Qaddafi, Ahmedinejad Electrify U.N.

Wayne Madsen Report, September 24, 2009

Qaddafi says Israeli Mossad was behind JFK assassination

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, in his extemporaneous remarks before the General Assembly on September 23 said that Lee Harvey Oswald assassin Jack Ruby (aka Jacob Rubinstein) was an Israeli intelligence agent who was involved on the behalf of Israel to assassinate President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Qaddafi claimed that Kennedy was prepared to expose Israel's nuclear weapons development facility at Dimona in the Negev Desert and Israel ordered Kennedy's assassination.

Qaddafi's remarks in a one and a half hour-long speech are the talk of the hallways, cafeterias, and smoking areas at UN headquarters. Qaddafi's speech has outweighed President Obama's maiden speech on the delegates' interest meters.

Those who were hoping for [9/11 truth supporter] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to engage in polemics over "Holocaust denial" were sorely disappointed. In his remarks, punctuated with Islamic religious references, Ahmadinejad had a message for the United States and its allies vis a vis the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan: "It is no longer possible to bring a country under military occupation in the name of fight against terrorism and drug trafficking while the production of illicit drugs has multiplied, terrorism has widened its dimensions and has tightened its grips, thousands of innocent people have been killed, injured or displaced, infrastructures have been destroyed and regional security has been seriously jeopardized; and those who have created the current disastrous situation continue to blame others. How you can talk about friendship and solidarity with other nations while you expand your military bases in different parts of the world including in Latin America. This situation cannot continue. It is all the more impossible to advance expansionistic and inhuman policies on the basis of militaristic logic."

Ahmadinejad added, "By the grace of God, Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate." Ahmadinejad's remarks came just before the G20 industrial countries' leaders meet in Pittsburgh.

To repeat from UN headquarters, while Obama's speech was received well by most of the delegates and media, it is Qaddafi who is the star of this show. As one Iraqi reporter told this editor, "it's the first time the UN heard a speech from a leader who didn't feed them bullshit but the unvarnished truth."

(subscribe to Wayne Madsen Report, which takes up where Seymour Hersh left off, here)

* * *

Essay on Ahmadinejad's speech and related issues by former top Reagan Administration economist Paul Craig Roberts here.

See also Raw Story's In UN speech, Gaddafi suggests Israel behind JFK assassination:
"Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi called for a reopening of the investigations into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., during his speech at the UN on Wednesday, and pointed the finger at Israel in Kennedy's death."

U.S. mainstream media version: US, France walk out during Ahmadinejad's UN speech

Only 3% of Pakistanis say al-Qaeda did 9/11

"On average less than one in four (Muslims worldwide) believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical--only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it."
-WorldPublicOpinion.org survey, published 4/24/2007

Arabic Edition of 9/11 Truth Interfaith Dialogue Book Published; Five Muslim Voices Speak Out

The Arabic edition of 9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out has been published in hardcover by Nahdet Misr, an Egyptian publisher. The editors of the original English volume, published by Interlink, included Islamic Studies scholar and 9/11 truth activist-author Kevin Barrett, the eminent Christian theologian John Cobb, and Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky. Contributors included such distinguished religious studies scholars and intellectuals as David Ray Griffin (the book's inspiration), Marc Ellis, Rosemary Reuther, and Rabbi Michael Lerner. The Muslim contributors include Kevin Barrett, Nafeez Ahmed, Faiz Khan, Enver Masud, and Yasmin Ahmed.

Book description from the publisher:

Inspired by David Ray Griffin's internationally acclaimed book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, this anthology presents a variety of perspectives on 9/11 and empire from authors who identify with one of the major Abrahamic traditions. Co-edited by a major Christian theologian (John Cobb), a Jewish scholar (Sandra Lubarsky), and a Muslim scholar (Kevin Barrett), the book features essays by 9/11 revisionists and activists alongside those of noted writers and scholars, including several of the leading religious intellectuals of our time. The writers offer reflections on 9/11 and empire informed by the moral principles of their religious traditions as well as by the obligation to engage in thoughtful dialogue with those of other traditions. While the question of of the Bush administration's and Us military and intelligence leaders' possible complicity in 9/11- and the moral implications of facing that possibility-is at the forefront of the book's agenda, it also addresses the way 9/11 has been used to expand the US empire's "global domination project"-raising profound moral questions that confront all of us, whatever our views on 9/11 complicity and whatever our faith, worldview, or national/ethnic identification.

Poll: 60% of American Muslims Reject Official "19 Arabs" Conspiracy Theory

A Pew scientific poll has found that Muslims in the U.S. are moderate, educated, middle-class, mainstream people...who overwhelmingly reject the Bush Administration's official conspiracy theory of 9/11:

"Relatively few Muslim Americans believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, and many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks." http://pewforum.org/surveys/muslim-american/

Dr. Naseem's Call for Truth Featured in London Daily Mail

Conspiracy fever: As rumours swell that the government staged 7/7, victims' relatives call for a proper inquiry

London Daily Mail, 03rd July 2009 (full article here)

"As Dr Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque, says in the BBC2 documentary: 'We do not accept the government version of July 7, 2005. The Ripple Effect video is more convincing than the official statements.' Mr Naseem, a well-educated man, had made 2,000 copies of Ripple Effect for members of his mosque. Research has revealed that even before the contentious video came out, one in four British Muslims thought the Government or the Secret Services were responsible for the 7/7 atrocities. Now the number of doubters is growing. At Friday prayers recently, Dr Naseem asked the congregation to raise their hands if they did not accept the government version of events. Nearly the entire gathering of 150 men and boys did so. He then urged his audience to collect free copies of Ripple Effect at the back of the mosque."

Compromise Reached In Restraining Order Case Against USMV Vet 9/11 Truther

By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
6.26.09
http://libertyfight.741.com/abdullah_conclusion.html

Compromise Reached In Restraining Order Case Against USMV Vet 9/11 Truther
By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
6.26.09

"Do you believe that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on September 11th, 2001?" Mohammed Abdullah asked the Pomona Police Department employee as she sat on the witness stand.

"Irrelevent- completely irrelevant to this case", the judge admonished Abdullah, who for the second time had tried to ask a witness their beliefs about 9/11 during cross-examination. The women had filed a request for a restraining order against Abdullah, which was their reason for being in court. Unable to continue with that line of questioning, the witnesses' beliefs about Muslims, 9/11 and the Iraq war were never discovered.

Their views and beliefs about these things, which undoubtedly played a part in their perceptions and alleged fear of Abdullah, seemed indeed very relevent to the U.S. Marine veteran, who was dressed in Muslim attire.

Muhammed Abdullah had his hearing June 26, 2009 in Pomonr Superior Court. The Pomona City Attorney had filed a restraining order barring Abdullah from coming in contact with any one of hundreds of Pomona Police and City employees. This was done at the request of some employees of the Pomona Police Dept. who alleged that Abdullah's comments about 9/11 and war crimes against Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers 'scared them'. If the restraining order had been granted, Abdullah, a USMV Vet and convert to islam, would have been barred from owning guns. Abdullah had been standing outside the Pomona Police Dept. for several months with a sign and dvds alleging that 9/11 was an "inside job" orchestrated by criminal elements within the U.S. government. When he started talking about war crimes and the torture rape of Iraqi Muslim women and children, apparently, according to the temporary restraining order, he had gone too far.

David King, Deputy City Attorney for Pomona, attended the hearing on behalf of the city. King acknowledged to the presiding judge Steven D. Blades that "the defendant has not expressed threats", but referencing regarding Abdullah's behavior, insisted "does that constitute harassment? yes your honor". King also referenced CA Penal Code 527.6 , which outlines outlines harassment involving 'credible threats of violence'.
Seemingly addressing the broader issue of free speech, Judge Blades at the start of the hearing asked King "what if someone held a sign, F--- the police. does that constitute harassment?"

"Probably not", King replied.
King went on to argue that Abdullah was standing "where he was seen by people driving by" .. "The Police dept. asked him to move".. "they felt that the defendant had crossed the line" (referenced 527.6) .."they don't know what he's going to do", he was "directing his comments directly to employees", adding "we respect his beliefs, opinions, and views".. we are "asking for a buffer zone".

Abdullah responded "I never forced or impeded anyone. they were within earshot".
The judge had previously tried to get the two sides to come to a compromise, but one could not be reached because Abdullah insisted he did nothing wrong and did not want any sort of restraining order on his record, which might impede his ability to work as an armed guard. The initial restraining order had also prohibited Abdullah from coming in contact with City Hall and any city employees, despite the fact there were no complaints filed from city employees. Judge Blades once again tried to get the two parties to come to an agreement. The parties discussed limiting Abdullah's proximity to the Police employee parking lot.

King conceded "we believe he has the right to an audience at the police dept.", but "he might yell out the window" (when driving by). "I'm just thinking this out as an act of retaliation he might go to city hall." Judge Blades responded, "the inclusion of city hall (in the restraining order) is a prophylactic - seeks to regulate his speech."

Three of the seven witnesses who had filed declarations seeking the restraining order were then called. Witness one was a senior 9/11 dispatcher and trainer, who claimed she understood the "potential for violence in people, how can you tell when people are getting ready to 'do something' 'irrational'". When cross examined by Abdullah, who represented himself, the witness answered his questions about the boxcutter he had held in his street presentation.
"I try to tune you out to be honest with you, but I remember specifically you had a boxcutter". She went on to relay how she had seen Muhammed for "4-5 months", "then he starts talking about "sex crimes. It made me fearful, if he's gonna try to make me understand what the Iraqi women suffered; talking about sex crimes is not Ok to me. and it made me fearful".

Witness 2 was a young woman who had been a dispatcher for 6 months, and was trained at the department by witness number one. "Well your voice is very projective", she relayed to Abdullah on cross examination. Referring to the first day she had heard him refer to Iraqi war crimes and the rape of Iraq civilian women and children, the witness exclaimed, "Your voice actually followed me that day" I remember specifically how I felt that day. I was wearing a skirt. I wanted to cover up this much of my leg that I was showing I wanted to curl up and run inside the police department."

This writer could not help but notice that those emotions seem to be a damning reaction to U.S. foreign policy and criminal elements within the armed services, rather than an admonishion to Abdullah himself.

The third witness was a woman who had been a "community services officer" for 6 years. "Oh, you've never said that before", she replied on cross examination regarding Abdullah's mention of sexual war crimes committed by U.S. Soldiers. Questioned about the unopened boxcutter, which Abdullah had held inside it's packaging to illustrate a point about 9/11, the witness said "I was concerned because I'd never heard you mention a weapon.. until I heard from the other dispatcher did it heighten my fears" Asked if she remembered the words he had said, she replied "could you believe that a boxcutter caused that damage?"
Your voice is very loud and booming. You were directing them (comments) toward me."
'How does that make you feel?', Abdullah asked.

"I know it takes 2 seconds to hurt someone with a boxcutter", she replied.
In a shocking reference to what represents the general public's shocking lack of knowledge about the OKC bombings, the witness then referred to "my knowledge of incidents at Oklahoma City" and how "no one was able to do anything about it because of first ammendment rights". [Note: See numerous links and evidence of government involvement in OKC below.]

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Blades commented "Whether you or I agree" (that Muhammed was a threat,) "they (the women who testified) seem genuinely concerned.. I'm dealing with their reaction". "I'm balancing everyone's rights"

The judge once again suggested the two parties come to an agreement which would not be a 'restraining order', but rather an agreement prohibiting Abdullah from standing on the specific south corners of Park Ave. and Mission Blvd, near the Police Employee parking lot. He is allowed to stand on the NorthEast and Northwest corners of park and Mission, which are across the street from the Police Dept. If they could not reach that agreemnent, "based on what I've heard I'd grant that Restraining order". Responding to City Attorney King's objections that the agreement should prohibit Abdullah from even seeing Police Employees, Judge Blades responded "he can see them walking, but so what. it's a couple hundred feet away." Referring to the city attorney's attempt to include all city employees and city hall in the agreement, the judge also removed them from the agreement entirely, stating "I think it's overbroad to extend this". Judge Blades also stated that he believed Abdullah exhibited a "course of conduct that constitutes harrassment".

King then told the judge he was concerned that this would be "just an agreement" with "no enforcement mechanism". "That's true at least for the first time" Blades replied, specifying that if Abdullah broke the conditional agreement, the city attorney could file another restraining order, which he would be more likely to issue.

Regarding political expression in this case, Blades continued "waving a boxcutter does cause some people to be concerned. You don't have a restraining order on your record. it's a one free shot so to speak. You can still make your message, just temper it a bit. "Call it a stipulation. TRO still in effect till I get the stipulation. (next week)".

Toward the end of the hearing, Abdullah asked judge Blades if he had watched the two 9/11 dvd documentaries that he had presented as evidence. The judge replied that he had not watched them because, as he put it, they were irrelevent, and that a person's views on that topic were not important to the case itself. Abdullah then asked for the dvd's back, so that he could "give them to someone else to watch."

Concluding the hearing with a statement that seemed ironic given the outcome, Blades assured Abdullah, "you have a right to say things that are offensive to people".

To the supporters, who came from as far as Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino, Abdullah said, "I thank everybody for taking their time, for their support and for witnessing the proceeedings- it's greatly appreciated. I believe your presence had an impact; and hopefully everybody benfitted in their own way from observing."

Regarding the case in general, Abdullah said, "I'm very passionate about these issues- sometimes people mistake passion for anger or aggression". Using the example of a fundraiser car wash in comparison, Abdullah explained "If someone standing on the corner is having a car wash and wants customers, he's not gonna say it with a meloncholy or monotone voice, he's gonna put some passion into it. People are so brain dead nowdays, it's all about work, pay bills, work, pay bills. People dont have a passion unless it's football or basketball. But things that really screw up our world? It's like 'yeah I heard about that'. That's what I was trying to convey to the court. I was not trying to intimidate, harrass or scare anyone."

In closing, Abdullah opines, "We wouldn't even be in court if it wasn't for the fact that the government engineered and orchestrated 9/11. The truth is the best defense".
NOTE: Previous links regarding this story are below. Thanks to waronyou.com, David Icke, abovetopsecret, Muslims for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and many other alternative sites for carrying this story as it developed. Special thanks to all those at We Are Change L.A. and Orange County 9/11 Truth for their steadfast dedication to truth and defense of liberty. It will not be forgotten. God bless you all.

Some of the attendees who witnessed the hearing had the following comments to add.
Laura said:

Here are a few thoughts.
The women were clearly coached; their testimonies were all very consistent - no opinions whatsoever about the political content of MA' words (not likely) - their concerns about his behavior were not a long endured annoyance but rather a noted escalation exhibited on one particular day The judge skipped over the issue of perjured statements in the complaint - those portions of the complaint that were not testified to today (i.e. stalking, following to their cars, ...) Other than that, I think the judge has been very fair; I was impressed that he would not give the city attorney any more territory than was specifically related to the complaint.
Linda said:
"This was my first attendance for any event related to WACLA. I think it is important to show support, even to complete strangers. When we lose that dedication to and for humanity, WE ALL SUFFER! Self preservation mean that I must care as much for you as I do for myself. That will always involve sacrifice, speaking out on someone's behalf, showing up for support when someone is being hurt by the 'establishment' or society's ignorance in general. I just think of the moral obligation to HUMANITY. One thing that did strike me as being needed is a full and complete understanding of the 'rule of law', the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all of it's Amendments. I have a real simple rule that I think is reasonable...My freedoms possibly end when and if you feel you are being violated ACCORDING TO THE LAWS IN PLACE. In our passion to get our message out to others...let us always approach that FREEDOM with the utmost respect for others and their right not to listen. Thanks!!"

Muslim Marine Vet Truther in Court Tomorrow

Pomona Police Vs U.S. Marine Vet 9/11 Truther, ... Friday June 26th 2009 9AM

LibertyFight.com
http://libertyfight.741.com/june_26_09.html (scroll down here at m911t for more information about this case)

Mohammed Abdullah's Court Date is This Friday June 26th at 9AM.
Pomona Superior Court
400 Civic Center Plaza
Pomona, CA 91766

"Third Floor - Department G (Check the Docket)"

Mohammed Abdullah had a court hearing on 6-12-09 to respond to allegations levied by the Pomona City Attorney in their attempt to file a restraining order on behalf of the Pomona Police dept. The complaint claims that some employees of the Police Dept. and city became afraid of Abdullah, who had been standing outside the department with signs and dvds contending that 9/11 was an "inside job", as well as protesting the rape and tortue of Iraqi Muslims by U.S. soldiers. The city had failed to provide copies of the complaints despite numerous requests, so on 6-12-09 Abdullah had asked for a continuance. During the hearing the judge stated that "there are constitutional issues here", referring to Abdullah's right to free speech, and encouraged the city attorney and Abdullah to come to some sort of compromise.

No agreement has been reached, so Abdullah is fighting these charges as originally planned. The original restraining order demanded that Abdullah surrender any firearms he owns. Abdullah, who works as a security officer, says that relinquishing his right to bear arms as a result of his political activism is not only unfair and completely unjustified, but will impede his ability to work as an armed guard and possibly prevent him from finding employment. He continues to maintain, as he always has, that he never did anything wrong, and that he never "stalked' "followed" or "harassed" anyone. Abdullah says that although his speech and presentation may be passionate and theatrical, it is his God given right to do so, and he considers it his moral obligation to expose the government lies and corruption. He will fight these charges to the end and deserves your support. Court is Friday 6-26-09 at 9AM.