73,846 US Soldiers Dead from Both Gulf Wars,

73,846 US Soldiers Dead from Both Gulf Wars, How They Manipulated the Numbers to Fool You

More Gulf War Veterans have died than Vietnam Veterans. This probably is news to you. But the truth has been hidden by a technicality. So here is the truth.

The casualties in the Vietnam War were pretty simple to understand. If a soldier was dead from his combat tour, he was a war casualty. There are 58,195 names recorded on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC.

But something odd has happened with the Iraq War. The government, under the Bush administration, did something dishonest that resulted in a lie that’s persisted since the war began — and continues to this very day. They decided to report the war deaths in Iraq only if the soldier died with his boots on the ground in a combat situation.'

Point And Shoot

More WTF:

(click for full size)

If you’ve been following this site, you know I’ve been taking in images from Ashley Gilbertson’s book, Whisky Tango Foxtrot, based on the extended time he spent as a war photographer in Iraq.
In this shot, we see an American soldier snapping a photo of a dead Mahdi Army fighter. The Iraqi was killed in May 2004 in the course of an overnight grenade-lobbing battle in a Karbala amusement park between insurgents and  troops of the First Armored Division.  According to Ashley’s caption, Army policy is to leave Iraqi dead for other Iraqis to recover and bury.  As a result, the body was still on the street the next morning.
Based on Ashley’s text, the soldier is taking the photo because the scene is “an object of curiosity for GI’s.”
The allusion reminds me of a bumper sticker that was popular during the Vietnam War.  It read:  “Join the Army: Travel to exotic distant lands; meet exciting, unusual people and kill them.”  Of course, the slogan has everything to do with cynicism and next-to-nothing to do with insight.  Still, looking at an image like this, it makes me think hard about the intersection of war (especially a U.S.-instigated cultural and religious war) and personal digital photography and video. (You do remember this, right?).
Call it a mixing of metaphors, but at a perverse level, where does a shot like this depart from the sphere of work-a-day war fighting and become, a lá the bumper sticker, a sadistic exemplification of tourism?
At the same time, I’m interested in the politics of the shot, and the curiosity of one shooter — a professional — shooting an amateur.
As Gilbertson conveys throughout the book, the largest portion of the shots he ended up with were the result of his — and the visual media’s — limited access to the war.  That being the case, one thing this picture captures is the irony that the troops — so many of them with a point-and-shoot on their person — had the media in their pockets, while the war photographers, and by extension, the rest of us, had next-to-nothing.
BAG’s WTF series here.  Purchase WTF here.  WTF Web Site right here.

This is a war the Bush administration does not want Americans to see

From the beginning, the U.S. government has attempted to censor information about the Iraq war, prohibiting photographs of the coffins of U.S. troops returning home and refusing as a matter of policy to keep track of the number of Iraqis who have been killed. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Photo by MARCO DI LAURO/Getty
A U.S. Marine from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, next to the dead body of a suspected insurgent during the ground offensive Nov. 9, 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq. To be sure, this see-no-evil approach is neither surprising nor new. With the qualified exception of the Vietnam War, when images of body bags appeared frequently on the nightly news, American governments have always tightly controlled images of war. There is good reason for this. In war, a picture really is worth a thousand words. No story about a battle, no matter how eloquent, possesses the raw power of a photograph. And when it comes to war's ultimate consequences -- death and suffering -- there is simply no comparison: a photo of a dead man or woman has the capacity to unsettle those who see it, sometimes forever. The bloated corpses photographed by Mathew Brady after Antietam remain in the mind, their puffy, shocked faces haunting us like an obscene truth almost 150 years after the soldiers were cut down. "War is hell," said Gen. Sherman, and everyone dutifully agrees. Yet the hell in Iraq is almost never shown. The few exceptions -- the charred bodies of American contractors hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, the blood-spattered little girl wailing after her parents were killed next to her -- only prove the rule.
Photo by STEPHANIE SINCLAIR/Chicago Tribune
A mosque employee prepares the body of Lamiamh Ali, 6. Four siblings were playing outside their home in Baghdad when a U.S. cluster bomb exploded. Two of the children died that day and their brother died later as a result of his injuries. Photo taken April 26, 2003 Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality -- the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem -- is to risk eroding popular support for it. This is particularly true with wars that have less than overwhelming popular support to begin with. In the case of Vietnam, battlefield images played an important role in turning the tide of public opinion. And in Iraq, a war whose official justification has turned out to be false, and which a majority of the American people now believe to have been a mistake, the administration would prefer that these grim images never be seen.
Photo by WATHIQ KHUZAIE/Getty
An injured Iraqi man asks for help at the scene of a car bomb, on June 14, 2004, in Baghdad. A car bomb exploded at rush hour as three civilian sport utility vehicles -- the kind favored by Western contractors -- passed by one of Baghdad's most heavily trafficked squares. Dozens were wounded in the blast.
Photo by MITCHELL PROTHERO/ WpN
Ali Abbas, 6, cries in pain from wounds sustained in fighting between U.S. troops and fighters loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sept. 5, 2004. "I want the American people to see the face of the terrorists they fight," said his father, Abbas. But the media is also responsible for sanitizing the Iraq war, at times rendering it almost invisible. Most American publications have been reluctant to run graphic war images. Almost no photographs of the 1,868 U.S. troops who have been killed to date in Iraq have appeared in U.S. publications. In May 2005, the Los Angeles Times surveyed six major newspapers and the nation's two leading newsmagazines, and found that over a six-month period, no images of dead American troops appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Time or Newsweek. A single image of a covered body of a slain American ran in the Seattle Times. There were also comparatively few images of wounded Americans. The publications surveyed tended to run more images of dead or wounded Iraqis, but they have hardly been depicted in large numbers either.
Photo by EPA/STEFAN ZAKLIN/Landov
A U.S. soldier lies dead on the kitchen floor of a house used as a base by insurgent fighters in Fallujah, on Saturday, Nov. 13, 2004. The soldier was shot and killed by insurgent fighters when he entered the room. Two other U.S. military personnel were wounded by the insurgents, who escaped. There are a number of reasons why the media has shied away from running graphic images from Iraq. Some are simple logistics: There are very few photographers in Iraq. Freelance reporter and photographer Mitchell Prothero, a Salon contributor, estimates there are "maybe a dozen or two Western photographers" in Iraq, in addition to Iraqi and Arab stringers, who do most of the work for newswires. Ten or 20 photographers trying to cover a country the size of Sweden, under extremely difficult and dangerous conditions, are unlikely to be on the scene when violence erupts. Moreover, most photographers are embedded with U.S. troops, a situation that imposes its own limits. Military regulations prevent photographers from publishing photographs of dead or wounded soldiers until their families have been notified, which can diminish the news value of the photographs. And although embed rules allow photographers to take pictures of dead or wounded troops, the reality on the ground can be different. Soldiers do not want photographers -- especially ones they aren't comfortable with -- taking pictures of their dead or wounded buddies. This is understandable, but it can result in de facto censorship.
Photo by EPA/MOHAMMED MESSARA/Landov
Iraqis carry the dead body of a baby killed during U.S. airstrikes against the western city of Fallujah on Thursday, Sept. 9, 2004. At least five Iraqis were killed during the overnight bombardment.
Photo by KARIM SAHIB/Getty
Iraqi soldiers and policemen gather near the remains of an alleged suicide bomber, who blew himself up inside a restaurant in Baghdad on June 19, 2005. Ten Iraqis, including five policemen, died in the attack, an interior ministry source said. One photographer, who requested anonymity because he didn't want to jeopardize his ongoing relationship with the U.S. military, told Salon, "I've had unit commanders tell me flat out that if anybody gets wounded on patrol, you can't take any pictures of them. Nearly every time I've landed at [a medevac] scene, guys have yelled at me, 'Get the fuck away from me. Don't take my friend's picture. Get back on the helicopter.' Part of me understands that. I am a stranger to them. And they are very emotional. Their friend has been badly hurt or wounded, and they've probably all just been shot at 15 minutes before. I totally understand that, although it is a violation of embed rules." But it isn't just the troops. Editors in the States are reluctant to run graphic photographs. There are various reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is taste: Many publications think graphic images are just too disturbing. Business considerations doubtless also play a role, although few editors would admit that; graphic images upset some readers and can scare off advertisers. (Salon pulled all advertising, except house ads, off the pages of this gallery.) And there are political considerations: Supporters of the war often accuse the media of playing up bad news at the expense of more positive developments. To run images of corpses is to risk being criticized of antiwar bias. When "Nightline" ran photographs of the faces of all the U.S. troops who had been killed in Iraq, conservative groups were enraged and accused the network of harming morale. Not every publisher is anxious to walk into this kind of trouble.
Photo by AP Photo/JOHN MOORE
Army Chaplain Capt. Daoud Agbere, right, a Muslim cleric, prays for an American soldier after he was pronounced dead upon arrival at a military hospital in Baghdad, on Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2004, despite the efforts of Army Nurse supervisor Patrick McAndrew, left, to revive him. The soldier was fatally wounded in a Baghdad firefight with insurgents. The reluctance of American publications to run shocking images contrasts with the European press. "In my experience and in conversations with other people who've been doing this a lot longer than me, American publications shy away from extremely graphic material, compared to European ones," says Prothero. "I don't know whether the American audience reacts more strongly against seeing that over the breakfast table. I do know, anecdotally, that many very talented photographers, on staff, have taken pictures that have not run in magazines or newspapers. Maybe it's not a conscious decision but American publications very much shy away from showing casualties of U.S. troops on the ground. I think they're afraid the American public will freak out on them for showing dead American boys."
Photo by GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD/Getty
A critically wounded Iraqi civilian lies next to a dead civilian on Sept. 12, 2004, in Haifa Street, in Baghdad. After a U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle was attacked and disabled by a car bomb, a crowd of Iraqi civilians gathered around, including three Arab journalists. A U.S. helicopter then fired a missile into the crowd, killing 13 civilians -- including a TV journalist who had just signed off on his report -- and wounding as many as 100. Controversy persists over why the helicopter fired: The U.S. military first claimed it was a routine operation to destroy the vehicle, then that the helicopter had come under small-arms fire. Eyewitnesses disputed that claim. Photographer Stephanie Sinclair's unforgettable photograph of a 6-year-old Iraqi girl killed by an American cluster bomb, which appears in the gallery, originally ran in the Chicago Tribune. Robin Daughtridge, the Tribune's deputy director of photography, told Salon that after the photographs first came in, "the news editor was worried about running them without an accompanying story." Others in the newsroom thought the photographs "were too graphic, and too much, because we generally don't run tight pictures of dead bodies. We had run pictures of dead Iraqi soldiers and a dead bus driver before, so there was a precedent for running them, but we don't take it lightly." They ended up calling the paper's editor in chief, Ann Marie Lipinski, who assigned a reporter to do a piece on cluster bombs and their legacy.
Photo by GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD/Getty
In a photograph taken minutes later, the wounded Iraqi civilian has collapsed. The Bradley fighting vehicle burns in the background.
Photo by BENJAMIN LOWY/Corbis
The unattended bodies of unclaimed Iraqi dead, killed as violence and insecurity lay siege to Baghdad, lie on the floor of a Baghdad hospital morgue, on July 21, 2003. Ultimately, Daughtridge said, politics didn't enter into the decision: "It was more about the fact that if we're going to show this death up close and personal, we better have a story behind it. All of us in the newsroom are trying to tell the story and letting the readers make up their own minds." She added, "I felt proud of what we did that day. All of this stuff that you hear about happening to families in Iraq doesn't really hit home until you see that picture of the little girl." For her part, Sinclair praised the Tribune for running the photo and the story. But, she said, "some of the publications I've worked for didn't run a lot of the Iraqi civilian stuff, the graphic pictures, the emotional pictures. I found that the Iraqi civilian story was really hard to get published in U.S. publications. And I worked for many. I don't know why. I think they're looking at their readership and they think their readers want to know about American troops, since they can relate to them more. They think that's what the audience wants." Sinclair also noted that American readers and viewers get only a sanitized view of the horrific consequences of suicide bombings. "A lot of the bombing stuff that you see is really toned down. To be honest, sometimes it should be. God, it's relentless. It's hard to look at. People have no idea what's happening in Iraq. You wonder, even as a photographer, if you're being gratuitous by photographing some of this. At the same time, as horrific as it is to see, people should know how horrific it is to live it every day. We should feel some sort of responsibility to make sure we have the best possible grasp of what's happening there." It is because we believe that the American people are not getting a look at the reality of the Iraq war, for Americans and Iraqis alike, that we decided to run this photo gallery. It is no secret that Salon has published many more pieces questioning and challenging the Iraq war than supporting it. But that is not why we think it is important that these images be seen. We would have run them even if we supported the war. The reason is simple: The truth should be told. People should know the truth about war. Before a nation decides to go to war, it should know what its consequences are. There is no way for any journalist, whether reporter or photographer, to capture the multifaceted reality of Iraq. But all of the journalists I have spoken to who have worked in Iraq say that the blandly optimistic pronouncements made by the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq are completely false. A picture of a dead child only represents a fragment of the truth about Iraq -- but it is one that we do not have the right to ignore. We believe we have an ethical responsibility to those who have been killed or wounded, whether Iraqis, Americans or those of other nationalities, not to simply pretend that their fate never happened. To face the bitter truth of war is painful. But it is better than hiding one's eyes. Additional reporting by Kevin Berger, Page Rockwell and Aaron Kinney.

4000 Dead American Soldiers In Iraq

4000 Dead American Soldiers In Iraq...

The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.

The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

As reported in the Seattle times article, Overall US Death Toll in Iraq Hits 4,000, for which the title seems to ignore the hundreds (thousands?) of mercenaries that have died, as well.



One soldier was wounded in the attack:

The four soldiers died when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb while on patrol late Sunday in southern Baghdad, bringing the overall toll to 4,000, according to an AFP tally based on independent website www.icasualties.org.

Another soldier was wounded in the attack, a military statement said.

The chaotic and brutal conflict which is now in its sixth year has also wounded more than 29,000 American soldiers, according to icasualties.org.

At least 97 percent of the deaths occurred after US President George W. Bush announced the end of "major combat" in Iraq on May 1, 2003, as the military became caught between a raging anti-American insurgency and brutal sectarian strife unleashed since the toppling of Saddam.

Bear in mind the reality that over one million Iraqis have died since "shock and awe" began indiscriminately killing Iraqis.


And all of this over a pack of lies sold to you by the criminal bush administration...

I know, we went to Iraq to bring the Democracy, to stop the terrorists over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here, and all that other nonsense. Fortunately, there are some (not the corporate media) who will keep history alive and accurate.
Please, if you have an hour and feel the need to "purge", take the time to review the case for war as made by the Bush Administration in all of its glory.
I only wish this was required viewing for every candidate running for office today, and after viewing it, each candidate were to have to address their vote (if they voted) or their public stands.

Israel Admits Harvesting Organs From Dead Bodies Without Permission

(AP) JERUSALEM - Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.
The issue emerged with publication of an interview with the then-head of Israel's Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr. Jehuda Hiss. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge.
Parts of the interview were broadcast on Israel's Channel 2 TV over the weekend. In it, Hiss said, "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."
The Channel 2 report said that in the 1990s, forensic specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
In a response to the TV report, the Israeli military confirmed that the practice took place. "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer," the military said in a statement quoted by Channel 2.
In the interview, Hiss described how his doctors would mask the removal of corneas from bodies. "We'd glue the eyelid shut," he said. "We wouldn't take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids."
Many of the details in the interview first came to light in 2004, when Hiss was dismissed as head of the forensic institute because of irregularities over use of organs there. Israel's attorney general dropped criminal charges against him, and Hiss still works as chief pathologist at the institute. He had no comment on the TV report.

Hiss became director of the institute in 1988. He said in the interview that the practice of harvesting organs without permission began in the "early 1990s." However, he also said that military surgeons removed a thin layer of skin from bodies as early as 1987 to treat burn victims. Hiss said he believed that was done with family consent. The harvesting ended in 2000, he said.
Complaints against the institute, where autopsies of dead bodies are performed, at the time of Hiss' dismissal came from relatives of Israeli soldiers and civilians as well as Palestinians. The bodies belonged to people who died from various causes, including diseases, accidents and Israeli-Palestinian violence, but there has been no evidence to back up the claim in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians for their organs. Angry Israeli officials called the report "anti-Semitic."
The academic, Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley, said she decided to make the interview public in the wake of the Aftonbladet controversy, which raised diplomatic tensions between Israel and Sweden and prompted Sweden's foreign minister to call off a visit to the Jewish state.
Sheppard-Hughes said that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected by the practice in the 1990s, she felt the interview must be made public now because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, (is) something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."
While insisting that all organ harvesting was done with permission, Israel's Health Ministry told Channel 2, "The guidelines at that time were not clear." It added, "For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law."

The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

 

The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses. (© AP Images)

Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
•  Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
•  Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
•  Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
•  Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
•  Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
•  For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.
2)  No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”
Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:
•  The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
•  The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
•  Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
•  Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel. See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
•  For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.
3)  United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.
•  The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane. The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact. See full transcript.
•  The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until several minutes after it crashed, as tapes released in 2006 demonstrate.
•  The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93. See an article on the tapes.
•  Listen to the 45-second message to her husband left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine.
•  For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,” pages 13–14.

The Pentagon attack site on September 14, 2001. (© AP Images)

4)  World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
•  This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters.
•  Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery — not using explosives.
•  The audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC collapse showed no evidence of the extremely loud sounds that would have indicated the use of explosives. Also, seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies.
•  An exhaustive three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that fires caused by the collapse of the nearby WTC north tower caused fires that burned out of control in WTC 7. These fires caused steel beams to expand and buckle, leading to the collapse of the building.
•  See the NIST videos on the collapse of WTC 7.
•  For more information, see “The Collapse of World Trade Center 7,” the ImplosionWorld article (PDF, 56 K), and Popular Mechanics, part 5.
5)  The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.
•  Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they cannot be controlled from anywhere except the flight deck of the aircraft.
•  Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls. All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
•  For more information, see “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers.”
6)  Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.
•  The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
•  For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
•  For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.
7)  Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.
•  It appears from media reports that some 10 percent to 15 percent of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
•  The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred. This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
•  For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”
8)  Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.
•  Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
•  In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids..”
•  In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed. … I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
•  For more information, see “Al Qaida Confirms It Carried Out the September 11 Attacks.”

Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html#ixzz1Xl9nnLOw

Tragedi 11 September: 10 Teori Konspirasi

PM  SUNGAI RAPAT ONLINE  No comments

MEGAH... menara baru Freedom Tower dalam proses pembinaan di bekas tapak WTC.

HARI INI, dunia memperingati ulang tahun ke-10 serangan 11 September 2001. Ia membabitkan empat serangan serentak terhadap sasaran di New York dan Washington DC, Amerika Syarikat (AS).

Anggota al-Qaeda didakwa merampas empat pesawat dan menggunakan dua daripadanya untuk merempuh Menara Berkembar Pusat Dagangan Dunia (WTC) di New York. Kedua-dua menara itu musnah sama sekali dalam masa dua jam.

IMBAS KEMBALI... suasana ketika dan selepas serangan terhadap Pusat Dagangan Dunia di New York.

IMBAS KEMBALI... suasana ketika dan selepas serangan terhadap Pusat Dagangan Dunia di New York.

Pesawat ketiga digunakan untuk merempuh Pentagon di Arlington, Virginia. Apabila penumpang cuba menguasai pesawat keempat, Penerbangan 93 United Airlines, ia terhempas di kawasan lapang berhampiran Shanksville, Pennsylvania, menghalangnya daripada sampai ke sasaran di Washington,DC. Hampir 3,000 orang terbunuh dalam serangan itu.

Al-Qaeda serta-merta menjadi suspek. Ketuanya, Osama Laden, yang mulanya menafikan terbabit, kemudian mendakwa bertanggungjawab. Alasan serangan itu ialah tentangan mereka kepada sokongan AS terhadap Israel, kehadiran tentera AS di Arab Saudi dan sekatan terhadap Iraq. Mei lalu, komando tentera AS mendakwa menembak mati Osama di Pakistan selepas bertahun-tahun memburu dan cuba membunuhnya. Mayatnya dicampakkan ke laut.

Namun selepas 10 tahun, masih ramai percaya kejadian itu adalah konspirasi membabitkan ejen Israel dan kerajaan AS.

Dalam kajian pendapat di 17 negara mengenai kejadian itu, sejumlah responden percaya AS menjadi dalang utama di sebalik serangan itu.

Tujuh peratus responden menyalahkan Israel, manakala angka sama turut percaya individu lain selain daripada Osama dan al-Qaeda menjadi dalang di sebalik serangan itu.

Berikut ialah 10 teori konspirasi yang dirumuskan mereka.


1. MEREKA TAHU LEBIH DULU

Sejurus selepas serangan itu, Presiden George W Bush berkata: “Tidak ada siapa dalam kerajaan AS dan kerajaan sebelum ini pernah terfikir untuk merempuh pesawat pada bangunan.”

Hanya beberapa minggu sebelum itu, ketika Bush dan pemimpin dunia lain berbincang pada persidangan tahunan G8 di Genoa, Itali, perancang keselamatan melakukan persediaan untuk menghadapi serangan seumpama itu.

Peluru berpandu anti-pesawat ditempatkan berhampiran Genoa kerana Itali menerima ancaman bahawa pesawat akan digunakan sebagai senjata bagi membunuh pemimpin G8.

Markas Pertahanan Angkasa Lepas Amerika Utara (Norad) menjalani latihan bagi menghadapi seumpama itu.


2. LETUPAN YANG TERKAWAL

Ahli teori konspirasi, termasuk ahli fizik dan jurutera perisian, percaya bangunan berkembar WTC runtuh akibat letupan yang terkawal, bukan angkara dirempuh pesawat. Pendapat itu diluahkan berikutan fakta bahawa dua menara itu runtuh secara teratur hingga ke dasarnya, berbanding hanya bahagian atas menara yang musnah.

Kumpulan ahli teori itu percaya sejumlah besar bahan letupan disembunyikan dalam kedua-dua menara itu dan cerucuk keluli yang menyokong bangunan itu dipotong terlebih dulu, membolehkan bangunan berkenaan runtuh pada tapaknya. Dan berikutan langkah keselamatan ketat di tapak bangunan itu selepas ia runtuh, bahan bukti kemudian dapat dialihkan dan dihantar untuk dikitar semula.


3. ORANG DALAM BURSA SAHAM MERANCANGNYA

Sebelum insiden serangan 11 September, berlaku beberapa siri perdagangan saham yang luar biasa di kalangan syarikat yang menerima kesan negatif dan positif akibat serangan itu. United Airlines dan American Airlines, yang kedua-duanya hilang pesawat dalam serangan, dijual begitu banyak sebelum serangan. Tiada syarikat penerbangan AS lain dilihat mengalami kegiatan saham seperti dua syarikat berkenaan.

Saham syarikat pertahanan yang mendapat faedah berikutan tindak balas agresif ketenteraan turut memperoleh banyak belian pada minggu sebelum serangan. Morgan Stanley yang beribu pejabat di WTC adalah syarikat yang banyak membuat jualan saham. Begitu juga dengan syarikat insurans.

Malah, Suruhanjaya Sekuriti dan Saham AS melancarkan siasatan terhadap kegiatan Wall Street sebelum serangan berlaku.


4. MENAHAN KEMARAAN PESAWAT

Norad mempunyai sistem maklumat canggih mengenai rampasan pesawat itu tetapi mengarahkan juruterbang mereka supaya tidak bertindak atau sengaja melengahkan tindakan supaya tidak dapat menghalang pesawat yang dirampas itu daripada tiba ke sasaran mereka.

Sudah pasti Norad yang bertanggungjawab ke atas pertahanan udara mampu mengesan pesawat penumpang yang besar dan berat.

Bukankah mereka mempunyai sistem radar paling canggih? Jadi, mengapa mereka tidak bertindak sewajarnya dan menghalang tragedi itu daripada berlaku? Dan mengapa dua jet diarah keluar dari ruang angkasa tentera di ruang udara Long Island ketika Bandar Raya New York diserang?


5. ‘PESAWAT’ PENTAGON

Ahli teori konspirasi berkata, Pentagon tidak diserang pesawat penerbangan American Airlines 77. Bangunan pertahanan paling selamat di dunia itu mempunyai sejumlah besar kamera yang mengawasi keadaan sekitarnya. Namun, tiada satu pun daripada kamera berkenaan dapat menangkap imej pesawat itu. Malah, ia mungkin peluru berpandu yang dilepaskan penyangak kerajaan AS.

Dan lubang akibat serangan pesawat itu hanya seluas 20 meter, sedangkan panjang sayap Boeing 757 adalah 40 meter dari hujung ke hujung. Lubang yang berlaku di Pentagon juga terlalu kemas dan bangunan itu hanya rosak sedikit, seolah-olah ia bukan kesan serangan pesawat yang dipandu laju. Ia adalah hasil tembakan peluru berpandu.


6. KOTAK HITAM

Semua pesawat yang digunakan dalam serangan itu membawa dua kotak hitam. Laporan rasmi insiden serangan 11 September berkata, tiada satu pun daripada empat kotak hitam dua pesawat yang merempuh menara berkembar WTC dapat diselamatkan kerana musnah terbakar. Namun, dua lelaki yang bekerja di kawasan kejadian berkata, mereka membantu ejen persekutuan menyelamatkan tiga daripada empat kotak hitam itu.

Kotak hitam dalam pesawat yang menyerang Pentagon dikatakan musnah teruk dan maklumat mustahil diperoleh. Hanya kotak hitam pesawat penerbangan United 93, di mana penumpang dan kru kabin dikatakan melawan perampas pesawat hingga menyebabkan ia terhempas di ladang jagung di kawasan luar bandar Pennsylvania, ditemui.

Namun, ia mengambil masa tujuh bulan sebelum keluarga dapat mendengar pita rakaman dan lima tahun enam bulan sebelum ia dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan orang yang digelar perampas ke-20.


7. MENYALAHKAN CIA DAN MOSSAD

Seorang bekas Presiden Itali merangsang lagi teori konspirasi apabila berkata, semua anggota parti pembangkang Itali tahu Agensi Perisikan Pusat (CIA) dan ejen perisikan Israel, Mossad adalah dalang serangan itu dan menjadikan militan Islam sebagai kambing hitam.

Ia membolehkan AS memberi sokongan penuh dan berterusan kepada Israel. Sementara itu, bekas ketua agensi Perisikan Pakistan (ISI) mendakwa, pihaknya mempunyai maklumat mengenai serangan itu dan tahu CIA bekerjasama dalam Israel untuk melancarkan serangan.

Dan serangan itu adalah peluang paling sempurna untuk Zionis menguasai hal-ehwal dunia sebagai membalas dendam.


8. BUKAN ANGKARA PESAWAT

Pesawat Boeing yang digunakan dalam serangan itu sebahagian besarnya diperbuat daripada aluminium dan secara fizikalnya, mustahil ia boleh menyebabkan kemusnahan sebagaimana berlaku di WTC dan Pentagon. Menurut video ahli teori terbabit yang tersebar di Internet, serangan itu dilakukan menggunakan peluru berpandu dengan kesan hologram.

Teori mereka disokong analisis secara berperingkat serangan ke atas menara berkembar WTC. Paparan video itu menunjukkan objek berbentuk cerut dan bukan pesawat. Tambahan pula, bahang disebabkan oleh minyak pesawat tidak mungkin cukup panas untuk mencairkan cerucuk keluli yang menyokong bangunan menara berkembar itu.


9. ISU TENAGA MINYAK YANG BERAKHIR DENGAN BAIK

Harga minyak berikutan peristiwa serangan 11 September menunjukkan penurunan disebabkan pengeluaran secara berlebihan dan penemuan telaga minyak baru. Namun, isu serangan dramatik di AS dan menyalahkan militan Islam atas apa yang berlaku memberi kesan jangka panjang terhadap harga minyak.

Dengan pergolakan yang berlaku di Asia Barat, tindakan ketenteraan AS akan melindungi hasrat strategik mereka untuk menguasai minyak di negara berkenaan. Lagi pun, siapa selain AS mampu merancang serangan seumpama itu.


10. TERSELAMAT DARIPADA TRAGEDI

Ahli teori hairan dengan kisah seorang anggota bomba yang terselamat selepas jatuh dari tingkat 82 runtuhan menara utara dengan memegang sisa runtuhan ketika ia jatuh di besi pasak bangunan itu. Satu lagi kisah menceritakan seorang kakitangan syarikat kewangan yang gemarkan sukan luncur, meluncur di atas sisa runtuhan dengan selamat apabila bangunan itu runtuh.

Isu Mat Indera

Isu Mat Indera: Pemimpin Umno kena baca Buku Pengukir Nama Johor

Posted on September 5, 2011 by Pelapor

Pemimpin Umno malas nak baca buku … Datuk Ghani Othman oooi bagitau kat Ahmad Maslan tu, jangan dok jadi bodo, memang Mat Sabu tu dah baca buku ni (gambar di bawah).
Ahli Majlis Tertinggi UMNO, Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin pula meminta PAS menyatakan pendirian parti itu berhubung kenyataan Mat Sabu kerana sehingga kini parti itu hanya berdiam diri dan membiarkan Mat Sabu mempertahankan dirinya sendiri.
Timbalan Menteri Kewangan itu berkata, sebagai pemimpin parti konon berasas Islam, Mat Sabu perlu mempamerkan sikap menegakkan Islam dan menolak fahaman komunis yang pupus dan ketinggalan zaman.
Hoi Awang Adek, bukan setakat tak buat kenyataan PAS ajak berbahas atau Berdebat.
Di PONTIAN, Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Ahmad Maslan yang juga Ketua Penerangan UMNO menyifatkan pihak yang bersetuju dengan kenyataan Mat Sabu itu sebagai penyokong perjuangan pengganas.
“Dia (Mat Sabu) boleh diibaratkan individu ‘putus wayar’ dan buta sejarah. Dia seharusnya teliti semula fakta sejarah kerana kenyataannya itu jelas memperlekehkan sejarah negara kita. Komunis antiagama, takkan dia mahu agung-agungkan kumpulan seperti itu,” katanya selepas melancarkan Tabung Kemanusiaan Somalia NSTP-Media Prima di Rumah Terbuka Aidilfitri Parlimen Pontian, semalam. – Berita Hairan

Timbalan Menteri Di JPM lagi lah bodoh, sepatutnya dia tanya MB Johor, Datuk Ghani Othman yang menandatangani Buku Pengukir Nama Johor terbitan Yayasan Warisan Johor (2004).
Yayasan Warisan Johor meletakkan nama Mat Indera sebaris dengan Almarhum Sultan Ismail dan Tun Sulaiman Ninam Shah, bekas pengerusi tetap UMNO. Malah foto Mat Indera juga menjadi sebahagian daripada kulit hadapan buku ini.
Buku ini adalah hasil karya pelbagai penulis, tetapi biografi Mat Indera ditulis oleh Ismail Adnan, bekas guru kanan yang pernah menjadi Timbalan Pengarah, Institut Kepimpinan dan Latihan Semangat Dato’ Onn. Buku ini juga telah disunting oleh Profesor Datuk Abu Bakar A. Hamid, bekas Profesor di Jabatan Pengajian Media, Universiti Malaya dan Md Ismail Zamzam, Tokoh Guru Berjasa Johor 2002. Prakata buku ini pula ialah daripada Menteri Besar Johor sendiri, Dato’ Abdul Ghani Othman.
Di akhir biografi ringkas Mat Indera, penulis biografi ringkas ini ada menyebutkan : Justeru sewajarnya Mat Indera di abadikan namanya sebagai seorang pejuang , bukan seorang petualang.

Mat Sabu dan Mat Indera ?

UMCO ternyata silap besar kerana memperbesarkan isu Mat Indera dan peristiwa Bukit Kepong yang diselitkan dalam ceramah Mat Sabu di Tasek Gelugor pada 21 Ogos lalu, namun dilaporkan oleh Utusex pada 27 Ogos lalu. Jika tarikh ceramah pun sudah salah, apatah lagi laporan yang ditulis oleh akhbar itu. Mat Sabu dilabel seolah-olah menyokong komunis dan tidak menghormati polis-polis British yang terkorban semasa peristiwa itu.

Saya tidak mahu menulis panjang, maklumlah hari ini baru hari raya kedua.

Siapa Mat Indera yang menyerang rumah pasung British? Kisahnya ada disiarkan di Berita Harian. Jangan terkejut, walaupun dilabelkan sebagai pengganas oleh British kerana menyerang Rumah Pasung Bukit Kepong, orang yang mengenalinya menganggap beliau sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan negara.

Tidak jelas? Baca di sini.

Dalam berita di atas, Mat Indera Ahmad Indera atau dikenali sebagai Mat Indera dikatakan berdarah pahlawan daripada keturunan Datuk Bentara Husin Lela Pahlawan Siak Seri Inderapura yang menjadi panglima kanan Sultan Sharif di Siak. Beliau diangkat sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan yang mengangkat senjata menentang British. Mat Indera ditangkap selepas British mengugut beberapa penduduk kampung yang rapat dengannya.

Apa implikasi isu ini kepada UMCO dan masyarakat? Sebelum melihatnya dengan mendalam. Cuba lihat fakta Peristiwa Bukit Kepong. Peristiwa ini berlaku pada tahun 1950 dan JELAS bahawa semasa kejadian negara kita masih BELUM MERDEKA. Tanah Melayu pada waktu itu dijajah oleh BRITISH. Seperti yang dibangkitkan oleh TT, mata-mata yang berkhidmat di rumah pasung itu ialah orang yang berkhidmat dengan penjajah British, bukannya polis diraja Malaysia. Persoalan yang wajib kita fikirkan, adakah mata-mata yang berkhidmat di rumah pasung Bukit Kepong itu akan diberi penghormatan yang sama jika mereka berkhidmat di bawah pemerintahan Jepun? Jawab!!!

Fakta ini sebenarnya dikaburkan oleh buku sejarah kita dan sudah tentu filem Bukit Kepong yang acap kali disiarkan ketika negara menyambut Hari Kebangsaan. Sehingga kontroversi ini, saya yakin banyak orang yang tidak sedar akan fakta itu. Banyak yang menganggap perisitiwa itu berlaku selepas negara merdeka. Jika selepas negara merdeka, maka tindakan Mat Indera itu sewajarnya dipersoal dan dikecam kerana beliau menentang polis yang berkhidmat dengan YDP Agong.

Dengan pendedahan ini, banyak orang yang mula membaca untuk mendapatkan info yang tepat dan jelas. Selepas pendedahan isu ini, banyak orang mula mempersoal: Mengapa berkhidmat atau menjadi tali barut penjajah seperti Belanda, Portugis, Jepun dilabel sebagai PENGKHIANAT, KEJI, dll, tetapi mereka yang berkhidmat dengan penjajah British tidak dikenakan label yang sama?

Jawapannya, sila lihat sejarah, cuba lihat pekerjaan dan hubungan pembesar UMCO dengan British. Rata-rata mereka berkhidmat sebagai pegawai dalam sistem pentadbiran British di Tanah Melayu.  Malah banyak juga pemimpin UMCO yang mempunyai hubungan yang baik dengan British.  Jika berkhidmat dengan Jepun dihina, mengapa dengan British tidak dilabel begitu? Walhal dari segi kekejaman, kerakusan, kesialan, kekeparatan, TIADA beza antara Jepun, Belanda, Portugis, dan British!!!- DCM

P/s: Selepas ini mungkin banyak orang akan mempertikaikan penyiaran filem Bukit Kepong menjelang Hari Kebangsaan!