arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

       Censure sur france.indymedia.org

                    Bonjour,

          Un dénommé " XPS " a mis sur indy-france un message tendant à montrer que c'est la CIA qui a commandité les attentats du 11 septembre. Je précise que ce n'est pas moi qui ai mis ce message !

          Ce message a été une fois de plus censuré par indy-france. Car indy-france censure tout message voulant montrer la culpabilité de la CIA dans les attentats du 11 sept 2001.

          En fait, ce message est toujours sur indy-france. On peut le voir à cette adresse :
          http://france.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7842&group=webcast

          Mais si vous allez sur la page d'accueil d'indy-france :
          http://france.indymedia.org

          Vous ne verrez pas la possibilité de cliquer normalement sur son titre pour obtenir ce message. Cette possibilité a disparue !

          Elle était offerte, avant la censure, entre le titre : « Bruxelles, tous ensemble en memoire de carlo D9 9:37pm » dont l'adresse est :
          http://france.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7844&group=webcast

          et le titre : « Pourquoi les habitants d'Euroland refusent l'aménagement de leur quartier D9 7:52pm », dont l'adresse est :
          http://france.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7838&group=webcast

          Regardez bien les numéros : celui du titre censuré est 7842 qui est pile entre les numéros des deux titres qui se suivent (7844 et 7838) ce que je dis est donc totalement vérifiable.

          Sur indy-france, pour le moment, ils conservent donc pour eux les messages qui les dérangent, mais ils en interdisent l'accès au commun des mortels.

          Questions :

          — Que faire ?

          — Les autres sites indymedias peuvent-ils tolérer cela ?

          — Pourquoi les gestionnaires d'indy-france censurent-ils les articles qui tendent à montrer la culpabilité de la CIA dans les attentats terroristes du 11 sept ? Je n'étais personnellement pas censuré chez indy-france avant de défendre cette thèse ! Et de tous les sites indymedias du monde, le seul à me censurer est indy-france !

          — Que faire ?

          — Faut-il se débarrasser des gestionnaires actuels d'indy-france ? Et si oui comment faire ?

          — Faut-il se contenter de les contraindre à ne pas pratiquer la censure ? et dans ce cas comment s'assurer qu'ils ne la repratiqueront plus 3 mois après ?

          — Dès qu'un article est mis par qui que ce soit sur indy-france, il est censuré par indy-france s'il contient un lien vers mon site ! Faut-il demander une solidarité à tous les visiteurs des autres sites indymedias, en leur demandant de mettre sur indy-france des articles, ou des commentaires d'articles déjà présents, afin de signaler cette censure et de mettre un lien vers mon site ? Ça aurait l'avantage d'obliger les gestionnaires d'indy-france à une surveillance permanente et ça les fatiguerait beaucoup. (en général, ils mettent un certain temps avant de censurer ce qui leur déplaît, car il faut qu'ils s'en aperçoivent, qu'un truc a été mis et qu'il leur déplaît!)

                    A+
                    do
                    do@mai68.org
                    http://mai68.org

Before claiming this is done on purpose, have you already contacted the people of Indymedia France? Maybe they just have a problem with the link. We also have that problem sometimes.

Other people already said we censured articles because the server is so overloaded, not everything appears directly.
So before pointing fingers and making fancy HTML articles about censorship, ask them..

Alalalala, Do, encore toi...

ce n'est pas la première fois que tu publies un article sur ce site en te plaignant de la censure de nos "collègues" d'indymedia France.

Sur le site belge, tes articles ne sont pas enlevés. Sur le site français, ils le sont (automatiquement). Politique éditoriale différente...que veux-tu!

Par exemple, sur Indymedia Barcelone, ils laissent des articles de fascistes parce que "liberté d'expression. c'est du moins ce qu'il m'ont répondu quand je les ai prévenu qu'un groupe belge d'extreme droite avait publié un article (en français) sur leur site.

Tous les indymedias ne sont pas les memes.

Franchement, sur le fond, autant le dire franchement, tes articles sont d'une débilité profonde. Tu nous soros de ces théories du complot bidon, c'est incroyable.

Je me rappelle que sur base d'une image de Bush apprenant la nouvelle des attentats du 11 septembre, tu en avais conclu qu'il n'avait pas l'air surpris, qu'il savait tout.

L'article dont tu parles maintenant, je l'ai lu hier (je crois) avant la censure d'Indymedia France. Ce qui m'a surpris, c'est qu'il n'était pas signé Do. J'ai supposé, alors, que, pour éviter la censure, tu ne mettais plus ton nom ou que c'était un membre de ton groupe de parano qui l'avait publié.

Qu'est-ce que tu nous apprends dans cet article: RIEN!

On sait déjà par exemple que la CIA avait eu vent de tels attentats. La seule chose que tu fais c'est interpréter dans le cadre de ton délire.

Le psy ne te censurera pas!

Bonjour,

Merci pour ta réaction, oui, je les ai contactés!

j'ai eu un échange de courrier avec un Gilles Klein qui m'a effectivement confirmé que je suis censuré.

Je précise que je ne suis pas le seul à être censuré sur indy-france.

A+
do

Salut Zumbi,

Tu te trompes un peu, l'article dont je parle ci-dessus, n'est pas de moi. C'est pourtant facile à voir, quand je prends la peine de publier un article, c'est qu'il est présenté à peu prêt correctement, et écrit en français acceptable! Si je ne me comprends pas moi-même facilement à la relecture, j'essaie d'améliorer mon article !

Il n'a pas non plus été écrit par un membre de mon groupe de paranos.

Je ne suis pas non plus le seul parano du monde!

Tu peux aller lire Chossudovsky au centre de Recherche sur la mondialisation ou Skolnik, par exemple. mais il y en a d'autres qui ont exprimé le même point de vue que moi. mais sur des sites américains. Comme je ne comprends pas l'anglais, j'ai des difficultés si un ami internaute ne m'a pas envoyé une traduction. Et (presque) tous les Arabo-musulmans sont aussi paranos, puisqu'ils pensent eux-aussi que le 11 sept est un coup monté ! mais eux ils croient que c'est le mossad. (je pense qu'il n'est pas possible que le Mossad fasse un coup pareil sans l'autorisation de la CIA et que dans ce cas, la CIA préférerait prendre les choses en main.)

Tu vois, les paranos sont nombreux(ses)

Néanmoins, je dois admettre que sur le coup du visage, je m'étais planté. D'ailleurs, j'ai enlevé ça de mon site !

A+
do

PS) Puisque tu sais que la CIA avait eu vent de ces attentats avant qu'ils aient eu lieu, comment expliques-tu qu'elle n'ait rien fait pour les empêcher? D'autant plus qu'elle a eu le temps, puisque d'après un numéro récent de Die Welt c'est depuis 1995 que la CIA était au courant!

PPS) Tu noteras que Die Welt n'a pas jugé inutile de publier son article. Die Welt n'a pas pensé ne rien apprendre aux gens !

Ma foi certains IMC comme la France sont clairs : pas de messages sexistes, racistes, homophobes... Comme c'est ce que l'on trouve caché au milieu de ta prose débile sur ton site et dans tes messages ç'est on ne peut plus légitime. Enlever des messages qui appelent des gens à se faire sauter vivant avec des bombes pour en tuer un max en même temps, ce n'est pas censurer la thèse du complot de la CIA, c'est refuser l'incitation à la haine raciale. Si tu veux faire de la pub pour ton site, apprends à le faire référencer sur les portails pour les fachos.

Salut aurore,

Je ne suis :

— Ni sexiste : sur mon site, il y a si je ne m'abuse un lien vers les penelopes et vers rawa. Et c'est moi qui ait mis sur indy-france l'article de rawa, j'ai distribué pendant des années les tracs de l'ancien MLAC !

— Ni homophobe : sur mon site, il y a des liens vers des sites que des homosexuels m'ont demandé de mettre !

— Ni raciste : si tu veux t'en convaincre, tu n'as qu'à lire l'intervention 103 en AG sur mon site, à cette adresse : http://www.cs3i.fr/abonnes/do/ag/103.htm

Je n'ai jamais mis sur indy-france de message tentant d'inciter des gens à devenir kamikaze ! Il n'ont donc pas eu à les censurer !

Les fashos ne sont pas celles et ceux qui se battent contre la censure, mais ceux qui la pratiquent ou appelent à la pratiquer.

De surcroix, la censure est le dernier argument de ceux qui n'en ont plus !

A+
do

Post scriptum : voici l'intervention 103 de l'AG de mon site dont je parlais plus haut. Les gens pourront juger ainsi de la profondeur de mon racisme:

13 octobre 2000

Le 29 novembre 1947, l'ONU commet un crime en autorisant LE VOL D'UN PAYS A UN PEUPLE PAR UNE FRACTION D'UN AUTRE PEUPLE !

Bonjour,

Je regrette profondément qu'il y ait des crétins qui, pour défendre la cause palestinienne, croient bon de devenir antisémites. C'est à dégueuler parce que tous les racismes sont à dégueuler, et c'est nul : ça nuit à la cause palestinienne ! Car c'est l'antisémitisme (et notamment la shoah) qui a permis de justifier, en 1947, le vol de la Palestine par les sionistes. Ajoutons que, plus il y aura d'antisémitisme dans le monde, et plus il y aura de " juifs " qui immigreront en Israël ! Et plus il y aura de colons pour voler les terres palestiniennes ! Par conséquent, il est clair que l'antisémitisme est le meilleur allié du sionisme.

La première sinagogue qui a brûlé récemment en fRANCE a brûlé pour de vrai. C'étaient visiblement des professionels qui avaient mis le feu ! Mais les autres coups de ce genre semblent avoir presque tous été faits par des amateurs. Il n'est donc pas impossible que le premier incendie de sinagogue ait été commis par des agents spéciaux au service du sionisme dans le but, par un effet d'exemple, de déclencher une vague d'actes antisémites. Si tel est le cas, alors, la manipulation n'a que trop bien fonctionné.

En tout cas, il me parrait extrèmement urgent et extrèmement important d'expliquer à tous les sympatisants de la cause palestinienne que l'antisémitisme est le meilleur allié du sionisme. C'est indispensable pour stopper net cet antisémitisme qui est en train de se déclencher et qui, si nous le laissons persister et croitre, sera nuisible aux " juifs " de fRANCE, aux arabes de fRANCE et de Palestine occupée, et, finalement, à tout le monde sauf au sionisme et à l'état d'Israël !

ET SI NOUS VOULONS LA PAIX AU PROCHE ORIENT, JE NE VOIS QU'UNE SEULE SOLUTION :

Il faudrait faire passer le message aux jeunes israéliens de " pour la paix maintenant ", leur dire que vouloir " la paix maintenant ", c'est entériner le fait accompli que les sionistes ont volé la Palestine aux palestiniens (et l'ont renommé " Israël "), ce qui est inacceptable pour les palestiniens, leur dire que les enfants des sionistes ne sont pas coupables des crimes commis par leurs parents, que " pour la paix maintenant ", c'est bien sympatique, que ça va dans le bon sens, mais qu'ils doivent aller plus loin s'ils veulent vraiment la paix, c'est-à-dire s'ils veulent une paix juste. Leur dire qu'ils doivent commencer par dénoncer les crimes commis par leurs parents, et sans en oublier ni en atténuer aucun. Si les jeunes israéliens de " Pour la paix maintenant " en viennent à dire des palestiniens ce que les hippies et yippies américains disaient des indiens, des noirs et des vietnamiens, s'ils en viennent à s'allier pratiquement avec les combattants palestiniens, alors un espoir réel existera que la situation se règle d'une façon non génocidaire ! Et un pays commun où tous ces gens pourront non seulement vivre en paix, mais dans l'amitié, pourra enfin se construire !

Merci pour votre attention,
Meilleure salutation,
do

Je suis allé sur les pages de CNN et du Guardian et les links que tu donne pout preuver que tu a raison, N'EXISTE PAS. Tu A fait une truccage super mais je comprend maintenant pourqoui le site indymedia.fr te censure.
Tu est une menteur qui a besoin d'attention alors vais solliciter pout etre une supermodel.

Salut,

Zumbi l'a dit, je suis parano, donc je suis le centre du monde. Je supposerais par conséquent que le message divin s'adressait à moi, do.

J'ai longtemps cherché de quels liens tu parlais. j'ai regardé sur mon site, puis sur un message que j'ai mis récemment au Quebec et que quelqu'un a eu la gentillesse de mettre sur indy-france (il a déjà disparu, et c'est pas moi qui l'avais mis ! on peut le voir à cette adresse:
http://france.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7898&group=webcast )

Donc je me demandais vraiment de quoi tu parlais.

Je me demandais si ce n'était pas toi, Dieu, le parano : En supposant qu'il y ait des liens que j'ai mis sur mon site et que j'ai oublié où, il existe des liens morts! L'ignorerais-tu ?

Puis subitement, j'ai compris qu'il s'agissait pas d'un article de moi, mais de celui dont je parle au premier message de cette page ! Effectvement, il y a

During the heat of the senate campaign, Bush's redistricting lawsuit had progressed in a way that must have provided him much
solace amidst the bitterness of his defeat. When Bush won his suit in the Houston federal district court, there was a loud
squawk from Governor John Connally, who called that august tribunal as a "Republican court." Bush whined that Connally was
being "vitriolic." During Bush's primary campaign, a three-judge panel of the federal circuit court of appeals had ruled that the
state of Texas must be redistricted. Bush called that result "a real victory for all the people of Texas." By March, Bush's
redistricting suit had received favorable action by the US Supreme Court. This meant that the way was clear to create a
no-incumbent, designer district for George in a masterpiece of gerrymandering that would make him an elected official, the first
Republican Congressman in the recent history of the Houston area.

The new Seventh District was drawn to create a liberal Republican seat, carefully taking into account which areas Bush had
succeeded in carrying in the senate race. What emerged was for the most part a lilly-white, silk-stocking district of the affluent
upper middle and upper crust. There were also small black and Hispanic enclaves. In the precinct boxes of the new district,
Bush had rolled up an eight to five margin over Yarborough. [fn 1]

But before gearing up a Congressional campaign in the Seventh District in 1966, Bush first had to jettison some of the useless
ideological ballast he had taken on for his 1964 Goldwater profile. During the 1964 campaign, Bush had spoken out more
frankly and more bluntly on a series of political issues than he ever has before or since. Apart from the Goldwater coloration,
one comes away with the impression that much of the time the speeches were not just inventions, but often reflected his own
oligarchical instincts and deeply-rooted obsessions. In late 1964 and early 1965, Bush was afflicted by a hangover induced by
what for him had been an unprecedented orgy of self-revelation.

The 1965-66 model George Bush would become a moderate, abandoning the shrillest notes of the 1964 conservative crusade.

First came an Episcopalian mea culpa. As Bush's admirer Fitzhugh Green reports, "one of his first steps was to shuck off a
bothersome trace from his 1964 campaign. He had espoused some conservative ideas that didn't jibe with his own moderate
attitude." Previous statements were becoming inoperative, one gathers, when Bush discussed the matter with his Anglican
pastor, John Stevens. "You know, John," said Bush, "I took some of the far right positions to get elected. I hope I never do it
again. I regret it." His radical stance on the Civil Rights bill was allegedly a big part of his "regret." Stevens later commented: "I
suspect that his goal on civil rights was the same as mine: it's just that he wanted to go through the existing authorities to attain it.
In that way nothing would get done. Still, he represents about the best of noblesse oblige." [fn 2]

It was characteristically through an attempted purge in the Harris County GOP organization that Bush signalled that he was
reversing his field. His gambit here was to call on party activists to take an "anti -extremist and anti-intolerance pledge," as the
Houston Chronicle reported on May 26, 1965. [fn 3] Bush attacked unnamed apostles of "guilt by association" and "far-out
fear psychology, and his pronouncements touched off a bitter and protracted row in the Houston GOP. Bush made clear that
he was targetting the John Birch Society, whose activists he had been eager to lure into his own 1964 effort. Now Bush beat up
on the Birchers as a way to correct his right-wing profile from the year before. Bush said with his usual tortured syntax that
Birch members claim to "abhor smear and slander and guilt by association, but how many of them speak out against it
publicly?"

This was soon followed by a Bush-inspired move to oust Bob Gilbert, who had been Bush's successor as the GOP county
chairman during the Goldwater period. Bush's retainers put out the line that the "extremists" had been gaining too much power
under Gilbert, and that he therefore must go. The Bush faction by now had enough clout to oust Gilbert on June 12, 1965. The
eminence grise of the right-wing faction, State senator Walter Mengdon, told the press that the ouster of Gilbert had been
dictated by Bush. Bush whined in response that he was very disappointed with Mengdon. "I have stayed out of county politics.
I believed all Republicans had backed my campaign," Bush told the Houston Chronicle on the day Gilbert fell.

On July 1 the Houston papers reported the election of a new, "anti- extremist" Republican county leader. This was James M.
Mayor, who defeated James Bowers by a margin of 95 votes against 80 in the county executive committee. Mayor was
endorsed by Bush, as well as by Senator Tower. Bowers was an auctioneer who called for a return to the Goldwater "magic."
GOP state chair O'Donnell hoped that the new chairman would be able to put an end to "the great deal of dissension within the
party in Harris County for several years." Despite this pious wish, acrimonious faction fighting tore the county organization to
pieces over the next several years. At one point the Ripon Society, a nationwide liberal Republican grouping which claimed to
be part of a moderating rebuilding effort after the Goldwater debacle, intervened in the county to protect Mayor against the
right-wing opposition. In so doing, the Ripon Society was also intervening in favor of Bush. The Ripon people pointed to the
guerilla warfare against Mayor as "another demonstration of the persistent strength of the far right within the Texas GOP."
Shortly after this scaramouche, the dissident faction of the Harris County GOP controlled 87 of 189 precinct chairs.

But at the same time Bush took care to police his left flank, distancing himself from the beginnings of the movement against the
war in Vietnam which had been visible by the middle of 1965. A remarkable document of this manuever is the text of the
debate between Bush and Ronnie Dugger, the writer and editor of the Texas Observer. The debate was held July 1, 1965
before the Junior Bar of Texas convention in Fort Worth. Dugger had endorsed Bush--in a way Dugger said was "not without
whimsical intent" in the GOP senate primary the year before. Dugger was no radical; at this point was not really against the
Vietnam war, and he actually endorsed the policy of LBJ, saying that the President had "no easy way out of Viet Nam, but he is
seeking and seeking hard for an honorable way out." [fn 4] Nevertheless, Dugger found that LBJ had made a series of mistakes
in the implementation of his policy. Dugger also embraced the provisos advanced by Senator Fulbright to the effect that
"seeking a complete military victory would cost more than the requirements of our interest and honor." So Dugger argued
against any further escalation, and argued that anti-war demonstrations and civil disobedience could be beneficial.

Bush's first real cause for alarm was seeing "the civil rights movement being made over into a massive vehicle with which to
attack the President's foreign policy in Vietnam." He started by attacking Conrad Lynn, a "Negro lawyer" who had told
students at "my old university- Yale University" - that "The United States white supremacists' army has been sent to suppress
the non-white people of the world." According to Bush "The Yale Daily News reported that the audience applauded when
[Lynn] annunced that several Negroes had gone to Asia to enlist in the North Viet Nam army to fight against the United States."
Then Bush turned to his real target, Martin Luther King. King, he said, who is "identified with the freedom of the Negro cause,
says in Boston the other day that he doesn't want to sit at a segregated lunch counter where you have strontium 90 in the milk,
overlooking the fact that it's the communists who are testing in the atmosphere today, the Red Chinese. It's not the United
States." Then there was Bayard Rustin, "a leading individual in the Negro struggle for freedom, [who] calls for withdrawal from
Viet Nam." This is all hypocritical in Bush's view, since "they talk about civil rights in this country, but they are willing to sacrifice
the individual rights in the communist countries."

Bush was equally riled up over anti-war demonstrations, since they were peopled by what he called "extremists:" "I am sure you
know what an extremist is. That's a guy who takes a good idea and carries it to simply preposterous ends. And that's what's
happened. Of course, the re-emergence of the political beatnik is causing me personally a good deal of pleasure. Many
conservatives winced during 1964 as we were labelled extremists of the right. And certainly we were embarrassed by the
booing of Nelson Rockefeller at the convention, and some of the comments that referred to the smell of fascism in the air at the
Republican convention, and things like this, and we winced."

Warming to the subject, Bush continued: "Let me give you some examples of this kind of left wing extremism. Averell
Harriman-- surely not known for his reactionary views-- speaking at Cornell University, talking about Viet Nam before a
crowd that calls "Liar!" [They] booed him to the state he could hardly finish, and finally he got so frustrated he asked, 'How
many in the audience are communists?' And a bunch of people there --small I will admit--held up their hands."

So extremists, for Bush, were those who assailed Rockefeller and Harriman.

Bush defended the House Committe on Unamerican Activities against the demonstrations organized by James Foreman and
SNCC, commiserated with a State Department official who had been branded a fascist at Iowa State, and went on to assail the
Berkeley "filthy speech" movement. As an example of the "pure naivete" of civil rights leaders, he cited Coretta Scott King who
"managed to link global peace and civil rights, somehow managed to tie these two things together philosophically" -- which
Bush professed not to fathom. "If we can be non-violent in Selma, why can't we be non-violent in Viet Nam," Ossie Davis had
said, and Bush proposed he be awarded the "green Wiener" for his "absurd theory," for "what's got to be the fuzziest thinking of
the year."

Beyond this inevitable obsession with race, Bush was frankly a hawk, frankly for escalation, opening the door to nuclear
weapons in Viet Nam only a little more subtly than he had the year before: "And so I stand here as one who says I will back up
the President and military leaders no matter what weapons they use in Southeast Asia."

During 1964, 1965 and 1966, Bush was still functioning as the full- time president of Zapata Offshore, although some of his
co-workers complained that he was even less single-minded about making money. During this period, the company's
operations were rapidly expanding and LeTourneau's Vicksburg yard turned out a series of offshore drilling platforms, including
some of new design. Business had been good during 1964, with net income up 85% over the previous year. Bush wrote in the
1964 Zapata Petroleum Annual Report: "The offshore drilling industry in which we operate continues strong and active, with
virtually all equipment in the Gulf of Mexico employed 100% of the time. Furthermore, other market around the world are
active, and new markets are opening up."

The latest LeTourneau drilling platform was the MAVERICK, which was at that time the largest self-elevating drilling barge in
action anywhere in the world. The self-elevating barges were mobile rigs with legs that rested on the bottom of the ocean. "The
maximum depth of water in which self-elevating barges can work is limited by the length of their legs," Bush reminded the
shareholders. Maverick went to work for the California Company. The MAVERICK design was so promising, Bush told the
shareholders, that Zapata had completed negotiations to build two new rigs of the MAVERICK class," which would go to
work for Shell. Gulf oil was also anxious to hire one of Zapata's new rigs.

The SCORPION, which had been the first of the self-elevating mobile barges, spent 1964 off the coast of Lousiana, under
contract to Shell oil. The VINEGAROON spent the first half of the year off Trinidad, and then moved to a position off the
coast of Louisiana. The SIDEWINDER, Zapata's ship-shaped floating drilling vessel, had been towed by Royal Dutch Shell's
Brunei Shell Petroleum Compnay Ltd. to a position off the sultanate of Brunei on the north coast of Borneo. Bush wrote in the
1964 Zapata annual report that "Brunei Shell Petroleum Compnay, Ltd., has notified your company of Shell's intention to
exercise its option, contained in the drilling contract, to purchase the SIDEWINDER. Money derived from the sale of
SIDEWINDER will be used to defray part of the cost of the new rigs. Shell plans to move the SIDEWINDER to the Persian
Gulf where Seacat-Zapata, our Persian Gulf affiliate, will operate the SIDEWINDER with another Shell subsidiary."

Among the older rigs, the NOLA I, the World War II freighter hull with a drilling apparatus built in, was now considered
obsolete. The NOLA I was sold to a Mexican drilling company, presumably one connected to Diaz Serrano or one of his
corporate fronts. The NOLA III, which had been sold in 1961 to Zapata-Seacat Offshore Company, one of Bush's
subsidiaries, was still active in the "relatively calm waters" of the Persian Gulf. "During 1964, NOLA III worked for Kuwait
Shell Petroleum Development Company and Continental Oil Company," Bush wrote in his 1964 annual report. So the Sultan of
Brunei and the Emir of Kuweit were indeed Bush's business partners.

The Zapata fleet of drilling rigs was undergoing continuous modernization, with the ship-shaped floating rigs being phased out in
favor of the self-elevating drilling platforms. In 1964, three of Zapata's five rigs were ship-shaped floaters, but by 1966, Bush
wrote, only the NOLA III would remain active in this class. One threat to the Zapata fleet was posed by the hurricanes in the
Gulf: in 1964 hurricane Hilda had done some damage to SCORPION, VINEGAROON, and the new MAVERICK.

Surveying the world market for drilling rigs, Bush pointed out that "discoveries off the coast of Nigeria are drawing rigs to that
area." There was also the recent discovery of oil in the North Sea, with the result that, "during the summer, the United Kingdom
leased a vast area off its east coast for offshore exploration." "Most of the world's major oil companies are investing heavily in
the North Sea," Bush observed. There was also the Persian Gulf, where "a major lease sale off the Northern Coast of the
Persian Gulf is being completed by the Iranian government as this report goes to press." "All of these developments are
expected to have a beneficial effect on Zapata's business over the next several years," Bush concluded.

In 1965, Bush was able to boast in his last Zapata Annual Report that earnings per share had risen for the sixth year out of the
seven of his tenure. One severe setback had been the destruction of the MAVERICK platform by Hurricane Betsy in the Gulf.
But Bush was able to reassure the shareolders: "I am pleased to note that within three weeks of Hurricane Betsy, your
company had been paid the full value by the insurance companies. The coverage was carried with Lloyds of London and British
Insurance Companies, and the offshore drilling business should be grateful for the way in which these companies have
responded when disaster has struck."

Bush's world offshore drilling market survey now included the coast of Nigera, the Iranian leases in the northern Persian Gulf,
Austrialian off-shore fields then opening up, the Gulf of Suez, and the beginning of drilling in the North Sea fields by both Britain
and Norway. Zapata, said Bush, was keeping in close contact with British Petroleum, Continental, and Shell. On the world oil
market overall, Bush quoted John Loudon, the senior managing director of the Royal Dutch Shell Group as saying that in 25
years the free world was going to require three times the current amount of oil for its consumption.

Later, the SIDEWINDER completed its trip from the Sultan of Brunei's domains off the coast of northern Borneo, and began
operating in the Persian Gulf. But to replace SIDEWINDER, Southeastern-Zaapata Drlling, a one-third owned affiliate, had
built a new rig in Japan at a cost of some $6.5 million, and this rig had been moved to the Borneo coast under contract to Shell.
Seacat Zapata's NOLA III had left the Persian Gulf and was now operating in the Gulf of Tunis, whence it would proceed to
the Red Sea coast of Ethiopia. VINEGAROON was working off the coast of Louisiana for Chevron, and a new rig, tentatively
labelled RIG 8, was also destined for the Gulf of Mexico. Opportunities seemed imminent in Australia, where Zapata had set
up a special relationship with Oil Drilling and Exploration Ltd. of Australia.

In 1966, the year that Bush says he left the management of Zapata to devote himself full-time to politics, Zapata experienced
another increase in earnings per share. According to the 1966 Zapata Annual Report, Zapata's "net profits for 1966 exceeded
the net profits of several Fortune 500 companies." The value of Zapata's offshore drilling fleet was an estimated $34 million,
and the company's stock was now trading on the American Stock Exchange. With departure of George H.W. Bush as
chairman of the board, the corporate personalities of Zapata underwent a shakeup. Along with Bush departed his maternal
Uncle Herbie, aka G.H. Walker Jr., the Managing Director of G.H. Walker and Co., New York. J.W. Gardner was out as
president, replaced by William H. Flynn. The new chairman of the board and chief executive officer was now D. Doyle Mize,
who had previously been a member of the board. The Underwood, Neuhaus Co. interests kept their seat on the Zapata board,
but their representative changed from Milton R. Underwood to William Stamps Farrish III, Bush's Beeville hunting partner and
the grandson of the Standard Oil executive who had been exposed for dealing with Nazi firms. Added to the board were also
two representatives of leading Houston law firms, including R.P. Bushman of Vinson, Elkins, Weems, and Searls and B.J.
Mackin of Baker, Botts, Shepherd and Coates. Judging from the presence of Farrish and the Houston lawyers, we may
conclude that although Bush had departed from the formal structure of Zapata, he still had board members to represent his
interests, which was important in light of the Zapata stock he continued to hold. The sole New Yorker on the post-Bush board
was also a new face, Michael M. Thomas of Lehman Brothers.

New drilling platforms included the ENDEAVOUR, HERON, and CHAPPARAL, plus a 60% share of a ship-shaped floating
vessel off the coast of Austrialia. Gulf Oil of Denmark had signed a $9 million contract for a new platform called the MAERSK
EXPLORER, the first of a new generation of LeTourneau drilling units. CHAPPARAL was under contract to AGIP, a
subsidiary of the Italian state oil compnay ENI, for operations in the Adriatic Sea. VINEGAROON was under contract to
Petrobras of Brazil. Zapata's offshore drilling activity by now comprehended areas off Denmark, Brazil, Italy, England, the
Persian Gulf, Australia, and Louisiana.

Turning to the world drilling market, the new post-Bush management offered the following overview: "The offshore drilling
industry, in which Zapata is a significant participant, has undegone a substantial change in character and scope in the past five
years. Five years ago, almost all the offshore drilling units were operating in one geographical area, the Gulf of Mexico. Today,
six separate offshore provinces have emerged as showing solid evidence of having major hydrocarbon deposits." World
horizons were vast, with the Zapata mangement counting seventeen countries with offshore oil or gas production already
underway, and fifty other countries exploring or drilling for oil. Zapata's ability to operate in such places as the North Sea,
Austrialia, and Kuwait is indicative not just of a very close relationship between Zapata and the seven sisters oil cartel, but of an
excellent entree with the inner sanctum of that cartel, the Royal Dutch Shell-British Petroleun nexus, which exercised the
decisive influence on the policies and contingency planning of the cartel. Royal Dutch Shell was for example the company that
availed itself of the services of Lord Victor Rothschild for its future planning.

The 1966 Zapata Annual report estimated that about 50% of the company's profits came from US operations, 20% from the
North Sea, 10% from the Middle East, 10% from Austrialia, and 10% from a subsidiary called Williams-McWilliams, which
carried on dredging operations in the Gulf of Mexico and the lower Mississippi River. One can imagine that George Bush had
to some degree participated in the negotiations for these operations. During his years with Zapata, it would thus appear that he
had been able to extend the scope of his activity from the Cuban-Caribbean arena to the Persian Gulf, other parts of the Arab
world, Brazil, Scandinavia, and the Adriatic waters between Italy and Yugoslavia.

As the 1966 Congressional election approached, Bush was optimistic about his chances of finally getting elected. This time,
instead of swimming against the tide of the Goldwater cataclysm, Bush would be favored by the classic mid-term election
reflext which almost always helps the Congressional candidates of the party out of power. And LBJ in the White House was
vulnerable on a number of points, from the escalation of the Viet Nam war to stagflation. The designer gerrymandering of the
new Houston congressional district had functioned perfectly, and so had his demagogic shift towards the "vital center" of
moderate conservatism. Because the district was newly drawn, there would be no well-known incumbent to contend with. And
now, by one of the convenient coincidences that seem to be strewn through Bush's life , the only obstacle between him and
election was a troglodyte Democratc conservative of an ugly and vindictive type, the sort of figure who would make even Bush
look reasonable.

The Democrat in question was Frank Briscoe, a former district attorney. According to the Texas Observer, "Frank Briscoe
was one of the most vicious prosecutors in Houston's history. He actually maintained a 'ten most wanted convictions list' by
which he kept the public advised of how much luck he had getting convictions against his chosen defendants then being held in
custody. Now, as a candidate for Congress, Briscoe is running red-eyed for the right-wing in Houston. He is anti-Democratic,;
anti-civil rights; anti-foreign aid; anti-war on poverty. The fact that he calls himself a Democrat is utterly irrelevant." By contrast,
from the point of view of the Texas Observer, "His opponent, George Bush, is a conservative man. He favors the war in
Vietnam; he was for Goldwater, although probably reluctantly; he is nobody's firebrand. Yet Bush is simply civilized in race
relations, and he is now openly rejecting the support of the John Birch Society. This is one case where electing a Republican to
Congress would help preserve the two-party balance of the country and at the same time spare Texas the embarrassment" of
having somebody like Briscoe go to Washington. [fn 5] Bush's ideological face-lifting was working. "I want conservatism to be
sensitive and dynamic, not scared and reactionary," Bush told the Wall Street Journal.

Briscoe appears in retrospect as a candidate made to order for Bush's new moderate profile, and there are indications that is
just what he was. Sources in Houston recall that in 1966 there was another Democratic candidate for the new Congressional
seat, a moderate and attractive Democrat named Wildenthal. These sources say that Bush's backers provided large-scale
financial support for Briscoe in the Democratic primary campaign, with the result that Wildenthal lost out to Briscoe, setting up
the race that Bush found to his advantage. A designer district was not enough for George; he also required a designer opponent
if he was to prevail-- a fact which may be relevant to the final evaulation of what happened in 1988.

One of the key points of differentiation between Bush and Briscoe was on race. The district had about 15% black population,
but making some inroads here among registered Democrats would be of decisive importance for the GOP side. Bush made
sure that he was seen sponsoring a black baseball team, and talked a lot about his work for the United Negro College Fund
when he had been at Yale. He told the press that "black power" agitators were not a problem among the more responsible
blacks in Houston "I think the day is past," Bush noted, "when we can afford to have a lily white district. I will not attempt to
appeal to the white backlash. I am in step with the 1960's." Bush even took up a position in the Office of Economic
Opportunity anti-povety apparatus in the city. He supported Project Head Start. By contrast, Briscoe "accused" Bush of
courting black support, and reminded Bush that other Texas Congressmen had been voting against civil rights legislation when it
came up in Congress. Briscoe had antagonized parts of the black community by his relentless pursuit of the death penalty in
cases involving black capital defendants. According to the New York Times, "Negro leaders have mounted a quiet campaign
to get Negroes to vote for [Bush]."

Briscoe's campaign ads stressed that he was a right-winger and a Texan, and accused Bush of being "the darling of the Lindsey
[sic]- Javits crowd," endorsed by labor unions, liberal professors, liberal Republicans and liberal syndicated columnists. Briscoe
was proud of his endorsements from Gov. John Connally and the Conservative Action Committee, a local right-wing group.
One endorsement for Bush that caused Briuscoe some difficulty was that of Bush mentor Richard M. Nixon. By 1966, Nixon
was on the comeback trail, having wihstood the virtual nervous breakdown he had undergone after losing his bid for the
governorship of California in 1962. Nixon was now in the course of assembling the delegates that would give him the GOP
presidential nomination in Miami in 1968. Nixon came to Houston and made campaign appearances for Bush, as he had in
1964.

Bush had brought in a new group of handlers and image-mongers for this 1966 race. His campaign manager was Jim Allison
from Midland. Harry Treleaven was brought in design Bush's propaganda.

Treleaven had been working at the J. Walter Thompson Advertising Agency in New York City, but he took a leave of absence
from J. Walter to come to work for Bush in Texas. At J. Walter Thompson, Treleaven had sold the products of Pan American,
RCA, Ford, and Lark cigarettes. He was attracted to Bush because he had plenty of money and was willing to spend it
liberally. After the campaign was over, Treleaven wrote a long memo about what he had done. He called it "Upset: The Story
of a Modern Political Campaign." One of the basic points in Treleaven's selling of Bush was that issues would play no role.
"Most national issues today are so complicated, so difficult to understand, and have opinions on that they either intimidate or,
more often, bore the average voter...Few politicians recognize this fact." In his memo, Treleaven describes how he walked
around Houston in the hot August of 1966 and asked people what they thought of George Bush. He found that many
considered Bush to be "an extremely likeable person," but that "there was a haziness about exactly where he stood politically."

For Treleaven, this was an ideal situation. "There'll be few opportunities for logical persuasion, which is all right-- because
probably more people vote for irrational, emotional reasons than professional politicians suspect." Treleaven's approach was
that "politicians are celebrities." Treleaven put 85% of Bush's hefty campaign budget into advertising, and 59% of that was for
television. Newspaper ad got 3%. Treleaven knew that Bush was behind in the polls. "We can turn this into an advantage," he
wrote, "by creating a 'fighting underdog ' image. Bush must convince voters that he really wants to be elected and is working
hard to earn their vote. People sympathize with a man who tries hard: they are also flattered that anyone would really exert
himself to get their vote. Bush, therefore, must be shown as a man who's working his heart out to win."

As Joe McGinnis summed up the television ads that resulted: "Over and over, on every television set in Houston, George Bush
was seen with his coat slung over a shoulder; his sleeves rolled up; walking the streets of his district; grinning, gripping,
sweating, letting the voter know he cared. About what, was never made clear." [fn 7]

Coached by these professional spin doctors, Bush was acting as mainstream, fair, and conciliatory as could be. In an exchange
with Briscoe in the Houston Chronicle a few days before the election, he came out for "a man's right to join a union and his right
to strike, but I additionally would favor fair legislation to see that no strike can cripple this nation and endanger the general
welfare." But he was still for the Texas right to work law. Bush supported LBJ's "present Vietnam position.. I would like to see
an All -Asian Conference convened to attempt to settle this horrible war.
G

Salut,

Zumbi l'a dit, je suis parano, donc je suis le centre du monde. Je supposerais par conséquent que le message divin s'adressait à moi, do.

J'ai longtemps cherché de quels liens tu parlais. j'ai regardé sur mon site, puis sur un message que j'ai mis récemment au Quebec et que quelqu'un a eu la gentillesse de mettre sur indy-france (il a déjà disparu, et c'est pas moi qui l'avais mis ! on peut le voir à cette adresse:
http://france.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7898&group=webcast
je remercie de tout coeur celui qui avait tenté de mettre ce message !)

Donc je me demandais vraiment de quoi tu parlais. Impossible de trouver ces liens !

Et je me demandais si ce n'était pas toi, Dieu, le parano : En supposant qu'il y ait des liens que j'ai mis sur mon site et que j'ai oublié où, il existe des liens morts ! L'ignorerais-tu ?

Puis, subitement, j'ai compris qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un article de moi, mais de celui dont je parle au premier message de cette page et qui, dois-je le rappeler une troisième fois ? n'a été ni écrit ni envoyé par moi ! Effectivement, il y a trois liens dont un vers CNN et un vers Guardian !

Je viens donc d'essayer ces liens (ce n'était pourtant pas moi qui les avait indiqués) ils marchent tous les trois (je ne sais pas combien de temps ils vont marcher, allez-y vite).

Je rappelle l'adresse de cet article intéressant, puisque censuré, même s'il n'est pas très bien écrit ni très bien présenté et où il y a ces liens dont tu prétends qu'ils sont bidons :

http://france.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7842&group=webcast

Euh ! Tu devrais redémarrer ton ordinateur, ou formater ton disque dur et tout réinstaller, si ton accès internet fonctionne mal ! au lieu d'accuser les autres (même s'il ne s'agit pas de moi) de menteurs

A+
do
do@mai68.org
http://mai68.org

Salut à toutes et tous,

Quelqu'un aurait-il l'obligeance de traduire, ou du moins de résumer en français, ce long message en anglais, que je sache au moins de quoi ça parle ? Et me dire dans quel sens il prend position ?

Merci
do
do@mai68.org

Cher do, je me suis interessé à ton article par son titre surprenant CENSURE sur Indymedia France. Laisse-moi te dire que la CIA est à peu près coupable de tout. Tu écris pour les x-files en ce moment et tu claironnes à la censure, non mais sérieusement il faut vraiment que t'arrêtes !
Tu es encore de cette espèce de journaliste qui devrait bosser chez Paris-Match. J'espère que tes collègues ne te ressemblent pas. Comment se fait-il que des ânes comme toi sévissent autant sur le net ? putain t'as réussi à me faire perdre du temps avec ton ego- pub de supermarche.

Cher karel,

Ego-pub, dis-tu ? mais que mon article ne t'intéresse pas, quelqu'un qui, comme toi, n'est pas un âne, aurait dû s'en rendre compte très vite, au lieu de perdre son temps à le lire (en entier ?). je remarque même, à propos d'ego-pub, que tu as pris la peine de perdre ton temps à faire semblant de me faire une réponse.

Je sais qu'il est bien vu chez les gauchistes de dire du mal de Paris-Match ; cependant, en 68, une couverture de Paris-Match avait fait sensation et avait plutôt servi à mobiliser les contestataires, puisqu'on y voyait en gros plan le visage d'un jeune qui venait de se faire massacrer par la police ! Le titre était du style : « La France et les jeunes »

Comme quoi, Paris-Match n'est pas toujours aussi anodin qu'on veut bien le croire. De toute façon, la thèse de la culpabilité de la CIA dans les attentats du 11 n'est certainement pas anodine. Et si paris-Match osait seulement dire au public que cette thèse existe, le genre de scandale qui fait se lever massivement les manifestations ne serait pas loin !

Je ne sais pas qui de nous deux est un âne... ce qui est sûr, c'est qu'au moins j'essaie de prouver ce que j'avance. Tu t'en rendras facilement compte en allant sur mon site. Et même si tu n'y vas pas, dans cet article sur indy-belge (que je remercie au passage de ne pas pratiquer cette horreur fasciste et désespérante qu'est la censure) j'ai voulu prouver que france.indymedia.org pratiquait la censure, et c'est fait.

Que les hypnotisés de base, ne voulant lire que des thèses ne s'éloignant pas trop de ce que peut raconter la télévision, justifient une telle censure ne m'étonne point, cela montre seulement jusqu'où l'humanité est tombée.

Je n'ai rien vu dans ton texte qui puisse servir à montrer ce que tu prétends.

Il y aurait même peut-être une contradiction dans ce que tu dis. En effet : X-Files sert à faire de la propagande au FBI, puisque d'après ce feuilleton américain, cette agence de renseignement aurait quelques agents sympas. Je ne pense pas, par contre, faire de la pub pour la CIA ; au contraire. À moins que tu veuilles évoquer une " guerre des polices " entre CIA et FBI, pour dire ensuite que, descendant en flamme la CIA, je fais donc de la pub pour le FBI d'X-Files ! Mais je ne fais pas de parano à ce point, je suppose seulement que tu ne sais pas ce que tu dis et que tu n'avais jamais remarqué qu'X-Files faisait de la pub au FBI.

De toute façon, sur mon site, je cite le film d'Oliver Stone intitulé " JFK ", où le FBI en prend aussi pour son grade, puisque c'est lui qui a exécuté Kennedy. Mais peut-être que sans le savoir Oliver Stone travaillait pour Paris-Match, quand il a monté son enquête ?

En tout cas, je te verrais bien au journal de TF1 ou D'antenne 2, en train de faire sincèrement partager les avis autorisés par ces deux agences américaines (FBI et CIA). Et même, comme il est plutôt rare que paris-match serve à la mobilisation, cet hebdomadaire te conviendrait peut-être aussi.

A+
do
http://mai68.org

PS) Je vais utiliser le mot " thèse " même si dans ton cas il est certainement inadéquat puisqu'il faudrait que tu penses, au lieu de croire le faire en te contentant de réciter ce que tu as entendu la veille au journal télévisé : Les personnes qui justifient la censure veulent toujours que ce soient les thèses trop éloignèes des leurs qui soient censurées ; c'est là leur conception de la " démocratie ". Leur ouverture d'esprit n'est pas celle d'un âne, puisqu'un tel animal, dont j'aime l'entêtement dans la désobéissance, n'est jamais muni de visière. les gens comme toi sont des chevaux ! Ils sont montés par leurs maîtres et courent jusqu'à en crever dans la seule direction qu'il leur est autorisé de regarder.

PPS) Quant à ceux qui voudraient me psychiatriser, je les renvoie à Staline !

Do a raison le complot de la CIA est bien plus grand que ça ! Le camembert par exemple est sous contrôle de la CIA actuellement ! et ça personne ne le dit ! je sais aussi (on me l'a dit c'est donc vrai) que le fromage de chèvre sera bientôt aussi sous contrôle parce que les américains trouvent qu'ils sent pas bon !
Et ça personne ne peut dire que c'est pas vrai parce que je l'ai écris, na !

La thèse de la culpabilité de la CIA n'est pas une simple
bêtise. Lisez les articles du http://www.emperors-clothes.com

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,612354,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

ici les links de que je t'ais ecri. On le trouve si on klik sur une des links dans ton article.
pour tout le monde, les links sont inventé, il sont créees mais pas vrais.

ok, les links son vrai, je m'excuse...

ok, les links son vrai, je m'excuse...

Do t'a pas répondu pour le camember et le fromage de chèvre ! Tu ne nous dis pas tout ! Tu nous caches encore des choses !