute presentation, he claims that sinister Muslim organizations — such as the Canadian Islamic Conference — represent the prime beneficiaries of current and future hate legislation. At one point, Pike even goes so far as to say that Muslim countries wield undue influence over decision-making at the United Nations.

“In the UN, Muslim groups on a much grander scale are attempting to end criticism of Islam worldwide,” he says. “The 56 Muslim nations dominating the General Assembly have repeatedly passed a symbolic resolution entitled ‘Combating Defamation of religion.’ Now they are pushing to make it a legally-binding and internationally-enforced Hate Crimes law against anyone who criticizes Islam.”

Just to clarify: Pike states that the United Nations — a Zionist world body founded (1945) for the express purpose of granting legitimacy to the otherwise-totally-illegitimate state of Israel (1948) — is in reality dominated by Muslims.

This reminds one of earlier absurdities by well-known disinformation merchants, such as Alex Jones’ claims that “the Arabs run Hollywood,” or speculation by Zionist apologist Israel Shamir (not to be confused with Israel Shahak) that “afro-Americans” are responsible for 9/11 .

Pike even goes so far as to compare Muslims with other “favored groups” protected under hate-crimes laws, including “homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, Satanists and witches.” (One has to ask: when — especially within the context of the post-9/11 clash of civilizations — have Muslims ever been considered a “favored group” in the US, Canada or Europe?)

Pike does goes on, however, to identify the Jewish ADL as the chief architect of most current and pending hate legislation:

“In 1988, the Anti-Defamation League — a Jewish organization — sponsored a conference at New York’s prestigious Hofstra University. They began to craft a model anti-hate law for America,” he explains. “During the 1990s, the ADL convinced nearly 45 US states to adopt some version of its hate law.”

“In that same period, the ADL convinced more than a dozen governments in Europe, along with Australia and New Zealand, to establish hate-law bureaucracies. Yet the ADL’s primary goal in the US is to pass its Federal Hate Crimes Law…now in the house judiciary committee,” Pike adds. “This Orwellian legislation is very similar to the ADL’s Canadian Hate-Crimes Law, which took away free speech from Canada in 1971.”

Why, then, while conceding the Jewish origin of the “hate crimes” agenda, does Pike feel the need to portray Islam as a looming danger to our freedoms? The Islamic faith and Muslim peoples are, and continue to be, the victims of Zionist scheming, not its beneficiaries — and Ted Pike should know this.

Pike’s absurd claim does not represent his first transgression vis-à-vis the truth.

In another of his documentaries, “Why the Middle East Bleeds,” he cites Israeli criminality as a reason why “Al-Qaeda” attacked America on 9/11 — when he should know by now that most, if not all, recent acts of so-called “Islamic terrorism” have really been the work of Israeli false-flag operatives, including the 9/11 attacks. (For evidence of this, see Victor Thorn’s “9/11 Evil: Israel’s Central Role in the Attacks of September 11, 2001” and this concise document, entitled “The Muslims Didn’t Do It”.)

Is the reverend misinformed? Or is he purposely confusing the issue by creating destructive divisions between two faiths — Christianity and Islam — which, in reality, represent the most natural of allies in the fight against the Synagogue of Satan?

One thing’s for sure: with the window of opportunity for effective resistance narrowing daily, there simply isn’t time for this kind of misunderstanding and/or obfuscation. Who the enemy is — exactly — should be abundantly clear by now to anyone whose critical faculties are still intact.

Whether by accident or by design, Pike’s ludicrous assertions only serve to take fire off the enemy — which is, and has always been, criminal Zionism — and he should be called on it.

‘The Mossad’s Arab Writers’

Posted in Outing Liars with tags , on March 3, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

February 15, 2009

“If good befalls you, it grieves them; but if some misfortune overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if ye are constant and do right, not the least harm will their cunning do to you; for Allah Compasses round about all that they do.” -Surat A’ali Imran, (the House of Imran), III, v. 119

“I call on the Israeli army to crush these Palestinian terrorists who are at Iran’s beck and call; chase the rebels of Hamas, annihilate its lunatics and demented leaders who are disguised as men of faith, crush them and exterminate them and teach them a lesson which they will never forget just as you taught the terrorist Hizbullah a harsh lesson in 2006….So deliver Gaza from the grip of Hamas. These Palestinians, wherever they go, they take with them terror, corruption, trouble l, tumult and ingratitude…..!”

These words were not written by Israeli propagandists or Zionist apologists seeking to justify the recent Israeli blitzkrieg in Gaza. They are actually the words of a Kuwaiti Arab columnist who has apparently sold his soul to the devil.

I say “sold his soul to the devil” because when a human being transforms himself into a willful liar in the service of evil, that person, knowingly or unknowingly, loses his morality and eventually loses his humanity as well.

I don’t know for sure what makes such people undergo such a diabolical metamorphosis. It could be mental weakness, or a certain psychological defect that they have failed to overcome, or even a mental dysfunction. However, treachery always goes hand in hand with moral depravity and lack of self-esteem.

Needless to say, a writer, or even a commoner, who gleefully rejoices over the extermination of children, as we saw recently in Gaza, has obviously banished himself from the realm of humanity.

Unfortunately, there is a number of so-called Arab writers who seem to have devoted themselves to besmirching and vilifying Hamas and other Arab resistance movements, as if the right thing to do were to succumb to Zionism, the Nazi-like movement that has been murdering Palestinians, destroying their homes, stealing their land and dispersing them to the four winds.

Indeed, instead of standing up for justice and identifying with the oppressed against the oppressor, , as every noble human being should do, these wicked mercenaries have decided to curry favor with the Nazis of our time probably in the hope of receiving a certificate of good conduct or a citation of honor from Zionist entity. Or perhaps they hope that international Zionist circles might press award-granting bodies in the West to reward them for their treasonous behavior.

Well, they have. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has already prepared a list of “honor” of Zionized Arab writers who are doing a “marvelous job” on Israel’s behalf.

Just watch the Zionist media these days and see how often these lowly traitors are quoted by Zionist spinners and hasbara operatives.

This shows beyond doubt that these gullible little men have fully swallowed up the Zionist narrative, bait, hook, line and sinker.

I understand that many of these writers are shockingly ignorant of the facts. However, there are others who know the facts very well but lack the intellectual honesty and moral rectitude to stand up for the truth. It is the cheapness of character that makes them what they are, vile hypocrites swinging right and left depending on the instructions they receive from their paymasters and benefactors.

A few years ago, one of these so-called writers based in London was quoted heavily by much of the American and Israeli media when he claimed that “not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.”

Well, I don’t know what was this so-called writer smoking or drinking when he uttered this colossal mendacity, a canard that has more to do with mental diarrhea than with any genuine intellectual activity.

Didn’t that little man learn in school in Saudi Arabia that “defending one’s home, country and honor is a duty binding on all Muslims”? Couldn’t he bring himself to understand that a foreign occupation is actually an act of rape, and that just as rape victims have every right to fight and resist their attackers, so do people languishing under occupation have a similar right to resist their occupiers, oppressors and tormentors? Did he forget that even in America, his real god, or more correctly the god of his god, they say “give me freedom or give me death.”

More to the point, couldn’t that weak-minded charlatan realize that the invasion, occupation and destruction of sovereign nations by the US, along with the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, represented and embodied terror in its ugliest forms?

I understand that certain Arabs dislike Hamas because of ideological hostility. However, I never thought in my life that an Arab and Muslim bearing the name of Abdullah or Abdul Rahman would urge Israel to annihilate Palestinians and express the wish he was an Israeli soldier slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese children.

Well, moral depravity, it seems, has no limits.

I do know that the vast majority of Arabs are men and women of honor who stand soul and heart with their Palestinian brothers and sisters. This graceful solidarity manifested itself in the massive demonstrations which took place recently from Mauritania to Bahrain, mostly against the wishes of the tyrannical regimes.

In fact, it was this huge show of support and identification with our struggle that kept us going all these difficult days, facing and absorbing the genocidal onslaught by the Nazis of our time.

Some primitive Sheikhs in certain countries issued edicts against organizing demonstrations to protest Israeli atrocities in Gaza. They shamelessly argued that holding demonstrations constituted an imitation of non-Muslims and was therefore incompatible with the Islamic Sharia.

Well, what kind of Sharia are these ignoramuses talking about? Don’t they know that it was the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and his companions who held the first demonstration in Islam in order to challenge the hegemony of the idolaters of Quraysh?

Moreover, if these pseudo-Ulema are really concerned about “Halal and Haram,” (virtue and vice), why don’t they speak up against the rampant promiscuities in their respective countries? Why don’t they speak up against the hundreds of pornographic and semi-pornographic TV stations which are owned and operated by decadent emirs who claim to be Muslim while doing the works of Satan?

Why don’t they speak up against their respective regimes’ disgraceful submission and subservience to Zionist-controlled America?

Is spreading moral permissiveness and pornography compatible with Islam? Is subservience to the US, Israel’s guardian-ally, compatible with the laws of the Sharia?

Answer me if you can, or just shut up, you hypocrites. You, your ignorance, stupidity and cowardice are a cancer upon the conscience of Islam and Muslims.

But, thanks to God, we have many authentic, God-fearing Ulema, such as Sheikh Yosuf Qaradawi, who won’t flinch from standing on the side of the Umma and supporting the forces of resistance, without worrying about alienating the Tyrants.

It is such Ulema that we respect and salute. May they live to see the demise of Arab dictatorships.

In conclusion, I say we must isolate and expose these treacherous writers and mouthpieces of Zionism. In fact, they are being exposed, not the least by Israel which enthusiastically publishes their silliness and trivialities.

Well, if Israel is your ultimate admirer, then you don’t need to tell us who you are. The tree is known by its fruit.

The above article By Khalid Amayreh can be found at: detainthis blog

‘The Mossad’s Arab Writers’

Portrait of a Crypto-Jew — I.F. Stone, a.k.a. Isador Feinstein

Posted in Outing Liars with tags , , , , on November 28, 2008 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

if_stone-customCelebrated American journalist I.F. Stone, who died in 1989, is best remembered for his “‘journalistic integrity” and supposed willingness to speak truth to power. Yet few of his readers ever realized he was a committed Zionist Jew — real name Isador Feinstein — as can be seen in this 2006 book review by Christopher Hitchens.“Because so many bonds attach me to Israel, I am ready to condone preventive war; I rejoiced when my side won,” the talentless Hitchens quotes Stone as saying about Israel’s martial victories.

The phenomenon of crypto-Judaism, by which Jews adopt gentile names and downplay their origins, is hardly new. But in the case of Stone — or Feinstein, rather — one has to ask: what do these people — so often prominent journalists and influential opinion-makers — have to hide?

Hitchens is a paid spokesman for the Zionist establishment and a piss-poor writer to boot. Nevertheless, his 2006 review of an I.F. Stone autobiography — originally published in Vanity Fair magazine (below) — blatantly alludes to the prize-winning reporter’s crypto-Judaism.

The review also touches on the following points, worthy of note: Stone’s blatant anti-gentile assumptions (“twice as dense as the normal gentile”); his contempt for the anti-Communist Joseph McCarthy and the notion of “loyalty oaths”; his seeming sympathy for the (Jewish-run) Soviet Union; and his support for US intervention in the Second World War.

The complete text of Hitchens’ review follows:
I. F. Stone’s Mighty Pen
By Christopher Hitchens

Reading a new biography of the fiercely independent and incorruptible I. F. “Izzy” Stone, the author recalls how, with a one-man kitchen-table weekly, the late great reporter blazed the way for a generation of bloggers, became a legend Washington journalists still worship, and set a standard few can meet.

Vanity Fair
September 1, 2006

Hearing aid, notebook, and Coke-bottle glasses, was squinting and cupping his hand at the G.O.P.’s Nixonian cheerfest in Miami Beach in 1968:

“It was hard to listen to Goldwater and realize that a man could be half Jewish and yet sometimes appear to be twice as dense as the normal gentile. As for Agnew, even at a convention where every speech seemed to outdo the other in wholesome clichés and delicious anticlimaxes, his speech putting Nixon into nomination topped all the rest. If the race that produced Isaiah is down to Goldwater and the race that produced Pericles is down to Agnew, the time has come to give the country back to the WASPs.”

This could have been H. L. Mencken or Murray Kempton on his best day, but it was written by the great Isador Feinstein, always called “Izzy” but in 1937 amending his byline to I. F. Stone. This unusual American humanist didn’t really believe in “race” at all, could easily have quoted at length from both Isaiah and Pericles, sometimes in the original, and, as you readily see, could in a wry way make you laugh. He could also make you weep:

“Since every man is a microcosm, in whose heart may be read all that sends armies marching, I must admit I am no better. Because so many bonds attach me to Israel, I am ready to condone preventive war; I rejoiced when my side won. Though I preach international understanding and support for the UN, I found all the excuses for Israel that warring nationalisms always find to excuse breaches of peace … And this is how it always is and how it starts, and I offer the mote in my own eye.”

There’s always something faintly but definitely phony, to my ear, in the praise of one journalist for another. Our craft saturates itself in testimonial dinners, awards, and — when the career is over — lavish obituaries. “Superb professional”; “Wrote like a dream”; “Unforgettable colleague”; “Fearless on dateline and deadline.” The speeches or articles are customarily laced with pseudo-modest anecdotes about that time when he/she and I pulled that terrific scoop. What do the readers make of this self-regard?

When I. F. Stone was finally offered a dinner in his honor, at the National Press Club in Washington in 1981, he told the organizers that (a) he had resigned from the joint in 1941 in protest of its refusal to allow him to entertain a black guest; (b) he had not at the time been able to collect the mere 25 signatures necessary to support his protest; and (c) he would not attend unless or until the club’s committee found that insulted black guest and invited him back. (The man, William H. Hastie, later a judge, turned out to have become the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands.) With these conditions fulfilled, Stone upped his demands and insisted that a Palestinian Arab, Edward Said, be invited to the top table as well.

These days, practically everybody in the journo racket in Washington, D.C. wishes they had been, or wishes to be, or in extreme cases believes they actually are, I. F. Stone. But it was not always thus. Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recalls inviting Izzy to a dinner party in 1954 and being taken aside in his own kitchen by an outraged guest who worked for the U.S. Information Agency. “How could you invite me to your house with I. F. Stone? I could lose my job!” Stone himself was impervious to all such career anxiety, because by launching a kitchen-table one-man sheet called I. F. Stone’s Weekly he had declared independence and blasted the way that is now too easily followed by a throng of self-publishers and blog artists.

all_governments_lie_265x400 Myra MacPherson’s lovely biography of the man, “All Governments Lie! The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone,” is ideally timed for the moment when reporters in Washington are once again rightly (and too late) flailing themselves, either for being spoon-fed information by the White House and the Defense Department or for swallowing the alternative pabulum put out by the CIA. When I moved to Washington, in 1982, to do the job he’d once done for The Nation, Mr. Stone helped give a reception for me — I’m no pack rat or hero-worshipper, but I still keep the spare invitation cards — and gave me some terse advice: Don’t go to briefings. Don’t have lunch with people in power. Go and read the original transcripts and papers, because the government doesn’t always lie to itself. And take a few minutes to read The Washington Post, because “it’s a great paper. You never know on what page you will find a page-one story.” Despising journalistic sycophancy, he noted of Theodore White’s moist “Camelot” prose that “a man who can be so universally admiring need never lunch alone.”

By these means, Izzy kept himself honest and tried to set an example. And, because he was right about Indochina and the FBI and the civil-rights movement, many people assume that there was a natural match between his integrity and his prescience. But in point of fact and interpretation, he was naïve about the Soviet Union for most of his life (dying just as it was about to do so itself, in 1989), mistaken about the Korean War, simplistic about both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and unable to see the diminishing returns of the New Deal tradition. This does not matter. Izzy could be as interesting when he was “wrong” as when he was “right.”

My second-favorite anecdote about him, after the National Press Club story, is this. He had expressed endless contempt for Senator Joseph McCarthy, and for all the wicked rubbish about “loyalty oaths” and the rest of the 1950s inquisition. Some little time after McCarthy was censured by the Senate and fell into disgrace and eclipse and alcoholism and dereliction, Izzy was up on the Hill, demanding a fresh tranche of paper from the Congressional printing office. He was astonished to be approached by the tramp-like figure of the once terrifying McCarthy, who continued to haunt the halls. “He put out his hand and I refused it and turned my back,” Stone told me. “I later felt really lousy and I still do. He was powerless and a bum, and even when he’d been powerful he had let me alone.”

Izzy’s last book was The Trial of Socrates, for the writing of which he taught himself ancient Greek. He was determined to discover how a democracy had sentenced its greatest dissident to death. I won’t try to summarize the argument, but I hope you know that Socrates believed that he himself had a daemon or daimonion: an inner critic and voice that warned him when he was being unfair or dishonest or proud. Izzy had his own daemon. Cranky — and even nasty — as he could be, he always tried to make restitution. On the few occasions when he was on the winning side, he distrusted himself. He joined the Socialist Party, as he put it, only “when everyone else was leaving.” Having fought for the right of everyone else to have a passport without being asked dumb questions by the State Department, he was furious at himself for signing a denial of Communist Party membership in order to be allowed on a reporting trip overseas in 1956. Finally facing the facts about Stalinism in the same year, he wrote: “I hate the morass into which one wanders when one begins to withhold the truth because the consequences might be bad.” Later in that same year, he wrote the mea culpa about Zionism that I excerpted above. His internal moral compass meant much more to him than any allegiance, or any piece of triumphal muckraking.

To say that he occasionally disliked or suspected himself is not at all to accuse him of self-hatred, let alone of that self-hatred that is sometimes suspected in Jews. Name change or no name change, he was invariably and affirmatively a Jew, and in my opinion would have gotten off the Soviet fellow-traveling train many years before he did had not the USSR falsely claimed to have outlawed anti-Semitism. But when he wrote his book “Underground to Palestine,” celebrating the birth of Israel, and was offered a vast publicity budget if he would take out the part where he recommended a bi-national state, he stoutly refused. For these and other reasons, I am utterly sure that the recent allegation from the crackpot, Ann Coulterish right, of his having been on the KGB payroll, is false. Myra MacPherson rips the “evidence” of these people to shreds, but I would simply say that here was a man who was not interested in being bought or sold. (I have to admit, though, that I can’t quite see why a man who wouldn’t lunch with a Pentagon official would deign to break bread with a Soviet Embassy goon. Probably it was just because he wasn’t supposed to.)

MacPherson makes the slightly glib assumption — as do the editors of the excellent companion volume, The Best of I. F. Stone — that, if he were around today, Izzy would be as staunchly anti-war and anti-Bush as she is. Having known him a bit, I am not so absolutely sure. That he would have found the president excruciating is a certainty. But he had a real horror of sadistic dictators, and would not have confused Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein with the Vietcong. He would have been appalled by the disclosure that CNN had soft-pedaled what it knew about Saddam’s regime in order to keep its access to the Iraqi Ministry of “Information.” Nor would he have regarded the forces of al-Qaeda as misguided spokesmen of liberation theology: he could scent anti-Semitic bigotry from miles away. Most important of all, he was very ready to quarrel with the left about isolationism. Defending the Spanish Republic in 1937, he wrote:

“If it were possible to insulate the United States from the world, to retire into our shell, to plow our fields and write our books and raise our children untouched by quarrels across the sea.… I would be for isolationist neutrality legislation.… But I do not believe insulation and isolation possible.… Must we play nursemaid to the world? I am afraid so.”

At a time when most of his friends were opposed to any American “entanglement” in the Second World War, he was a strong advocate of aid to Britain, and at a time when the left was generally hostile after the war, he supported Truman’s Marshall aid program. To Izzy, the consummate internationalist, the distinction between “over there” and “over here” was mainly imaginary. Finally, I think he would have waited for some more documents to surface, and helped unearth them himself, before making any conclusive judgments about weapons programs or terror connections in Iraq. His analysis of the Roosevelt administration’s shameful cover-up of the Pearl Harbor catastrophe remains a masterpiece of lucidity, exposing the government’s incompetence and dishonesty so comprehensively as to leave no room for conspiratorial speculation.

imagesj-f-stone-smallHowever, it is an absolute moral certainty that he would have repudiated any official pretext for bullying or invigilating American citizens in wartime. One of his most excoriating scoops was printed — not without great trepidation on the part of the editor — mid-war in The Nation, in July 1943. It exposed the secret FBI guidelines for spotting subversive tendencies among government workers. The bureau’s official list of questions to ask about a suspect ran, in part: “Does he mix with Negroes? Does he seem to have too many Jewish friends? Does his face light up when the Red Army is mentioned? Is he always criticizing Vichy France? Does he buy out-of-town newspapers? Do you think he is excessive in opposing fascism or Nazism?” (The Vichy question is, I think, the gem of that little collection.) This seemed like no way to fight a war against Hitler, but for exposing it, and for declining to identify his inside source even to his editor, Stone earned himself constant surveillance from an already hostile FBI until the foul racist and pervert J. Edgar Hoover finally turned into carrion on a full-time basis in 1972.

I possess a fairly full set of I. F. Stone’s Weekly, as well as all his books and several anthologies of his essays, and rereading them lately has made me morose as well as exhilarated. Some of the old battles now seem prehistoric: as it happens, Izzy never believed that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent, and as it happens he was as right about that as he was wrong about the Hitler-Stalin pact. I recognized my own middle age in his confession of angst about the writer’s life: “The perpetual gap between what one would have liked to get down on paper and what finally did get itself written and printed, the constant feeling of inadequacy.” I also moaned with shame at the current state of the profession. Even the slightest piece written by Izzy was composed with a decent respect for the King’s English and usually contained at least one apt allusion to the literature and poetry and history that undergirded it: an allusion that he would expect his readers to recognize. Who now dares to do that? Who would now dare to say, as he did as an excited eyewitness, that there was still something “saccharine” about Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” oration? The rule of saccharine rhetoric and bland prose is now near absolute, and one could almost envy Izzy the sad deafness and myopia that allowed him to tune out the constant bawling from electronic media. I once had the honor of being the I. F. Stone fellow at Berkeley (where his old typewriter is enclosed in a glass case: probably the most hagiography he could have stood), and I told my students to read him and reread him to get an idea of the relationship between clean and muscular prose and moral and intellectual honesty. Perhaps I could invite you to do the same, if only to get an idea of what we have so casually decided to do without.
This article can be found at:

Portrait of a Crypto-Jew — I.F. Stone, a.k.a. Isador Feinstein

Israel Shamir on 9/11: “The Panamanians did it”

Posted in Outing Liars with tags , , , on August 18, 2008 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Russian Israeli writer Israel Shamir denies Israeli orchestration of 911 and only responds to left gatekeepers when rebutting any evidence topics or so called truth seekers. he says “There is always a place for critique and argument — even against Chomsky, and I have had my go at that, too. However, there are some red lines we should try to observe in friendly critique, and this one was a crude ad hominem and paranoid attack. Barrett is similar to the holocaust-obsessed Jews (and their ‘denying’ counterparts) who need your confirmation of their narrative and do not let go of your buttonhole until you respond. Let Barrett fight this war himself, without Chomsky at his disposal. This is a free country, more or less. For instance, I do not deny or confirm holocausts and massacres. Peak Oil does not pique me overmuch. And as for 9/11 whodunit, I feel that the 911 Truth Movement of Barrett et al. trivializes the event, turning it into a successful insurance swindle.I wrote about the event, at the time it took place:

“The kamikaze could be practically anybody: American Nationalists, American Communists, American Fundamentalist Christians, American Anarchists, anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. They could be Native Americans returning to Manhattan, or Afro-Americans who still have not received compensation for slavery.

They could be foreigners of practically any extraction, as Wall Street and the Pentagon ruined many lives of people all over the globe. Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force. The Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. The Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine. Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade. Latin Americans think of American invasions of Panama and Granada, of destroyed Nicaragua and defoliated Colombia. Asians count their dead of Vietnam War, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. Even a pro-American, Russian TV broadcaster could not refrain from saying, ‘now Americans begin to understand the feelings of Baghdad and Belgrade’.

The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermench by the new Herrenvolk. They could be Russians, Malaysians, Mexicans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Congolese, Brazilians, Vietnamese, as their economy was destroyed by Wall Street and the Pentagon. They could be anybody, and they are everybody. Their identity is quite irrelevant as their message is more important than their personalities, and their message is read loud and clear in the choice of targets.”
I guess Mr. Shamir is just another left-gatekeeper with very enticing subject discussed such as blood libel, but will not address the 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room of Israeli orchestration and cover-up of 911.

Mr. Shamir goes on to say ” I can’t accept the Mossad and/or the Jews as the perpetrators of the 9/11, not because it is an antisemitic claim. My readers know that this consideration has never stopped me before. It’s the other way around: I consider it a deeply pro-Jewish claim implying that only Jews are capable of enterprises of great pith and moment, while others prefer to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and never take arms against a sea of troubles. In a way, the Jewish perpetration theory shows how far this belief in Jewish superiority has entered the hearts of Americans and of many Muslims: “if it was done and it did not flop, it’s got to be Jews”. We Israelis are more critical; we say “if it did not flop, it can’t be the Mossad”.

note: I think Mr. Shamir is suppose to be a replacement for Israel Shahak (although I have no proof of this but I find it very hard to belive that in this day and age a 68 year old diabetics man in NYC just dies of diabeties complications) Israel Shahak, was the real deal, he was the only (famous) person that I know of to protest the Israeli campaign against Ahmed Rami’s, which I think is being replaced by the very dubious (which I think is front). Ahmed Rami Exposed the Current Zionist Jewish Moroccan regime.

just Like Alex Jones with his big Bohemian grove was suppose to gain a following to replace William Cooper, but it did not quite work out. as we all know. I think the media mangers like they do with politicians they do with the alternative media now, placing their agents among the unsuspecting public.

“Now you can be sure: Jews did 9/11”

Israel Shamir on 9/11: “The Panamanians did it”

Seymour Hersh, Professional Liar

Posted in Outing Liars with tags on August 13, 2008 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh

The work of Seymour Hersh, journalist extraordinaire, often comes in for praise for its fearless revelations about the covert criminality of the US government. Hersh, reads the blurb on the back of his latest book, “reveals the stories the others can’t — or won’t — get.”
Yet an intelligent reading of Hersh’s work, especially his most recent books dealing with JFK and 9/11, will expose this Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for what he is: a professional liar for the Zionist establishment.
Be warned, Mr. Hersh — the 800lb Gorilla is on to you.

"The Dark Side of Camelot” (1997) In “The Dark Side of Camelot” (1997), Hersh spends some 450 pages savaging the reputation of slain president John F. Kennedy, based largely on the words of not-very-credible-sounding sources more than thirty years after the fact.

But Hersh’s disgusting hit-job on Kennedy — who, by the way, opposed both the Federal Reserve and Israel’s budding nuclear-weapons program — is not the point here. Rather, I would draw the reader’s attention to what Hersh writes in the epilogue (p. 451 of the paperback version) regarding Kennedy’s death:

“Over the next thirty-five years, the nation would remain obsessed with the Kennedy assassination. Hundreds of books would be written, full of feverish speculation about Oswald and Ruby and their possible links to organized crime or Soviet intelligence. In five years of reporting for this book, I found nothing that would change the instinctive conclusions of Julius Draznin, or the much more detailed findings of the Warren Commission — Oswald and Ruby acted alone.”

Well, there you have it. Hersh, celebrated for his commitment to truth and fearless pursuit of the facts, subscribes to the Warren Commission’s thoroughly-discredited lone-gunman theory. And it’s not like he wrote these words in the 1970s — “Dark Side of Camelot” was published less than ten years ago.

This lone (and slightly oxymoronic) phrase — “Oswald and Ruby acted alone” — should alert every thinking reader to Hersh’s ultimate allegiance to the establishment.

If you need more proof, though, have a look at what this Pulitzer-Prize winner writes about the 9/11 attacks — which we all know by now were orchestrated by elements within the US government and the Israeli Mossad — in his latest book, “Chain of Command” (2004).

Chain of Command

Chain of Command

In this 400-page compendium of lies and half-truths, Hersh blames the events of 9/11 on incompetent US intelligence agencies, which — suffering from systemic post-Cold War negligence — were unable to prevent Al-Qaeda’s “brilliantly executed” attacks.

The title of the chapter, “Intelligence Failure,” says it all. Despite growing mountains of evidence implicating the US government and Mossad, Hersh repeats the tired mantra that Al-Qaeda “owed its success not just to the failings of the CIA but to the weakness of the FBI and the bureau’s chronic inability to synthesize intelligence reports, draw conclusions and work with other agencies.”

Hersh consistently blames the US failure to respond to the unfolding attacks on “official negligence” and “bureaucratic infighting,” doling out generous portions of this kind of tripe:

“The CIA of 2001 was not up to the job. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union a decade earlier, the CIA had become increasingly bureaucratic and unwilling to take risks, and had promoted officers who shared such values… It had steadily reduced its reliance on overseas human intelligence and cut the number of case officers abroad,” etc., etc.

But while Hersh spends pages lamenting official ineptitude, nowhere does he mention the dozens — if not hundreds — of smoking guns pointing to US/Israeli complicity in the events of 9/11. He writes nothing about the mysterious fate of Building 7; the strange circumstances surrounding Larry Silverstein’s ownership of the WTC complex; the myriad military exercises conducted on the day of the event; or — of course — the Israeli agents caught filming the first attack while shrieking with joy.

If Hersh is lying about the most important stuff — like JFK and 9/11 — what else is he lying about?

Hersh also wrote a book about Israel’s nuclear-weapons capacity (”The Samson Option,” 1991). Is that book, too — which revealed the existence of Israel’s enormous nuclear arsenal — another study in disinformation, like his later books? (For more on this question, see “The World’s Worst-Kept Secrets: the Jewish State’s Atomic Arsenal — or Is it All a Big Show”)

Hersh was first catapulted to fame by his 1972 expose of the massacres committed by US troops in the Vietnamese village of Mai Lai — and has been a rock star of journalism ever since. Was Hersh originally an honest reporter, who was later corrupted by the system?

Or is it possible that Hersh has worked for the establishment all along, and was allowed to break the controversial Mai Lai story in order to give him credibility in the eyes of a gullible public? He did, after all, spend his undergraduate years at the University of Chicago, a well-known nexus of “neo-conservative” scheming.

In any case, in light of his obvious lie-telling in the two books cited above, all of his work should be considered suspect until proven otherwise.

As for you Mr. Hersh, I suspect you’ve been lying to your readers for decades — about subjects of the greatest importance — all the while playing the part of the plucky, Jewish reporter fearlessly speaking truth to power. But you haven’t fooled everybody.

Be warned, Mr. Hersh — the 800lb Gorilla is on to you.

Seymour Hersh, Professional Liar

Al Jazeera Caves-in to Israel: truly unethical

Posted in Outing Liars with tags , , on August 10, 2008 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Al-Jazeera Arabic

Al-Jazeera Arabic

Al Jazeera Arabic television station was forced to apologize for the broadcast in honour of a Lebanese prisoner released by Israel. the broadcast was not anything out of the ordinary, a two part interview with the Samir Qantar, who spent 29 years in an Israeli jail. Mr. Qantar mentioned how they would try and break him for almost 30 years and with no results, he also spoke of the methods used by soldiers in prisons not just torture but drugs as well. he said they were a bunch of cowards and they are so easy to defeat because they are cowards.
He also said that he remained with (Sharaf) honor/dignity till the last moment, when the Israeli Prison officer asked them to be released he gave them silly baby blue outfits to ware as they were being transferred. Qantar refused to ware the outfit even if it means they don’t go, “I have waited 30 years, I can wait 30 more to leave with my dignity ” Qantar also criticized the Camp David agreement which was signed by Sadat and Begin and said it was a step that lead to the majority of the Mideast Conflict we have today because it legitimized the state of Israel

Samirr El Qantar

Samirr El Qantar

Al Jazeera says prisoner “party” breached code of ethics
REUTERS – Thu Aug 7, 2008 9:31am EDT

JERUSALEM, Aug 7 (Reuters) – Arabic television station Al Jazeera said on Thursday a July broadcast in honour of a Lebanese prisoner freed by Israel violated its code of ethics.

Israel said on Wednesday it would no longer assist the Qatar-based network because of the July 19 birthday party broadcast for Samir Qantar, who spent 29 years in an Israeli jail for a 1979 attack in which five Israelis were killed.

The network said in a statement that its editorial board concluded that the broadcast “violated Al Jazeera’s Code of Ethics”. The network said it “regards these violations as very serious and will assess what action is necessary”.

The Al Jazeera show featured Qantar using a scimitar, a traditional Arab sword, to slice a cake with his picture on it. The broadcast included a fireworks display and Arabic music.

Qantar was among five Lebanese guerrillas freed last month as part of a prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah.

Daniel Seaman, the head of Israel’s Government Press Office, said he was encouraged by Al Jazeera’s decision to conduct an internal review but said his office would await the outcome before deciding whether to change policy.

“This is a fundamental question as to where Al Jazeera stands. Does it stand with the extremists or is it a professional media organisation?” Seaman said.

“We are not looking for an apology … but for a serious investigation which will be brought to our attention in a professional way,” he said.

The Government Press Office said on Wednesday that it would no longer expedite Al Jazeera’s applications for entry visas and work permits necessary to obtain press credentials in Israel.

Israeli officials have often accused Al Jazeera, which has bureaux in Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories, of biased reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a charge the network has denied. (Reporting by Avida Landau, editing by Tim Pearce)

VIDEO / Al-Jazeera admits to ‘unethical’ behavior over Kuntar party
Haaretz  – 17:00 07/08/2008

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

The Al Jazeera television station admitted Wednesday that its coverage of Israel’s release of convicted Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar violated the station’s own code of ethics. The admission came in response to a threat by Israel’s Government Press Office to boycott the satellite channel unless it apologized.

In an official letter, a copy of which was obtained by Haaretz, Al Jazeera’s director general, Khanfar Wadah, wrote that “elements of the program” broadcast in Kuntar’s honor on the night of Saturday, July 19, “violated [the station’s] Code of Ethics,” and he “regards these violations as very serious.”

He also said he had ordered the channel’s programming director to take steps to ensure that such an incident does not recur.
Al-Jazeera VIDEO

The boycott threat was issued by the director of the GPO, Danny Seaman, in response to a program broadcast from Lebanon that covered the welcome-home festivities for Kuntar. In it, the head of Al Jazeera’s Beirut office, Ghassan bin Jiddo, heaped praises on Kuntar, for instance by calling him a “pan-Arab hero.”

Kuntar was convicted of the murder of four Israelis, including two children, during a terrorist attack in Nahariya in 1979. He was released last month as part of a deal with Hezbollah. In exchange, Israel received the bodies of kidnapped soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.

Bin Jiddo is known to be sympathetic to Hezbollah, and he was even awarded Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s first interview of the Second Lebanon War. A few weeks ago, he was interviewed on a Syrian television station and said that he would never agree to interview Israelis, even though he knows that Al Jazeera’s official policy is to interview Israelis.

This is not the first time Israel has protested Al Jazeera’s coverage, but for its protests to result in an apology is unusual.

Al Jazeera admits it violated its code of ethics

Al JazeeraArabic television station (Al Jazeera) said on Thursday last month’s broadcast in honour of a Lebanese prisoner released by Israel violated its code of ethics. Israel said on Wednesday it would no longer assist the Qatar-based network because of the July 19 party broadcast for Samir Qantar, who spent 29 years in an Israeli jail for a 1979 attack in which five Israelis were killed.

The Arabic network said in a statement that its editorial board concluded that the broadcast “violated Al Jazeera’s Code of Ethics”. According to the network, it “regards these violations as very serious and will assess what action is necessary”.

The Al Jazeera show featured Qantar using a scimitar, a traditional Arab sword, to slice a cake with his picture on it. The broadcast included a fireworks display and Arabic music.

According to Reuters, Daniel Seaman, the head of Israel’s Government Press Office, said he was encouraged by Al Jazeera’s decision to conduct an internal review but said his office would await the outcome before deciding whether to change policy. “This is a fundamental question as to where Al Jazeera stands. Does it stand with the extremists or is it a professional media organisation?” Seaman said.
© 2008 Al Bawaba (

Al-Jazeera Admits to Ethical Violation in Coverage


Tel Aviv, Asharq Al-Awsat – Al-Jazeera television station has admitted to “unethical” behavior in its coverage of the release of convicted Hezbollah terrorist, Samir Kuntar, from an Israeli prison following a prisoner exchange deal with the Lebanese militant group.

The Arabic news channel’s public acknowledgement came as a response to an avalanche of Israeli criticism and a threat issued by the Government Press Office (GPO) to boycott Al-Jazeera news channel as a response to the program it aired last month. The controversial program broadcasted footage of the homecoming celebration and birthday party held for Kuntar upon his return in which he was hailed a “pan-Arab hero”.

Wadah Khanfar, Director General of Al-Jazeera issued an official letter in which he wrote that “elements of the program [of the celebration last 19 July] violated [the station’s] Code of Ethics.” Khanfar added that he “regards these violations as very serious,” moreover stating that he had taken steps to ensure that the incident does not recur.

Daniel Seaman, head of the GPO, which issues press certification to foreign and local journalists, said that he had summoned Walid al Omary, the head of Al-Jazeera television, to his office on Wednesday to see “what attitude” the channel was adopting towards the incident. Al-Jazeera satellite channel has a Jerusalem-based bureau. The GPO often intercedes when journalists complain of problems related to Israeli bureaucracy.

Although he later praised Al-Jazeera staff for its professionalism, Seaman said that the statement did not go far enough. “It’s not what I’m looking for, he said, “I don’t want an apology,” and added that the GPO would not revoke the channel’s press credentials but would no longer go out of its way to extend courtesy services, including providing assistance in obtaining speedy visas for the Arabic news channel’s employees.

Seaman stated that he wanted the news channel to decide whether it wanted to be a mouthpiece for the Arab world or a professional media outlet and “they will be treated accordingly,” he said.

Samir Kuntar was convicted of the murder of four Israelis, including two children, following a terrorist attack in Nahariya in 1979. In the controversial program aired by Al-Jazeera, Kuntar is seen dressed in army fatigues as he is welcomed into a garden with an Arabic music band, sparklers and a huge cake decorated with pictures of the released convict.

Kuntar is seen praising his picture with Hezbollah Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, and said, “This is the most beautiful picture – with Hassan Nasrallah. There cannot be anything more beautiful – me and the Secretary-General – the most beautiful picture of me ever taken.”*

Kuntar then slices the cake with a sword, which the show’s host hails as “the sword of Arabs”. As he begins to cut the cake, the TV anchor can be heard saying, “Don’t cut the picture, cut on the side.”

* Translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Al Jazeera Caves-in to Isaerl: truly unethical