Thursday, August 31, 2006

Kebebasan Bicara di AS

Seorang insinyur keturunan Arab siap naik pesawat di AS. Para petugas keamanan datang kepadanya dan minta dia membuka kaosnya. Dia boleh naik pesawat tetapi tidak boleh memakai kaos tersebut.

Kenapa?

Karena di depan kaos itu ada tulisan bahasaArab (lengkap dengan terjemahan bahasa Inggris).

Satu kalimat saja. Satu kailmat yang singkat. Apa artinya?

“We will not be silent” (Kita tidak akan diam).

Kalimat ini menjadi slogan di Amerika bagi orang yang menentang perang AS terhadap Iraq, dan serangan-serangan yang lain di Timur Tengah. Ada kaos, stiker, dsb. yang dijual dengan slogan ini bagi orang yang mau berprotes terhadap perang.

Para penumpang melihat ada orang Arab mau naik pesawat dan ada tulisan di kaosnya dalam bahasa Arab. Mereka menjadi takut dan memanggil para petugas.

Si insinyur Arab itu berprotes dengan menyebutkan hak pribadinya untuk “bicara bebas”. Para petugas bersikeras bahwa dia tetap tidak boleh naik pesawat dengan memakai kaos tersebut.

Ternayta dia boleh bicara dengan bebas, seperti semua warga AS yang lain, hanya saja tidak boleh bicara bebas dalam BAHASA ARAB! Karena membuat orang lain ketakutan!!

Ini sungguh merupakan hasil dari “War on Terror”nya George Bush dan para pendukungnya (alias, para kroni) di media massa di AS. Setiap hari ada berita baru yang membuat warga ketakutan. Takut terhadap “terror”. Dan “terror” itu hanya datang dari orang berbangsa Arab yang menggunakan bahasa Arab.

Hasilnya, warga melihat orang Arab memakai koas dengan tulisan Arab, mereka mulai berfikir: “Apakah dia seorang teroris? Apakah dia mau ledakan bom di pesawat? Apa artinya tulisan itu? Mati semua orang AS, misalanya? [padahal juga ada terjemahan bahasa Inggris di kaos itu]. Wah, takut deh. Panggil petugas aja. Suruh mereka menangkap dia dulu dan mengirimkannya ke Guantanamo sebelum dia bisa membunuh kita!”

Selamat kepada George Bush! Sebagai pemimpin negara dia telah berhasil membuat rakyatnya ketakutan 24/7 (=24 jam sehari, 7 hari per minggu).

Sekarang hak “bicara bebas” di AS ada batasannya: boleh bicara bebas, asal tidak memakai BAHASA ARAB!!!

Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row

An architect of Iraqi descent has said he was forced to remove a T-shirt that bore the words "We will not be silent" before boarding a flight at New York.

Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August.

Mr Jarrar said he was shocked such an action could be taken in the US.

US transport officials are conducting an inquiry after a complaint from the US Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Mr Jarrar's black cotton T-shirt bore the slogan in both Arabic and English.

He said he had cleared security at John F Kennedy airport for a flight back to his home in California when he was approached by two men who wanted to check his ID and boarding pass.

Mr Jarrar said he was told a number of passengers had complained about his T-shirt - apparently concerned at what the Arabic phrase meant - and asked him to remove it.

He refused, arguing that the slogan was not offensive and citing his constitutional rights to free expression.

"We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan adopted by opponents of the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East.

It is said to derive from the White Rose dissident group which opposed Nazi rule in Germany.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm


Published: 2006/08/30 10:36:21 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Monday, August 21, 2006

AS Senang ada Perang di Lebanon Sebelum AS Menyerang Iran

Ada informasi sekarang bahwa serangan Israel pada Lebanon direncanakan oleh Israel pada satu tahun yang lalu. Mereka sudah tahu bahwa cepat atau lama akan ada provokasi dari Hizbollah, dan pada saat provokasi itu terjadi, maka Israel siap membalas dengan serangan besar.

Tujuan mereka adalah menghancurkan Hizbullah, terutama gudang sejata (rudel) mereka. Menurut informasi yang dikutip oleh wartawan senior Seymour Hersh dari majalah New Yorker, serangan tersebut direstui oleh Amerika Serikat, karena akan membantu rencana AS menyerang Iran. Kata seorang konsultan yang dikutip oleh Hersh, tujuan serangan Israel adalah untuk menghancurkan bunker, terowongan, dan gudang roket dengan serangan udara [tanpa gunakan banyak pasukan di lapangan]. Dan pemerintah AS senang dengannya karena akan memberi contoh tentang apakah serangan tersebut efektif, supaya bisa digunakan juga untuk menyerang Iran, dan serangan terhadap Iran itu diinginkan sebelum Bush mengakhiri masa jabatannya.

Alasan satu lagi adalah bahwa pada saat AS menyerang Iran nanti, mereka takut bahwa Hizbollah akan membalas dengan menyerang Israel (dengan rudelnya). Oleh karena itu, lebih baik kalau Israel menghancurkan stok rudel milik Hizbullah sekarang, sebelum AS menyerang Iran.

Pemerintahan Bush membalas informasi tersebut yang diterbitkan minggu ini (Augustus, 2006) dengan komentar “...berita itu tidak benar.”

Bush "Viewed War in Lebanon as a Curtain-Raiser for Attack on Iran"

By Andrew Buncombe

The Independent UK

Monday 14 August 2006

The Bush administration was informed in advance and gave the "green light" to Israel's military strikes against Hizbollah - with plans drawn up months before two Israeli soldiers were seized - it has been claimed.

The US reportedly considered Israel's actions as a necessary prerequisite for a possible strike against Iran. A report by a leading investigative reporter says that earlier this summer Israeli officials visited Washington to brief the government on its plan to respond to any Hizbollah provocation and to "find out how much the US would bear".

The officials apparently started their inquiries with Vice-President Dick Cheney, knowing that if they secured his support, obtaining the backing of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice would be easier.

The report by Seymour Hersh quotes an unidentified US government consultant with close ties to the Israelis who says: "The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

A former intelligence officer, also quoted, says: "We told Israel,'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office'."

Both Israeli and US officials say that the Israeli military operation against Hizbollah was triggered by the seizing of two Israeli soldiers, apparently to be bargained with for a possible prisoner swap. But Hersh's report, published in today's issue of The New Yorker, adds to evidence that Israel had been anticipating a Hizbollah provocation for some time and planning its response - a response that was widely condemned for being disproportionate.

Last month the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hizbollah militants was unfolding according to a plan finalised more than a year ago". The report said that a senior Israeli army officer had been briefing diplomats, journalists and think-tanks for more than a year about the plan and it quoted Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at [Israel's] Bar-Ilan University, who said: "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared." Last week the New Statesman magazine reported that Britain had also been informed in advance of the military preparations and that the Prime Minister had chosen not to try to stop them "because he did not want to".

This latest report is the first to tie the Israeli operation to a broader framework that includes a possible US strike against Iran.

Unidentified officials said a strike could "ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack". Shabtai Shavit, a national security adviser to the Knesset, said: "We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America's requirements, that's just part of a relationship between two friends. Hizbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time."

An anonymous Middle East expert claimed that while the State Department supported the plan because it believed it would help the Lebanese government assert control over the south, the White House was focussed on stripping Hizbollah of its missiles.

The expert added: "If there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hizbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the 'axis of evil', and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hizbollah as part of his interest in democratisation."

Last night the White House denied the allegations contained in Hersh's piece with a brief statement from the President describing it as "patently untrue". Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, added: " The suggestion that the US and Israel planned and co-ordinated an attack on Hizbollah - and did so as a prelude to an attack on Iran - is just flat wrong."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081406L.shtml

This is the article by Seymour Hersh, quoted above, from The New Yorker magazine. Check it out online.

WATCHING LEBANON

by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

Washington’s interests in Israel’s war.

Issue of 2006-08-21
Posted 2006-08-14

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact