Sunday, March 27, 2016

Angry Arab News Service — Who was behind Sep. 11? Saudi regime media now exonerate Bin Laden

Are you aware that based on that stupid NYC judge (based on a non-show by one-side) Saudi regime media are now jubilantly exonerating Bin Laden of responsibility for Sep. 11 and now are blaming the Iranian "Supreme leader"?
Of course, you would not know this is you don't read Arabic, and it certainly is not going to be reported in the Western MSM.

Angry Arab News Service
Who was behind Sep. 11? Saudi regime media now exonerate Bin Laden
As’ad Abu Khalil | Professor of Political Science, California State University, Stanislaus

10 comments:

Matt Franko said...

Makes sense from the perspective that all this "Death to America!" stuff originated in Iran back in the 70s in the first place...

Roger Erickson said...

Resentment of US actions started with Mossadegh, in the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

Just like we resented King George ~1753

Now we're back supporting the Brits in colonization? And doing it ourselves? What happened?

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Matt Franko said...

Well the US never said "Death to King George!"...

John said...

Roger,

Those who inflict pain feel unbearable pain when their victims start getting uppity, let alone fight back. Slave holders couldn't bear an uppity ni**er. Just like the British Empire before it, the US (or rather Washington) can't bear it when the uppity ni**ers start calling them names!

Super pinko Jimmy Carter was pained by the Vietnam war. The pain the Vietnamese inflicted on the US! Asked whether the US should apologize for destroying an innocent country, murdering millions of people, millions maimed for life and leaving millions more to contract any number of deformities due to US use of chemical weapons, Carter was defiant. "The destruction was mutual" he defiantly maintained!

Remember when the US illegally entered Iranian waters, shot down an Iranian airliner over Iranian territory, killing hundreds of innocent people in an act of state terrorism? The President of the United States awarded a medal to the man who ordered the shooting down of the airliner. That taught the uppity ni**ers a lesson. Although Iran had never as much touched a hair on an American, they did overthrow one of Washington's most favoured dictators. The horror!

Roger Erickson said...

Yes, and remember when the USA "gave" Vietnam back to France in 1945 ... supposedly to keep it from communist Russia & China (after kicking out the Japanese, who took it from the French, who took it from the Vietnamese).

The human freedom of others isn't ours to give to whom WE think best. That just shows we weren't thinking at all.

https://plus.google.com/104140272098689841413/posts/5XbLpMwCSKp

Bob said...

Iran makes Matt irate.

Tom Hickey said...

Well the US never said "Death to King George!"...

No, they just fought a war against him and won, knowing that if they didn't win, they would all be hung.

John said...

Most Americans weren't particularly horrified by British rule. They weren't particularly loyal to the crown, but they weren't convinced revolutionary war was necessary. A few measly taxes weren't going to get them to rebel and attack those they considered their countrymen. The rich landowners, and George Washington, possibly the richest man in America, decided it was high time to throw off the alleged shackles of taxation and any other nonsense that passed for an excuse to rebel. Their commitment to freedom was shown by committing genocide, shipping in millions of slaves and initiating wars of conquest.

In any case, I'm sure if we investigate the papers, pamphlets and chants of the time, far worse things were said than "Death to King George".

Roger Erickson said...

John, it wasn't taxes at all, nor George W that triggered our revolution. According to Ben Franklin, it was the various British Banking Acts that pushed Americans over the edge, outlawing fiat currencies used by several colonies, and requiring merchants to use only British coin, at usurious rates.

Banksters, then & now, may still be the current worst evil in the world of humans.

John said...

Roger, In fact I do buy that as one of the most significant reasons that led the elites to instigate a revolution. Ben Franklin is reliable on many things, although like most of those who initiated the revolution they did a fine job in spinning a tale of noble idealists fighting a deranged tyranny. I was using the petty taxes as the historical example given. But I don't think it deflects from what appears to be a revolution that didn't have much support from everyday working people (black people of course weren't consulted and neither were women) before the revolution started and indeed at the start of it.

I'd have to disagree with you on Washington. Rich men of property and their bankster allies initiated a revolution that was unnecessary and could not possibly have succeeded without the French making the enemy of my enemy decision. Men of property (tobacco and cotton, for instance) were economically and politically more powerful than the new bankers at that time.

That isn't to say I wouldn't have joined the revolutionaries! I would have. Every empire needs to be brought to its knees, and the British Empire was one of the worst. And I say that as an English gentleman, don't you know! Tea anybody?