UK: ‘war against terrorism’ becomes war against Metallica rock


This video is Metallica- Enter Sandman.

‘Anti terrorist’ hysteria against German sociologist: here.

From the New Zealand Herald:

‘Taleban-like beard’ sees Metallica frontman detained at airport

Monday July 09, 2007

James Hetfield, frontman of US metal rockers Metallica, was detained at a British Airport before his appearance at London’s Live Earth gig on Saturday.

According to British newspaper The Times, the rocker jetted into Luton airport ahead of Saturday’s Live Earth concert at Wembley Stadium – where his legendary rock band was due to perform – but was halted by officials before he could leave the terminal.

The legendary frontman was then subjected to a brief line of questioning, after which security-conscious officials were left red-faced when Hetfield explained he was a member of a world-famous rock band.

The Times claims Hetfield’s friends blame his “Taleban-like beard” for the interrogation.

Metallica formed in 1981 and have become one of the most successful heavy metal bands selling 90 million records worldwide.

The band, currently touring the UK with their Sick of the Studio tour, will release a new album towards the end of this year.

What hysteria will be next, in the global crusade of Bush and Blair Brown for ‘freedumb’?

Bearded Muslims, bearded orthodox Jews treated like ‘Al Qaeda‘ just because of the beards?

ZZ Top sent to Guantanamo Bay?

Santa Claus tortured at Abu Ghraib?

4 thoughts on “UK: ‘war against terrorism’ becomes war against Metallica rock

  1. *Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner*
    Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
    Mon Jul 9, 2007 10:02 am (PST)

    I am happy to see this column from the Public Editor (the ombudsman) at
    The New York Times castigating The Times for — once again, as in the
    run-up to Bush’s invasion of Iraq — parroting the Bush administration’s
    talking points without any interest in getting at the facts.

    … in using the language of the administration, the newspaper
    has also FAILED at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group
    that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in
    Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that DIDN’T even EXIST until after the
    American invasion.

    ———————————————————-
    ****Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner**

    by CLARK HOYT, The Public Editor
    The New York Times
    July 8, 2007/

    As domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away,
    President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are
    increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.

    Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq
    at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth
    of July, he declared, “We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.” The Associated
    Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed
    credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press
    releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.

    Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual
    exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So
    is the question of how well their version of events squares with the
    facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.

    But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent
    weeks as the newspaper has SLIPPED into a ROUTINE of quoting the
    president and the military UNCRITICALLY about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq
    — and sometimes citing the group itself WITHOUT attribution.

    And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also
    FAILED at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that
    attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an
    Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.

    There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is but one of
    the challenges facing the United States military and that
    overemphasizing it distorts the true picture of what is happening there.
    While a president running out of time and policy options may want to
    talk about a single enemy that Americans hate and fear in the hope of
    uniting the country behind him, journalists have the OBLIGATION to ask
    tough questions about the accuracy of his statements.

    Middle East experts with whom I talked in recent days said that the
    heavy focus on Al Qaeda obscures a much more complicated situation on
    the ground — and perhaps a much more dangerous one around the world.

    “Nobody knows how many different Islamist extremist groups make up the
    insurgency” in Iraq, said Anthony H. Cordesman of the bipartisan Center
    for Strategic and International Studies. “Even when you talk about Al
    Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the idea of somehow it is the center of the
    insurgency is almost ABSURD.”

    Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at
    the University of Maryland, said, “I have been noticing — not just your
    paper — all papers have fallen into this reporting.” The
    administration, he added, “made a strategic decision” to play up Al
    Qaeda’s role in Iraq, “and the press went along with it.” (Actually,
    that’s not entirely accurate, but we’ll get to that in a moment.)

    Recent Times stories from Iraq have referred, with little or no
    attribution — and NO supporting evidence — to “militants linked with
    Al Qaeda,” “Sunni extremists with links to Al Qaeda” and “insurgents
    from Al Qaeda.” The Times has stated flatly, again WITHOUT attribution
    or supporting EVIDENCE, that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing
    of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year, an event that the
    president has said started the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and
    Shiites.

    For the president, an emphasis on Al Qaeda has political advantages at a
    time when powerful former allies, like Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana,
    the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are
    starting to back away from his war policy. Al Qaeda is an enemy
    Americans understand, in contrast to the messy reality of an Iraq where
    U.S. troops must also deal with Sunni nationalists, Shiite militias and
    even criminal gangs.

    “Remember, when I mention Al Qaeda, they’re the ones who attacked the
    United States of America and killed nearly 3,000 people on September the
    11th, 2001,” Bush said in the Naval War College speech.

    Actually, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which came into being in 2003,
    pledged its loyalty to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda the next year but is
    NOT believed to be under his operational control.

    Jonathan Landay, a friend and former colleague, wrote a sharply
    skeptical story for the McClatchy newspaper group after the president’s
    June 28 speech. Bush called Al Qaeda “the main enemy” in Iraq, but
    Landay reported that “U.S. military and intelligence officials” REJECT
    that characterization.

    Indeed the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq,
    representing the intelligence community’s consensus assessment, summed
    up the situation this way:

    “Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of
    security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse
    to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and
    insurgent violence and political extremism.” Al Qaeda and the Mahdi
    Army, a Shiite militia, were mentioned as “very effective accelerators
    for what has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle between
    Shia and Sunnis.”

    In other words, the story of Iraq isn’t the story of all Al Qaeda all
    the time.

    The Times report on the Naval War College speech didn’t deal with the
    president’s emphasis on Al Qaeda and instead focused on his growing
    troubles with Republicans in Congress. Dean Baquet, the paper’s
    Washington bureau chief, said the article reflected the “overall sense
    he’s losing ground even within his own party.” It took that angle, he
    said, because Times reporters and editors believe Republican defections
    “might be the beginning of something big in Congress.”

    Baquet said, “I think the paper’s coverage over all has been pretty
    skeptical of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.”

    [NOTE FROM ME: That is an OUTRIGHT LIE. Dean Baquet, The Times’s
    Washington bureau chief, is lying The NYTimes helped Bush get
    support for his invasion of Iraq by UNCRITICALLY parroting the Bush
    administration’s talking points and letting the infamous Judith
    Miller write stories that were planted by the Bush gang and by Ahmed
    Chalabi, who wanted us to depose Saddam Hussein so he (Chalabi)
    could take over as the ruler of Iraq. Yes, I know it didn’t work out
    that way for Chalabi, but he WAS Judith Miller’s main source for
    planted stories to get us into the war in Iraq. People who
    disagreed with The NYTimes’s coverage in the months leading up to
    Bush’s invasion of Iraq were put off as crackpots.]

    I went back and read war coverage for much of the month of June and
    found many stories that conveyed the complexity and chaos of today’s
    Iraq. Times reporters wrote that Iraq’s political leaders were failing
    to meet benchmarks that would show satisfactory progress to the American
    government, that a formerly peaceful Shiite city in southern Iraq was
    convulsed by violence as rival groups fought for control, and that
    Sunnis feared their own country’s army because it is dominated by Shiites.

    But those references to Al Qaeda began creeping in with greater
    frequency. Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said she takes “great pride
    in the whole of our coverage” but acknowledged that the paper had used
    “EXCESSIVE SHORTHAND” when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

    [NOTE FROM ME: Ha. “EXCESSIVE SHORTHAND”?? That’s a pretty funny
    way to describe slavishly accepting the Bush gang’s description of
    events.]

    “We’ve been sloppy,” she said. She and other editors started worrying
    about it, Chira said, when the American military began an operation in
    mid-June against what it said were strongholds of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

    On Thursday, she and her deputy, Ethan Bronner, circulated a memo with
    guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin
    Laden’s Al Qaeda.

    It’s a good move. I’d have been happier still if The Times had helped
    its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration’s
    drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.

    Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is
    a prescription for broader failure.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    The public editor serves as the readers’ representative. His opinions
    and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly
    in this section.

    Read this at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08pubed.html

    Like

  2. Pingback: Killer of Michael Brown not indicted | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: Pro-refugee rock music in England | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: US Iraq War Veteran Plans to Return His Medals in Protest | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply to Administrator Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.