[vc318]

This thread is dedicated solely for discussing the current war on terrorism ad other conflicts going on in the world. Please post your thoughts.

[vc318]

FOXNews.com - Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories

Thursday, June 19, 2008

By Joseph Abrams

Critics are calling for the resignation of a U.N. official who publicly supports investigating theories that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an "inside job."

Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, investigates alleged Israeli violations of human rights law for the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.

But the former Princeton professor would also like to investigate whether "some sort of controlled explosion from within" destroyed the Twin Towers, he told FOXNews.com.

"I do think there are questions that haven't been answered, questions about the way the buildings collapsed and the failure to heed a variety of signals that there was danger coming," Falk said.

"I think [his beliefs are] fruitcake city, but among many delegations to the U.N. it's probably the conventional wisdom," said John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. known for his straight talk on U.N. hypocrisy.

But Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, a non-governmental organization that monitors the U.N., wants Falk removed from his job.

"He should resign," said Neuer, who raised concerns about Falk's ability to be an objective observer. Neuer has also criticized Falk for being biased against Israel.

"If he were a principled person he would recognize the fact that he has very extreme views," Neuer said.

In 2004, Falk wrote the forward to "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," a book written by David Ray Griffin, a Sept. 11 conspiracy theorist.

Griffin's book argues that the Twin Towers may have been brought down by a "controlled demolition" — not by two airliners hijacked by Al Qaeda operatives — and that the Pentagon may not have been hit by a plane at all.

Griffin "doesn't take a so-called conspiracy view and he raises questions that haven't been answered," Falk told FOXNews.com. "I think [the book] deserved to be published and I have no regrets about that."

Falk said that while he supports alternative theories behind the World Trade Center attack, he doesn't claim the U.S. government was responsible.

"I'm an agnostic on the issue," he said.

But Bolton is hardly agnostic on the issue of Falk's views.

"It's just an example of the inmates running the asylum," Bolton said. "It's a particularly graphic example for Americans, but this is not an aberration — this is, unfortunately, typical of much of what goes on" at the U.N.

A spokesman for the office of Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, declined to comment on Falk.

"As a matter of practice, we do not offer commentaries on individual special rapporteurs," wrote spokesman Rupert Colville in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "There are some 27 of them in all, and if we started making character judgments on one or two of them, it would never stop. They are mandated to do their work by the Human Rights Council."

But Falk's support for Sept. 11 conspiracy theories isn't the only thing that has critics up in arms.

In an online article for the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research last year, Falk — prior to his appointment as an unbiased human rights investigator — compared Israeli actions in Gaza to the Nazi treatment of Jews. This may have led to his appointment as the rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, Bolton said.

"He was picked for a reason, and the reason is not to have an objective assessment — the objective is to find more ammunition to go after Israel," Bolton said.

Neuer said Falk is not the only special rapporteur to bring a bias to the job. "You have people who are, I would say, a wolf in sheep's clothing who are implementing the agenda of dictatorships," he said.

"It's tragic because there are human rights victims around the world who could greatly benefit from a champion, including in the Middle East. ...

"Many of the rapporteurs do good work, do important work, report on how countries are respecting or not respecting laws around the world," Neuer said.

Falk maintained he was an appropriate choice for the job. "I think I'm an informed observer and I'm unbiased in the sense that I have always done the best to tell the truth as I see it," he said.

Despite his calls for Falk's resignation, Neuer did not expect him to be censured or removed.

"I don't think there's going to be any move in the council to do anything about his appointment," he said.

Falk, asked whether he'd be surprised if further investigations revealed the U.S. government's role in Sept. 11, told FOXNews.com, "Yes, I'd be surprised — not shocked but surprised."

He then reconsidered, and said: "No, I'd be shocked."

I don't understand why they are asking for this official to resign - it's not completely confounded the possibility that there could've been help from American terrorist sects for the events behind 9/11.

[Jerry D]

Well, I think he's basically accusing the Bush Administration, and not any American terrorist sects, for having a part of the events behind 9/11, and I think that's completely wrong, and I think he should resign.

I do, think, however, that the Bush Administration has done a terrible job in the war on terrorism, and their tactics in dealing with terrorists and their invasion of Iraq squandered the good will that we had garnered after 9/11, and it's spawned more groups that are dedicated to destroying us.

I feel that suspected terrorists should be arrested and jailed, but I think they should be tried like any other criminal, and evidence should be presented against them, and if they're found guilty of planning a terroristic act, they should be imprisoned for life, and if they're found guilty of taking part in a terroristic act that resulted in the loss of life, they should be executed.

[sunnykerr]

I kinda disagree. I think there should be an investigarion of these "inside job" allegations. For one thing, he who has done nothing has no need to hide. But, more to the point, it would once and for all put the whole conspiracy theory thing to rest.

Much as Bush may be one of the few men I could seriously see myself slapping upon meeting (Secret Service protection notwithstanding, I seriously doubt he, or any of his accolytes, had anything to do with the horrible events of that day. I'm not saying they weren't criminally negligent in a lot of respects in the days and months leading up to it. But I don't see how there's any way that they had a role to play in it.

But I do believe that an investigation might be the way to put this whole thing to rest.

Bush's administration has done more to help terrorist groups than it has hindered them, that's for sure. Oh, not on purpose. Hopefully, anyway. But their clear and utter misunderstanding of the world beyond the little bubble in which they live has irrevocably changed the fabric of our lives. Terrorists do not hate America's freedom. What kind of idiot would seriously propose something like that? It's got nothing to do with hating freedom.

They hate American unilateral intervention in their world, in their culture, in their countries. Now, I'm not saying that means the United States should sit back and do nothing when nutbags kill thousands of people with such callous disregard for humanity. But it does mean that you have to think about things a bit before you act. And not in a "how can we sell them on Iraq?" sort of way either. It means you employ diplomacy. It means you honour the commitments you make to the people concerned. It means you follow through on your promises.

More soldiers died in Afghanistan during the month of May than did in Iraq. Four hundred Taliban escaped from a jail and promptly took up arms again this week. So I'm sure it wasn't done on purpose, but I do believe the Bush administration has done nothing but embolden the enemies of the United States (and, by extension, the rest of us).

[welshgirlyUK]

To be honest, i'm torn on this. Whilst i think people have a right to know all the facts, therefore an investigation should be made, another part of me feels that maybe it might be a waste of public money. Conspiracy theorists are never going to be silenced by a govt report. If the report deems the adminstration innocent of all knowledge, it wont stop the conspiracy theorists. You just need to look at the Princess Diana case for that. There have been several reports and investigations into her death, each one concluding that the royal family had nothing to do with it and it was simply a tradgic accident, but people still refuse to believe it. And i think it'll be the same result with a terrorism investigation.

[vc318]

Sadly enough, there were reports that Bush was informed for months about the attack that was going to happen on 9/11. But he probably scooted it aside since the U.S. is likely to receive terrorist threats every day from random parts of the world. I guess it's a double whammy in a way. However, that official is right to think that the Bush administration could have been involved. It wouldn't be the first time that a president and his administration would be accused of doing something unjust.

[COOLCAT200]

I personally do not believe in any 9/11 conspiracies theories and think it would be a waste of time and I agree that even if the administration were found innocent the people who believe in it mostly would still.

[TheAngel]

The statement "we study history so we won't repeat our past mistakes" is proven terribly false by the war on terrorism. It's the third time a major event in history, and I'm sure if you look at local histories it's been done a thousand times at least, that a war has been fought over a concept. It happened during the Crusades when Muslim and non-Christian beliefs were fought (they're still around) then of course the War on Communism, the McCarthy era and all that (they're still around) so why in the hell would anyone think that fighting a war on a concept as flexible and as intangible as terrorism would be a good idea. Terrorism is not a thing. It's not even like fighting the 3rd Reich and the Nazis during World War II. Even though Nazism was an idea, it was still an organized thing that you could actually aim for. All we're doing by fighting this war is creating more terrorism and are guilty of our own type of terrorism. After all, we're using fear as an invading army against a country that has done nothing to us in order to get them to do/behave as we want them to. Sounds like terrorism to me. Of course, I still support my soldiers, it's the hawks in politics I have my problems with.

[sunnykerr]

Well, it could also be argued that this war on terrorism is an instance where history has clearly not been studied, otherwise the invasion of Iraq would have either not happened or happened much, much differently.

Also, we have to separate the conflicts in Aghanistan and Iraq. One is being fought over an ideal; the other over either a personal grudge or oil, take your pick. Because no one with even a cursory knowledge of either politics or history would look at the war in Iraq and say that any of it had anything to do with stopping terrorism.

[sm_love_dc]

I was in my final year of University when Bush was elected the first time. I have serveral Professors from the US that gave a town hall debate about the canidates and what the issues should be. All 3 of them said that Binladan was a topic that would affect the US in the next three years. That was 2000. The US knew there was going to be an attack, they had discovered several plots years in advance. Not to mention that the World Trade Center's underground parking was attacked several years before 9/11. When the plane hit the Pentagon several governmental officals knew who had done it within seconds. Why? The US knew who the terrorists were before it happened. The debate then switches to why was the inteligence ignored.
That was a true act of terrrorism that mandates a reponse.


The US government could not have known that the attack would be so devistating. But they all wish, I am sure that they could turn back time. Yes we should learn from our mistakes, and history should never repeat itself {even though it does}. There is a theory that after 20 years an event is no longer current to our lives and becomes a part history, something for the books. (ie Vietnam.)

I think that number is getting smaller. 2001 seems so far away. And the terrorists can pick up steam when we are not looking. So much has changed about how we veiw terrorists. The word Terrorism is now used as a banner to anyone that threatens a way of life. That could mean Iraq or any other country that has different views from the Western world.

[vc318]

Iraqi leader: US should leave as soon as possible - 07/20/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

Glad he thinks so but how about the people? I agree that the troops should withdraw in Obama's suggested time frame of 16 months. Not all at once, but gradually.

[alexgeo]

now is war in Georgia help USA
RUSSIA IS AGRESSOR
we do not want in USSR
SOS

[rolf321]

How can Russia be the aggressor? Nothing has happened since 1990s and suddenly Georgia try to recapture South Ossetia.

How do Georgians feel about their president? Do they support his actions?

[sunnykerr]

That's a valid point. Isn't South Ossetia all-but independent? Isn't it pretty much in the same situation as Taiwan and pre-1992 East Timor inasmuch as it's technically a sovereign nation but has yet to be recognized as such by any international state?

[Wild Pikachu]

Georgia might have overplayed its hand in South Ossetia...but Russian tanks and troops have now moved deep into undisputably Georgian territory, there are air strikes against targets all over the country, and the Russians have all but intimated that their objective is to overthrow the Georgian government. So I would count Russia as the aggressor, now.