Re: David Irving stories, the need of watertight facts and IR (answer to

Dear Arno,

> 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.

My email address at the Institute is quite prominently placed inside my
book,
'THE WAR ON FREEDOM'. You have also been long aware of my personal
email address, policyresearch@mediamonitors.org, having previously
corresponded with me several times via that address prior to this whole
episode, which is where you decided to forward me your "review" a day later.

> 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.

This is a very novel concept coming from the finger-tips of a respected IR
scholar. You seem to be suggesting that it is illegitimate to use the
Washington Times as a source alongside the NY Times or the LA Times. You
seem to suggest that such sources "never should be mixed." I take it then
that you believe one should only quote the NY Times and never quote the
Washington Times? Your entire premise is absurd. The Washington Times is a
credible mainstream news source. The idea that you can arbitrarily dismiss a
report simply because it comes from the Washington Times, or that one should
not quote such a newspaper, is so self-evidently ridiculous that it's not
even worth my further comment!

> 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.

Your logic is wonderfully deceptive. You are trying to suggest that since
your supposedly in-depth google search on Ben Zvi came up with an article
from a Mexican publication that happens to have been duplicated on Neo-Nazi
David Irving's site, therefore the original article doesn't exist?

What is especially unfortunate about your argument, and surprisingly
dishonest at that, is that you know very well, having read John's
'Backword', that we do not cite Holocaust-denier David Irving as a source
for anything! Irving happens to have mentioned the incident, anti-Semitic
fascist that he is, on his website. That is not surprising. But that in
itself, as any logician will tell you, does not ipso facto prove that the
original report is false. Simply because Irving has decided to carry one
report on this subject on his website, is hardly evidence that our
documentation of the incident is fallacious!

> I was, I said, curious to have a look at the smoking gun. I tried out the
> quoted source at:
>
> http://www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bo101/oct/b69701.html.
>
> 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.

As you know, several sources are cited for the above which you have
conveniently ignored here. More on that below.

But I would not be surprised if the url is now outdated - and neither should
you
be.

Perhaps you are uninitiated in the clandestine workings of the World Wide
Web! Let me give you an example to illustrate the point. One of the
publications I cite now and again in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' is a political
newsletter 'From The Wilderness' (FTW) which has a website which used to
be at www.copvcia.com. About a month after the publication of 'THE WAR ON
FREEDOM', FTW re-structured their website which is now:
www.fromthewilderness.com. As a result, the urls listed in the footnotes of
the 1st U.S. Edition to FTW are now incorrect. People clicking on them will
get "No nothing". This is what the web is like. It is in constant flux and
development. And that is always the danger of citing web urls.

An academic of your standing and experience should be well aware of this
rather elementary fact. You should therefore also be aware that it is
certainly presumptious of you to assume without a meaningful investigation
of the matter that because a url does not work, the original online document
(and corresponding print publication) never existed - particularly given
the inherently contingent nature of web publications.

Unfortunately, the sloppiness behind your approach to our thesis only gets
worse. The url cited in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' that you mention above *does*
work. Unfortunately, you have copied it from our text incorrectly. The
correct url is this:

www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bol01/oct/b69701.html

You make the elementary error of typing "bo1" instead of "bol" (that is, the
last letter should be an "EL" not a "ONE".) Just another one of those google
mistakes, of course, but the unavoidable implication of such repeated
mistakes
on your part remains: your entire approach here is sloppy, hasty and
illogical.

> 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. [...]
>
> 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
>
> http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/Mexico/151001.html
>
> 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.

Thank you for enlightening me with regard to your special method of research
in order
to develop what you later describe as what ought to be a "watertight" case.
This is the same luminescent method of research which you, no doubt
rigorously, applied to award-winning Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker -
who as you now know is listed in Who's Who in Canada - thus slandering him
without warrant! With regards to Zwicker, it was sufficient for you in terms
of establishing the "watertight" facts regarding this journalist, to conduct
a short google search and read within the same google description the words
"Barry Zwicker" and "Freemason Watch".

On that basis alone, because some relatively unknown and obscure website
quoted him, you decided that you did not want to contact Zwicker, on the
pretext that he is "electronically listed" there. Presumably, you did not
even bother checking further how he was "listed" (i.e. and thus failed to
discover that "Freemason Watch" simply provided a link to a clip from one of
his TV
documentaries on the 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks). If you had
followed through with your research as any academic worth his weight in
credentials would - and you're not lacking in that department! - you would
have followed the Internet trail back to the Vision TV website and
eventually
verified yourself who Zwicker is, the nature of his work, and the fact that
he
is not affiliated to the anti-freemason publication in the sinister (and
absolutely
unjustified) way you had originally suggested. I would suggest respectfully
in
this context that your fundamentally flawed method of web research indicates
that either 1) you are perhaps not too interested in "watertight" facts! or
2) you're not very good at locating them via google.

Indeed, if you were genuinely interested, then presumably you would learn
from your mistake. Unfortunately, rather than absorbing the proper lesson
from your run-in with Zwicker, you apply exactly the same fundamentally
flawed method of "research" to the Mexico incident discussed by John Leonard
in the Afterword of 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM'.

The principal report cited on this case in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM', not in
anyway affiliated to Irving, is the respected mainstream daily Mexican
newspaper 'La Cronica de Hoy'. John Leonard cites the url as follows:

www.cronica.com.mx/2001/oct/12/nacional07

The url doesn't work now, but that is because since the article was first
cited, the website has undergone restructuring in the last year. But in your
commentary posted to the WSN, you omit to mention this source, nor do you
make the slightest attempt to track it down either on the Internet, or in
hard copy.

Instead, you arbitrarily trace "Ben Zvi" to the first Neo-Nazi website that
happens to have hosted an article on the same subject, and conclude that
therefore the whole incident has been fabricated! This extremely sloppy and
irrational approach already resulted in one fallacy connected with Barrie
Zwicker - unsurprisingly, it results in another fallacy in connection with
the Mexico-Israel incident.

More to the point, I would understand your scepticism if *we* had cited
Holocaust-denier/Neo-Nazi icon David Irving in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' to
document the Mexico-Israel incident. But we do not. It is only you who have,
for reasons unknown, chosen to somehow drag the unsavoury persona of Mr.
Irving into the picture, through your unique ability to make connections
where none exist via google!

So to make things easier for you, since evidently you are either not capable
of - or not interested in - researching the subject properly in order to
draw an objective conclusion, I thought I should make available some of the
translated reports originally published in a couple of mainstream Mexican
newspapers about the incident:

==
'Bomb in San Lazaro'
Diario de México, Mexico City,
October 11, 2001

THERE was uproar in the Chamber of Deputies, provoked by the arrested of two
individuals, presumed to be of Israeli origin, who were carrying a high
power gun and an attaché case with nine grenades, three magazines with 53
cartridges and C-4 explosives, considered to be highly powerful.

The arrested men who said they were called Salvador Gerson Sunke, of Mexican
nationality, and Sar ben Zui, who said he was a colonel of the Israeli
special forces, remained in custody for over three hours in the legislature
building, during which they said nothing, before they were interviewed by
officials of the Public Prosecutor's office (PGR) who removed them from the
Legislature Palace, concealed in hoods, and placed them under arrest.

==
'Mexico Will Investigate if Israelis Were Terrorists'
By Alejandro Páez and Francisco Mejía
La Crónica de Hoy, Mexico City,
October 12, 2001

The Attorney General is investigating and interrogating two Israelis (one
already a nationalized Mexican) who were detained in the House of
Representatives Wednesday with two 9mm pistols, nine grenades, explosives,
three detonators and 58 bullets, to determine if they belong to any group
connected with terrorists or subversive groups.

Salvador Gersson Smike, 34, a retired Israeli military official and
nationalized Mexican, and Sar Ben Zui, 27, of Israeli nationality, were held
yesterday in the installations of the metropolitan offices of the Attorney
General, headed by the assistant attorney general for criminal process
Gilberto Higuera Bernal. They were interrogated to clarify the source of the
arms that they carried and to determine if they are guilty of a crime.

Up until now the authorities have not declared about the status of
investigation number PGR/11-15-01 and they will wait until tonight when the
constitutional limit for determining the legal situation of the arrested
parties expires.

Both subjects were detained in the installations of the legislative palace
of San Lazaro when a group of sugar industry workers that had met with the
Speaker of the House, Beatriz Paredes, left to discuss their issues in the
lobby and the two arrested persons arrived and began photographing them.

This activity and the form in which they took the pictures (aiming their
cameras below the belts of the workers) generated tension among the sugar
workers who proceeded to demand their identification immediately.

The Israelis identified themselves as press photographers, but they were not
believed and the workers overcame them and then discovered that they were
armed with pistols and other high caliber arms.

==
'The Israeli Embassy will monitor the arrest of Sar Ben Zui'
By Francisco Mejía
La Crónica de Hoy, Mexico City,
October 13, 2001

The Israeli Embassy in Mexico has confidence that its citizen, Sar Ben Zui,
will be investigated in accordance with the law and the consul, Elias Luf,
is following the investigations, his spokeswoman Hila Engelhart confirmed.

She said that the Embassy does not regulate the entrance of Israelis in
Mexico and doesn't know anything about what the arrested individual was
doing. She said that the citizens of that country that come to Mexico, like
all others from Israel, are not required to have any special visa for their
travels.

As will be remembered, Sar Ben Zui Was detained, with another subject, when
both were allegedly armed inside the House of Representatives.

According to statements by elements of the legislative security staff, the
suspects carried arms, explosives, nine grenades, bullets and a detonator.

In a telephone conversation the spokeswoman assured that the Embassy has
confidence in the Mexican institutions to do what is necessary to enforce
the law. "We are waiting to find out what happened."

She informed that the Embassy doesn't have a program to monitor Israeli
citizens who come to Mexico. In any case, she said, the Mexican secretary of
state should have a registry of all persons who enter national territory.

She indicated that relations between the two countries are very good and
that tourism is promoted by both countries.

Hila Engelhart recalled that it is not the first time that Mexico has
detained an Israeli citizen in its country, however, she said that it is a
situation that happens everywhere.

She reported that both countries collaborate constantly to monitor
exceptional movements that occur and said that "in the case of the arrested
Israelis, we hope the situation with be resolved quickly."

Finally, she said that the Israeli Ambassador is monitoring the arrests.

===============
The 'Dallas Peace Times', published by the Dallas Peace Center, a nonprofit
academic organization "dedicated to action, education, dialogue and research
for peace and justice" has reviewed the reports on this subject and produced
the following overall analysis of what occurred:

==
'Pair of heavily armed Israelis arrested in Mexican Congress:
Sharon Envoy sent to negotiate release of Israeli colonel, undocumented
immigrant'
Dallas Peace Times
December 2001-January 2002

On October 15, Mexican authorities released two Israelis who had been caught
five days before in the Mexican Congressional building carrying guns, hand
grenades and explosives.

A retired Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) colonel and an undocumented Israeli
immigrant had apparently managed to penetrate the highly secured front
entrance of the San Lázaro Legislative Palace with the arms. According to
Mexican Congressional Press Secretary Adriana Lopez, the two had taken
advantage of a situation that occurred around 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, October
10, when a large contingent of sugar industry unionists were entering
through the metal detectors. The two Israelis followed about 50 of the
unionists to the office of Beatriz Paredes, President of the Mexican
Congress. At first they pretended to be press photographers but the sugar
unionists became suspicious of their nervous and unusual behavior. About ten
of the unionists confronted them and found that they were carrying a
specially produced glock 9 pistol made of a plastic material able to pass
through metal detectors, 58 rounds of ammunition, three detonators and, in a
briefcase, tubing [or pipes] and cables. They held the two until
congressional security personnel took them into custody.

Lopez reported that Congressional Security then turned over retired IDF
retired Colonel Salvador Guersson Smecke, 34, who is a naturalized Mexican,
and Saur Ben Zvi , 27, an undocumented immigrant, to the Mexican Department
of Justice (PGR). The pair claimed that they worked for private security
agency Desarrollo de Sistemas de Seguridad Privada, and that they had gun
permits. It was later revealed that neither had a connection to any private
security agency.

High level emergency meetings took place between Mexican Foreign Relations
Secretary Jorge Gutman, Attorney General (and Army General) Rafael Marcial
Macedo de la Concha, and a top Ariel Sharon envoy who was flown to Mexico
City for the meetings. On October 15-five days after the apprehension-both
were released. After releasing Smecke with the official explanation that he
had a legal permit to carry a gun, and Ben Zvi on bail equivalent to about
$4000, the PGR turned the case over to Mexican immigration authorities.

Possession of guns and any kind of explosives is highly illegal for Mexican
citizens. The arrests of the two Israelis had made top news on Mexico City
television and radio on the evening of October 10. TV Azteca had extensive
coverage on the first night and on the following day. La Cronica de Hoy
Newspaper and El Universal Newspaper both covered the incident involving
"the two presumed terrorists" the following two days. The incident was
covered by a few U.S. media outlets. But both Mexican and U.S. media have
made very little if any mention of the case since the Israelis' release.

Mexico is the fourth largest foreign source of U.S. oil imports. On
September 25 Fox promised "unconditional" help for the U.S. war on
terrorism, but set conditions, including "respecting our laws, respecting
human rights ... and respecting the peaceful tendencies of our nation."

The fragile coalition the U.S. has built to support military action includes
the biggest supplier of foreign oil to the U.S., Saudi Arabia, which joined
two weeks after the September 11 attacks.

=================
END OF QUOTED REPORTS
=================

To the best of my current knowledge, these reports and I think a few more
from original newspaper websites have been saved to John Leonard's hard
disk - if he still has them, they can be made available to you, if you so
wish.

David Irving stories indeed. I'm afraid that I must respectfully conclude
that it
is only you are making up stories!

After the two Israelis were released under the high-level intervention of
Ariel Sharon's envoy, a new cover-story was circulated, particularly in
Europe and the United States (where the incident barely received meaningful
coverage anyhow). Your citation of a later Agence France Presse, which
misrepresents the facts reported earlier by credible Mexican sources citing
Mexican government officials, only illustrates our point exactly concerning
the drastic turnaround in the story in order to explain away the release.

This pattern of changing stories is something you should be familiar with
regarding 9/11, since I documented similar such occurences in my Chapter 5
on U.S. air defence failures, which you have praised most prominently (e.g.
the first reports indicated that military aircraft were not scrambled until
after the Pentagon was hit, about one and a half hours later; then about a
week or so later, the Department of Defense released an "official" timeline
claiming that, actually, planes were scrambled before the Pentagon was hit.
The original reports cited multiple government officials confirming the one
and half hour gap. The sudden change in story, which is also replete with
inconsistencies, appears to be, therefore, a convenient cover-story for what
was originally admitted.) The same appears to have occurred with the
Mexico-Israel incident. As a consequence, the new cover-story has now been
officially adopted by the Mexican and Israeli authorities, and parroted
uncritically by some mainstream news outlets.

As for the general issue of an Israeli connection to 9/11, this is very
well-documented in the John's Afterword section of the book, although you
seem to have decided to ignore that documentation. For the purposes of
clarification, and for the benefit of others who will be in receipt of this
message, I reproduce my discussion of the Israeli connection originally
published in
my paper, '9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis: How
Ideologues on
the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition',
under
the Chapter called 'Whitewashing the Israeli Mossad'. This paper is based on
'THE WAR ON FREEDOM', and most of the sources concerning an Israeli
connection are also cited there. Our respected colleague Peter Spengler
has linked to the article on www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net.

Reproducing this here will hopefully illustrate beyond doubt that the
purpose of discussing the Israeli connection to 9/11 in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM'
has nothing to do with your mythical "grand Israeli conspiracy", but simply
to do with highlighting evidence that indicates that there certainly *was*
some sort of Israeli connection (exactly what the connection is requires
further investigation). Neither I nor John provide any particular theories
as to the exact nature of this connection, as you are well-aware. But that a
connection exists is beyond dispute, and that this matter should therefore
be included in an independent U.S. public inquiry into 9/11 is clear. I
should inform you that 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' and its thesis, including
the research on an Israeli connection, has been applauded by the U.S.
Citizens Investigative Commission into 9/11 (www.unansweredquestions.org) -
the book
has also been distributed by them to key members of Congress and the Senate.

==
'9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis: How Ideologues on
the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition'
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Institute for Policy Research & Development, Brighton
June 2002
http://globalresearch.org/view_article.php?aid=342536303

[...]

There are other examples of this. Let us take, for instance, their two
Mossad-related "conspiracy theories":

6. The plot was actually organized by the Mossad.

7. The Mossad knew about the plot, but did nothing, hoping that the massive
deaths would mobilize public support for Israel's war on the Palestinians.

By bluntly stating two variations of the possibility that the Israeli Mossad
had some sort of connection/involvement in the September 11 terrorist
attacks, and then dismissing them wholesale, Shalom and Albert seem to be
suggesting that as far as "the left" is concerned, any attempt to
investigate the evidence of an Israeli connection to 9/11 is inherently
illegitimate. But by assuming from the outset, without basis, that the idea
of an Israeli connection is implausible, they actually demonstrate only
their ignorance of history.

It is certainly well-documented, for example, that Israel has quite
regularly perpetrated terrorist attacks against its U.S. and British
benefactors. This is nothing new, as documented by U.S. political
commentator John Leonard in the Afterword to my 9/11 study, The War on
Freedom. Leonard shows that there is in fact a rich history here, analysis
of which discloses a consistent pattern of provocation. Menachim Begin[33]
led the 1946 Zionist truck bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel, timed to
spur British troop withdrawals and give Zionist militias a free hand against
the poorly armed Palestinians, taking the lives of just under 100 British
guests.[34] Such covert Israeli intelligence operations have evolved into a
sophisticated pillar of state strategy, from amateur beginnings in the
1950's, when the exploits of some provocateurs became public. In the Lavon
affair, Israeli "private citizens" blew up American and British property in
Egypt, blaming it on the Muslim Brotherhood, but were caught by the
police.[35] The bombing of synagogues in Iraq by Zionists inciting their
brethren to flee to Palestine also became public knowledge.[36] The New
Zealand Herald cites the testimony of an ex-Mossad agent on the Achille
Lauro hijacking, who exposed the atrocity as an Israeli "black propaganda
operation."[37]

Does this, in itself, prove that the Israeli military intelligence
infrastructure was in some way involved in 9/11? Of course not. But it
proves propensity,
since this infrastructure has a long record of conducting terrorist
attacks - not only against U.S. and British targets but also against Jews
(not to
mention Palestinians). What brings this propensity into the limelight of a
proper
contemporary analysis of 9/11 are a number of facts, documented by Leonard
in The War on Freedom, proving beyond doubt the reality of some sort of
dubious Israeli involvement. Among the pertinent facts he plucks from the
public record, are the following.

In the first of a four-part investigative documentary TV series on the
Israeli connection to 9/11, FOX News correspondent Carl Cameron reported on
how U.S. authorities had detained active members of an Israeli spy ring
operating in the U.S., believed by authorities to be linked to the 9/11
attacks:

"A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according
to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph
questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in
the United States [emphasis added]. investigators suspect that they [sic]
Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and
not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are - quote -
'tie-ins'. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them,
saying, - quote - 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I
cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified
information.' Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in
North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California
to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for
links to terrorism."[38]

The Weekly Planet reports that "addresses of many" of the "Arabs under
scrutiny by the U.S. government" systematically "correspond to the specific
areas where the Israelis set up operations." One extremely pertinent example
is "an address for the Sept. 11 hijacking leader, Mohammad Atta," which is
"3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Fla., only a few blocks and a few hundred
feet from the address of some of the Israelis, at 4220 Sheridan." The
strange coordination between Atta and Israeli intelligence operatives is not
an isolated case. About a "dozen Israelis, including the alleged
surveillance leader, had been based in Hollywood, Fla., between January and
June [2001] - quite possibly watching Arabs living nearby who are suspected
of providing logistical support to Osama bin Laden's network." Indeed, ten
of the 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers lived in Florida, bolstering conclusions
reported by a FOX News reporter that "the students-cum-spies might have
gained advance knowledge of aspects of the Sept. 11 terrorists" - or even
worse, may have been directly involved in some way.[39] The respected French
journal Le Monde further reports that there were "more than one-hundred
Israeli agents, some presenting themselves as fine arts students, others
tied to Israeli high-tech companies. All were challenged by the authorities,
were questioned, and a dozen of them are still imprisoned. One of their
tasks was to track the Al-Qaida terrorists on American territory - without
informing the federal authorities."[40]

The detained Israelis, in other words, had been part of an intelligence
operation that had very possibly been tracking the hijackers, and had both
the means and the opportunity to discover the terrorist plot. Indeed,
somewhat ominously, the U.S. government has refused to disclose already
existing "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11," ensuring instead that it
remains "classified" (unlike direct evidence of an Al-Qaeda involvement).
Most crucially, if U.S. authorities recognise the existence of an Israeli
connection to 9/11, including the distinct possibility of foreknowledge (not
to mention as yet undisclosed "tie-ins"), why are Shalom and Albert
arbitrarily dismissing the same? There is no need to comment on this
further - it is clear that the facts speak for themselves in warranting a
further inquiry into an Israeli linkage to the September 11 attacks. Such an
inquiry is clearly legitimate based on the facts. We do not need to delve
into specific "conspiracy theories", or a discussion of them, to understand
the legitimacy - and necessity - of such an inquiry, which obviously has
broad implications for the nature of the relationship between the United
States and Israel, as well as the current direction of Israeli intelligence
policy.

Ironically then, the "incompetence theory" of the 9/11 intelligence failure
and other issues related to September 11 adopted by Shalom and Albert, fits
nicely into their own description of an irrational and unscientific
hypothesis: "If the hypothesis flouts prior knowledge as well as current
evidence, and is accepted nonetheless, then the behavior is often no longer
scientific, nor even rational." It is noteworthy that their hypothesis not
only flouts "prior knowledge" on the historic pattern of provocation for
wars noted by McMurtry, Leonard, and others, but also completely ignores
"current evidence" available on the 9/11 attacks. As such, their hypothesis
is not only unscientific, it is irrational.

[...]

NOTES

[...]

[33] Begin was a leader of the Jewish underground, the Irgun, and of the
Likud party. He served as Prime Minister, and shared the 1978 Nobel Peace
Prize with Anwar Sadat.

[34] 'Mid-East: Palestine Time-Line,' Index of articles on 'Recovered
History,' from The Progressive Review, http://prorev.com/recovered.htm.
Pittman, James O., 'Negotiation Strategy in Hostage Situations,' U.S. Army
Medical Department Journal, May-June 1996,
http://das.cs.amedd.army.mil/journal/J9636.HTM: "Menachim Begin, the former
head of the state of Israel, who began his political growth as a member of
the Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL), eventually rising to lead the IZL and
participated in the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the name
of Zionist liberation from British rule."

[35] Hirst, David, 'The Lavon Affair,' in The Gun and the Olive Branch,
Futura, 1984; relevant excerpts at www.mideastfacts.com/lavon_hirst.html.
The scandal brought down the Israeli government, but the plotters got a
hero's
welcome home.

[36] See first-hand testimony from an Iraqi Jew, Naeim Giladi, 'The Jews of
Iraq,' The Link, published by Americans for Middle East Understanding
(AMEU), Vol. 31, No. 2, April-May 1998. "About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for
Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to
and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs," recalls
Giladi. "The principal interest Israel had in Jews from Islamic countries
was as a supply of cheap labor, especially for the farm work that was
beneath the urbanized Eastern European Jews. Ben Gurion needed the 'Oriental
' Jews to farm the thousands of acres of land left by Palestinians who were
driven out by Israeli forces in 1948. Documents, including some that I
illegally copied from the archives at Yad Vashem, confirm what I saw myself,
what I was told by other witnesses, and what reputable historians and others
have written concerning the Zionist bombings in Iraq, Arab peace overtures
that were rebuffed, and incidents of violence and death inflicted by Jews on
Jews in the cause of creating Israel." See Giladi's book, Ben Gurion's
Scandals: How the Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews, AMEU, 1992. See also
Christian Science Monitor, 'Israel's Palestinian puppets:' "the recruitment
of collaborators has become a crucial plank of Israel's security,"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0522/p01s04-wome.html.

[37] According to testimony of ex-Mossad agent Ari Ben-Menashe in New
Zealand Herald, October 2000, at
http://www.howlingatthemoon.com/pacific_jihad_OCT2000.htm. More on Mossad is
found in books like Gideon's Spies by Gordon Thomas, and By Way of Deception
by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.

[38] FOX News, 11 December 2001. The transcript is available at
http://www.firefox.1accesshost.com/cameron.html.

[39] Suggs, John F., 'The Spies Who Came in from the Art Sale,' Weekly
Planet (Tampa Bay), March 20, 2002,
http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2002-03-20/news_feature.htm.

[40] Cypel, Sylvain, 'An Enigma: Vast Israeli Spy Network Dismantled in the
U.S.', Le Monde, 5 March 2002, http://www.antiwar.com/rep/lemonde1.html.


==============

I would strongly recommend perusing in full the above cited article to gain
an insight into some specific documented facts that fundamentally challenge
the official 9/11 narrative as espoused by the Bush administration and the
mainstream media.

> 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.

This is yet another unfortunately vacuous piece of advice that, being devoid
of any specific denotive content that points to particular failures that
should be improved, is consequently devoid of any constructive value, thus
reducing to mere futile polemics - as has most of your discussion on 'THE
WAR ON FREEDOM'. As I have stated before, and as you have been unable to
disprove, 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' is nothing but a compilation and analysis of
the facts surrounding 9/11 reported by credible news sources.

> 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!

I understand that due to the prevailing political orthodoxy in which you are
situated, you are intuitively aghast at any notion that the Israeli military
intelligence infrastructure was connected in anyway to 9/11, be it through
foreknowledge, complicity, or anything else. But this is exactly what is
being investigated by U.S. authorities, in connection with 9/11! And you
would have us believe that our documentation of facts related to this U.S.
investigation from mainstream sources in 'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' is
illegitimate, anti-Semitic, party to Neo-Nazism, and based on concocted
evidence?

I have little doubt in my mind that your unfortunate cognitive inability to
subject the Israeli military intelligence infrastructure to an objective
critical examination in connection to the 11th September terrorist attacks
(despite your willingness to subject the United States itself and other U.S.
allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. to such examination), is what has
resulted in your willingness to, effectively, publicly smear myself, John
Leonard and Barrie Zwicker, in order to justify your position. Whether or
not that has been your intention is irrelevant - the effect of your postings
has been the propagation of inaccuracies, fallacies, and faulty logic, along
with
the horrendous accusation that we "are in the same boat as David Irving and
his stories".

In forwarding such unwarranted and inflammatory slanders, you only
discredit yourself both ethically and intellectually. It would indeed
represent a dire
lack of integrity on my part if I asserted that your story-telling puts you
in the same
boat as "historians" like Irving who tell unwarranted and inflammatory
stories about
the past.

I would finally like to add that you are the first person to have smeared
'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' in this way, evidently due to a fundamental (but
baseless) presumption about the innocence of the Israeli military
intelligence apparatus. Others who are more objective do not have any such
problems with my or John's work. Please see for instance the book review of
'THE WAR ON FREEDOM' by John A. McCurdy, founder of the Hamilton Public
Inquiry into 9-11, published by the Centre for Research on Globalisation
(CRG) in Montreal (which is headed by Michel Chossudovksy, Professor of
Economics at the University of Ottawa), at:

'Sept. 11: Day of Infamy or Day of Deception?'
Centre for Research on Globalisation, Montreal
August 29, 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MCC208A.html

Regards.

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



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tausch, Arno" <Arno.Tausch@bmsg.gv.at>
To: "'Institute for Policy Research & Development'"
<info@globalresearch.org>
Cc: <iteam@rferl.org>; <mckhan@ureach.com>; <anton.pelinka@uibk.ac.at>;
<directory@uoguelph.ca>; <pdscottweb@hotmail.com>;
<redaktion@studien-von-zeitfragen.de>; <jsumner@uoguelph.ca>;
<wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: David Irving stories, the need of watertight facts and IR (answer
to Nafeer M. Ahmed)


> 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:
>
> http://www.elpais.es/
>
> 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
> conspiracy.
>
> I was, I said, curious to have a look at the smoking gun. I tried out the
> quoted source at:
>
> http://www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bo101/oct/b69701.html.
>
> 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
>
> PUBLICATIONS OF THE ATF STAFF 1991
> ... Ben-Zvi, I., Yang, KM, Yu, LH The "Fresh-Bunch" Technique in FELS.
1991
> International
> Free Electron Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 8/26-30/91, BNL 46688 ...
> nslsweb.nsls.bnl.gov/AccTest/ATFPUBS/PUBS1991.html - 5k - Cached
>
> PUBLICATIONS OF THE ATF STAFF, 1990
> ... 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
>
>
> http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/Mexico/151001.html
>
>
> 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:
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01284.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01283.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01282.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01310.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01311.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01313.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2001/msg01374.html
>
> http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2002/msg00586.html
>
> 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":
>
> http://www.robert-fisk.com/hamid_gul_interview_sept26_2001.htm
>
> 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
> [mailto:info@globalresearch.org]
> 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.
> (http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/newsroom.html)
>
> 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>;
> <Editor@MediaMonitors.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:12 PM
> Subject: a question concerning the book THE WAR ON FREEDOM
>
>
> > dear Colleagues at SECURITY AND TERRORISM WATCH at RFE/RL
> > 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 -
> in
> > 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
> version
> > 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
> authors
> > and the democratic representative for Georgia, Congresswoman Mrs.
Cynthia
> Mc
> > Kinney). The website article on the flight security aspects of September
> 11
> > 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
> the
> > 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
> 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 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
> the
> > 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
> warned
> > against a crime which they were about to perpetrate? This is absurd,
> really
> > 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
> to
> > defend.
> >
> > Having written only 60 % of his final text, colleague Nafeez Mosaddeq
> Ahmed
> > would have prepared the groundwork for a good scholary book, that could
> have
> > 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
> with
> > conspiracy theories, anti-semites and other people, with whom I do not
> want
> > 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
> cover
> > 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
> >
> >
>