< < <
Date Index
> > >
David Irving stories, the need of watertight facts and IR (answer to Nafeer M. Ahmed)
by Tausch, Arno
16 September 2002 09:39 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
Dear Nafeez,

first of all let me provide you with a quick explanation of why I did not
send you my e-mails before - I thought the Media Monitor mail address
automatically redirects it to you. Please understand that neiher 09/11 nor -
for that matter - conspiracy theories - are on my professional agenda, and
such errors (looking up the e-mail address from a quick google search, that
is my peculiar work style) do happen. 

I do by and large stand by what I said in my review, but let me offer to you
my best wishes in the first place to your family, now that your baby girl
was born.

What IR research is concerned, I wished everything in your book would be as
'watertight' as the beginnings of Chapter 5. 

Understand, Nafeez, that in the end - especially in the Backword, not
written by you, but by Mr. Leonard - although on the cover you are mentioned
as the author - there are instances of mixing together sources which never
should be mixed. The Washington Times is not at the same level to be quoted
as, say, the NY Times or the LA Times. Let us look at the smoking gun
chapter, pages 361 ff.

I really was curious to see the smoking gun, but it turned out to be a story
disseminated by the mots notorious negator of the Holocaust today, the
british Neo-Nazi David Irving.

El Pais in Madrid, the major world wide Spanish language daily freely
available on the Internet at: 


does not tell us anything about this Mr. Ben Zvi, mentioned in the smoking
gun chapter of the book as the crown incident, "proving" the Israeli

I was, I said, curious to have a look at the smoking gun. I tried out the
quoted source at:


No nothing:

No se encuentra la página 
Puede que se haya quitado la página que está buscando, que haya cambiado su
nombre o que no esté disponible temporalmente. 

Informations about this Ben Zvi, your crown evidence + Mexico, my dear
friend are listed under google under the following headings:

I searched the web for ben zvi mexico.   Results 1 - 10 of about 2,140.
Search took 0.30 seconds. 

Mexico - Angebote zum Thema Mexico
www.ebay.de      Lastminute in den Urlaub - Tickets & Zubehör - HIER
KLICKEN! Sponsored Link 

... Ben-Zvi, I., Yang, KM, Yu, LH The "Fresh-Bunch" Technique in FELS. 1991
Free Electron Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 8/26-30/91, BNL 46688 ... 
nslsweb.nsls.bnl.gov/AccTest/ATFPUBS/PUBS1991.html - 5k - Cached 

... Ben-Zvi, I., Jain, A., Wang, H., Lombardi, A. Electrical Characteristics
of a Short
RFQ Resonator. 1990 LINAC Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, September 10
nslsweb.nsls.bnl.gov/AccTest/ATFPUBS/PUBS1990.html - 4k - Cached
[ More results from nslsweb.nsls.bnl.gov ] 

David Irving's Action Report On-line
... Security then turned the terrorists Salvador Guersson Smecke, age 34,
and Saur Ben
Zvi ... Macedo de la Concha and a top Ariel Sharon envoy who flew to Mexico
www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/Mexico/151001.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages 

Document Title
... One of them Saur Ben Zvi is a confirmed citizen of Israel and the other,
Salvador Guersson, recently immigrated to Mexico from Israel. ... 
aztlan.net/mexmossad.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages 


Well, I will tell you this: I do not trust "informations" spread by the most
notorious negator of the holocaust that there is in the world, David Irving,
but I do trust a lot informations published in EL PAIS and other real media
that deserve their name. So come up with stories from such media, and I will
believe you more.

I would suggest to you - in all seriousness - to work for a watertight
second edition. A lot of what you say in Chapters 1 - 5 is very interesting
indeed, but get rid of things which are not watertight. Get a subscription
of REUTERS Business Briefing or DIALOG SELECT Com with all the world
newsmedia at one click, archives of the NY Times etc. dating back as far as
the 1980s, and come up with a second edition that is watertighter as the
first edition - from page 1 to page number last, lest I really would have to
accuse you - as you say yourself:

I ended up neglecting my professional duties (and to be honest
am still doing so now!)

I do share with you the thought that the victimization of Islam in the
western world should stop, and that serious investigations should start.

But to be in the same boat as David Irving and his stories, no, thanks!

Salam aleikum indeed.

Arno Tausch

PS: re-look at my own analyses at WSN published in 2001 and 2002 - you will
see that there are perhaps better avenues to follow. This is the kind of
stuff that I would consider as more serious news:









try out also this. Strange, that the guy who propped up OBL in the first
place as the go-between the Americans and the Afghans, Lt. General Hamid
GUL, was also about the first to voice the Israel "conspiracy theory":


Not because I like the policies of Mr. Sharon, but because I am against easy
conspiracy theories, I tell you that I stand by my verdict that in your
draft you mention the word Israel or Mossad only positively - quite in
contrast to the book!

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Institute for Policy Research & Development
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. September 2002 23:18
An: iteam@rferl.org; Tausch, Arno (by way of Media Monitors Network
(MMN) mckhan@ureach.com)
Cc: '0012022260691'; anton.pelinka@uibk.ac.at; directory@uoguelph.ca;
pdscottweb@hotmail.com; '0015198378634';
redaktion@studien-von-zeitfragen.de; Mohammed Ali Khan; Barry Zwicker;
John Leonard; Peter G. Spengler; Andre Gunder Frank; jsumner@uoguelph.ca
Betreff: Re: a question concerning the book THE WAR ON FREEDOM

Dear Professor Arno Tausch,

I am very disappointed at the fact that the below email which you have sent
out to a number of individuals, was at first neither sent to me - the author
of the work in question, 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM', nor sent to my publisher,
Tree of Life Publications. I only first found out about your concerns quite
indirectly, through the Media Monitors Network in Los Angeles. I do not
understand why you sent your message out first to a large number of other
individuals before forwarding it to me a day later.

I sincerely apologise for my failure to send you the printed hard copy of
the book. Ironically, I have in fact failed to do the same for everyone else
who kindly extended their assistance and comments on 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM',
and to them I extend my unreserved apologies also. My only explanation is
that during the period of finalisation and publication of the manuscript, my
wife was enduring a tough pregnancy and finally gave birth to a baby girl in
summer. Consequently, my mind was thoroughly preoccupied with domestic
matters, and I ended up neglecting my professional duties (and to be honest
am still doing so now!).

After receiving your comments on an early draft of the book, I did however,
as you will recall, email to you and several others (including Le Monde
diplomatique whom you had been attempting to contact with regards to
publicising the manuscript) one of the final drafts of the approximately
400-page book as an electronic Word file - this version, made available to
you, included the Afterword by John Leonard.

But I shall of course ensure that your comments will be, as you requested,
duly erased from all future editions, entirely.

Your e-mail is, however, unfortunately characterised by some significant
inaccuracies. You have failed to explain the peculiar conclusions which you
have now arrived at with regards to the printed paperback edition, in regard
to which you claim "there is now really too much in terms of conspiracy
theories and what have you, and too little in terms of serious intelligence
policy research." You also seem to explicitly draw a distinction between the
draft versions of the book, and the paperback. Unfortunately, you make these
blanket statements without even an attempt to substantiate them. The early
and final drafts of 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM', including the printed paperback,
have the same fundamental thesis: that the Bush administration deliberately
facilitated the 11th September terrorist attacks, through a combination of
several government, military and intelligence policies. I drew exactly the
same conclusions in both the early and final drafts which I had made
available to you via email. In arriving at these conclusions, I have only
documented established facts based on mainstream press reports exposing
unavoidable inconsistencies and anomalies in the official 9/11 narrative.

Unfortunately, in asserting that: "there is now really too much in terms of
conspiracy theories and what have you, and too little in terms of serious
intelligence policy research" in the printed version, you fail to provide
any specification of what you mean, and omit to mention that my analysis is
fundamentally the same in both the drafts I sent you, as well as the printed
paperback which is the same as the final draft emailed to you (excepting
formatting and indexing etc.).

And while we may disagree on the implications of the facts, you avoid
attempting to grapple with the facts documented in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' in
order to challenge my inferences therefrom. In failing to elaborate on these
issues, your message is unfortunately not only devoid of any constructive
value, it is vacuous and hence irrelevant to producing any sort of
meaningful debate of the real issues surrounding 9/11. I must add in this
connection that I am extremely disappointed in the lack of even a minimal
attempt to reference the facts on record regarding 9/11, in your message. As
such, none of your statements about 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' stand up to minimal
scrutiny, since there is nothing meaningful to scrutinise. One cannot debate
the issues properly without reference to the relevant facts. But instead of
addressing the facts on record and their implications from your perspective,
and instead of challenging my documentation of the facts and my eludication
of their implications, you instead provide rather vague assertions about the
contents of my book being a collection of "conspiracy theories", without any
explanation or proof!

Your email presumes that the paperback makes unsubstantiated accusations
against "the Bush family" which are sufficient to invite "possible court
action" - as if I make inflammatory slanderous assertions devoid of factual
basis.  It also presumes that the drafts made available to you do not
contain the sort of damning conclusions concerning the Bush administration's
complicity in the 11th September attacks, contained in the paperback. This
is incorrect, and an impartial comparison of the draft and paperback would
demonstrate this quite clearly. In reality, my book is essentially a simple
compilation and analysis of the facts on record relevant to 9/11, and that,
as I emphasise in the Introduction, is the main value of my work. But it is
worth nothing that the extensive evidence in support of my thesis is perhaps
indicated by a $7billion lawsuit which was filed against the Bush
administration by San Francisco attorney Stanley C. Hilton, former aide to
U.S. Senator Bob Dole, in U.S. District Court in June 2001. The class-action
lawsuit was launched "against President Bush and other government officials
for 'allowing' the terrorist attacks to occur" - the same fundamental thesis
for which I provide abundant documentation, and which I explicitly argue
for, in every single draft of 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM'. Hilton's lawsuit
represents "the families of 14 victims", with "400 plaintiffs" involved
nationwide. According to Hilton, the lawsuit is based on "sources within the
FBI, CIA, the National Security Agency and Naval intelligence". (Source:
Kieffer, David, 'S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11,' San Francisco Examiner,
11 June 2002.)

You state that I have "given a dramatic turn in the published version - what
looks in the draft as a serious account of the intelligence failure of
September 11 - by and large having come about in my own personal and private
assessment by a US foreign policy oriented blindness vis-a-vis negative
tendencies in Saudi Arabia and a blindness on the Talibanization of  the
Pakistani ISI under Lt. General Hamid Gul - together with late reactions,
chaos and what have you and a glaring failure of inland defense structures
before September 11 - has now become in the final printed version an account
of 'the
great Israeli conspiracy.'" Ironically, you state that "the draft" is "a
serious account of the intelligence failure of September 11" - but the draft
also concludes that the U.S. government had extensive and precise advanced
warning of the 9/11 attacks, the same conclusions I outline in the later
draft I emailed you, as well as in the paperback! I fail to see what
specifically is supposed to have changed.

I am also very surprised that you describe the book as having turned into an
account of "the great Israeli conspiracy," alleging that Mossad is
"described in the later 1/3 of the book as the real culprits".
Unfortunately, you fail again to provide any meaningful substantiation for
this notion. John Leonard, who wrote the final chapter, the 'Backword' in
which an Israeli connection to 9/11 is discussed, at no point claims that
the 11th September attacks were the result of a grand Israeli conspiracy. He
does, however, document thoroughly from respected American press reports
based on authoritative U.S. intelligence sources the established fact that
there certainly was an Israeli connection to 9/11 that perhaps included
foreknowledge and even to some extent complicity. I do not understand why it
is legitimate to document a Saudi, Pakistani and American connection to the
attacks - as I did in my part of the book - while it is automatically
illegitimate to document an Israeli connection to the attacks; especially
when that connection has been admitted to exist by members of the U.S.
intelligence community investigating 9/11. Accordingly, I invite you to
specifically challenge any of the documentation or inferences therefrom
provided by John Leonard with respect to this matter, rather than offering
only a vague unspecified description of my work as supporting "the grand
Israeli conspiracy".

As to the alleged "glaring weakness" concerning the role of Mossad, you
appear to have failed to properly assess and understand our thesis, which is
essentially that the U.S. government, with the documented involvement of its
allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and apparently Israel, facilitated the 9/11
attacks, i.e. These governments implemented policies connected to 9/11, in
some cases facilitating them (and in some cases arguably quite
deliberately), in concert. This is absolutely clear in the book (as is
perhaps indicated by the fact that you are the first reviewer out of dozens
to have unfortunately become confused about this issue).

I should also emphasise that it is quite inaccurate to claim that "the later
1/3" of the book deals with an Israeli connection. The book is 400 pages
long. Approximately 20 pages from John Leonard's Afterword discusses the
Israeli connection with reference to established facts widely available to
anyone who wishes to confirm them from the public record.

20/400 equals 1/20; it does not equal 1/3 - as I'm sure you are fully aware!

I am also extremely offended and disheartened at your statement that I have
"sided with conspiracy theories, anti-semites and other people, with whom I
do not want to have anything to do." It does not befit an academic of your
standing to loosely throw around bald and indefencible accusations such as
this. I have the deepest respect for all the world's religious faiths, and
the Institute for Policy Research & Development has a Centre for Religious
Studies one of whose principal objectives is to research the common strands
of spiritual thought and experience that unite all the world's great faiths.

Again, you fail to provide any substantiation for how the book delves into
wild "conspiracy theories" - as opposed to the simple documentation and
compilation of facts demonstrating the incoherence in the official 9/11
narrative, and the analysis of such facts so as to infer their implications.
Specifically, you accuse me of "siding with anti-semites". I take it then
that in your opinion, any critical investigation of the dubious role of
Israeli intelligence operatives in connection with the 9/11 attacks
automatically qualifies that investigation as "siding with anti-semites"?
This is, unfortunately, not merely absurd, but rather shocking coming from a
highly-decorated intellectual whom one would expect not to resort to such
convoluted (and inflammatory) logic. If your opinion were true, then U.S.
intelligence investigators who have detained Israeli intelligence operatives
in connection with the 9/11 attacks are all "siding with anti-semites." If
you truly believe that this is what 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' is doing, then I
respectfully suggest that perhaps you should air your sentiments to U.S.
intelligence investigators pursuing the same leads, as well as media outlets
such as the Washington Post, FOX News, etc. who have reported on them -
since it is only such credible sources that are referred to in the book!

The fact is that no state, including Israel, should be immune to criticism
or investigation with regards to the September 11th terrorist attacks. If
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can be legitimately investigated, and their
policies criticised, in relation to 9/11, why not Israel?

The fact that you seem to be consistently making unwarranted inductive leaps
in your conclusions viz-a-viz 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' is supported by your
thoroughly bizarre depiction of the award-winning Canadian journalist Barry
Zwicker. You state that he "is electronically listed in such publications as
'freemason watch'," and that therefore you do not want to have any contact
with him. This sort of potentially slanderous association does not befit a
person of your intellectual ability. I did a quick google websearch on
"Barry Zwicker, Freemason Watch" to verify your allegation. I discovered
that Freemason Watch, which appears to be an anonymously published website
that makes innumerable fantastic assertions of no particular interest,
"electronically listed" Barry Zwicker by simply providing a link to some of
his well-received film documentaries on 9/11 originally aired on Vision TV
in Canada. Barry Zwicker has no connection to this dubious website Freemason
Watch in any other way.

If this is your only reason for wishing to avoid contact with Zwicker, then
I respectfully suggest that you will also have to avoid contact with the
following individuals: Gore Vidal, Prof. Noam Chomsky, Prof. Norman
Finkelstein, Prof. Michel Chossudovksy, Dr. Robert Fisk, John Pilger, and so
on and so forth - individuals who also happen to be "electronically listed"
alongside Zwicker on the same website, not however because of some sort of
meaningful affiliation with that site, but simply because the site has
linked to their work on the web! It suffices to say that obviously you have
made an unwarranted, hasty and illogical judgement about Zwicker, a rightly
respected journalist. I would furthermore, in that context, respectfully
suggest that it seems you have applied the same haste and lack of logical
method to your assessment of 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM'.

Nothing in my book is stated without documentation and reference to
established facts confirmed by credible reports from respected sources. I
would like to invite you, therefore, to demonstrate the specific inaccuracy
of anything which I have discussed in my book, 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' (as
opposed to making vague unspecified and unsubstantiated assertions) - and if
you cannot, then I would request a person of your intelligence and integrity
to refrain from making inaccurate allegations, and instead to join forces in
order to secure the common goal of establishing a full-blown independent
public inquiry into the 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks. We owe this
to the victims of those attacks, and their families.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Executive Director
Institute for Policy Research & Development
Suite 414, 91 Western Road, Brighton,
East Sussex, BN1 2NW, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44(0)1273 32 95 30
Fax: +44(0)1273 70 60 30
Email: info@globalresearch.org
Web: http://www.globalresearch.org

PS: I do not understand why you have included in the list of individuals to
whom you sent your email a fellow called Prof. Anton Pelinka. May I
respectfully ask: What does he have to do with any of this, at all?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tausch, Arno (by way of Media Monitors Network (MMN)
mckhan@ureach.com)" <Arno.Tausch@bmsg.gv.at>
To: <iteam@rferl.org>
Cc: "'0012022260691'" <IMCEAFAX-0012022260691@bmsg.gv.at>;
<anton.pelinka@uibk.ac.at>; <directory@uoguelph.ca>;
<pdscottweb@hotmail.com>; "'0015198378634'"
<IMCEAFAX-0015198378634@bmsg.gv.at>; <redaktion@studien-von-zeitfragen.de>;
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:12 PM
Subject: a question concerning the book THE WAR ON FREEDOM

> dear Congresswoman Mrs. McKinney (Dem, State of Georgia),
> dear Professor Anton Pelinka at Innsbruck University
> dear Professor McMurtry at Guelph University in Canada
> dear Professor Peter Dale Scott at Berkeley
> dear Colleague Peter Spengler in Frankfurt
> in view of the endless debates on september 11 I have a question to you -
> the name of intellectual honesty -, the editors of Radio Free Europe`s
> Security and Terrorism Watch.
> I was originally quite impressed by the provisional word text file version
> of the study herewith included, by colleague dr. Ahmed in Britain on
> September 11. My own first positive electronic comment on the first
> of the text, sent to me by Peter Spengler in Frankfurt, a joint friend of
> the world wide known Professor Andre Gunder Frank and me - is now on the
> book cover (in good company with several other, well-known academic
> and the democratic representative for Georgia, Congresswoman Mrs. Cynthia
> Kinney). The website article on the flight security aspects of September
> is still indeed what I say on the cover text - powerful, disturbing,
> interesting, especialy the first part of it:
> http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Chapter%20V.htm
>  <<The War on Freedom1.doc>>
> I cannot escape the impression, that in the printed final version of the
> book which I never saw before it went in print (with my name on the
cover) -
> there is now really too much in terms of conspiracy theories and what have
> you, and too little in terms of serious intelligence policy research.
> I now have to say, that I withdraw my positive assessment, printed on the
> book cover, for all future editions. And I bear no responsibility for any
> possible court action taken by the Bush family or other persons against
> book.
> The most glaring weakness is the contradiction now present in the book in
> the treatment of the role of Mossad, the Israeli external security agency.
> In the original draft, Mossad is positively mentioned three times -
> correctly, and in conjunction with other western security agencies - as
> warning against the impending catastrophe.
> Quite correctly so, I think, and well done on the part of the author. Mr.
> Nafeez M. Ahmed has given a dramatic turn in the published version - what
> looks in the draft as a serious account of the intelligence failure of
> September 11 - by and large having come about in my own personal and
> assessment by a US foreign policy oriented blindness vis-a-vis negative
> tendencies in Saudi Arabia and a blindness on the Talibanization of  the
> Pakistani ISI under Lt. General Hamid Gul - together with late reactions,
> chaos and what have you and a glaring failure of inland defense structures
> before September 11 - has now become in the final printed version as the
> great Israeli conspiracy.
> I trust that Congresswoman McKinney, and Professors McMurty and Peter Dale
> Scott, and Peter Spengler in Frankfurt share my apprehensions against the
> construction of such conspiracy theories.
> Why should the Mossad have warned against the threat (pages 114 etc. of
> printed book; and on 3 pages in the draft) when in the end they are
> described in the later 1/3 of the book as the real culprits? So they
> against a crime which they were about to perpetrate? This is absurd,
> absurd! And what about the hundreds of Jewish victims of September 11?
> I would be grateful if Security and Terrrorism Watch at Radio Liberty and
> Radio Free Europe could seriously review the book: THE WAR ON FREEDOM, by
> Nafeez Mossaddeq Ahmed, and that you sort of dwell on the strengths and
> weaknesses of this kind of analysis. I have decided to go public with that
> debate; and I have a good international academic and also diplomatic name
> defend.
> Having written only 60 % of his final text, colleague Nafeez Mosaddeq
> would have prepared the groundwork for a good scholary book, that could
> been used by a serious investigation at the US Congress and other bodies.
> Now he has ruined the logic of his arguments completely, and has sided
> conspiracy theories, anti-semites and other people, with whom I do not
> to have anything to do, and I think, the other scholars and Congresswoman
> McKinney, all mentioned on the book cover as well.
> I should also stress that this should not preclude a serious debate about
> human rights violations in the Occupied Territories etc.
> PS: I do not contact Mr. Barry Zwicker, who is also named on the back
> of the book and who is electronically listed in such publications as 'free
> mason watch'. I do not want to have anything to do with such publications,
> neither presently not in future.
> Kind regards
> Ministerialrat Dr. Arno TAUSCH
> Tel. (0043 - 1) 711 - 00 - 2272
> e-mail-address: Arno.Tausch@BMSG.gv.at

< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >