Wars and Conflicts听 permalink
Israel to blame for Iraq war
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Sharons secret office provided false intelligence about non-existent WMD's and link to Al-Queda, to the equivalent secret OSP, Office of Special plans, in the Pentagon.
It was and old wish of the neo-cons to remove an old foe of Israel, and the most prominent friend and benefactor of the palestinians.
****
麻豆约拍 NEWS Thursday, 29 August, 2002
Bush 'no Churchill' says grandson
By Ollie Stone-Lee
麻豆约拍 News Online politics staff
Mr Soames said it was clear there would be US action, although not before the New Year, and he warned Iraq would be "no pushover".
As one quarter American himself, the MP stressed he would love to support the US over Iraq but argued it needed to "take people with her".
Saddam Hussein was an "absolutely grotesque figure", he said, but that was not necessarily a reason for "regime change" - there were no plans to topple Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, for example.
Middle East tensions
Mr Soames continued: "I also think one of the comparisons that does not stand up was that Churchill was a great thinker in the round of the whole scene.
"It would be lunacy to pretend you can just go into Iraq without having regard to what is going to happen in the Middle East."
He urged America to secure a new United Nations resolution on dealing with Iraq.
He added: "There is no doubt there is a problem. What's the scale of the problem? There are military arguments for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
"My own view is that it's better to be jaw, jaw than war, war. It's much easier to go to war than it is to go to peace."
**'
Commentary:
Look no mention of oil here. The oil was flowing free - getting to the market, despite some later reveiled financial 'problems'. That you lot continue to mention oil as motivating factor, must be due to an inherent unwillingness to name who is really behind: 'The cration of the anomaly: Israel in the ME, and its (supposed) interests. I say 'supposed, because see where this un-elected lot have gotten us: A mess, that threatens to become an Iran ally, alien to the west and Israel. How stupid are one allowed to be, sand still get away with it? When will the world say stop to the illegal entity dragging the world into trouble time after another? -
Message 2
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
i suppose you could take the great zionist conspiracy angle, but why go to all the effort of "finding" supposed links here there and everywhere when the sheer incompetence of the CIA etc is a far more likely explanation.
But it is starting to come out, programme on the other week - a woman, an ex (as in as soon as the latest Gulf War started) US Army Intelligence Officer was speaking about the "intelligence" they had......
Basically the Bush Administration formed a new Intelligence Dept, which worried US Army Intel as it was civilians with clearly no intelligence experience. the worrys were not unfounded. the ex officer claims that the new Dept would come in with Reports, clearly fabricated and not matching what US Intel Agents and other sources were reporting in Iraq of WMD's etc and ordering her unit for instance to literally cut and paste the emailed reports into their own untouched and to pass that on to the white house....
you don't need Israel in the equation when you have a thoroughly corrupt and discredited administration like Bush's. -
Message 3
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Oh, this has to be Karen Kwasniewsky. You can Google for her, and even download Jareckis documentary:' Why we fight' at BitTorrent, where she tells her story. The point is :it was this secret office,OSP, Office of Special Plans (Google), run by Douglas Feith (a neo-con and a jew (what else?) (now working elsewhere - surprise,surprise), who literally took over all the intelligence gathering versus Iraq and its presentation to the wider world.
I am glad, and it is reflecting the fact that good and honest americans still exists and hold power, that this secret office now are being investigated by the commission, who allready have charged Scooter Libby, for wrongdoing and for deliberately misleading the US into war on false presumptions. -
Message 4
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Nick,
You blame Israel for everything. Quite frankly it is boring. i thought I'd embarrassed you enough last time you started posting your pathetic "Der Sturmer" rants. Would you like some more? Whether your claims have any truth in them or not, I cannot be bothered to check. It is repetitive and rather sad. What's the problem, did your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other run off with a Jew?
There must be some deep-seated psychological reason behind this hatred of Jews, or is it that you're just a Nazi?
I am not getting drawn into your stupid arguments again, since there is no point. If anyone disagrees with you, then no doubt they are in the pay of the "International Zionist Finance Conspiracy" aren't they Nick?
You see Jewish conspiracy in everything, and to throw this one out, that Iraq is Israel's fault (when if you knew anything about your conspiracy theories, you'd know full well that the war was planned in order to make Halliburton lots of money) is just contemptible garbage, and well I suppose we shouldn't expect anything better from a neo-nazi like you.
Please do the world a favour, and take your horrible religious hatred elsewhere, you sad individual. -
Message 5
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
I think the War in Iraq has little immediately to do Israel, but the troubles in the middle east do orginated from the conflict for Israel. The current anti-Americanism in the area stems from this, and much of the terrorist activity probably would of never of exist if it were not for this conflict.
-
Message 6
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
This trouble has escalated the "post - war" time in Iraq.
-
Message 7
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Dennis Lester (DL) writes:
>did your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other run off with a Jew?<
Yes it was very circumspect. He was circumcised and his country is circumvened.
I think the circumstances, though, in the ME, where this little entity the size of 2 times Cyprus, is causing problems one time after another, and lets the US and UK fight ITS wars, have a great deal to do with it.(ie. that I one time after another mentions this entity as the greatest danger to ME peace and to peace in the wider world. Come on, a country the size of 2 times Cyprus with 200 nuclear weapons, you must be out of your mind, to sanction anything like this. -
Message 8
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
No, the Mossad told the US that Saddam had no links with AQ within a couple of months of the 9/11 attacks. It certainly helps the pro-Israel neo-cons, but the underlying driver was the Project for the New American Century and all that it entailed. They knew that the US public would support anything that involved presumed threats and terrorism - hence the regular refs to 9/11 in their speeches. Remember "states like these and their terrorist allies"? That was a lie like WMD.
However, as came up on the significant dates board the other day, Saddam reduced the flow of oil in January 2002 as a lever against UN sanctions. That is a fact frequently forgotten in all this. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Oh Nick,
You are so witty with your little "Dennis Lester" comment aren't you? Actually, no you aren't.
So, do you have any reason for posting this, other than to proclaim to all the world "Nick Hates Jews!" (which is after all, your real motive for posting, you have admitted as much on other threads). You are a narrow minded bigot Nick.
So, now the right to own nuclear weapons is dependent on the size of your country? Well, the UK isn't much bigger in size than Israel, and we've got plenty of nukes, under the "Rowan Doctrine" do we qualify too? Or are we excused on the grounds that we don't have a large Jewish population? Sorry Nick, but if you're a small country, like Israel (which I see you slipped up on and called it a COUNTRY! Schoolboy error...) surrounded by lots of other little nations who want to wipe you off the face of the planet, and kill your people (which happened again in another part of the world 60 years ago), would you not want to get hold of a big pile of nukes, to act as deterrent? Please note, that since the knowledge that Israel has nukes has become public, there haven't been anymore invasion attempts by Syria, Egypt and Jordan. This deterrence stuff seems to work to me!
Finally,
You wrote
">did your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other run off with a Jew?<
Yes it was very circumspect. He was circumcised and his country is circumvened. "
Well, I wonder if we've got to the source of why you hate Jews? Take it elsewhere, it is unnacceptable to spout the religious hate that you do, and I will tell you a little secret. I don't particularly care which religious group, or ethnic group, or race you want to unjustly blame for the world's ills. Whether you blame Christians, Jews, Muslims, Swedes (which you've also had a go at), Buddhists, or Inuit Eskimos, whoever you try to victimise and single out, you are wrong. You just can't see that your ignorance is a dangerous thing, and that's why I have a go at you and your small minded bigotry. It is wrong, unjust to blame anything possible on one group of people without justification, and an ignorant act. Everytime a genocide is committed in the world, it starts with someone spouting vile hate like you are doing, and ends in mass graves.
Just think about that. -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
No, the Mossad told the US that Saddam had no links with AQ within a couple of months of the 9/11 attacks. It certainly helps the pro-Israel neo-cons, but the underlying driver was the Project for the New American Century and all that it entailed. They knew that the US public would support anything that involved presumed threats and terrorism - hence the regular refs to 9/11 in their speeches. Remember "states like these and their terrorist allies"? That was a lie like WMD.
However, as came up on the significant dates board the other day, Saddam reduced the flow of oil in January 2002 as a lever against UN sanctions. That is a fact frequently forgotten in all this. 听
Thanks Dave,
Nick. Chew on that. -
Message 11
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Doesn't Bush have strong links with the Saudi Royal Family? If true, it would make it unlikely that Israeli intelligence had much sway. From what I know of it, it was incompetence in the US intelligence service, not least because of Bush putting a friend in charge. Not that British Intelligence managed any better.
For the record, despite being rather conservative, I support Israel and have no problems with jews. I'm still annoyed with them for killing British servicemen in 1946/47, however
-
Message 12
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Unless you are in Africa, the sound of hooves is more likely to be the sound of horses than zebras.
There are other more reasonable explanations as to why the US invaded Iraq than that the US acted as Israel's pawn.
See my other posts. -
Message 13
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
I personally tired about the arguements about wmds, oil and intelligence. The papers seem to of made up the public's mind rather than wait for various inquiries or facts to come out. I'm trying to keep an open mind about the political and legal side of things. But there is a seperate arguement thats been forgot, ignoring politics and law should Iraq been invaded? Was it or will it be benefitial to the people of Iraq or us? I believe it will.
-
Message 14
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
You seem to reject public opinion and then say the invasion can be justified on public opinion of the outcome. Aside from being a contradiction in itself, it is a recipe for the lynch mopb - the world would be a better place without hte neo-cons or the Internet pervs. That does not justify trying to kill them.
-
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Dave!!
I am shocked! You're actually advocating not shooting Neo-Cons??? I'm surprised at you!!
-
Message 16
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Mahros,
"I'm still annoyed with them for killing British servicemen in 1946/47, however" I think the correct term would be 'murdered British Servicemen'. -
Message 17
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
DL - after a fair trial!
The Stern Gang, which included several of Israel's founding leaders was also doing a deal with Hitler in the late 30s to put some pressure on UK. I get a bit cynical, whehn I hear them going on about "terrorism" - and why is stephen Fry doing the Holocaust - again - on Who do you think you are? David Baddiel had a go last series. Maybe the 麻豆约拍 should make a prog about Jewish terrporism in the 30s! -
Message 18
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Sharons secret office provided false intelligence about non-existent WMD's and link to Al-Queda, to the equivalent secret OSP, Office of Special plans, in the Pentagon.
听
Nick, I'm trying to be polite about this, but one more time I have to tell you. Your Camel is blocking traffic, and you can clean that pile of steaming mess up from the road. What do you mean it was you and not your Camel? I don't care clean it up.
Cheerz. -
Message 19
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Matt,
It wasn't Nick, it was a Mossad camel, don't you know anything??? -
Message 20
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
DL - after a fair trial!
The Stern Gang, which included several of Israel's founding leaders was also doing a deal with Hitler in the late 30s to put some pressure on UK. I get a bit cynical, whehn I hear them going on about "terrorism" - and why is stephen Fry doing the Holocaust - again - on Who do you think you are? David Baddiel had a go last series. Maybe the 麻豆约拍 should make a prog about Jewish terrporism in the 30s! 听
Some of the retoric about security and terrorism is slightly ironic. Not that its justifies any terrorism. -
Message 21
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
DL - after a fair trial!
The Stern Gang, which included several of Israel's founding leaders was also doing a deal with Hitler in the late 30s to put some pressure on UK. I get a bit cynical, whehn I hear them going on about "terrorism" - and why is stephen Fry doing the Holocaust - again - on Who do you think you are? David Baddiel had a go last series. Maybe the 麻豆约拍 should make a prog about Jewish terrporism in the 30s! 听
There was. A series about the last days of the British Empire and the withdrawl actions that were fought devoted an programme to the King David Hotel Bombing.
Nick Rowan, you have an pathological hatred of the Jews which I can't see. Although, yes, they can be brutal, the people they oppress are no angels either. -
Message 22
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
The King David hotel was a fair target.
Cheerz. -
Message 23
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
"The King David hotel was a fair target" Why?
Whatever the target is doesn't alter the fact that by every definition it's perpetrators were terrorists, not obeying any articles of war.
Or what about the hanging of British soldiers, were they a fair target? -
Message 24
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Mani,
In an effort to appease the Arabs, the British Army was turning away refugees away from what was to be Israel. They were then placing them behind barbed wire in Cypress. Many of the same refugees were Holocaust survivors. If you were a fighter in the Haganah, what would your response have been. The King David hotel was where British officers were billeted. I can't really comment on the hanging of British soldiers as I鈥檓 not familiar with the facts. Bear in mind this was after the Brits did nothing about Arab attacks on Jews, to include the ethnic cleansing of Hebron.
Cheers, Matt -
Message 25
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Is that you Expat?
Why the change of name? Were you having jip with the other one?
鈥淚n an effort to appease the Arabs, the British Army was turning away refugees away from what was to be Israel鈥 But there鈥檚 nothing illegal about that? There was an imposed limit on the emigration to Palestine for many legal and practical reasons. Then, much as now people don鈥檛 have a legal right to go and live just where they want?. Why shouldn鈥檛 the Arabs who were living there have some kind of appeasement, their land had effectively been signed away, everything couldn鈥檛 have been one way traffic.
鈥渨hat would your response have been.鈥 Well many things, but perpetrating a terrorist action because you can鈥檛 get what you want isn鈥檛 one of them? Remember that Palestine was under a UN mandate, not British autocratic rule.
鈥淭he King David hotel was where British officers were billeted.鈥
Does this make it any less of a terrorist action? Just the same as, for example, the attack on the US marine base in Beirut鈥 The various groups obeyed no articles of war, no conventions, they were terrorists regardless of the target.
鈥 I can't really comment on the hanging of British soldiers as I鈥檓 not familiar with the facts.鈥
Cut a long story short, they kidnapped,, tied and hung British soldiers from Trees. Thus (even more so) making them nothing but terrorists and utter hypocrites when it comes to their condemnation of Terrorist acts committed in Israel. Up until recently they refused to speak to Arafat because of his 鈥榯errorist鈥 background. Unbelievable!!
鈥 Bear in mind this was after the Brits did nothing about Arab attacks on Jews鈥 They did what they did when Jews attacked and killed Arabs鈥 As I always say when it comes down to the Arab Israel thing, they鈥檙e as bad as each other. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. -
Message 26
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Interesting isn't it? The Israelis uphold these thugs and murderers as founders of their nation for despicable acts against UK troops and civilians - but tell he Palestinains not to vote for Hamas! In future, the members of Hamas may well be held up as founders of the state of Palestine for resisting the acts of the occupying forces.
It is a bit like the Yanks and the IRA really. Much depends on your definition of terror. -
Message 27
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
"Much depends on your definition of terror. "
Dave, I don't think the definition of terror changes, just the allowance and justification for it. -
Message 28
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
It ios interesting to read the UK definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. Apparently, it includes trying to get governments to change policy by the threat or use of force against individuals or proeprty.
-
Message 29
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
PBS Frontline 20.February 2003:
T-H-E---W-A-R---B-E-H-I-N-D---C-L-O-S-E-D---D-O-O-R-S
This excellent documentary was first broadcast on the 20.th of February 2003. It is from the best the americans have got when it comes to documentaries PBS in Boston, and indeed a lot of its documentaries are co-productions with the 麻豆约拍. In contrast to the 麻豆约拍, however, PBS have made 52 documentaries available online as streaming. Here is the URL to the Foreign Affairs/defense section:
Here is the website of the mentioned programme:
And here is the direct link that will take you to the streaming experience of this excellent, landmark documentary, that will stand for many years, and still is very actual, since it reveils that it is the responsibility of the neo-conservatives contrary to more moderate members of the administration such as Colin Powell, that Bush made the disastrous and fatal decision to invade
Iraq.
-
Message 30
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Is that you Expat?
Why the change of name? Were you having jip with the other one?
鈥淚n an effort to appease the Arabs, the British Army was turning away refugees away from what was to be Israel鈥 But there鈥檚 nothing illegal about that? There was an imposed limit on the emigration to Palestine for many legal and practical reasons. Then, much as now people don鈥檛 have a legal right to go and live just where they want?. Why shouldn鈥檛 the Arabs who were living there have some kind of appeasement, their land had effectively been signed away, everything couldn鈥檛 have been one way traffic.
鈥渨hat would your response have been.鈥 Well many things, but perpetrating a terrorist action because you can鈥檛 get what you want isn鈥檛 one of them? Remember that Palestine was under a UN mandate, not British autocratic rule.
鈥淭he King David hotel was where British officers were billeted.鈥
Does this make it any less of a terrorist action? Just the same as, for example, the attack on the US marine base in Beirut鈥 The various groups obeyed no articles of war, no conventions, they were terrorists regardless of the target.
鈥 I can't really comment on the hanging of British soldiers as I鈥檓 not familiar with the facts.鈥
Cut a long story short, they kidnapped,, tied and hung British soldiers from Trees. Thus (even more so) making them nothing but terrorists and utter hypocrites when it comes to their condemnation of Terrorist acts committed in Israel. Up until recently they refused to speak to Arafat because of his 鈥榯errorist鈥 background. Unbelievable!!
鈥 Bear in mind this was after the Brits did nothing about Arab attacks on Jews鈥 They did what they did when Jews attacked and killed Arabs鈥 As I always say when it comes down to the Arab Israel thing, they鈥檙e as bad as each other. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
听
Hi Mani,
Yes, tis meself indeed. I closed my 麻豆约拍 account because I was unfairly treated by Lisa *pout* so of course I lost the nick with it, I prefer something different to expat anyway. I do not consider myself an expat. I only used that nick to complain to the 麻豆约拍 about their coverage of Hurricane Katrina, then I found the history site. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.
When a country or ethnic group is fighting for a homeland, legalities are not always at the head of their priority list. When the Brits colonized what was to become America the natives who fought back were not terrorists. There have always been Jews in what is now Israel. For years Jewish organizations were buying up land in Israel. The UN mandate was not being enforced by the Brits with an even hand, because there were British interests to look after in other Arab countries. Lets take a look at what we are calling terrorism. The attack on the King David hotel was a legitimate act because it was a military target. It was an attack by freedom fighters on the occupiers. The attack on the marines was many things, but terrorism it was not. It was a Military target. If an individual straps on some semtex, kills himself and civilian targets with it, that鈥檚 a terrorist act. When the IRA killed Irish and English civilians that was terrorism. When a soldier was the target, it was not. To me the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a terrorist will take non combatant lives on purpose to further his agenda. A terrorist is not a terrorist because he or she is not on our side. When DL turned me around on GITMO it was when I realized that we called the Taliban freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Now that they are fighting us, those taken prisoner on the battlefield should be treated as prisoners of war. That is not the case with the 9/11 terrorists. They deliberately took innocent lives. To my way of thinking soldiers serving under the UN flag in what is now Israel were not targets of terrorism. What happened to the abducted British soldiers was a crime against humanity. A Palestinian kid who takes out an Israeli soldier is not a terrorist. He is a freedom fighter.
Cheers, Matt -
Message 31
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Israel to blame blah blah blah. Here we go again.
Please go outside, the sun is shining, and get an interesting life. There is much to gain and nothing to lose except your prejudices. -
Message 32
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Do you happen to know when PBS started making its documentaries available as free streaming downloads, because I checked around the time it was first broadcast but couldn't find the free streaming feature then, so presumably this is new?
What other documentary would you like to share - in the invasion of Iraq-field? This watershed in international politics in so many ways. -
Message 33
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi DaughterLeah,
How are you!
Haven't seen you around for a while!
DL -
Message 34
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
The documentary reveals that it even during the first Gulf War was a goal for the neo-cons to get rid of Saddam, however as I myself have pointed out repeatedly on this board this would have been impossible, since the terms under which the recordbraking 90 nation + coalition was put together, only spoke of the ousting of Saddam of Kuwait as the goals of the war. The realists with such notable personal忙ities as Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell won the argument then, and the neo-cons was marginalised.Soon after Clinton came in and was to occupy the office for 8 years.
The documentary pinpoints Scooter Libby (assistant to Cheny) and Paul Volfovitch(Deputy secretary of defense) as key operatives placed by the neoconservatives in the Bush administartion that took office in january 2001. Both happens to be jews, and their policies on Iraq tallies closely to that of Sharons government, the latter provided false intelligence, that, in an ironic twist, the moderate Colin Powell was to read aloud in February 2003 before the UN security council(yes you can watch this memorable speech at the end of the documentary.) -
Message 35
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Nick,
You've just shot your own Israel-bashing argument down in flames.
"Both happens to be jews, and their policies on Iraq tallies closely to that of Sharons government, "
Once again, Nick's got the swastika armband on.
How is this correct? You're talking about events years apart. However, far be it for you to look at simple matters like facts (after all, the facts are OBVIOUSLY distorted fabrications made by the conspiracy of international Jewish finance!). Isn't that right Nick. Your pathetic rants are just pointless, because unfortunately, we're all a bit too open-minded on here to believe your neo-nazi rubbish.
PLease do the world a favour, get a life. -
Message 36
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
But they also interview that other notable architect of the war, Richard Perle. He too belong to this group, which undeniably have close ties, if only for emotional resasons, to the first jewish homeland in world history. You still dont think there is a connection?
Richard Perle have himself to the 麻豆约拍'c Steve Bradshaw in the 麻豆约拍 Panorama-documentary: 'The War Party', given the notion of 'never another holocaust' as chief motivating factor for the neo-conservatives, and another (jewish) neo-con said the same in the programme.
However praise-worthy such an opinion is, having such un-elected personalities yielding that much power, so as to push the worlds only superpower into war for their own ends, is nothing short of a catastrophe, and a testimony to the many flaws of american democracy in its present form---particularly when one takes into account, that Saddam was a threat to no-one, and they knew it - by God they knew it. THEY are not stupid - the WMD ramblings was off course only for public consumption, they themselves have allways been to smart to believe in it. -
Message 37
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Panorama: The War Party was broadcast on Sunday, 18 May 2003 at 22:15 BST on 麻豆约拍 One.
The War Party
Critics say the White House has been hijacked by neo-conservatives
They brought us war against Iraq - what do the hawks in Washington have in store for us now?
Panorama investigates the "neo-conservatives", the small and unelected group of right-wingers, who critics claim have hijacked the White House.
Throughout the war with Iraq, Steve Bradshaw was with the neocons in Washington - discovering whether they're really trying to run the world the American way.
Read a transcript of the programme here (and search for the word: Holocaust)
-
Message 38
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Matt
If terrorism and terrorists could have a simple definintion it would have and every point of view would use the same language when talking about them.
I'm probably biased in this debate as my Grandad was one of the soldiers out in Palestine after the war. He has spoken little of what he saw out there other than they were told to stop the refugees from entering the country and having just liberated these people from concentration camps they didn't really have the heart. He regrets that now for what they did and the problems its caused since. I'm afraid the real blame lies with the UN for not dealing with the situation back then. -
Message 39
Posted by HistoricallyInclined (U2629030) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Nick,
I just read this thread, and to be brutally honest, you sicken me. Being a Jew myself I am deeply offended that you would spew such slanderous filth against my people. You claim that we started the war in Iraq, yet your proof kills your argument.
DL,
My deepest thanks for taking a stand againt this racist.
Nick,
Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, and NEVER POST HERE AGAIN. -
Message 40
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
It should be obvious that I only refer to the political members of said group, and among these I overwhelmingly focus on the ones that have driven the worlds only superpower into war for their own ends. This is terrible and the US now finds itself in a mess and a quagmire as a result of this.
We all remember it took the best part of a decade last time (after the Vietnam war) for the US to shake this bad experience off and to start to believe in the future again. Should anything similar happen this time, it would be nothing short of a catastrophe, for which your people will be hold responsible - or should I stress, only the political pundits among you. -
Message 41
Posted by HistoricallyInclined (U2629030) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
But why? The Jews have not been involved in any of this - they are only concerned about themselves right now.
-
Message 42
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
You probably mean libellous filth since slasnder is spoken
But let us look at the double standard.
SOme of us remember the abuse spewed out by various US groups, some pro-Israeli ones among them at John Sunnunu who made the error of being Palestinian.
And if has been pointed out that if Bush was surrounded by as many moslem advisors all of a similar political view, the howling would not cease.
That does not mean the Israelis started the invasion of Iraq. But if anyone beleives the US was not influenced by what its own CinC describes as its best ally, or thinks Israel under Sharon did not urge the invasion, then they need their head read. -
Message 43
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
However given that Volfovitch has got a retreating post at the World Bank, Scooter Libby is under criminal investigation with the focus now on the OSP, Office of secret plans in the Pentagon (focus by the independent inquery conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald), and that Richard Perle is now only a shadow of his former self, and that another neoconservative orthodox with un-orthodox methods, such as Jack Abramoff, also finds himself under persecution, it seems to me that they are overall on the defensive. What do you say of this?
-
Message 44
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Historicallyinclined,
No problem, however, Nick never lets the facts get in the way of his incomprehensible need to foam at the mouth and blame the Jews for everything. I suspect he was Julius Streicher in a past life!
Best wishes,
DL -
Message 45
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Matt
If terrorism and terrorists could have a simple definintion it would have and every point of view would use the same language when talking about them.
I'm probably biased in this debate as my Grandad was one of the soldiers out in Palestine after the war. He has spoken little of what he saw out there other than they were told to stop the refugees from entering the country and having just liberated these people from concentration camps they didn't really have the heart. He regrets that now for what they did and the problems its caused since. I'm afraid the real blame lies with the UN for not dealing with the situation back then.听
Hi, I find little to disagree with in your post iPad.
Cheers,Matt. -
Message 46
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi DaughterLeah,
How are you!
Haven't seen you around for a while!
DL听
Hi DL
My computer decided to go awol so there were big problems in fixing it and that took up much time.
2ndly, I got fed up to the back teeth saying the same old things re Israel etc. to people who are bigoted and don't have open minds, so for some light relief I now go to the food board because my other interest is food, history of, cooking and the love that goes with food.
I regularly post on the Jewish Board anyway, and as a matter of regularity check out the History Board, but most people there are very very knowledgeable about their subjects, and although history is something I am deeply fascinated in, I don't know enough to contribute properly.
I love reading your posts though, and I was interested to read somewhere that you are ex Army? So's my OH. He was a Captain in the Royal Signals for quite some years.
Cheers for now and all the best to you. Have a virtual
-
Message 47
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Is that you Expat?
Why the change of name? Were you having jip with the other one?
鈥淚n an effort to appease the Arabs, the British Army was turning away refugees away from what was to be Israel鈥 But there鈥檚 nothing illegal about that? There was an imposed limit on the emigration to Palestine for many legal and practical reasons. Then, much as now people don鈥檛 have a legal right to go and live just where they want?. Why shouldn鈥檛 the Arabs who were living there have some kind of appeasement, their land had effectively been signed away, everything couldn鈥檛 have been one way traffic.
鈥渨hat would your response have been.鈥 Well many things, but perpetrating a terrorist action because you can鈥檛 get what you want isn鈥檛 one of them? Remember that Palestine was under a UN mandate, not British autocratic rule.
鈥淭he King David hotel was where British officers were billeted.鈥
Does this make it any less of a terrorist action? Just the same as, for example, the attack on the US marine base in Beirut鈥 The various groups obeyed no articles of war, no conventions, they were terrorists regardless of the target.
鈥 I can't really comment on the hanging of British soldiers as I鈥檓 not familiar with the facts.鈥
Cut a long story short, they kidnapped,, tied and hung British soldiers from Trees. Thus (even more so) making them nothing but terrorists and utter hypocrites when it comes to their condemnation of Terrorist acts committed in Israel. Up until recently they refused to speak to Arafat because of his 鈥榯errorist鈥 background. Unbelievable!!
鈥 Bear in mind this was after the Brits did nothing about Arab attacks on Jews鈥 They did what they did when Jews attacked and killed Arabs鈥 As I always say when it comes down to the Arab Israel thing, they鈥檙e as bad as each other. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
听
Hi Mani,
Yes, tis meself indeed. I closed my 麻豆约拍 account because I was unfairly treated by Lisa *pout* so of course I lost the nick with it, I prefer something different to expat anyway. I do not consider myself an expat. I only used that nick to complain to the 麻豆约拍 about their coverage of Hurricane Katrina, then I found the history site. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.
When a country or ethnic group is fighting for a homeland, legalities are not always at the head of their priority list. When the Brits colonized what was to become America the natives who fought back were not terrorists. There have always been Jews in what is now Israel. For years Jewish organizations were buying up land in Israel. The UN mandate was not being enforced by the Brits with an even hand, because there were British interests to look after in other Arab countries. Lets take a look at what we are calling terrorism. The attack on the King David hotel was a legitimate act because it was a military target. It was an attack by freedom fighters on the occupiers. The attack on the marines was many things, but terrorism it was not. It was a Military target. If an individual straps on some semtex, kills himself and civilian targets with it, that鈥檚 a terrorist act. When the IRA killed Irish and English civilians that was terrorism. When a soldier was the target, it was not. To me the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a terrorist will take non combatant lives on purpose to further his agenda. A terrorist is not a terrorist because he or she is not on our side. When DL turned me around on GITMO it was when I realized that we called the Taliban freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Now that they are fighting us, those taken prisoner on the battlefield should be treated as prisoners of war. That is not the case with the 9/11 terrorists. They deliberately took innocent lives. To my way of thinking soldiers serving under the UN flag in what is now Israel were not targets of terrorism. What happened to the abducted British soldiers was a crime against humanity. A Palestinian kid who takes out an Israeli soldier is not a terrorist. He is a freedom fighter.
Cheers, Matt听
You've made a big hu-hah about the attack being 'legitimate' and its an impressive argument even if it doesn't sway me. How do you explain their attempt to blame it on the Palestinian's by dressing up in Arab clothing so as to incite British reprisals against the Arab community? -
Message 48
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
You've made a big hu-hah about the attack being 'legitimate' and its an impressive argument even if it doesn't sway me. How do you explain their attempt to blame it on the Palestinian's by dressing up in Arab clothing so as to incite British reprisals against the Arab community? 听
What exactly do you figure needs explaining ? -
Message 49
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Seeing that you're being pedantic, Do you condone their activities?
-
Message 50
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
How do you explain their attempt to blame it on the Palestinian's by dressing up in Arab clothing so as to incite British reprisals against the Arab community? 听
What exactly do you figure needs explaining ?听
Pedantic? Do you understand the meaning of the word? My reply was a simple request for you to clarify your post.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.