Five Morons Revisited
must protest at Paul Craig Roberts' article "The Five Morons" (revisited or
otherwise). As a Briton, I feel strongly that my own prime minister, Tony "The
Murderer" Blair, should be included as one of these dangerous handful of morons.
If this means that there has to be six morons, then so be it.
The only reasons
I can fathom for Roberts' failing to include Blair in this coterie of loonies
is that: (a) It's one of those U.S.-centric things and some readers might not
know who Blair is (that's easy – he's the one who appears next to Bush occasionally
and looks like Mr.
Bean), or (b) maybe Roberts realizes that Blair is actually quite intelligent.
(If so that makes him all the more dangerous, and all the more culpable for
~ Dave Taylor,
York, England, www.yorkagainstthewar.org.uk
way I see it, Brits like Dave Taylor can stick it to their own morons.
I think Blair
went along with Bush because he was promised 10 U.S. corporate directorships
at $100,000 each. A million dollars a year is a good addition to Blair's retirement
and Ignorance of Islam
enjoy Reese's articles, but this was a bit much. "Hezbollah is concerned with
ending Israeli occupation of Lebanon." Come again? They left in 2000.
~ Zvi Gross
never really left Lebanon.
what are you smoking? Religion of peace? Not militaristic? Come on. Religion
is what it is as implemented by it's practitioners. I give you Cat Stevens –
Mr. "Peace Train" becomes a Muslim and says it's OK to put a fatwah
out on a writer. It's widely publicized how the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims
admire the murdering thugs of the Hezbollah. Look, I am proud of being a liberal,
I've never been in favor of the Iraq war, I feel that Israel way overreacted
in Lebanon, and I despise the current Republican regime, but there's no way
in heck I could buy those ideas.
~ Bo in Maine
I have thoroughly
enjoyed reading your article on Islam and the misconceptions about it that are
common among some people in the West.
I am an Egyptian
Muslim myself and, like many people around the world, Muslim or not, have a
growing concern over the cultural gap that keeps widening day after day between
the East and the West, thanks to propaganda machines on both sides that play
along with the facts to push forward a certain political agenda, whether it's
lobbying for war in the U.S. or overthrowing Arab governments in the Middle
East, demonizing one side or the other in the process.
You provide a
simple yet comprehensive and very accurate outline of Islam and, in the process,
you have come to capture the true essence of what Islam is truly about. In a
few lines, you have managed to say what thousand-page books usually fail to.
You have my utmost
respect and support. I truly wish our world had more people like you.
~ Ahmed Raafat
Nebojsa Malic would have you believe that Koco Danaj is a "political adviser
to Albania's Prime Minister Sali Berisha." This is not true. A
statement by the Albanian prime minister's office denies that Mr. Danaj
is or has ever served under Mr. Berisha.
The Italian news
service, AKI, is the only one to carry that claim and no other news organization,
save Serbian ones, has done so. Mr. Malic should retract his story and apologize.
~ Aldo Plepi
have absolutely no intention of apologizing. For what? My attribution comes
from AKI, which referenced Epoka E Re. If Epoka misrepresented Mr. Danaj's identity,
then that is their responsibility. I am no fan of Mr. Draskovic, but he issued
his statement in accordance with the information he had available (taking Epoka
and Mr. Danaj at face value), and for once I agree with his actions.
Whether Koco Danaj
falsely represented himself doesn't matter to me one whit; what he said does.
And I'm noticing a conspicuous silence about the content of his comments in
the flurry of denials about his character.
the US Again Attack Iran?
Doesn't it also follow that the neocons' favored long-term outcome for Iraq
was partition all along? They're so confident in their control of U.S. politics
and propaganda channels that nothing appears to be beyond their capability.
WWIII is doable.
The problem is
that while they've been creating the infrastructure for a fascist dictatorship,
an even more threatening force is gathering pace and volume, one that will make
the neocons seem sane in comparison.
The sons of snake-oil
salesmen are as slippery as their forefathers and the resources they have at
their control are immense, going on infinite. U.S. Christian fundamentalism
is a hothouse of religious hysteria where salvation is sold by the sinful and
alliances between the various strands are forged for commercial rather than
Are Pastor Strangelove
and his equally unsavory supporters now lobbying for the bombing of Iran to
fulfill biblical prophecy? Blessed
are the warmongers.
~ Chris Smith
Smith's letter touches upon two important points about the Iraq war and the
larger (so called) "war on terror": (1) The coalitions that brought us into
Iraq had an agenda other than their professed agenda of eliminating dangerous
WMD, and (2) the war on terror is being fought for religious purposes (as opposed
to security purposes).
With regard to
the first, I believe that the primary motive of the Iraq war was to achieve
the introduction of U.S. troops into the region in order to to later escalate
the conflict into a World War III-level struggle between the West and Islam.
The neocons knew the Iraq war wouldn't be a cakewalk, as some of them professed;
their goal was to create facts on the ground in order that the presence of American
troops could eventually be leveraged into a larger conflict. This was done on
behalf of empire interests, oil interests, military-industrial complex interests,
and religious interests. But the last held by far the most sway.
With regard to
the religious interests, I believe that in order to understand the religious
motives behind the conflict, it is important to break down the two religious
groups that pushed the hardest for the war: Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalists.
seem to be motivated by dispensationalist beliefs that mandate the support of
an expansionist Israel in order to fulfill biblical prophecy leading up to Armageddon,
while Jewish nationalists are motivated primarily by religious/ethnic loyalties
to their fellow Jews in Israel. Christian Zionists don't speak for all Christians;
Jewish nationalists don't speak for all Jews. But each group hopes to translate
its association with its larger respective community into a commitment from
all Christians and Jews to fight World War III. This is classical religious
manipulation, and inasmuch as religion is ideally a means of bringing humanity
closer to God, it is heretical.
If Christian Zionists
and Jewish nationalists want to send their own money to Israel and enlist themselves
in World War III, so be it. But to burrow into the U.S. government and then
lie America into the Iraq war in order to coerce all of us into backing their
larger personal religious agenda is just plain dishonest – and wrong. What
does such an act tell us about their morals, religious or otherwise? It's not
a pretty picture.
I guess I'm one
of those people who automatically attempts to defend Israel from criticism that
seems to be based on prejudice and invention – like your article.
You want to vindicate
Hezbollah's strategy of shelling what Israelis insist are civilian targets by
claiming: "Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories, and
military installations near or inside civilian communities." You reiterate your
belief by observing "it can be known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israeli
army camps and military installations are based in northern Israeli communities."
However, you will
not – or cannot – provide evidence of your claims because, in your words,
"Under the censorship rules, it is impossible to mention any issue that touches
on Israeli security or defense matters: the location of military installations,
for example, cannot be divulged."
If telling where
Israeli installations are located is forbidden, how did YOU learn where they
I live in Israel
and the only army camps and military installations I know the locations of are
those indicated by highway signs that I see when traveling by bus between cities:
they are off the highway in non-residential areas, not around the corner from
where I live.
So my question
to you is, How dare you argue that Hezbollah and you know the location of appropriate
military targets in Israel, while you weasel out of offering proof of your claims
by saying it's a secret?
If you fear being
molested by the IDF for revealing your sources on the Internet, kindly reply
to me privately by e-mail: I promise not to tell.
~ David Shaffer,
Why show off your
ignorance about your own country, and condemn others because they are not as
ignorant as you – unless, more likely, you think this is your chance to do a
bit of hasbara (advocacy for Israel)? You are right that many informative
signs can be found on Israeli roadsides, such as those marked "Rafael" for where
armaments factories are located. That's why I do not believe a word you say:
the signs are to be found in many Israeli towns and villages, as you must surely
know. You and I cannot discuss those locations publicly because Israel argues
that Mr. Nasrallah and other Lebanese citizens cannot drive around the Galilee,
like you or me, noting where the sites are. That is nonsense in itself, as we
both know: a Hezbollah spy drone flew over northern Israel a few months back
(as Israeli ones regularly do over Lebanon), as was reported in the Israeli
media. So the censorship laws are designed not to protect Israel's security,
but to keep people like me gagged so that members of the hasbara crowd
like you can work their magic.