Reuters photo
The 4-year-old daughter of Al Jazeera correspondent Tareq Ayyoub, a Jordanian whom the U.S. military "accidentally" killed when it "accidentally" sent a missle into Al Jazeera's bureau in Baghdad in April 2003, holds a picture of her father during a protest outside the Al Jazeera bureau in Amman, Jordan, yesterday. Protests were held throughout the Arab world after London's Daily Mirror on Tuesday reported the contents of a leaked British government memo that states that U.S. "President" George W. Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar and Al Jazeera bureaus elsewhere.
George W. Bush, terrorist
OK, so that's not a news flash.
George W. Bush proved himself to be a terrorist a long time ago when he ordered the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, if not even sooner than that (I'm thinking of Afghanistan, where the U.S. military has killed plenty of innocent civilians in the names of "freedom" and "democracy," too, in its ironically, hypocritically termed "war on terror").
But most Americans don't seem to consider it to be terrorism when you rather anonymously and detachedly drop bombs and fire missiles upon people. Even the United States' illegal use of napalm and white phosphorus (both agents burn people to death agonizingly) in Iraq wouldn't count as terrorism to many (if not most) Americans -- who at the same time would blast that evil Saddam Hussein for similarly having fought dirty. (Saddam Hussein is evil, by the way, but the deposer of an evil tyrant is not necessarily good. Throughout history tyrants have deposed other tyrants.)
It has long baffled me that the United States can drop bombs and missiles on scores of innocent people and maim and kill them and destroy their homes, and that most Americans seem to consider this to fall under the adage that all is fair in love and war -- even when the nation that the United States is warring against did absofuckinglutely nothing to the United States.
Yet should a suicide bomber take out a relative handful of innocent people, Americans don't hesitate to consider that to be terrorism. (This is, I suspect, at least in part because while many if not most Americans could be induced to kill others who are some distance away by simply by pushing a button -- as members of the U.S. military routinely do -- very few Americans would be willing to be a suicide bomber. Even though the former is usually more deadly in terms of the number of dead, the idea of voluntarily dying for your cause is anathema to Americans, who above all else value ever-increasing levels of comfort at the ever-increasing expense of others.)
The 19 Sept. 11, 2001 suicide hijackers -- 15 of whom were Saudis and not one of whom was an Iraqi -- killed almost 3,000 people and the vast majority of Americans definitely consider that to fall under the category of terrorism (and it does). Yet the conservative figure of 25,000 Iraqi civilians -- people who had had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and people whose nation had had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 -- killed by the U.S. military since March 2003 not only is not considered to constitute terrorism by most Americans, but they don't even give a shit about it.
Let me reiterate: Americans consider the fewer than 3,000 Americans killed on Sept. 11, 2001, to have been a horrendous outrage, but the at least 25,000 Iraqis killed since March 2003 because of the Bush regime's bold-faced lies about Iraq's possession of WMDs and links to 9/11 is, to most Americans, little to nothing. And yet these same Americans will scratch their heads and say that they just can't understand why "they" -- millions, if not billions, of people around the planet -- hate us so much.
Where acts of terrorism are concerned, the only difference I can see is that the U.S. military kills an awful lot of innocent people with high-tech weaponry, whereas the suicide bombers kill a smaller amount of innocent people with low-tech weaponry.
To me, killing innocent people is killing innocent people, but Good Americans can make excuses for the actions of their Repugnican Party leaders, just as Good Germans made excuses for the actions of their Nazi Party leaders.
(Yes, the comparison of the Repugnican Party to the Nazi Party is unfair. I mean, did the Nazi Party ever really pretend to be democratic and to value freedom and democracy for all and to value puppies and kittens? Yet the Repugnican Party commits its endless series of evil deeds in the names of freedom and democracy and even in the name of Jesus Christ. In that sense, the Repugnican Party is much worse than was the Nazi Party. Evil people who make no bones about the fact that they are evil [like Hitler and Saddam Hussein] are a helluva lot easier to deal with, I think, than evil people, like the members of the Bush regime, who claim to be on the side of God and Jesus and puppies and kittens.)
So, Americans tend to define acts of terrorism as acts of killing innocent people on smaller scales. The thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians whom the U.S. military has slaughtered since March 2003 for the war profits of Dick Cheney's Halliburton and other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp, then, have not, to most Americans, been victims of terrorism, but were "collateral damage" or the like -- neverfuckingmind that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq had done anything to the United States, so there is nothing "collateral" whatsofuckingever about the damage that the U.S. military, under the direction of the Bush regime, has done to Iraq.
But now we have an alleged act of the Bush regime that fits Americans' definition of terrorism: Conspiracy to kill innocent people on a small scale.
I refer, of course, to the recent allegation, taken from a secret British government memo, that "President" Bush wanted to bomb Arab television news station Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar and its bureaus elsewhere in the Middle East.
Oh, the Bush regime denies it, of course, but every sane American who isn't in denial about the fact that the United States government is in the grips of a bunch of evil people who deserve to be executed as soon as possible for their treason and for their war crimes knows that that is exactly something that the cowardly, murderous, lawless George W. Bush would do: Wipe out the voice of the Arab world in Qatar and elsewhere and call it an "oopsie."
There have been so many such U.S. military "oopsies" in the Middle East since the Bush regime illegally grabbed power in late 2000. Two of these "oopsies," in fact, involved Al Jazeera: "In 2001, the station's Kabul [Afghanistan] office was hit by U.S. bombs and in 2003 Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a U.S. strike on its Baghdad office. The United States has denied deliberately targeting the station," reports Reuters.
If you saw the 2004 documentary "Control Room," about Al Jazeera's struggle to cover the Bush regime's illegal, immoral, unprovoked and imperialist March 2003 invasion of Iraq, as I did, then you especially tend to believe that Bush indeed wanted to take out Al Jazeera.
(One of the scenes in "Control Room" that I'll never forget is the one in which the Nazi-like Donald Rumsfeld uber-hypocritically huffs that Al Jazeera produces nothing but "propaganda" -- as though the Bush regime and its cheerleaders [the U.S. corporately owned and controlled television "news" stations, which never seriously questioned the Bush regime's March 2003 invasion of Iraq, but treated it like the fucking Super Bowl] were 200 percent innocent of ever having committed the slightest bit of propaganda.)
If you haven't seen "Control Room," I highly recommend it. If you are an American, "Control Room" will make you realize how Nazi-like your federal government has become under the Bush regime, and it will help you to see how others around the planet see us Americans. This shit isn't pleasant, but it's shit that you really need to know.
If you have yet to read one of the news stories about Bush's alleged plan to take out Al Jazeera -- even though Bush is all about freedom and liberty and democracy and free speech and puppies and kittens -- here is the Reuters story from today that I referenced:
Arabic news channel Al Jazeera's general manager flew to London [today] to demand the British government explain a leaked report that President George W. Bush wanted to bomb the TV station.
The Daily Mirror newspaper reported on Tuesday that a secret British government memo said British Prime Minister Tony Blair had talked Bush out of bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar in April last year.
"I have come to London in order to reach out to British officials, to investigate about the memo that some claim exists during the past week," Al Jazeera managing director Waddah Khanfar told Reuters by telephone after his arrival in London.
"It is a matter of deep concern for all of us in al Jazeera, and the Arab world and the media."
He said a delegation from the channel would deliver a letter to Blair [tomorrow] asking for an interview.
The White House has said the allegation that Bush wanted to bomb Jazeera is "so outlandish" it does not merit a response.
Britain, which is prosecuting a civil servant and a parliamentarian's aide for leaking the secret memo, refuses to comment on its contents. [Emphasis mine.]
The Daily Mirror quoted one unnamed government official saying Bush's comments may have been a joke, but another unidentified source saying the president appeared to be serious.
Britain's attorney general has warned other media that they can be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if they reveal anything else about the memo.
"It is of very deep concern not only to Al Jazeera journalists, but to people who trust Al Jazeera as the most credible source of information in the Arab world," Khanfar said.
"People should know the facts about it. It is not a matter that can be brushed away or dealt with in very vague statements."
Blair's spokesman said the prime minister's office had not yet received a formal request from Al Jazeera for an interview, but the British government would be willing to talk to Al Jazeera as it would to any other news organization.
"This is the first I suspect that Downing Street has heard of this request. It is somewhat short notice," he said.
"We are quite happy to talk to Al Jazeera just as we are quite happy to talk to other broadcasters and media operations. In terms of who talks to them I think that depends on who is available and how much time he will give us to set up meetings."
Al Jazeera has repeatedly denied U.S. accusations it sides with insurgents in Iraq. Khanfar said it was time the United States stopped accusing it of supporting terrorism.
"We demand to know the facts about this document and we demand a [cessation] of all kinds of accusations from the American administration."
Asked if he thought it was true that Bush wanted to bomb the station, Khanfar said:
"We are going to suspend any judgment until we find out if that document is correct or not. But I can say we were attacked twice, once in Kabul and once in Baghdad, and two of our colleagues were killed."
In 2001, the station's Kabul office was hit by U.S. bombs and in 2003 Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a U.S. strike on its Baghdad office. The United States has denied deliberately targeting the station.
The Daily Mirror said Bush told Blair at a White House summit on April 16, 2004 that he wanted to target Al Jazeera.
Another reason I believe that Bush is guilty as charged of conspiracy to commit terrorism against Al Jazeera is that the British government thus far refuses to comment on the contents of the leaked memo, and is focusing only on its contention that the memo's being leaked was illegal.
It seems to me that if the British government -- which under war criminal Tony Blair has been the Bush regime's No. 1 partner in war crime -- could protect Bush, it would. But its silence on the veracity of the leaked memo's contents is deafeningly loud.
Here is the (London) Daily Mirror's story from Tuesday in which it broke the news about the British government memo about Bush's plot to take out Al Jazeera:
President Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station Al Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" [10 Downing Street] memo reveals.
But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by [Prime Minister] Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.
A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al Jazeera is accused by the U.S. of fueling the Iraqi insurgency.
The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.
A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush. He made clear he wanted to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do -- and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
A government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious."
But another source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
Yesterday former Labor Defense Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.
"I hope the prime minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."
Bush disclosed his plan to target Al Jazeera, a civilian station with a huge Mid-East following, at a White House face-to-face with Blair on April 16 last year.
At the time, the U.S. was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.
Al Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.
The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.
Al Jazeera's HQ is in the business district of Qatar's capital, Doha.
Its single-story buildings would have made an easy target for bombers. As it is [located] away from residential areas and more than 10 miles from the U.S.'s desert base in Qatar, there would have been no danger of "collateral damage."
Dozens of Al Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.
To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.
The [Downing Street] memo now raises fresh doubts over U.S. claims that previous attacks against Al Jazeera staff were military errors. [Emphasis mine.]
In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a U.S. missile strike on the station's Baghdad center.
The memo, which also included details of troop deployments, turned up in May last year at the Northampton constituency office of then-Labor MP Tony Clarke.
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of passing it to Leo O'Connor, 42, who used to work for Clarke. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street court next week.
Clarke, who lost at the election, returned the memo to [10 Downing Street].
He said O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly."
Neither O'Connor nor Keogh were available. [Ten Downing Street] did not comment.
1:49:38 PM 
|
