Chomsky talk MP3 - USA will sabotage Democracy in Arab Countries and worldwide....

Audio video download stream mp3 mp4

MUST HEAR --- http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its

Noam Chomsky Speech: The U.S. & Its Allies Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in the Arab

DemocracyNow.org — Speaking at the 25th anniversary of celebration of the national media watch group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S. response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North Africa. Democracy Now! was there to tape his speech. "Across the [Middle East], the overwhelming majority of the population regards the United States as the main threat to their interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple … Plainly, the U.S. and allies are not going to want governments, which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out."

Read the complete transcript  WHILE LISTENING TO CHOMSKY

download the audio podcast, and to see additional Democracy Now! interviews with Noam Chomsky,
MUST HEAR http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/noam_chomsky_the_us_and_its

FULL TEXT SPEECH

NOAM CHOMSKY: The U.S. and its allies will do anything they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. The reason is very simple. Across the region, an overwhelming majority of the population regards the United States as the main threat to their interests. In fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so high that a considerable majority think the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. In Egypt, the most important country, that's 80 percent. Similar figures elsewhere. There are some in the region who regard Iran as a threat—about 10 percent. Well, plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out. So that's obviously an intolerable result.

In the case of WikiLeaks, there was an interesting aside on this. The revelations from WikiLeaks that got the most publicity—headlines, euphoric commentary and so on—were that the Arabs support U.S. policy on Iran. They were quoting comments of Arab dictators. Yes, they claim to support U.S. policy on Iran. There was no mention of the Arab—of the Arab population, because it doesn't matter. If the dictators support us, and the population is under control, then what's the problem? This is like imperialism. What's the problem if it works? As long as they can control their populations, fine. They can have campaigns of hatred; our friendly dictators will keep them under control. That's the reaction not just of the diplomatic service in the State Department or of the media who reported this, but also of the general intellectual community. There is no comment on this. In fact, coverage of these polls is precisely zero in the United States, literally. There's a few comments in England, but very little. It just doesn't matter what the population thinks, as long as they're under control.

Well, from these observations, you can conclude pretty quickly, pretty easily, what policies are going to be. You can almost spell them out. So in the case of an oil-rich country with a reliable, obedient dictator, they're given free rein. Saudi Arabia is the most important. There were—it's the most repressive, extremist, strongest center of Islamic fundamentalism, missionaries who spread ultra-radical Islamism from jihadis and so on. But they're obedient, they're reliable, so they can do what they like. There was a planned protest in Saudi Arabia. The police presence was so overwhelming and intimidating that literally nobody even was willing to show up in the streets of Riyadh. But that was fine. The same in Kuwait. There was a small demonstration, very quickly crushed, no comment.

Actually, the most interesting case in many respects is Bahrain. Bahrain is quite important for two reasons. One reason, which has been reported, is that it's the home port of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, major military force in the region. Another more fundamental reason is that Bahrain is about 70 percent Shiite, and it's right across the causeway from eastern Saudi Arabia, which also is majority Shiite and happens to be where most of Saudi oil is. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the main energy resource, has been since the '40s. By curious accident of history and geography, the world's major energy resources are located pretty much in Shiite regions. They're a minority in the Middle East, but they happen to be where the oil is, right around the northern part of the Gulf. That's eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and southwestern Iran. And there's been a concern among planners for a long time that there might be a move towards some sort of tacit alliance in these Shiite regions moving towards independence and controlling the bulk of the world's oil. That's obviously intolerable.

So, going back to Bahrain, there was an uprising, tent city in the central square, like Tahrir Square. The Saudi-led military forces invaded Bahrain, giving the security forces there the opportunity to crush it violently, destroyed the tent city, even destroyed the Pearl, which is the symbol of Bahrain; invaded the major hospital complex, threw out the patients and the doctors; been regularly, every day, arresting human rights activists, torturing them, occasionally a sort of a pat on the wrist, but nothing much. That's very much the Carothers principle. If actions correspond to our strategic and economic objectives, that's OK. We can have elegant rhetoric, but what matters is facts.

Well, that's the oil-rich obedient dictators. What about Egypt, most important country, but not a center of—major center of oil production? Well, in Egypt and Tunisia and other countries of that category, there is a game plan, which is employed routinely, so commonly it takes virtual genius not to perceive it. But when you have a favored dictator—for those of you who might think of going into the diplomatic service, you might as well learn it—when there's a favored dictator and he's getting into trouble, support him as long as possible, full support as long as possible. When it becomes impossible to support him—like, say, maybe the army turns against him, business class turns against him—then send him off somewhere, issue ringing declarations about your love of democracy, and then try to restore the old regime, maybe with new names. And that's done over and over again. It doesn't always work, but it's always tried—Somoza, Nicaragua; Shah in Iran; Marcos in the Philippines; Duvalier in Haiti; Chun in South Korea; Mobutu in the Congo; Ceausescu is one of Western favorites in Romania; Suharto in Indonesia. It's completely routine. And that's exactly what's going on in Egypt and Tunisia. OK, we support them right to the end—Mubarak in Egypt, right to the end, keep supporting him. Doesn't work any longer, send him off to Sharm el-Sheikh, pull out the rhetoric, try to restore the old regime. That's, in fact, what the conflict is about right now. As Amy said, we don't know where it's going to turn now, but that's what's going on.

Well, there's another category. The other category is an oil-rich dictator who's not reliable, who's a loose cannon. That's Libya. And there, there's a different policy: try to get a more reliable dictator. And that's exactly what's happening. Of course, describe it as a humanitarian intervention. That's another near historical universal. You check history, virtually every resort to force, by whoever it is, is accompanied by the most noble rhetoric. It's all completely humanitarian. That includes Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia, the Japanese fascists rampaging in northeast China. In fact, it's Mussolini in Ethiopia. There's hardly any exceptions. So you produce that, and the media and commentators present—pretend they don't notice that it has no—carries no information, because it's reflexive.

And then—but in this case, they could also add something else, which has been repeated over and over again, namely, the U.S. and its allies were intervening in response to a request by the Arab League. And, of course, we have to recognize the importance of that. Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and was pretty soon rescinded, because they didn't like what we were doing. But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League produced—issued another request. Here's a headline from a newspaper: "Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone." Actually, I'm quoting from the London Financial Times. That wasn't reported in the United States. Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, "Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone," that's inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we don't have to honor and observe, and that disappeared.

Now, there are some polls that are reported. So here's one from the New York Times a couple days ago. I'll quote it. It said, "The poll found that a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the region's stability." Actually, that's not quite accurate. It's been a cornerstone of the region's instability, and that's exactly why the Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The agreement essentially eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict. That means eliminated the only deterrent to Israeli military action. And it freed up Israel to expand its operations—illegal operations—in the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to attack Lebanon. Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000 people, destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime, didn't quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate reaction to the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things about it we don't like—we're going to have to abandon our settlements in the Sinai, in the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because now the only deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve our other goals. And that's exactly what happened. And that's exactly why the Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that, as does everyone in the region.

Any questions?  Would you want democracy now?

THE MEANING OF THE WORD S T A B I L I T Y (US empire)

On the other hand, the Times wasn't lying when they said that it led to the region's stability. And the reason is because of the meaning of the word "stability" as a technical meaning. Stability is—it's kind of like democracy. Stability means conformity to our interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to expand its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries, that's called "destabilizing." It's part of the threat of Iran. It's destabilizing the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades those countries, occupies them, half destroys them, that's to achieve stability. And that is very common, even to the point where it's possible to write—former editor of Foreign Affairs—that when the U.S. overthrew the democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious dictatorship, that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to achieve stability. That's in one sentence, and nobody noticed it, because that's correct, if you understand the meaning of the word "stability." Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you install a dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people, you invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people—that's all bringing about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.

Stumble It!

hateful crackpot Dershowitz frothing at the mouth

Wow, even Dershowitz noted that Noam has a hunch about 9-11 being an inside job!
But he cannot go there. Really, he dismisses ALL VALID POINTS with the same old
strawmen arguments... yawn.    WATCH DERSHOWITZ vs CHOMSKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUl5cpluC2Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnq5wbJoadw



Bin Laden's Defender: Noam Chomsky

by Alan M. Dershowitz  May 11, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Noam Chomsky has shown his true colors in his recently published "reaction" to the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden. He apparently thinks Osama Bin Laden is the innocent victim of a cold-blooded murder that is worse than if George W. Bush were to be assassinated in his "compound." He doesn't believe Bin Laden's own admission of complicity in the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11, writing that it is about as credible as Chomsky's "confession that I won the Boston Marathon." Nor does he believe the evidence gathered by the 9/11 Commission, the grand jury that indicted Bin Laden, the numerous confessions and claims of responsibility by Al Qaeda operatives, and the video showing those who flew the planes in the presence of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. He believes there is absolutely no "evidence" -- "nothing serious" -- that Bin Laden played any role in 9/11. He also accuses President Obama of "simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that 'we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda.'" To avoid any appearance of partisanship and to show that he is an equal opportunity despiser of all American presidents, he writes that "uncontraversally" President Bush's "crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's." (Guernica. My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death. Noam Chomsky. May 6, 2011.)

If Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, who was? The United States? The Zionists? Maybe it never happened at all, as some hard left "intellectuals" have claimed. After all, Chomsky is agnostic with regard to the Nazi Holocaust and believes that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic. Writing in defense of the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's claim that the so-called Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by the Jewish people, Chomsky assured his readers that "nobody believes there is an anti-Semitic connotation to the denial of the Holocaust . . . whether one believes it took place or not." Chomsky is himself guilty of genocide-denial, having assured his readers (at the height of the Cambodian genocide) that the Khmer Rouge -- which he admired -- was being falsely accused of mass murder.

The real question is why any reasonable person pays any attention to the ignorant rants of this America-hater, Israel-basher and conspiracy theorist. I can understand why Osama Bin Laden himself was, according to the Wall Street Journal, "a fan of Noam Chomsky." Bin Laden said that "Chomsky was correct when he compared U.S. policies to the Mafia." (See, Bin Laden wasn't an anti-Semite after all, since he liked at least one Jew, though he named one of his daughters Safiyah after Mohammad's aunt, because, he proclaimed, "Safiyah killed Jews.") I can even understand why radical anti-American zealots like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro admire him. But he has been described on his own book jacket as "arguably the most important intellectual alive." He has also been called the most influential academic in the world. What does this say about today's consumers of intellectual and academic wares?

I have debated Chomsky on several occasions and have found that he simply makes up facts and then characterizes them as "uncontroversial." This tactic works with sycophantic college audiences on the hard left, but for anyone who bothers to check "Chomsky facts," as his critics aptly dub them, will find that the source is often conspiratorial websites and hate propaganda. "Chomsky facts" bear little relationship to real facts, except on "Planet Chomsky," where a different reality governs.



The time has come to dump Noam Chomsky into the wastebasket of history. He has been proved wrong -- factually, morally, politically and in every other way -- by the verdict of history. He was wrong about the Nazi Holocaust, the Communist genocides, the "peaceful" intentions of Hezbollah, and the alleged "war criminality" of every American president in recent memory. Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal correctly characterized Chomsky as "a two-nickel crank" with "paranoid notions of American policy." Christopher Hitchens has called him a charter member of the "paranoid anti-war 'left'" who believes that "America is an incarnation of the third Reich that doesn't even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations."

Chomsky has no credibility among serious people who care about truth. He would be a joke if he were not so influential among the unthinking hard left and the anti-intellectual academics who propagandize their naïve students to move to Planet Chomsky, where they can live their paranoid lives devoid of any contact with the reality of planet earth. Nor would he have any credibility on political issues were he not a famous linguist -- famous despite his absurd semantic claim that there is no "anti-Semitic connotation" to denying the Holocaust and calling it a fraud perpetrated on the world by the Jews! Even if his linguistic accomplishments were not controversial, they would not qualify him as a guru on the political, legal and military matters on which he regularly opines.

Chomsky will continue to hurt America and decent values so long as his political rants continue to be taken seriously by some of the intellectual elite who help to manufacture consent and create the illusion of credibility on the part of a hateful crackpot.

Wow. Dershowitz is already demented.
Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer  10 years younger than Chomsky
adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995

In 1976, Dershowitz handled the successful appeal of Harry Reems, who had been convicted of distribution of obscenity resulting from his acting in the pornographic movie Deep Throat. In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful

• outspoken supporter of Israel
• "apologist" for the Israel lobby
• His book The Case for Israel, "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense".
• Dershowitz had engaged in plagiarism in his use of Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial

the whole debate is so old, here is Chomsky vs Buckley 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk

Stumble It!

Corporate Whore Christopher Hitchens blathers propaganda

By Luke Broadwater syas

Now, that's how you write a column: Christopher Hitchens lights up Noam Chomsky (Slate)


all these people are dead, seconds after this frame

LIGHT UP is what the Apache Helicopter pilot (CIA Drone operator)  said before he mamed and killed some unidentified
people (civilians) in Iraq, Afghanistan (or Yemen)


these children are killed by US helicopter named "Apache" (Like Nazis naming their aircraft "Jew" or "Gypsy")


Here now is Christopher Eric Hitchens (born 13 April 1949) is an English-American author.

Chomsky's Follies
The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.



By Christopher Hitchens   Posted Monday, May 9, 2011, at 2:36 PM ET

Anybody visiting the Middle East in the last decade has had the experience:
meeting the hoarse and aggressive person who first denies that Osama Bin Laden
was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center

(which is true!)

and then proceeds to describe the attack as a justified vengeance for decades
of American imperialism.

(not many do that. But many US Americans describe the killing of 'arabs' as 
vengeance for 9/11)

This cognitive dissonance —

(Hitchen's knows the word to describe his own condition.  Believing that 911
was done by arabs while at the same time ALL THE EVIDENCE points to a huge
9/11 COVER-UP by the USA. And WHO BENEFITS?   US-people pay a huge price for
the US military corrupt complex, and USA has all the air-bases it likes.
Arabs have nothing, except cruel US-supported dictators.)


to give it a polite designation—does not always take that precise form.
Sometimes the same person who hails the bravery of al-Qaida's martyrs also
believes that the Jews planned the "operation."

(Vilify those who are not of your opinion, Christopher. Show you have no arguments)


As far as I know, only leading British "Truther" David Shayler,

(He is not the only one. There are thousands.  Try ANNIE MACHON)

a former intelligence agent who also announced his own divinity,

(He went crazy, yes. Who knows what drugs he was given)

has denied that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, took place at all.

(He did not, he was VERY clear about them being in inside job)

It was apparently by means of a hologram that the widespread delusion
was created on television.

(Imagine that. Secret US military technology at work to fool people!)


In his recent article for Guernica magazine, however, professor Noam Chomsky
decides to leave that central question open.

(YES!!  Chomsky is finally touching on the subject. Chomsky is all about facts)


We have no more reason to credit Osama Bin Laden's claim of responsibility,
he states, than we would have to believe Chomsky's own claim to have won the
Boston Marathon.

(Correct.  Since the FBI has officially said they do not suspect Bin Laden
being responsible for 911, and Bin Laden himself having denied involvement at first,
the FACT-BASED community can only assume that the fake/mistranslated OSAMA VIDEOS
are what they are. A phantasy. Bravo Chomsky!)


I can't immediately decide whether or not this is an improvement on
what Chomsky wrote at the time. Ten years ago,
apparently sharing the consensus that 9/11 was indeed
the work of al-Qaida, he wrote that it was no worse an atrocity
than President Clinton's earlier use of cruise missiles
against Sudan in retaliation for the bomb attacks on the
centers of Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
(I haven't been back to check on whether he conceded that
those embassy bombings were also al-Qaida's work to begin with.)
He is still arguing loudly for moral equivalence,
maintaining that the Abbottabad, Pakistan, strike would
justify a contingency whereby
"Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound,
assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic."
(Indeed, equivalence might be a weak word here, since
he maintains that, "uncontroversially, [Bush's]
crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's.")


(Christopher...  your point being???)



So the main new element is the one of intriguing mystery.
The Twin Towers came down, but it's still anyone's guess who did it.
Since "April 2002, [when] the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller,
informed the press that after the most intensive investigation
in history, the FBI could say no more than that it 'believed'
that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan," no evidence has been adduced.
"Nothing serious," as Chomsky puts it, "has been provided since."


(Christopher...  your point being???)


Chomsky still enjoys some reputation both as a scholar and a public intellectual. And in the face of bombardments of official propaganda, he prides himself in a signature phrase on his stern insistence on "turning to the facts." So is one to assume that he has pored through the completed findings of the 9/11 Commission?


(Have you?  Osama and the 40 robbers fairy tale. WTC7 is not even mentioned)

 Viewed any of the videos in which the 9/11 hijackers are seen in the company of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri?

(Haha, there are no such videos. Christopher, you are an idiot!)

Read the transcripts of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker"?

(He is a crazy, french "useful idiot")

Followed the journalistic investigations of Lawrence Wright, Peter Bergen, or John Burns, to name only some of the more salient? Acquainted himself with the proceedings of associated and ancillary investigations into the bombing of the USS Cole or indeed the first attempt to bring down the Twin Towers in the 1990s?

(Yes, in 1993 an FBI agent provided the explosives and recorded his conversations with the FBI for self-insurance!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem

With the paranoid anti-war "left," you never quite know where the emphasis is going to fall next. At the Telluride Film Festival in 2002, I found myself debating Michael Moore, who, a whole year after the attacks, maintained that Bin Laden was "innocent until proved guilty" (and hadn't been proven guilty). Except that he had,

(Where?  PROOF, not hearsay)

at least according to Moore one day after the attacks, when he wrote that: "WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden! Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!" So, innocent unless tainted by association with Langley, Va., which did seem to have some heartland flying schools under surveillance before 2001 but which seemed sluggish on the uptake regarding them. For quite some time, in fact, the whole anti-Bush "narrative" involved something rather like collusion with the evil Bin Laden crime family, possibly based on mutual interests in the oil industry. So guilty was Bin Laden, in fact, that he was allowed to prepare for a new Pearl Harbor on American soil by a spineless Republican administration that had ignored daily briefings on the mounting threat. Gore Vidal was able to utter many croaking and suggestive lines to this effect, hinting at a high-level betrayal of the republic.

And then came those who, impatient with mere innuendo, directly accused the administration of rocketing its own Pentagon and bringing about a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center. This grand scenario seemed to have a few loose planes left over, since the ones that hit the towers were only a grace note to the more ruthless pre-existing sabotage and the ones in Virginia and Pennsylvania, complete with passengers and crews and hijackers, somehow just went missing.

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It's no criticism of Chomsky to say that his analysis is inconsistent with that of other individuals and factions who essentially think that 9/11 was a hoax. However, it is remarkable that he should write as if the mass of evidence against Bin Laden has never been presented

Christopher!!  Reality Check!!  IT HASN'T !!

 or could not have been brought before a court. This form of 9/11 denial doesn't trouble to conceal an unstated but self-evident premise, which is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society. After all, as Chomsky phrases it so tellingly, our habit of "naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk … [is] as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes 'Jew' and 'Gypsy.' " Perhaps this is not so true in the case of Tomahawk, which actually is the name of a weapon, but the point is at least as good as any other he makes.

In short, we do not know who organized the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or any other related assaults, though it would be a credulous fool who swallowed the (unsupported) word of Osama Bin Laden that his group was the one responsible. An attempt to kidnap or murder an ex-president of the United States (and presumably, by extension, the sitting one) would be as legally justified as the hit on Abbottabad. And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn't even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations. This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade.

Christopher, your misrepresentation are so poor.  We feel sorry for you, you lost it.  Sold out. Wanker.

Stumble It!

Chomsky on Bin Laden - Jessica Lynch LIES

911 light sabre memorial ground zero bullet hole head obama no pictures Bin Laden American Flag

I heard that the killing of Bin Laden was a deal.  USA gets OBL, and Pakistan will see to US interests when the US leaves Afghanistan.

The narrative for the Obama reelection has been written- Thank you CIA.


Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

May 6, 2011

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

By Noam Chomsky

It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

(take note. Chomsky is slowly letting us all know that he now doubts whether 9/11 was done by arabs and probably was an inside job.)

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.


Mafia Boss Barak Obama deliverd the stinking Osama Bin Laden fish in what newspapers are good for, wrapping rubbish.

Fish with a beard.

You mess with me, you get cement overshoes and sleep with the fishes.


WASHINGTON WIRE

May 6, 2011, 3:55 PM ET

U.N. Watchdogs Seek Details of Raid on bin Laden Compound

By Patrick O'Connor

A pair of U.N. rights watchdogs raised questions Friday about whether the U.S. Special Forces commandos who killed Osama bin Laden had adequately trained for his capture.

The two U.N. "special rapporteurs," Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, want Washington to disclose everything about the raid, beginning with the preparation for it, to make sure the military complied with international human-rights standards in killing the al Qaeda leader.

Mr. Scheinin, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said in an interview with Reuters that "the U.S. government should answer questions concerning whether a meaningful prospect of surrender and arrest was given by the U.S., but perhaps not taken by Osama bin Laden." He went on to say, "You design an operation so that there is a meaningful possibility of surrender and arrest even if you think the offer will be refused and you have to resort to lethal force."

The joint statement by the U.N. rights watchers comes as other human-rights activists raise concerns about the circumstances of bin Laden's death in the middle of the night within a walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. While bin Laden's death has been widely hailed as an act of triumph for the SEAL team and for President Barack Obama, who ordered the raid, some vocal critics believe the military should have taken bin Laden alive.

"It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination," Noam Chomsky, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguistics professor and social activist, wrote on the website Guernica. "There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition."

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him and dumped his body in the Atlantic,' wrote Mr. Chomsky, a frequent critic of Mr. Bush and U.S. foreign policy.

Other legal experts question the implication of carrying out a military operation inside a sovereign nation without the explicit consent of its government.

While criticism was inevitable for such a high-profile target, the White House opened itself up to questions by revising its initial version of the events. In the first version, the SEAL team engaged in a 40-minute firefight and the al Qaeda leader had a gun in his hand when he was shot. Later, the White House said a single gunman shot at the Special Forces commandos on their way to bin Laden's third-floor bedroom, and that bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot.

The American public overwhelmingly supports the covert military attack, and Mr. Obama's own personal approval ratings are up since bin Laden was killed.

The U.N. watchdogs acknowledged that, "in certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort." But Mr. Scheinin and Mr. Heynes, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said terrorists should typically be dealt with as if they were criminals through the normal legal process.

"Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances," the pair said Friday.

SAME FAKE PROPAGANDA LIES ABOUT A FIREFIGHT
than with Saving Private Lynch


Jessica Dawn Lynch (born April 26, 1983) is a former Private First Class (PFC) in the United States Army Quartermaster Corps. Lynch served in Iraq during the 2003 invasion by U.S. and allied forces. On March 23, 2003 she was injured and captured by Iraqi forces but was recovered on April 1 by U.S. Special Operations Forces, with the incident subsequently receiving considerable news coverage. Lynch's was the first successful rescue of an American POW since World War II and the first ever of a woman.[1]

Initial media reports on Lynch's recovery in Iraq were incorrect. Lynch, along with major media outlets, fault the U.S. government for creating the story as part of the Pentagon's propaganda effort.[2][3][4][5] Jim Wilkinson is credited for fabricating the government narrative.[6]

On April 24, 2007 she testified in front of Congress that she had never fired her weapon; her M16 rifle jammed, as did all weapons systems assigned to her unit, and she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed.[3]


On March 23, 2003, a convoy of the United States Army's 507th Maintenance Company and the 3rd Combat Support BN elements, led by a Humvee driven by Lori Piestewa, made a wrong turn and were ambushed near Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates northwest of Basra,[8] The convoy was supposed to detour around the town and instead turned directly into it, eventually running into an ambush. The ambush was unlikely to have been set up in advance, because the Iraqis did not know which course the convoy would take. Although some vehicles had GPS receivers, military GPS systems, unlike civilian equivalents, provide only grid references and not turn-by-turn navigation. Maps of the area lack the detail required to properly navigate through tight city streets. Wrong turns in convoys are frequent. Apparently, the convoy took more than one wrong turn. The convoy came under attack by enemy fire. The Humvee in which Lynch was riding was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and crashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer. Lynch was severely injured. [9]

Lynch, then a supply clerk with the 507th Maintenance Company (based in Fort Bliss, Texas), was wounded and captured by Iraqi forces.[10] She was initially listed as missing in action. Eleven other soldiers in the company were killed in the ambush and five other soldiers were captured (and later rescued). Her best friend, Lori Piestewa, was seriously wounded in the head and died in an Iraqi civilian hospital, possibly because it was not possible to perform delicate neurosurgery in that hospital under wartime conditions (such as intermittent electrical power).[11]

A video of some of the American prisoners of war, including Piestewa, was later shown around the world on Al Jazeera television. Later, footage was discovered of both Lynch and Piestewa (in the footage, the latter was still alive) at an Iraqi hospital.[12]


Prisoner of war

After some time in the custody of the Iraqi army regiment that had captured her,[13] Lynch was taken to a hospital in Nasiriya. Iraqi hospital staff, including Doctors Harith Al-Houssona and Anmar Uday, claim to have shielded Lynch from Iraqi military and government agents who were using the hospital as a base of military operations. U.S. forces were tipped off as to Lynch's whereabouts by an Iraqi, who told them she had been tortured and injured but was still alive. The Iraqi was described as a 32-year-old lawyer, initially described only as "Mohammed" and later identified as Mohammed Odeh al Rehaief. In light of Mohammed's role in Lynch's rescue, he and his family were granted refugee status by the United States.

Initial reports indicated that al Rehaief's wife was a nurse by the name of Iman in the hospital where Lynch was being held captive,[13] and that while visiting his wife at the hospital, al Rehaief noticed that security was heightened and inquired as to why. However, hospital personnel later confirmed only part of al Rehaief's story, indicating that while al Rehaief had indeed visited the hospital, his wife was not a nurse there, nor was there any nurse by the name of Iman working there. While visiting the hospital from which Lynch was eventually extracted, al Rehaief claimed that he had observed an Iraqi colonel slapping Lynch. "My heart stopped", said al Rehaief, "I knew then I must help her be saved. I decided I must go to tell the Americans."[13]

Al Rehaief's story has been disputed by doctors working at the hospital, who claim that Lynch was shielded and protected from Iraqi military personnel by hospital staff and was treated well throughout her stay at the hospital.[14] Lynch's own story concurs with these accounts, claiming that she was treated humanely, with a nurse even singing to her.[14][15]

Moreover, according to reports, on March 30, Al-Houssona reportedly attempted to have Lynch delivered to the U.S. forces, an attempt which had to be abandoned when the Americans fired on the Iraqi ambulance carrying her.[11]

According to al Rehaief's version of the events leading up to Lynch's rescue, he walked six miles to a U.S. Marine checkpoint to inform American forces that he knew where Lynch was being held.[13] After talking with the Marines, al Rehaief was then sent back to the hospital to gather more information, which was used to plan Lynch's rescue.[13] Allegedly, al Rehaief returned to the checkpoint with five different maps of the hospital and the details of the security layout, reaction plan, and shift changes.

The U.S. military reportedly learned of Lynch's location from several informants, one of whom was al Rehaief. [16] After al Rehaief came forward and confirmed Lynch's location, officials with the Defense Intelligence Agency equipped and trained an unnamed person, possibly al Rehaief, alternatively listed as an Iraqi informant and as a Central Intelligence Agency agent, with a concealed video camera. On the day of the raid, the informant walked around the hospital, secretly videotaping entrances and a route to Lynch's room. al Rehaief was reportedly paid for his services.


Hospital retrieval

A combat camera video shows the April 1, 2003 footage of Lynch on a stretcher during her rescue from Iraq.

On April 1, 2003, U.S. Marines staged a diversionary attack, besieging nearby Iraqi irregulars to draw them away from Saddam Hospital in Nasiriyah. Meanwhile, an element from the Joint Special Operations Task Force Task Force 121, U.S. Army Special Forces, Air Force Pararescue Jumpers (PJs), and Army Rangers, and Navy SEALs launched a nighttime raid on the hospital and successfully retrieved Lynch and the bodies of 8 other American soldiers.[17]

According to certain accounts of doctors present during the raid, they were gathered into groups at gunpoint and treated as possible hostiles until they could be identified as being hospital staff. Many military and Special Operations Forces experts have defended the tactics of the operators who led the raid, saying that Special Operations Forces teams are trained to expect the worst and move quickly, initially treating each person they encounter as a possible threat. Additionally, the doctors stated that the Iraqi military had left the hospital the day before and that no one in the hospital had offered any resistance to the American forces during the raid.

One witness account, claimed in an opinion article written by a correspondent within the BBC, included the opinion that the Special Operations Forces had foreknowledge that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they raided the hospital, and that the entire event was staged, even going so far as to use blanks in the Marine's guns to create the appearance that they were firing.[11] The use of blanks was disputed by weapons experts since M-16s and M-4s used by the rescue personnel require attachments in order to fire blanks, and these were not visible in the video. Furthermore, they state it would be dangerous to use blanks in these weapons in a potentially hostile environment, as time must be taken to both change the ammunition and remove the attachment before they could respond to threats.[18]

In the initial press briefing on April 2, 2003 the Pentagon released a five-minute video of the rescue and claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.[19]

Iraqi doctors and nurses later interviewed, including Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle". According to Al-Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be suffered in a car accident, which Lynch verified when she stated that she got hurt when her humvee flipped and broke her leg. Al-Houssona's account of events was later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.[11][20]

The authorized biography, I Am A Soldier Too: The Jessica Lynch Story, by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Rick Bragg states that Lynch had been raped during her captivity, based on medical records and her pattern of injuries.[21]

Lynch does not recall any sexual assault and was "adamantly opposed to including the rape claim in the book", but that Bragg wore her down and told her that "people need to know that this is what can happen to women soldiers".[22]

According to the book Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, Pat Tillman and his brother played a marginal role in her retrieval, being assigned as perimeter guards in the city's outskirts.


Departure from Iraq

From Kuwait, Lynch was transported to a Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, where she was expected to recover fully from her injuries. On the flight to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the military medics kept her sedated and hydrated. Her family flew to Germany on April 5 to be reunited with her. In a statement, the hospital said, "Lynch had a big smile on her face when her parents arrived".

Lynch underwent back surgery on April 3 to correct a slipped vertebra that was putting pressure on her spinal cord. Since then, she has undergone several more surgeries to stabilize her fractures.

Eleven bodies were recovered at the same time of Lynch's rescue, nine from a shallow gravesite and two from the morgue. Following forensic identification, eight were identified as fellow members of her company, including Private First Class Lori Piestewa. All were subsequently given posthumous Purple Hearts. Details of their deaths are unclear.

Lynch was shown during a controversial display on Al Jazeera television of four other supply-unit POWs. That video also showed a number of dead soldiers from that unit with gunshot wounds to the forehead.

After learning of al-Rehaief's role in Lynch's rescue, Friends of Mohammed, a group based in Malden, West Virginia, was formed to press for al Rehaief to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen and to bring him to West Virginia. On April 29, 2003, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge announced that Mohammed Odeh al Rehaief, his wife, and their five-year-old daughter had been granted humanitarian asylum on April 28.[23] Al Rehaief and his family were brought to the United States at his request April 10. Al Rehaief published a book, Because Each Life Is Precious, in October 2003, for a reported US$300,000.[24] He is now working in the U.S.


Return home
Jessica Lynch is awarded the Bronze Star, Prisoner of War and Purple Heart medals

Upon her return she was greeted by thousands of West Virginia residents and by then-fiancé Army Sergeant Ruben Contreras. Soon after her return, Lynch and Contreras separated.

On April 12, 2003, Lynch was flown to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., to undergo specialized treatment and rehabilitation. On April 17, she underwent surgery to repair a bone in her right foot.

While recovering in Washington, Lynch was inundated with gifts and flowers from well-wishers, so much so that she asked the public to send cards instead. Her family suggested that the public send money to charity and relief organizations.

Lynch was released from the hospital on July 22, more than three months after her injury.

On August 27, 2003, Lynch was given a medical honorable discharge.


Criticism

Soon after her rescue, Pentagon officials disputed a report appearing in the Washington Post that Lynch had fought back, and the first official report of Lynch's actions during her capture released by the Pentagon weeks later said that she did not appear to have fought back against her captors, in contradiction of earlier Pentagon press releases. According to one former Pentagon official, the stories of her supposed heroics that day were spread by the news media and Congressmen from West Virginia were instrumental in pushing the Pentagon to award her honors based on reports of her actions during her capture.[25][26]

Months after returning, Lynch finally began speaking to the public. Her statements tended to be sharply critical of the original story that was reported by the Washington Post. When asked about her heroine status, "That wasn't me. I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do ... I'm just a survivor."[27]

Despite the letters of support she received after her testimony before a House oversight committee, Lynch says that she still gets hate mail from Americans who accuse her of making up the heroic acts attributed to her.[28] "I was captured, but then I was OK and I didn't go down fighting. OK, so what?" she says. "It was really hard to convince people that I didn't have to do any of that. That I was injured, that I still needed comfort."[29]

She denied the claims that she fought until being wounded, reporting that her weapon jammed immediately, and that she could not have done anything anyway. Interviewed by Diane Sawyer, Lynch claimed, concerning the Pentagon: "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things."[30] She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported being treated very well in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.

Controversy also arose regarding the varying treatment and media coverage of Lynch and Shoshana Johnson, an African-American soldier captured in the same ambush as Lynch, but rescued later. Critics, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, said that Johnson's race was a major reason that Johnson received little media attention and a smaller disability pension as compared to Lynch. Other criticism has focused on the ignoring of other members in her unit, such as Lori Piestewa, who had picked up Lynch when her vehicle broke down and was later mortally wounded by gunfire. Male prisoners in her unit received scant media coverage. Lynch always spoke with great respect for her fellow soldiers, especially the ones who were killed in the incident. Lynch had been best friends with Piestewa and at her homecoming gave this tribute:
"     Most of all, I miss Lori Piestewa. She was my best friend. She fought beside me and it was an honor to have served with her. Lori will always remain in my heart.     "
     
— excerpt from Jessica Lynch's homecoming speech[31]


Congressional hearings

On April 24, 2007, Lynch gave congressional testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the Pentagon had erroneously portrayed her as a "Rambo from the hills of West Virginia," when in fact, she never fired a shot after her truck was ambushed.[32]

Saving Jessica Lynch

LIES, LIES.



US President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize therefore does that make him the judge the jury and the executor
According to RT the whole burial at sea fits in with Masonic mythology. Scuttling the beast to the depths of the sea eventhough his body had been on ice for ten years.

Stumble It!

False Flags: An American Tradition

Analyst Stephen Lendman: U.S. official stories are falsified, myths, widely believed fantasies contrary to reality

by Stephen Lendman

Wikipedia defines false or black flags as "covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities."

They're "big lies," defined by Merriam-Webster as "deliberate gross distortion(s) of the truth used especially as a propaganda tactic."

America's decade from September 11, 2001 to May 1, 2011 was punctuated by the (big) lie of our time and (big) lie of the moment.

Put another way, the official stories are falsified, myths, widely believed fantasies contrary to reality.

In his exhaustive research and writings, David Ray Griffin provided convincing evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and that bin Laden died of natural causes in mid-December 2001.

The former spawned a decade of overt and covert "war on terror" lawlessness at home and abroad. Policies and events following the second have yet to unfold, but expect little at best to be positive.

Past US false flags provided pretexts for militarism, wars, occupations, domestic repression, and national security state extremism, antithetical to democratically free and open societies. Allegedly removing America's "Enemy Number One," in fact, may intensify, not diminish, Washington's scheme for unchallengeable global dominance. More on him below.

With or without bin Laden, bogymen threats are plentiful. Since WW II alone, America's had numerous ones, including communists, Al Qaeda, WMDs, the Taliban, Gaddafi, and a host others yet unnamed, as well as numerous "foiled" domestic ones.

Among others, they include:

-- a fake shoe bomber;

-- fake underwear bomber;

-- fake Times Square bomber;

-- an earlier one there;

-- fake shampoo bombers;

-- fake Al Qaeda woman planning fake mass casualty attacks on New York landmarks;

-- fake Oregon bomber;

-- fake armed forces recruiting station bomber;

-- fake synagogue bombers;

-- fake Chicago Sears Tower bombers;

-- fake FBI and other building bombers;

-- fake National Guard, Fort Dix and Quantico marine base attackers;

-- fake 9/11 bombers; and

-- others to enlist public support for the fake war on terror and very real ones it spawned.

America, Pakistan, Bin Laden, Official Lies, and Misreporting

On May 5, New York Times writer Elisabeth Bumiller headlined, "Pentagon Breaks Silence on Pakistani Role," saying:

A "top Pentagon official said....Pakistan would have to work hard to rebuild relations with the United States Congress," including a commitment "to fighting terrorism...."

It suggests what some analysts suspect: namely, planned destabilization, confrontation, and balkanization for greater Eurasian control, as well as future terrorist false flags.

On May 5, Times writers Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane headlined, "Data Show Bin Laden Plots; CIA Hid Near Raided House," saying:

Alleged "computer files and documents seized at the compound where Osama bin Laden was killed," reveal "considered attacks on American railroads, (but) there was no evidence of a specific plot."

Perhaps no files and documents either. For sure, no bin Laden.

Nonetheless, "(s)ince Sunday night, counterterrorism officials have been alert to (possible) new attacks from Al Qaeda to avenge its leader's death," especially at airports, rail facilities, and other strategic locations. "American officials and terrorism experts have warned that this is not the end of Al Qaeda," not, of course, if they're blamed for planned false flags to intensify US imperial wars.

Another May 5 Bumiller Times report ran cover for  shifting official accounts about what really happened on May 1 headlined, "Raid Account, Hastily Told, Proves Fluid," saying:

"(I)t was a classic collision of a White House desire to promote a stunning national security triumph - and feed a ravenous media - while collecting facts from a chaotic military operation on the other side of the world. At the same time, White House officials worked hard to use the facts of the raid to diminish Bin Laden's legacy."

She continued, quoting an unnamed Pentagon official claiming no "intent to deceive or dramatize," adding that "Everything we put out we really believed to be true at the time." She also quoted Victoria Clarke, Bush Pentagon spokeswoman, saying, "First reports are always wrong. It's a fundamental truth in military affairs."

In other words, it was OK first to claim a fierce firefight in which no US forces were killed or hurt, then 24 hours later call the battle one-sided, Navy Seals quickly dispatching bin Laden's guards and "Enemy Number One," shooting him unarmed in the head.

Notably, however, there's no body, no photos, no video, no evidence, and no truth, just the media regurgitated big lie.

In fact, more lies compounded it, including about:

-- Pakistan's alleged knowledge of his presence;

-- claimed evidence confirming it and assault specifics; and

-- fabricated bad theater, explained in a slapdash, keystone cops manner.

High Level Skepticism

Appearing on CNN May 5, former Pakistani intelligence chief, Hamid Gul, told "In the Arena's" host Eliot Spitzer that bin Laden died years earlier, saying:

"Yes, I think he died - he perished some years ago, and I think this was a story which was created (because) nobody would want to believe this version....I (don't believe) the story which was given out by the American media and by the American administration."

Whoever was killed May 1 "was probably somebody else....(American authorities) must have known that he died some years ago....were keeping this story on the ice and they were looking for an appropriate moment" to announce it.

"(P)eople simply not in Pakistan alone but around the world....don't believe the stories that have been put out."

In other words, the entire account was fabricated, the event staged, Western media, including The New York Times, running cover for the big lie. Gul politely called it "a huge intelligence failure."

Notable American and Other False Flags

Discussed in earlier writing, numerous ones stand out, including:

-- In 1898, Spain was falsely accused of blowing up the USS Maine in Havana, Cuba harbor. The Spanish-American war followed.

-- On May 7, 1915, a German U-boat was accused of torpedoing the RMS Lusitania, killing 128 US citizens. It helped precipitate America's April 4, 1917 WW I entry, a war Woodrow Wilson wanted and got through a propaganda campaign, turning pacifist Americans into German haters. It was later learned that on board munitions, not a torpedo, exploded, sinking the ship.

-- In 1933 Germany, a week before general elections, the strategically timed Reichstag fire (home of the German parliament) was blamed on communists. President Paul von Hindenburg's emergency decree followed. Civil liberties were suspended. Weimar Republic democracy ended, and Hitler assumed fascist powers after enough Nazis were elected to assure it.

-- On August 31, 1939, Nazis impersonating Polish terrorists attacked the Gleiwitz radio station on the border between the two countries, starting WW II.

-- On December 7, 1941, Roosevelt manipulated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, giving him the war he wanted from the early 1930s, but had to convince a pacifist public of the threat. The fleet was also tracked across the Pacific, but Admiral HE Kimmel wasn't warned or given known intelligence to assure enough mass casualties for congressional and public support.

-- Complicit with Washington, numerous 1949/1950 South Korean incursions north precipitated Pyongyang's retaliation in June 1950, giving Truman the war he wanted.

-- In 1962, a US Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false flag never happened because Kennedy rejected it. Called Operation Northwoods (a part of Operation Mongoose), it included sinking US ships, shooting down US commercial airliners, blowing up buildings in US cities, attacking America's Guantanamo base, other incidents, and blaming it on Cuba as a reason for war.

-- The fake August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident initiated full-scale retaliation against North Vietnam after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing war without declaring it.

-- In October 1983, after ousting Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, US forces invaded Grenada, allegedly to rescue American medical students threatened by nonbelligerent Cubans building infrastructure.

-- In December 1989, manufactured incidents precipitated America's Panama invasion, deposing Manuel Noriega, one-time ally turned enemy because he forgot who's boss.

-- in August 1990, Washington colluded with the al- Sabah monarchy, entrapping Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. In January 1991, it launched the Gulf War, followed by over two decades of sanctions, more war occupation, and destruction of the "cradle of civilization."

-- The September 11, 2001 false flag operation launched a decade of imperial wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Palestine allied with Israel, perhaps others to come, as well as proxy wars in Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain, Central Africa, Haiti, Honduras, Colombia, and at home against Muslims, Latino immigrants, and working Americas.

On February 16, 2010, a Washington's blog web site (georgewashington2.blogspot.com) article titled, "Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror" listed examples, including:

-- The CIA admitted its 1950s role in toppling Iran's democratically government in 1953.

-- Israel acknowledged a 1954 attack in Egypt, including planting bombs in US diplomatic facilities, leaving "evidence" of Arab involvement.

-- Indonesia's former president, Abdurrahman Wahid, said the nation's police or military most likely were involved in the 2002 Bali bombing, killing over 200 people.

-- A former Italian prime minister, judge, and military counterintelligence head, General Gianadelio Maletti, said America's CIA instigated and abetted right wing terrorist groups in the 1970s and earlier, including bombing a Milan bank in 1969 to rally popular anti-communist support in Italy and other European countries.

-- Many others, including former Carter administration National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, telling a Senate committee that a false flag terror attack on US soil might occur to blame Iran and justify war.

In his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives," he said:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat," the kind 9/11 created - predicted, planned, orchestrated, and carried out to further new world order global dominance.

Other False Flag Examples

-- The March 2004 Madrid train bombings occurred three days before Spain's general elections. With no supportive evidence, they were blamed on Al Qaeda, yet they stoked public fear of threats against other Western cities, including American ones.

-- The July 7, 2005 London underground bombings (called 7/7) were a series of attacks on the city's public transport system during the morning rush hour for maximum disruption and casualties. At precisely the same time, an anti-terror drill occurred, simulating real attacks. It was no coincidence, others in America and Britain came on the same day.

-- On 9/11 morning, the CIA ran a "pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building." Held at the Agency's Chantilly, Virginia Reconnaissance Office, AP reported (on August 22, 2002) that it simulated "a small corporate jet (hitting) one of the four towers....after experiencing a mechanical failure."

Unmentioned at the time was a later revealed (but unreported) Homeland Security conference announcement a year later to commemorate the 9/11 event. Held under the auspices of the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, one of its speakers was John Fulton, CIA Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance office in charge of the operation. Another coincidence, or was something more sinister afoot?

In October 2000, the Pentagon simulated a commercial plane striking the Pentagon, coordinated by its Command Emergency Response Team and the Defense Protective Services Police. This and the 9/11 exercises are more than coincidental, given what's now known and the fallout.

-- On June 30, 2007, a Jeep Cherokee with propane canisters crashed into Glasgow International Airport's glass doors, the BBC reporting that it "was in the middle of the doorway burning....The car didn't actually explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably was the petrol."

The usual suspects were falsely blamed, Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists.

In Miami, on January 11, 2010 (one day before Haiti's earthquake), the Pentagon's US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) simulated a hurricane striking the island in preparation for subsequent measures to be implemented. A carefully prepared military operation, they included occupying, controlling, and plundering the island.

Also, Deputy SOUTHCOM head, General PK Keen, was in Haiti when the quake struck, ready to assume command when it did and use a communication tool called the Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project (TISC), linking other nations and NGOs with the Pentagon and US government to facilitate measures to be implemented. None were to help Haitians.

A Final Comment

Exposed as bad theater, New York Times writer Elizabeth Harris further discredited the broadsheet, headlining:

"Al Qaeda Confirms Bin Laden's Death," citing an unconfirmed statement, warning of new attacks to come. It also said an audio recording days before his death will soon be released. In fact, past video and audio ones were exposed as fakes.

Where is WikiLeaks?

Stumble It!

Chomsky on Bin Laden - Jessica Lynch LIES

911 light sabre memorial ground zero bullet hole head obama no pictures Bin Laden American Flag

I heard that the killing of Bin Laden was a deal.  USA gets OBL, and Pakistan will see to US interests when the US leaves Afghanistan.

The narrative for the Obama reelection has been written- Thank you CIA.


Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

May 6, 2011

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

By Noam Chomsky

It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

(take note. Chomsky is slowly letting us all know that he now doubts whether 9/11 was done by arabs and probably was an inside job.)

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.


Mafia Boss Barak Obama deliverd the stinking Osama Bin Laden fish in what newspapers are good for, wrapping rubbish.

Fish with a beard.

You mess with me, you get cement overshoes and sleep with the fishes.


WASHINGTON WIRE

May 6, 2011, 3:55 PM ET

U.N. Watchdogs Seek Details of Raid on bin Laden Compound

By Patrick O'Connor

A pair of U.N. rights watchdogs raised questions Friday about whether the U.S. Special Forces commandos who killed Osama bin Laden had adequately trained for his capture.

The two U.N. "special rapporteurs," Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, want Washington to disclose everything about the raid, beginning with the preparation for it, to make sure the military complied with international human-rights standards in killing the al Qaeda leader.

Mr. Scheinin, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said in an interview with Reuters that "the U.S. government should answer questions concerning whether a meaningful prospect of surrender and arrest was given by the U.S., but perhaps not taken by Osama bin Laden." He went on to say, "You design an operation so that there is a meaningful possibility of surrender and arrest even if you think the offer will be refused and you have to resort to lethal force."

The joint statement by the U.N. rights watchers comes as other human-rights activists raise concerns about the circumstances of bin Laden's death in the middle of the night within a walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. While bin Laden's death has been widely hailed as an act of triumph for the SEAL team and for President Barack Obama, who ordered the raid, some vocal critics believe the military should have taken bin Laden alive.

"It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination," Noam Chomsky, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguistics professor and social activist, wrote on the website Guernica. "There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition."

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him and dumped his body in the Atlantic,' wrote Mr. Chomsky, a frequent critic of Mr. Bush and U.S. foreign policy.

Other legal experts question the implication of carrying out a military operation inside a sovereign nation without the explicit consent of its government.

While criticism was inevitable for such a high-profile target, the White House opened itself up to questions by revising its initial version of the events. In the first version, the SEAL team engaged in a 40-minute firefight and the al Qaeda leader had a gun in his hand when he was shot. Later, the White House said a single gunman shot at the Special Forces commandos on their way to bin Laden's third-floor bedroom, and that bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot.

The American public overwhelmingly supports the covert military attack, and Mr. Obama's own personal approval ratings are up since bin Laden was killed.

The U.N. watchdogs acknowledged that, "in certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort." But Mr. Scheinin and Mr. Heynes, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said terrorists should typically be dealt with as if they were criminals through the normal legal process.

"Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances," the pair said Friday.

SAME FAKE PROPAGANDA LIES ABOUT A FIREFIGHT
than with Saving Private Lynch


Jessica Dawn Lynch (born April 26, 1983) is a former Private First Class (PFC) in the United States Army Quartermaster Corps. Lynch served in Iraq during the 2003 invasion by U.S. and allied forces. On March 23, 2003 she was injured and captured by Iraqi forces but was recovered on April 1 by U.S. Special Operations Forces, with the incident subsequently receiving considerable news coverage. Lynch's was the first successful rescue of an American POW since World War II and the first ever of a woman.[1]

Initial media reports on Lynch's recovery in Iraq were incorrect. Lynch, along with major media outlets, fault the U.S. government for creating the story as part of the Pentagon's propaganda effort.[2][3][4][5] Jim Wilkinson is credited for fabricating the government narrative.[6]

On April 24, 2007 she testified in front of Congress that she had never fired her weapon; her M16 rifle jammed, as did all weapons systems assigned to her unit, and she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed.[3]


On March 23, 2003, a convoy of the United States Army's 507th Maintenance Company and the 3rd Combat Support BN elements, led by a Humvee driven by Lori Piestewa, made a wrong turn and were ambushed near Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates northwest of Basra,[8] The convoy was supposed to detour around the town and instead turned directly into it, eventually running into an ambush. The ambush was unlikely to have been set up in advance, because the Iraqis did not know which course the convoy would take. Although some vehicles had GPS receivers, military GPS systems, unlike civilian equivalents, provide only grid references and not turn-by-turn navigation. Maps of the area lack the detail required to properly navigate through tight city streets. Wrong turns in convoys are frequent. Apparently, the convoy took more than one wrong turn. The convoy came under attack by enemy fire. The Humvee in which Lynch was riding was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and crashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer. Lynch was severely injured. [9]

Lynch, then a supply clerk with the 507th Maintenance Company (based in Fort Bliss, Texas), was wounded and captured by Iraqi forces.[10] She was initially listed as missing in action. Eleven other soldiers in the company were killed in the ambush and five other soldiers were captured (and later rescued). Her best friend, Lori Piestewa, was seriously wounded in the head and died in an Iraqi civilian hospital, possibly because it was not possible to perform delicate neurosurgery in that hospital under wartime conditions (such as intermittent electrical power).[11]

A video of some of the American prisoners of war, including Piestewa, was later shown around the world on Al Jazeera television. Later, footage was discovered of both Lynch and Piestewa (in the footage, the latter was still alive) at an Iraqi hospital.[12]


Prisoner of war

After some time in the custody of the Iraqi army regiment that had captured her,[13] Lynch was taken to a hospital in Nasiriya. Iraqi hospital staff, including Doctors Harith Al-Houssona and Anmar Uday, claim to have shielded Lynch from Iraqi military and government agents who were using the hospital as a base of military operations. U.S. forces were tipped off as to Lynch's whereabouts by an Iraqi, who told them she had been tortured and injured but was still alive. The Iraqi was described as a 32-year-old lawyer, initially described only as "Mohammed" and later identified as Mohammed Odeh al Rehaief. In light of Mohammed's role in Lynch's rescue, he and his family were granted refugee status by the United States.

Initial reports indicated that al Rehaief's wife was a nurse by the name of Iman in the hospital where Lynch was being held captive,[13] and that while visiting his wife at the hospital, al Rehaief noticed that security was heightened and inquired as to why. However, hospital personnel later confirmed only part of al Rehaief's story, indicating that while al Rehaief had indeed visited the hospital, his wife was not a nurse there, nor was there any nurse by the name of Iman working there. While visiting the hospital from which Lynch was eventually extracted, al Rehaief claimed that he had observed an Iraqi colonel slapping Lynch. "My heart stopped", said al Rehaief, "I knew then I must help her be saved. I decided I must go to tell the Americans."[13]

Al Rehaief's story has been disputed by doctors working at the hospital, who claim that Lynch was shielded and protected from Iraqi military personnel by hospital staff and was treated well throughout her stay at the hospital.[14] Lynch's own story concurs with these accounts, claiming that she was treated humanely, with a nurse even singing to her.[14][15]

Moreover, according to reports, on March 30, Al-Houssona reportedly attempted to have Lynch delivered to the U.S. forces, an attempt which had to be abandoned when the Americans fired on the Iraqi ambulance carrying her.[11]

According to al Rehaief's version of the events leading up to Lynch's rescue, he walked six miles to a U.S. Marine checkpoint to inform American forces that he knew where Lynch was being held.[13] After talking with the Marines, al Rehaief was then sent back to the hospital to gather more information, which was used to plan Lynch's rescue.[13] Allegedly, al Rehaief returned to the checkpoint with five different maps of the hospital and the details of the security layout, reaction plan, and shift changes.

The U.S. military reportedly learned of Lynch's location from several informants, one of whom was al Rehaief. [16] After al Rehaief came forward and confirmed Lynch's location, officials with the Defense Intelligence Agency equipped and trained an unnamed person, possibly al Rehaief, alternatively listed as an Iraqi informant and as a Central Intelligence Agency agent, with a concealed video camera. On the day of the raid, the informant walked around the hospital, secretly videotaping entrances and a route to Lynch's room. al Rehaief was reportedly paid for his services.


Hospital retrieval

A combat camera video shows the April 1, 2003 footage of Lynch on a stretcher during her rescue from Iraq.

On April 1, 2003, U.S. Marines staged a diversionary attack, besieging nearby Iraqi irregulars to draw them away from Saddam Hospital in Nasiriyah. Meanwhile, an element from the Joint Special Operations Task Force Task Force 121, U.S. Army Special Forces, Air Force Pararescue Jumpers (PJs), and Army Rangers, and Navy SEALs launched a nighttime raid on the hospital and successfully retrieved Lynch and the bodies of 8 other American soldiers.[17]

According to certain accounts of doctors present during the raid, they were gathered into groups at gunpoint and treated as possible hostiles until they could be identified as being hospital staff. Many military and Special Operations Forces experts have defended the tactics of the operators who led the raid, saying that Special Operations Forces teams are trained to expect the worst and move quickly, initially treating each person they encounter as a possible threat. Additionally, the doctors stated that the Iraqi military had left the hospital the day before and that no one in the hospital had offered any resistance to the American forces during the raid.

One witness account, claimed in an opinion article written by a correspondent within the BBC, included the opinion that the Special Operations Forces had foreknowledge that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they raided the hospital, and that the entire event was staged, even going so far as to use blanks in the Marine's guns to create the appearance that they were firing.[11] The use of blanks was disputed by weapons experts since M-16s and M-4s used by the rescue personnel require attachments in order to fire blanks, and these were not visible in the video. Furthermore, they state it would be dangerous to use blanks in these weapons in a potentially hostile environment, as time must be taken to both change the ammunition and remove the attachment before they could respond to threats.[18]

In the initial press briefing on April 2, 2003 the Pentagon released a five-minute video of the rescue and claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.[19]

Iraqi doctors and nurses later interviewed, including Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle". According to Al-Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be suffered in a car accident, which Lynch verified when she stated that she got hurt when her humvee flipped and broke her leg. Al-Houssona's account of events was later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.[11][20]

The authorized biography, I Am A Soldier Too: The Jessica Lynch Story, by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Rick Bragg states that Lynch had been raped during her captivity, based on medical records and her pattern of injuries.[21]

Lynch does not recall any sexual assault and was "adamantly opposed to including the rape claim in the book", but that Bragg wore her down and told her that "people need to know that this is what can happen to women soldiers".[22]

According to the book Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, Pat Tillman and his brother played a marginal role in her retrieval, being assigned as perimeter guards in the city's outskirts.


Departure from Iraq

From Kuwait, Lynch was transported to a Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, where she was expected to recover fully from her injuries. On the flight to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the military medics kept her sedated and hydrated. Her family flew to Germany on April 5 to be reunited with her. In a statement, the hospital said, "Lynch had a big smile on her face when her parents arrived".

Lynch underwent back surgery on April 3 to correct a slipped vertebra that was putting pressure on her spinal cord. Since then, she has undergone several more surgeries to stabilize her fractures.

Eleven bodies were recovered at the same time of Lynch's rescue, nine from a shallow gravesite and two from the morgue. Following forensic identification, eight were identified as fellow members of her company, including Private First Class Lori Piestewa. All were subsequently given posthumous Purple Hearts. Details of their deaths are unclear.

Lynch was shown during a controversial display on Al Jazeera television of four other supply-unit POWs. That video also showed a number of dead soldiers from that unit with gunshot wounds to the forehead.

After learning of al-Rehaief's role in Lynch's rescue, Friends of Mohammed, a group based in Malden, West Virginia, was formed to press for al Rehaief to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen and to bring him to West Virginia. On April 29, 2003, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge announced that Mohammed Odeh al Rehaief, his wife, and their five-year-old daughter had been granted humanitarian asylum on April 28.[23] Al Rehaief and his family were brought to the United States at his request April 10. Al Rehaief published a book, Because Each Life Is Precious, in October 2003, for a reported US$300,000.[24] He is now working in the U.S.


Return home
Jessica Lynch is awarded the Bronze Star, Prisoner of War and Purple Heart medals

Upon her return she was greeted by thousands of West Virginia residents and by then-fiancé Army Sergeant Ruben Contreras. Soon after her return, Lynch and Contreras separated.

On April 12, 2003, Lynch was flown to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., to undergo specialized treatment and rehabilitation. On April 17, she underwent surgery to repair a bone in her right foot.

While recovering in Washington, Lynch was inundated with gifts and flowers from well-wishers, so much so that she asked the public to send cards instead. Her family suggested that the public send money to charity and relief organizations.

Lynch was released from the hospital on July 22, more than three months after her injury.

On August 27, 2003, Lynch was given a medical honorable discharge.


Criticism

Soon after her rescue, Pentagon officials disputed a report appearing in the Washington Post that Lynch had fought back, and the first official report of Lynch's actions during her capture released by the Pentagon weeks later said that she did not appear to have fought back against her captors, in contradiction of earlier Pentagon press releases. According to one former Pentagon official, the stories of her supposed heroics that day were spread by the news media and Congressmen from West Virginia were instrumental in pushing the Pentagon to award her honors based on reports of her actions during her capture.[25][26]

Months after returning, Lynch finally began speaking to the public. Her statements tended to be sharply critical of the original story that was reported by the Washington Post. When asked about her heroine status, "That wasn't me. I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do ... I'm just a survivor."[27]

Despite the letters of support she received after her testimony before a House oversight committee, Lynch says that she still gets hate mail from Americans who accuse her of making up the heroic acts attributed to her.[28] "I was captured, but then I was OK and I didn't go down fighting. OK, so what?" she says. "It was really hard to convince people that I didn't have to do any of that. That I was injured, that I still needed comfort."[29]

She denied the claims that she fought until being wounded, reporting that her weapon jammed immediately, and that she could not have done anything anyway. Interviewed by Diane Sawyer, Lynch claimed, concerning the Pentagon: "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things."[30] She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported being treated very well in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.

Controversy also arose regarding the varying treatment and media coverage of Lynch and Shoshana Johnson, an African-American soldier captured in the same ambush as Lynch, but rescued later. Critics, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, said that Johnson's race was a major reason that Johnson received little media attention and a smaller disability pension as compared to Lynch. Other criticism has focused on the ignoring of other members in her unit, such as Lori Piestewa, who had picked up Lynch when her vehicle broke down and was later mortally wounded by gunfire. Male prisoners in her unit received scant media coverage. Lynch always spoke with great respect for her fellow soldiers, especially the ones who were killed in the incident. Lynch had been best friends with Piestewa and at her homecoming gave this tribute:
"     Most of all, I miss Lori Piestewa. She was my best friend. She fought beside me and it was an honor to have served with her. Lori will always remain in my heart.     "
     
— excerpt from Jessica Lynch's homecoming speech[31]


Congressional hearings

On April 24, 2007, Lynch gave congressional testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the Pentagon had erroneously portrayed her as a "Rambo from the hills of West Virginia," when in fact, she never fired a shot after her truck was ambushed.[32]

Saving Jessica Lynch

LIES, LIES.



US President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize therefore does that make him the judge the jury and the executor
According to RT the whole burial at sea fits in with Masonic mythology. Scuttling the beast to the depths of the sea eventhough his body had been on ice for ten years.

Stumble It!