Why wasn't our support for Israel highlighted in the 9/11 Report as a motivation for the attack?
HHW
Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
Frank Arthur
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1
>
> Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists
According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners. All of them
entered the country legally on a temporary visa, mostly tourist visas
with entry permits for six months. Although four of them attended
flight school in the United States, only one is known to have entered
on an appropriate visa for such study, and one entered on an F-1
student visa. Besides the four pilots, all but one of the terrorists
entered the United States only once and had been in the country for
only three to five months before the attacks.
The four pilots had been in the United States for extended periods,
although none was a legal permanent resident. Some had received more
than one temporary visa, most of which were currently valid on
September 11, but at least three of them had fallen out of status and
were, therefore, in the United States illegally.
The terrorists had obtained U.S. identification that was used for
boarding flights in the form of Florida, Virginia, California and New
Jersey driver's licenses/ID cards. One of the terrorists, Mohamed
Atta, was detained in Florida for driving without a license, but
subsequently obtained one. Thirteen of the terrorists had Florida
driver's licenses or ID cards, seven had Virginia driver's licenses,
at least two had California licenses and two had New Jersey driver's
licenses. According to the March 28, 2002 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
Robert Thibadeau, director of Carnegie Mellon's Internet Security
labratory, says that "the 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 were holding 63
state driver's licenses for identification."
In the probe of the attack, numerous other people with potential
connections to the hijackings have been detained for immigration
violations.
[Note: In the conversion of names from the Arabic alphabet into ours,
there is no single correct spelling. This is why the names of the
terrorists vary in their spelling in different news accounts, and why
computerized databases will not recognize the name when it is spelled
differently from how it was entered into the database. For example,
Mohamed could be spelled Muhamed or Mohammed, and al-Suami could be
spelled Alsuami or al Swami, etc. ]
The Pentagon Plane (AA Flight 77, Dulles to Los Angeles)
Hani Hasan Hanjour (26) - Saudi Arabian - pilot
First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona.
Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where
he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale,
Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he
obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April
1999.
Obtained student visa (F-1) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in Sept. 2000
after an initial refusal. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, Hanjour failed to reveal in
his visa application that he had previously traveled to the United
States.
Returned Dec. 2000 to study English at Holy Names College (Oakland CA)
but never showed up at the school. In illegal status because he did
not enroll, and his entry permit had expired at the time of the
attack.
Lived in San Diego, Phoenix and Mesa, Ariz. (with Nawaf al-Hamzi), and
later in Northern Virginia.
Had a Virginia driver's license.
Khalid al-Mihdhar (or Almidhar) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained U.S. tourist visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 1999.
In Malaysia in Jan. 2000. Followed by Malaysian agents tipped off by
CIA (see Wash. Post 2/3/02).
Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi on B-2
tourist visa from Malaysia.
Lived in San Diego, where he took flight training in May 2000 with
Nawaf al-Hamzi.
Left U.S. in June 2000 and obtained new B-1 visa in Saudi Arabia.
According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks, his application falsely indicated he had not
previously traveled to the United States and contained "suspicious
indicators." It also revealed that he had more than one passport.
Returned July 4, 2001, lived in New York.
Put on the Watch List for terrorists in August 2001 after entering
U.S. last time.
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Had a Virginia driver's license.
Nawaf al-Hamzi (or Alhamzi) - Saudi Arabian (brother of Salem)
Obtained U.S. tourist visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 1999.
According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks, his application contained "suspicious indicators."
In Malaysia in Jan. 2000. Followed by Malaysian agents tipped off by
CIA (see Wash. Post 2/3/02).
Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with al-Midhar from Malaysia.
Lived in San Diego, where he took flight training in May 2000 with
al-Midhar, in Dec. 2000 moved to Mesa Arizona (with Hani Hanjour), and
later to Fort Lee, N.J., Wayne, N.J. and Northern Virginia.
Applied to INS July 12, 2000 for extension of permitted stay in U.S.
(apparently granted for additional six months).
Put on the Watch List for terrorists in August 2001. (with al-Mihdhar)
Had been in illegal visa overstay status for nine months at the time
of the attack.
Had California, Florida and Virgina driver's licenses .
Salem al-Hamzi (or Alhamzi)- Saudi Arabian (brother of Nawaf)
Obtained U.S. tourist visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in April 1999.
Arrived U.S. June 2001.
Lived in Fort Lee, N.J., Wayne, N.J.
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Had a Virginia driver's license.
Majed Moqed - Saudi Arabian
Identity in doubt.
Entered on tourist visa obtained in Saudi Arabia after May 2001.
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Had a Virginia driver's license.
The WTC North Tower Plane (AA Flight 11, Boston to Los Angeles)
Mohamed Atta - Egyptian (43) - pilot
Born in Egypt in 1968.
Graduated from Cairo Univ. with degree in Architectural Engineering in
1990.
Obtained visitor visa in Berlin Germany, May 2000.
Entered U.S. at Newark on June 3, 2000 on tourist visa and given entry
permit until December 2, 2000.
Applied in Sept. 2000 to INS for change in status to trainee.
Attended Huffman Aviation school in Venice Florida with al-Shehhi.
Arrested in Florida for driving without license, and failed to show up
for court date --bench warrant issued.
Subsequently obtained Florida driver's license.
Obtained FAA pilot's certificate.
According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks, had overstayed his entry permit as of Dec. 4, 2000.
Flew to Madrid Jan. 2001.
United Arab Emirate (UAE) authorities state Atta detained in January
2001 on basis of his name appearing on terrorist alert list, but was
not held in absence of U.S. charges. UAE states that U.S. authorities
were warned Atta intended to return to U.S.
Returned to U.S. on January 10, 2001 at Miami and was sent to
secondary inspection because he acknowledged being in flight training
but did not have required trainee visa. Interagency Border Information
System (IBIS) database checked. Admitted by INS based on pending
application for change to trainee status.
Moved to Georgia in Jan. 2001 for additional flight training with
al-Shehhi.
Left U.S. and returned from Madrid on July 19, 2001 and given
permission to stay until November 2, 2001.
Also lived in Hollywood and Coral Springs, Fla.
Received change of status approval by INS in September a year after
the attacks.
Satam al-Suqami (25) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained business visa in Saudi Arabia (but was residing in United
Arab Emirates).
Entered U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, asked for and was admitted
for 20 days and was in overstay status at the time of the attacks. The
Commission staff also said his passport was doctored (presumably with
pages removed to hide his travel to countries where he obtained
terrorist training).
Was in overstay status at the time of the attack.
Waleed al-Shehri (or Alshehri) (21) - Saudi Arabian (brother of Wail)
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
Entered U.S. in May 2000.
Licensed pilot.
Lived in Hollywood, Orlando and Daytona Beach (all in Florida).
In illegal nonimmigrant status (visa overstay) at time of the attack.
Had a Florida driver's license.
Wail (or Wael) al-Shehri (or Alshehri) (25) - Saudi Arabian (brother
of Waleed)
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
Lived in Hollywood, Fla. and Newton, Mass.
Had a Florida ID card.
Abdulaziz al-Omari (or Alomari) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia in June 2001.
According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks, his passport was doctored (presumably with pages
removed to hide his travel to countries where he obtained terrorist
training).
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Lived in Hollywood, Fla.
Had a Florida and Virginia driver's licenses.
The WTC South Tower Plane (UA Flight 175, Boston to Los Angeles)
Marwan al-Shehhi (or Alshehhi) - United Arab Emirates - pilot
Studied electrical engineering at Tech. Univ. in Hamburg.
In January 2000, obtained 10-year, multiple entry tourist visa in
Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Entered the U.S. in May 2000, applied September for change of status
to student.
Attended flight school in Florida, obtained FAA pilot's certificate.
Took at least 3 trips out of U.S. and back. (Overstayed entry permit
as of Nov. 2000, left U.S. in Dec. 2000, returned Jan. 2001.)
Attended flight school in Georgia with Atta in Jan. 2001. According to
the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks,
was sent to secondary inspection, but was admitted.)
Flew to Egypt April 8, 2001, returned from Morocco May 2, 2001.
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Lived in New York City area, Georgia and moved to Hollywood, Fla. in
July with Atta and trained at Huffman Aviation in Venice.
Had a Florida driver's license.
Fayez Ahmed Rashid Ahmed al-Qadi Banihammad (aka Fayez Ahmed) - United
Arab Emirates
Obtained tourist visa in United Arab Emirates.
Entered U.S. in June.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
Ahmed al-Ghamdi (or Alghamdi) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
Entered U.S. in May.
In illegal visa overstay status at the time of the attack.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
Had a Florida ID card.
Had a Virginia driver's license
Hamza Saleh al-Ghamdi (or Alghamdi) (20) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained visa in Saudi Arabia.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
Had a Florida driver's license.
Mohand al-Shehri (or Alshehri) - Saudi Arabian
Identity in doubt.
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
Admitted to U.S. in May.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
The Pennsylvania Plane (UA Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco)
Ziad Samir Jarrah - Lebanese - pilot
Born in Lebanon in 1975.
Studied aircraft construction and maintenance at Hamburg tech. univ.
1996-00.
Obtained five-year, multiple-entry tourist visa in Germany.
Entered U.S. in June 27, 2000 at Atlanta.
Trained as a pilot in Venice, Florida and Virginia Gardens, Florida
but never obtained student trainee visa. Received FAA pilot's
certificate.
Took at least 5 trips out of U.S. and back (flew to Germany July 25
and returned August 5, 2001).
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Had a Florida driver's license.
Saeed al-Ghamdi (or Alghamdi) - Saudi Arabian
Identity in doubt.
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia. According to the 2/04 Staff
Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, application
falsely stated he had not previously applied for a U.S. visa.
Entered U.S. in June 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, he was sent to secondary
inspection, because he had a one-way ticket and $500, but was
admitted.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
Had a Florida ID card.
Ahmed Ibrahim A. al-Haznawi (or Alhaznawi) (21) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
Entered the U.S. in June 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have
had "suspicious indicators."
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
Had a Florida driver's license.
Ahmed Abdullah al-Nami (or Alnami) (23) - Saudi Arabian
Obtained tourist visa in Saudi Arabia.
Entered the U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have
had "suspicious indicators."
In legal nonimmigrant status at the time of the attack.
Lived in Delray Beach, Fla.
Had a Florida ID card.
Other Conspiritors:
Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (Coordinator) - Indicted in 1996 in N.Y. for his
role in an earlier terrorist plot. Had a Saudi Arabian passport
(although not a Saudi national) - obtained a U.S. visa in July 2001.
Ramzi Bin-al-shibh - Yemeni (potential pilot) - denied visa four
times.
Zakariya Essabar - Moroccan - potential pilot/hijacker - denied visa.
Saeed "Jihad" al Gamdi - Potential hijacker - denied visa.
Ali Abdul Aziz Ali - Pakistani - finacial facilitator - denied visa.
Mohamed al Kahtani - potential hijacker - denied visa.
Data compiled from various news sources and checked where possible
against official sources including the Dec. 2002 Senate report "Joint
inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (Released in July 2003) and
the Feb. 2004 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks.
Updated 2/04
Frank Arthur
Israel too?
And the train bombings by Muslims in Madrid because of Israel?
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> read more »
This is spam, Frank. Either you don't understand the issue raised by
the video or want to avoid it. WATCH THE VIDEO!
Frank Arthur
Since I'm an American and not a prisoner in an Iranian jail my message
to you is:
Go to hell. I'll watch what and when I want.
HHW
> Was the Muslim Taliban blow up ancient statues of Buddha because of
> Israel too?
> And the train bombings by Muslims in Madrid because of Israel?
>
>
> news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
WATCH THE VIDEO, FRANK. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Our uncritical,
enabling relationship with Israel was a central motivation for 9/11.
Why should that surprise anyone, even Zionists?
Count 1
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1
>
> Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> reconsidered.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/46282d17b8cad3c3?dmode=source
In this post from about two weeks ago I asked you a simple question which
you opted out of answering. It works here as well;
"So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result of
terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
Look, this is a simple equation for you:
You *can* do what terrorists want, you can change your governments policies
in response to their terrorism. But what does that equal in the long run?
I'm not saying your current government's response has been ideal, but yours
would be suicidal.
Zealots cannot have their violence rewarded. Doing so will *only* create
more violent zealots.
What is it about this you don't understand?
Count 1
On Jun 25, 2:16 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
> Was the Muslim Taliban blow up ancient statues of Buddha because of
> Israel too?
> And the train bombings by Muslims in Madrid because of Israel?
>
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
***
WATCH THE VIDEO, FRANK. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Our uncritical,
enabling relationship with Israel was a central motivation for 9/11.
***
It was an ancilliary motivation, one of several motivations listed by Bin
Laden, all of which are based on common fallacies orbiting the Islamic
world. Which is to say they are largely based on lies.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists
>
> According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the
> September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners.
And only about 108 of the WTC dead were Jewish. Gee, why
the great absence of Jews on that workday in the WTC, a
complex normally teeming with Jews.
Then of course, there were the dancing Israelis across from
the Towers, watching with glee (hard to find mention of these
cheerleaders now in the mainstream media.)
last_per...@yahoo.com
HHW, you've got to know by now that the old zionist git ain't
interested
in the truth. Ever met one who was?
ElParedon
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:RMw8k.14269$s77...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1
>>
>> Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
>> reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists
NOBODY KNOWS WHO COMMITTED 911 CRIME! NOBODY
Mossad supplied the names and photos of 19 people, few hours after the
attack, seven of whom are live and well, four of those are airline pilots
ElParedon
YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN, YOU ARE A MOSSAD SAYAN!
ElParedon
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
> Was the Muslim Taliban blow up ancient statues of Buddha because of Israel
> too?
about the ancient treasures of Mesopotamia in the Baghdad museum
ElParedon
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GTx8k.50927$gc5.42781@pd7urf2no...
The video was phony, Swiss Voice print Lab has laughed the whole thing off.
Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911
Truth Will Out
You're dead right.
Look at what the zionazis have done in Israel and the US' political systems.
Both coutnries are ruled by violence and violent zealots.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > reconsidered.
>
>
> In this post from about two weeks ago I asked you a simple question which
> you opted out of answering.
If I didn't answer it it's because your question is incompetent as a
matter of simple logic.
It works here as well;
>
> "So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result of
> terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
Let's see now, the policy that government workers have an hour off for
lunch? That government workers should have a retirement program and
the the value of the dollar should not be permitted to lose 30% in 7
years? Your question is incompetently drafted. When you phrase it in
the negative and without qualification a million correct answers come
onto the screen. I'm guessing you think this formulation is clever. In
fact as I say it is incompetent and doesn't even deserve an answer.
> Look, this is a simple equation for you:
The simplicity is all yours I assure you.
> You *can* do what terrorists want, you can change your governments policies
> in response to their terrorism. But what does that equal in the long run?
Presently we DO do what Israel wants. We can and should change that
policy because it is not in our interest. There is no generic problem
of terrorism associated with Israel. She's attacked for her conduct,
her policies.
> I'm not saying your current government's response has been ideal, but yours
> would be suicidal.
It's *our* government. You live in MA.
Our government's Middle East policies have already been catastrophic.
Some of those policies badly need changing. Especially those within
the subset of US-Israel relations.
For whom would it be suicidal if we gave Israel a choice regarding the
West Bank: give it to the Palestinians and recognize an independent
Palestinian State or we will terminate our aid and refuse you a
defensive alliance at the green line?
> Zealots cannot have their violence rewarded. Doing so will *only* create
> more violent zealots.
Zionist zealots must not have their violent aggressions *further*
rewarded. Doing so will *only* create lust for an even "Greater
Israel," a pattern proved dangerous to the American people so long as
we remain complicit in the obvious crimes.
> What is it about this you don't understand?
About your incompetent question? Nothing. About your fallacious
equation of American interests with those of Israel? Nothing. About
your suppressed premise that Palestinian resistance to Israeli
aggression is evidence of insanity? Nothing.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1a682eeb-f85d-4c03...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 2:16 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
>
> > Was the Muslim Taliban blow up ancient statues of Buddha because of
> > Israel too?
> > And the train bombings by Muslims in Madrid because of Israel?
>
> > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> ***
> WATCH THE VIDEO, FRANK. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Our uncritical,
> enabling relationship with Israel was a central motivation for 9/11.
> ***
>
> It was an ancilliary motivation, one of several motivations listed by Bin
> Laden, all of which are based on common fallacies orbiting the Islamic
> world. Which is to say they are largely based on lies.
You're puffing smoke, Ratner. Lay out the fallacies. Let's debate
them. Lay out the lies they're based upon. We'll deal with those too.
You sound more like sharavi every day. You'll say anything which comes
to your head.
HHW
Not here.
HHW
> On Jun 25, 3:14 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
>
> > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> > Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists
>
> > According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the
> > September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners.
>
> And only about 108 of the WTC dead were Jewish. Gee, why
> the great absence of Jews on that workday in the WTC, a
> complex normally teeming with Jews.
Where did you come across the 108 figure? Who made the calculation?
> Then of course, there were the dancing Israelis across from
> the Towers, watching with glee (hard to find mention of these
> cheerleaders now in the mainstream media.)
I admit their behavior is anomalous. I can't understand it short of
their having some sort of pre-knowledge.
John Graeme
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > reconsidered.
>
>
> In this post from about two weeks ago I asked you a simple question which
> you opted out of answering. It works here as well;
>
> "So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result of
> terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
None as the result of terrorism. U.S. policy should be altered on the
basis of common sense: If the U.S. constantly gets involved in other
people's conflicts all over the world, it's inevitable that one side
or the other will attack us. The wonder of it is that the Serbs or
Somalis or someone else the U.S. attacked haven't done so also.
> Look, this is a simple equation for you:
>
> You *can* do what terrorists want, you can change your governments policies
> in response to their terrorism. But what does that equal in the long run?
>
> I'm not saying your current government's response has been ideal, but yours
> would be suicidal.
Policies should not be changed as a result of terrorism but as a
result of common sense. The U.S. government has been spending
billions of dollars on its involvement in the Middle East and other
parts of the world. As a result, we are subject to terrorist attacks
that cost us further billions. It is not our business to get involved
in other people's affairs. The U.S. is not the policeman of the world
or the moral guardian of the world. If individuals wish to support
various causes or countries, they are free to do so; but the
government should stay neutral--like Switzerland.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in
extending our commercial relations to have with them as little
political connection as possible....'Tis our true policy to steer
clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World."
--George Washington
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations - entangling
alliances with none....Our first and fundamental maxim should be,
never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe."
--Thomas Jefferson
"America...does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own."
--John Quincy Adams
"It has been the true glory of the United States," in "fulfilling
their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality . . .
to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations," and "to
exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities."
--James Madison
HHW
Precisely, we've lost touch with our national interests. We're
fighting another country's wars. It was understood well enough two
hundred years ago. Why not now?
Count 1
>> terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
>
> Let's see now, the policy that government workers have an hour off for
> lunch? That government workers should have a retirement program and
> the the value of the dollar should not be permitted to lose 30% in 7
> years?
OK - those things cannot be altered because terrorism is conducted. But the
relatively less important matters like foriegn policy, education, defense,
and democratic institutions should be changed if terrorists indiscriminately
slaughter thousands of your fellow civilians.
It's a *strange* position for anyone to take, but it's what you have done
and now you must live with the consequences.
>> You *can* do what terrorists want, you can change your governments
>> policies
>> in response to their terrorism. But what does that equal in the long run?
>
> Presently we DO do what Israel wants. We can and should change that
> policy because it is not in our interest.
Evasion. What does it mean in the 'long run' if America decided to appease a
bunch of Islamofascists?
We already know that you are willing to do anything Israel wants you to do
if they kill a bunch of your fellow innocent civilians when they make the
demand. That's your position, appease terrorism.
>> I'm not saying your current government's response has been ideal, but
>> yours
>> would be suicidal.
>
> It's *our* government. You live in MA.
Wanna bet?
> For whom would it be suicidal if we gave Israel a choice regarding the
> West Bank:
Nice attempt at a dodge. The question is to you and is about American
policies and their catalysts for change. You think violence by zealots needs
to be appeased, you think violence is an appropriate catalyst for change.
That makes you at best a coward, at worst complicit in future murders your
appeasement will create.
>> Zealots cannot have their violence rewarded. Doing so will *only* create
>> more violent zealots.
>
> Zionist zealots must not have their violent aggressions *further*
> rewarded. Doing so will *only* create lust for an even "Greater
> Israel,"
So you can understand the danger in appeasing Islamic terrorists? I don't
understand your irrational fear about an ever expanding Israel, you must not
be up on current events.
>> What is it about this you don't understand?
>
> About your incompetent question? Nothing. About your fallacious
> equation of American interests with those of Israel? Nothing. About
> your suppressed premise that Palestinian resistance to Israeli
> aggression is evidence of insanity? Nothing.
I have answered your question, "Why wasn't our support for Israel
highlighted in the 9/11 Report as a motivation for the attack?". The answer
is because it makes no difference, you cannot adjust your policies because
they are sighted as motivations of violence, *especially* not the heinous
mass slaughter type of violence represented by 9/11.
IMO, highlighting support for Israel in the 9/11 report would have increased
American support for Israel. Because most American's aren't cowardly
appeasers.
Now you need to make the case as to why appeasing terrorists is a good idea.
Count 1
"John Graeme" <jdgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:dfe4f9ed-fb57-4ae3...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 4:25 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>>
>> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
>> > reconsidered.
>>
>> http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/46282d17b8cad3c3...
>>
>> In this post from about two weeks ago I asked you a simple question which
>> you opted out of answering. It works here as well;
>>
>> "So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result of
>> terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
>
>
> None as the result of terrorism. U.S. policy should be altered on the
> basis of common sense: If the U.S. constantly gets involved in other
> people's conflicts all over the world, it's inevitable that one side
> or the other will attack us. The wonder of it is that the Serbs or
> Somalis or someone else the U.S. attacked haven't done so also.
No, actually it isn't a wonder at all. This whole 'US policy motivates
terrorism' schtick is total horseshit anyway. US policy 'motivates' all
kinds of anti US sentiment all over the world, as a Canadian I have grown up
with it. What makes someone become a terrorist requires an additional
factor, an ideology that can justify mass, indiscriminate slaughter of
civilians. It's not at all surprising that Serbs and Somalians don't conduct
terrorism against the US like OBL did. They don't share that ideology.
They might share greivances, but they disagree on the means to the end.
>> Look, this is a simple equation for you:
>>
>> You *can* do what terrorists want, you can change your governments
>> policies
>> in response to their terrorism. But what does that equal in the long run?
>>
>> I'm not saying your current government's response has been ideal, but
>> yours
>> would be suicidal.
>
>
> Policies should not be changed as a result of terrorism but as a
> result of common sense. The U.S. government has been spending
> billions of dollars on its involvement in the Middle East and other
> parts of the world. As a result, we are subject to terrorist attacks
> that cost us further billions.
I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the ME.
You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
you a target based on his own insanity.
Let's not pretend the rants of Islamofascists need to be taken at face
value. OBL's declaration of war listed his 'greivances', but they bear
little resemblance to reality.
It is not our business to get involved
> in other people's affairs. The U.S. is not the policeman of the world
> or the moral guardian of the world. If individuals wish to support
> various causes or countries, they are free to do so; but the
> government should stay neutral--like Switzerland.
There ya go. Go for it. See what happens. But hindsight may prove that your
'common sense' has led to a significantly more violent world with a growing
geopolitical force called Islamism.
Not to mention a global super power on its way to becoming a Switzerland.
Hopefully not. So now your task is to convince America's politicians of the
righteousness of your position. Good luck.
> "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in
> extending our commercial relations to have with them as little
> political connection as possible....'Tis our true policy to steer
> clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World."
> --George Washington
>
> "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations - entangling
> alliances with none....Our first and fundamental maxim should be,
> never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe."
> --Thomas Jefferson
>
> "America...does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is
> well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
> champion and vindicator only of her own."
> --John Quincy Adams
>
> "It has been the true glory of the United States," in "fulfilling
> their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality . . .
> to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations," and "to
> exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities."
> --James Madison
Smart men, they understood the realities of the times they lived in. I'm
just glad there aren't too many more Americans like Mr. Watson here
incapable of understanding their own times.
Lazarus Cain
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
It was known immediately that 9/11 was a response to US support for
Israel.
Unfortunately, Israel and US made matters worst by making a mess out
of Iraq and Lebanon and now threatening war with Iran, and esentially
proved the hijackers point as valid..
Revelations 9:11 is the appropriate prophecy.
and I am suspecting the words of Revelations 9:11 reveal also the
reason for the attack.
Mr Bush fell into a trap by using war when he should have used more
peaeful methods to deal with "unprovoked aggression".
Iraq is by definition also unprovoked aggression.
9/11 was "unprovoked aggression" also by defintion..
Both are comaparable.
Action for eaction, Mr Bush?
Too much like an Eye for an eye to me, and I remind you the Old
Covenat is invalid and has been replaced by the New Covenat because of
the Holocaust, of which Israel is in denial, so Israel does not have
exclusive rights to the territory by prophecy anymore.
Don't believe me.
I can keep playing this game unitl I die, and God hasn't failed me
delivering intelligence yet.
My body fails to deliver it correctly more often.
there is a probem somewhere betwen receipt and output in this
department, and the lack of faith has a lot to do with it.
Hence, to some I'll be a thorn in the side, but to others I bear words
of comfort as I Minister this Word..
Sometimes God choses his ministers , gives them special training and
bypasses the system.
This S.H.I.T.(Special High Intenstiy Training) is not something to be
envied, but I have discovered that God has an excellent sense of
humor.
We'll cry and laugh about it after we all die.
Count 1
> WATCH THE VIDEO, FRANK. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Our uncritical,
> enabling relationship with Israel was a central motivation for 9/11.
> ***
>
> It was an ancilliary motivation, one of several motivations listed by Bin
> Laden, all of which are based on common fallacies orbiting the Islamic
> world. Which is to say they are largely based on lies.
***
You're puffing smoke, Ratner. Lay out the fallacies.
***
OK, Sheila.
Fallacies;
1) - From you - 'our uncritical enabling relationship with Israel'. This is
a fantasy that has never existed. The US has always taken a rationally pro
Israeli stance balanced with ongoing relations with her neighbors. To
suggest it is 'uncritical' is therefore nonsensical. It is a fallacy.
2) - From OBL (in 1996) - "It should not be hidden from you that the people
of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on
them by the ZionistCrusaders alliance and their collaborators to the extent
that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the
hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The
horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in
our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine,
Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in BosniaHerzegovina took
place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All
of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these
atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies
and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed
people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."
Wrong on several fronts. First is the central notion of a 'Zionist Crusader
alliance', this is a boogeyman used very liberally and applied to all kinds
of disparate entities, as OBL does later in his rant alluding to massacres
in Burma and Chechnya as part of such an alliance. Further he lies about
America's response to Bosnia, and misprepresents western horror at Serbian
atrocities.
That's just two points. Easily
***
Let's debate them.
***
You say that, but you never do it.
Lazarus Cain
It is not a matter of using the terminology that you are using, as
terminology is very much part of the commuication problem.
"Now you need to make the case as to why appeasing terrorists is a
good idea."
Perhaps it is a matter of choosing slightly different and less
offensive vocabulary so as to establish a diplomtic environment
instead of hurling unsubstantial slurs.
As an artist,I make a game out of playing with words, as I evolve and
improve my style for my last Great Work.
Indeed, I am my own harshest critic.
If one attacks my words, then consider I have already anticipated such
an attack before I word my statement. which is oftern why I choose my
words carefully or in an artistic fashion, often employing double or
multiple meanings. This is deliberate.
You say appeasing terrroists.
I say,I am reluctantly following my Lord's commands and attempting to
Love My Enemy and treat him with human respect, as difficult as that
may be. I admit that I am not good at all with regard to loving my
enemies, but am making an effort at least.
I also claim that MrBush is acting as an antichrist when he is using
argumetns in direct opposition to the commands of Christ as he and
Israel escalate tensions andwar inthe middle east while they claim to
be doing God's work.
POPPYCOCK!!!!
With God, one man can make a difference if he follows the Lord's
commands.
Mr Obama, recognize who my Master truly is, and do not discount my
support.
My own personal life is very difficult as I am considered to have a
social disorder disease because of my faith.
I am handicapped by the visions that God gives me.
I claim I shall die the day US goes to war with Iran not as a threat
of terror on my part, but I fear I shall die of a heart atack induced
by seizure if that happens.
One death I could blame only myself, but the second is no fault of my
own as the world finally becomes to unbearable to face life.
Envision now the reason why martyrs will sacrifice life when faced
with being forced to accept unbearable alternatives.
B. H. Cramer
>
> "John Graeme" <jdgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:dfe4f9ed-fb57-4ae3...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 25, 4:25 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>>>
>>> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
>>> > reconsidered.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/46282d17b8cad3c3...
>>>
>>> In this post from about two weeks ago I asked you a simple question
>>> which
>>> you opted out of answering. It works here as well;
>>>
>>> "So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result
>>> of
>>> terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
>>
>>
>> None as the result of terrorism. U.S. policy should be altered on the
>> basis of common sense: If the U.S. constantly gets involved in other
>> people's conflicts all over the world, it's inevitable that one side
>> or the other will attack us. The wonder of it is that the Serbs or
>> Somalis or someone else the U.S. attacked haven't done so also.
>
> No, actually it isn't a wonder at all. This whole 'US policy motivates
> terrorism' schtick is total horseshit anyway.
Not according to the collected US Security agencies spokesmen at the 911
Commission hearing.
Watch the linked video to hear the words from their own mouths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On Jun 25, 4:22 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 3:14 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
>
> > > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:527a923c-3bf0-480f...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > > > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > > > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> > > Identity and Immigration Status of 9/11 Terrorists
>
> > > According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the
> > > September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners.
>
> > And only about 108 of the WTC dead were Jewish. Gee, why
> > the great absence of Jews on that workday in the WTC, a
> > complex normally teeming with Jews.
>
> Where did you come across the 108 figure? Who made the calculation?
I made the calculation. This is not something you will hear the
alphabet
networks, or the print media talk about is it.. I've read every
single
name of the WTC dead and come up with the figure, trying to be
as fair as possible to the Jews. When the American media is so
incredibly controlled by the zionists, one has to rely on oneself
for such information. Any reporter/outlet truly investigating to
get the actual figure of Jewish dead would of course be labeled a
Jew hater, especially after reporting the results.
Even zionist sources can give an estimate of no more than 15%.
This is almost certainly a huge exaggeration. Even IF it were
true, do you believe only 15% of people in the WTC on a normal
workday were Jewish?
> > Then of course, there were the dancing Israelis across from
> > the Towers, watching with glee (hard to find mention of these
> > cheerleaders now in the mainstream media.)
>
> I admit their behavior is anomalous. I can't understand it short of
> their having some sort of pre-knowledge.
They certainly did have pre-knowledge, that has been very well
established. These Israelis have pretty much gone *poof*
from the mainstream media.
HHW
Did you use some sort of reference work to identify Jewish names? Some
seem obviously Jewish, some are ambiguous. It seems like a rather
arcane endeavor. Harris and Arthur don't seem Jewish to me.
> Even zionist sources can give an estimate of no more than 15%.
Yet New York is the largest Jewish city in the world and its epicenter
is Manhattan. I would guess that more than half off the workers in the
twin towers ought to have been Jewish.
Do you know how many people regardless of ethnicity would be present
there on a normal workday? What do survivors say about people being
out sick that day? Shouldn't the arithmetic be pretty simple even
without studying ethnicity? You subtract the survivors from the total
there on a given workday and that ought to add up to the total dead.
Has anyone done that?
> This is almost certainly a huge exaggeration. Even IF it were
> true, do you believe only 15% of people in the WTC on a normal
> workday were Jewish?
No, I have trouble with that. At least flags would go up and it would
have to be looked at. Did the Commission look at any of this? We know
they muffed the job on the question of motive. Lee Hamilton said it
all on that video.
>
> > > Then of course, there were the dancing Israelis across from
> > > the Towers, watching with glee (hard to find mention of these
> > > cheerleaders now in the mainstream media.)
>
> > I admit their behavior is anomalous. I can't understand it short of
> > their having some sort of pre-knowledge.
>
> They certainly did have pre-knowledge, that has been very well
> established.
Did the 9/11 Report look at these issues?
These Israelis have pretty much gone *poof*
> from the mainstream media.
So for that matter has the AIPAC prosecution.
RGrannus
> "John Graeme" <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dfe4f9ed-fb57-4ae3...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 25, 4:25 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >> "So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result of
But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
Sweden, etc.?
> Let's not pretend the rants of Islamofascists need to be taken at face
> value. OBL's declaration of war listed his 'greivances', but they bear
> little resemblance to reality.
They are fanatics. So what? That doesn't mean we have to get
involved with them. There are various fanatic groups all over the
world. If we didn't get involved in their affairs, they start
fighting with each other, as the Muslim world has been doing for
years. It's silly to suggest that they would unite behind some common
ideology.
> It is not our business to get involved
>
> > in other people's affairs. The U.S. is not the policeman of the world
> > or the moral guardian of the world. If individuals wish to support
> > various causes or countries, they are free to do so; but the
> > government should stay neutral--like Switzerland.
>
> There ya go. Go for it. See what happens. But hindsight may prove that your
> 'common sense' has led to a significantly more violent world with a growing
> geopolitical force called Islamism.
>
> Not to mention a global super power on its way to becoming a Switzerland.
That would be fine with me. Switzerland has been a prosperous,
peaceful, freedom-loving country for many years. And they don't have
the burden of paying for everyone else's conflicts.
Count 1
> You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
> you a target based on his own insanity.
****
But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
Sweden, etc.?
***
Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME for
decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan of
Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
current state of Palestinian affairs.
Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
Count 1
> You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
> you a target based on his own insanity.
****
But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
Sweden, etc.?
last_per...@yahoo.com
> Did you use some sort of reference work to identify Jewish names? Some
> seem obviously Jewish, some are ambiguous. It seems like a rather
> arcane endeavor.
It's all I had. Just out of my own curiosity, I decided to look at
each and every name, and take a count of names that seemed
traditionally Jewish (first or last name). I came up with 108.
I'm not out to bash Jews, it would just be nice to know for
sure if they didn't show up en masse that day. I strongly
suspect that's the case, but this is something that will
never seriously be investigated...for obvious reasons.
> Harris and Arthur don't seem Jewish to me.
There are plenty of Anglo surnames, along with Hispanic,
Italian, etc.
>
> > Even zionist sources can give an estimate of no more than 15%.
>
> Yet New York is the largest Jewish city in the world and its epicenter
> is Manhattan. I would guess that more than half off the workers in the
> twin towers ought to have been Jewish.
Absolutely. That would be my guess.
> Do you know how many people regardless of ethnicity would be present
> there on a normal workday?
Supposedly, according to turnstile records, there would normally be
14-15,000 people in the Towers at 8:45 a.m. on a normal workday.
>What do survivors say about people being
> out sick that day? Shouldn't the arithmetic be pretty simple even
> without studying ethnicity? You subtract the survivors from the total
> there on a given workday and that ought to add up to the total dead.
> Has anyone done that?
Actually, the total number of dead at the Towers (not including those
on the planes) has been determined to be 2,603 with another 34
missing IIRC.
> > This is almost certainly a huge exaggeration. Even IF it were
> > true, do you believe only 15% of people in the WTC on a normal
> > workday were Jewish?
>
> No, I have trouble with that. At least flags would go up and it would
> have to be looked at. Did the Commission look at any of this? We know
> they muffed the job on the question of motive. Lee Hamilton said it
> all on that video.
U.S. support for Israel as a motive is always mentioned in a rather
minor
way..surprise surprise.
> > > > Then of course, there were the dancing Israelis across from
> > > > the Towers, watching with glee (hard to find mention of these
> > > > cheerleaders now in the mainstream media.)
>
> > > I admit their behavior is anomalous. I can't understand it short of
> > > their having some sort of pre-knowledge.
>
> > They certainly did have pre-knowledge, that has been very well
> > established.
>
> Did the 9/11 Report look at these issues?
>
> These Israelis have pretty much gone *poof*
>
> > from the mainstream media.
>
> So for that matter has the AIPAC prosecution.
As Sharon said, "we, the Jewish people, control America."
Probably one of the very few truths the fat pig ever uttered.
Joe Bruno
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
Osama Bin Laden himself said our policy towards Israel was only part
of his motivation.
He also objects to the presence of US troops on Saudi soil.
He also doesn't like non-Moslems.
HHW
He didn't say "only" part, but he did cite it and other complaints.
There is no basis for concluding that 9/11 was an irrational attack
motivated by simple dislike of us, our religions, our culture, etc. In
fact experts tend to agree with Dr. Sheuer who proves the contrary in
two books after many years running the al Queda desk in the CIA. They
are: "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris". You have a
national security background as an officer, I'd be very interested in
your opinion of one or both of them.
HHW
Sure, Ratner, they're insane for opposing Israeli aggressions and
crimes. Isn't it obvious? Chosen people don't commit crimes. They're
exempt from the rules. Understanding such opposition as a matter of
principled behavior, i.e., as a morally required "defensive jihad," is
just beyond your ken. Surely naught but "Jew haters" could see such
convictinons as anything but insanity.
HHW
Yeah, yeah, I just don't understand that Israel ought to be exempt
from the rules the rest of the world has to live by to avoid running
afoul of the International Criminal Court.
Joe Bruno
You've completely misrepresented what I said.
I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
Where did Bin Laden go to hide? Afghanistan, which was a Moslem
fundamentalist regime under the Taliban. Moslem Fundies don't accept
the existence of other religions.
If you think they do, I'd recommend you read the Koran. I have.
It specifically badmouths both Christians and Jews.
Dr Sheuer ran the Al-Qaeda desk for "many years"?
LOL! How long has Al_Qaeda been in existence?
Maybe 15 years at the most. Maybe less.
Bin Laden is not "irrational"?
Someone asked him how he felt about the fact that Moslems have been
killed in his attacks.
He said:"It was the will of Allah".
He's an irrational religious zealot.
He's a multi-millionairre, yet he spends his life and money living in
caves, running from the authorities and killing people he never met.
His fellow terrorist troops are not well paid, yet they risk their
lives, motivated by him with religious fervor.
He calls Saudi Arabia"Sacred soil" because it contains the Holy City
of Mecca.
I don't need anything but common sense to know what I see.
You can have your experts.
As any attorney who has used them as witnesses in court can tell you,
the so-called experts are very often wrong. You can get an expert to
defend any point of view if you pay him enough.
DoD
> On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the ME.
> > > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
> > > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> > ****
> > But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> > Sweden, etc.?
> > ***
>
> > Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME for
> > decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan of
> > Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
> > current state of Palestinian affairs.
>
> > Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
>
> Sure, Ratner,
This is what I mean... Why do you act like an ass?
Is that ingrained in your programming?
Why do you troll like all the other freaks on this forum? Why are you
such a CREEP?
Is that a function of being a loser liberal?
Count 1
On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the
> > ME.
> > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following
> > declared
> > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> ****
> But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> Sweden, etc.?
> ***
>
> Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME for
> decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan
> of
> Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
> current state of Palestinian affairs.
>
> Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
***
Sure, Ratner, they're insane for opposing Israeli aggressions and
crimes.
***
Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder. Opposition to what
you call 'aggressions and crimes' can be addressed through any number of
legal ways which would be far more effective as well.
A condition of their insanity is their belief American's would change their
policies as a result of terrorism. And that's just "fucking nutz".
last_per...@yahoo.com
> You've completely misrepresented what I said.
> I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
But it was the major reason. This is always downplayed in America,
naturally.
Count 1
> > just glad there aren't too many more Americans like Mr. Watson here
> > incapable of understanding their own times.
Yeah, yeah, I just don't understand that Israel ought to be exempt
from the rules the rest of the world has to live by to avoid running
afoul of the International Criminal Court.
What you don't understand is the world you are creating with your belief
that terrorists should be appeased. You'd be urging your governement to give
Israel anything she asked for if jewish terrorists had conducted 9/11.
You're an appeaser, you're a coward, and I'm damn glad you're nothing more
an usenet peon, and a bad one at that.
Joe Bruno
Proof????????
You've personally talked with Bin Laden?
That's funny. I thought he didn't speak English, only Arabic.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> > > Smart men, they understood the realities of the times they lived in. I'm
> > > just glad there aren't too many more Americans like Mr. Watson here
> > > incapable of understanding their own times.
>
> ***
> Yeah, yeah, I just don't understand that Israel ought to be exempt
> from the rules the rest of the world has to live by to avoid running
> afoul of the International Criminal Court.
> ***
>
> What you don't understand is the world you are creating with your belief
> that terrorists should be appeased.
That is official U.S. policy. The appeasment of terrorist Israel is
always
top priority now.
HHW
> On Jun 26, 9:21 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 10:11 pm, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 25, 12:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>
> > > > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > > > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> > > Osama Bin Laden himself said our policy towards Israel was only part
> > > of his motivation.
> > > He also objects to the presence of US troops on Saudi soil.
> > > He also doesn't like non-Moslems.
>
> > He didn't say "only" part, but he did cite it and other complaints.
I was not clear here. I meant he didn't use the word "only". They way
you used the word seemed to have the effect of minimalizing the
importance of the factor. Actually as time goes on and more writers
address it, it seems to become more and more important.
> > There is no basis for concluding that 9/11 was an irrational attack
> > motivated by simple dislike of us, our religions, our culture, etc.
This sentence was meant as a response to your "He also doesn't like
non-Muslims."
In
> > fact experts tend to agree with Dr. Sheuer who proves the contrary in
> > two books after many years running the al Queda desk in the CIA. They
> > are: "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris".
I think it was something like six years. I acknowledge that using
"many" is perhaps a bit much. However, his entire career concentrated
on the Near and Middle East so the point is nearly moot.
You have a
> > national security background as an officer, I'd be very interested in
> > your opinion of one or both of them.
>
> You've completely misrepresented what I said.
I plead to hasty draftsmanship but not to an intent to misrepresent
you. On the contrary I respect what you have posted here over time and
wish we would hear more from you.
> I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
> Where did Bin Laden go to hide? Afghanistan, which was a Moslem
> fundamentalist regime under the Taliban. Moslem Fundies don't accept
> the existence of other religions.
They do, however, tolerate their existence in non-Muslim regions. They
fight incursions from the outside. We call what they do terrorism in
order to demonize it. They call it "defensive jihad". I highly
recommend the two books by "Anonymous," i.e., Martin Sheuer. We'll be
on the same page then. I suspect you'll find his analysis something of
a relief as it makes sense of Muslim religious ideology and behavior.
> If you think they do, I'd recommend you read the Koran. I have.
> It specifically badmouths both Christians and Jews.
I've read lots of out of context quotes from the Koran but haven't
been able to bring myself to read it through. I had an awful time
getting through the Christian version of your Torah.
The Torah badmouths many different peoples of other religions and
groups. There is much gratuitous sectarian carnage there, including
genocide. In turn the Christian Gospels are not kind to the Jews, a
fact Mel Gibson has capitalized on. I think such ethnocentric origin
myths are characteristic of man made religions world wide. Anyhow it's
not competent for an advanced country to run national policy in the
21st Century on something said about various other peoples in ancient
religious texts. Credulity has its limits.
> Dr Sheuer ran the Al-Qaeda desk for "many years"?
> LOL! How long has Al_Qaeda been in existence?
> Maybe 15 years at the most. Maybe less.
I referenced that above.
> Bin Laden is not "irrational"?
> Someone asked him how he felt about the fact that Moslems have been
> killed in his attacks.
> He said:"It was the will of Allah".
Any leader of a religious bent might say the equivalent. Take the
leadership of the Crusades for example.
> He's an irrational religious zealot.
Not in the least more irrational that the ultra-orthodox in Israel.
Here we have have two "chosen peoples" clashing.
> He's a multi-millionairre, yet he spends his life and money living in
> caves, running from the authorities and killing people he never met.
Like the Jews out of Egypt killing the Canaanites, men, women and
children indiscriminately.
> His fellow terrorist troops are not well paid, yet they risk their
> lives, motivated by him with religious fervor.
All true. But he is a great hero in the Muslim world because of his
*principled* resistance to Western and Israeli incursions and
policies. He is a great charismatic leader of men. It's true whether
we like it or not.
> He calls Saudi Arabia"Sacred soil" because it contains the Holy City
> of Mecca.
Just as Jerusalem is sacred.
> I don't need anything but common sense to know what I see.
So much for generations of the efforts of scholars. I think, Joe, that
we've always got to make our own judgment in last analysis. The
better educated that judgment is, the better chance we have to get it
right. Common sense is the distillation of human experience. We
experience books.
> You can have your experts.
I'll take them and add the common sense you rely on. The alternative
is obviously worse.
> As any attorney who has used them as witnesses in court can tell you,
> the so-called experts are very often wrong. You can get an expert to
> defend any point of view if you pay him enough.
As with academic opinion and peer review there is a winnowing process
in litigation. Many who qualify as experts at trial have done it
dozens of times. They are recognized in their field. Of course they
try to assist those who retain them. Their first duty, however, is to
tell the litigant whether the case is supported by the facts and their
discipline. If it isn't it will never survive a motion for summary
judgment.
They also know that they will be cross examined both in preliminary
depositions and at trial and that the record they make in those
experiences will be preserved forever. They are under oath which has a
sobering effect professionally. The attorney examining an opposing
witness also has an expert who advises him how to handle the cross
examination so as to raise as many legitimate questions as possible
about the other side's case. No human system is perfect. We have no
choice but to use experts. The rules of evidence prohibit laymen from
giving opinion testimony on matters which lie in a recognized realm of
expertise. There's really no alternative. The cynicism you display
above reflects a lack of knowledge of how the civil trial system works
and also the irrational dislike of lawyers which is primarily founded
on misunderstanding what they do. As it gets worse and worse with time
it seems to me to be more and more akin to the irrationalities
inherent in anti-semitism.
HHW
> On Jun 26, 11:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the ME.
> > > > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
> > > > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> > > ****
> > > But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> > > Sweden, etc.?
> > > ***
>
> > > Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME for
> > > decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan of
> > > Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
> > > current state of Palestinian affairs.
>
> > > Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
>
> > Sure, Ratner,
>
> This is what I mean... Why do you act like an ass?
Look above. There's a comma after Ratner. We don't end sentences with
commas. You clipped the rest. Here it is again:
> Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
Sure, Ratner, they're insane for opposing Israeli aggressions and
crimes. Isn't it obvious? Chosen people don't commit crimes. They're
exempt from the rules. Understanding such opposition as a matter of
principled behavior, i.e., as a morally required "defensive jihad,"
is
just beyond your ken. Surely naught but "Jew haters" could see such
convictinons as anything but insanity.
It may be you're going to have to read it two or three times. Perhaps
it's also difficult because you don't have the background. Maybe the
sarcasm is too much for you. But what can any of us do to help?
Nothing, except perhaps to give you a little moral advice. It's
dishonest to clip six lines of your opponents text after the first two
words and then to purport to comment on it. If you don't understand
something just leave it alone. Pass on to something else.
> Is that ingrained in your programming?
>
> Why do you troll like all the other freaks on this forum? Why are you
> such a CREEP?
There is no such thing as a troll. My work here is perfectly on point.
It's an unmoderated public forum. You could simply inhabit the
moderated group. Why are you whining about your need to control the
freedom of speech of others?
>
> Is that a function of being a loser liberal?
Actually I'm a very old fashioned liberal. I was a Cold War hawk. You
haven't figured that out yet. Tell us, is it only liberals who oppose
George W. Bush?
last_per...@yahoo.com
For anyone interested (not you obviously), from a rock solid and
easily available source, see Mearsheimer and Walt, _The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_, pages 66-67.
It goes without saying of course, but U.S. support for Israel
was the major motivation behind the attacks of 9-11-01.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:529c3a0d-91fb-47d5...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the
> > > ME.
> > > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following
> > > declared
> > > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> > ****
> > But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> > Sweden, etc.?
> > ***
>
> > Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME for
> > decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan
> > of
> > Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
> > current state of Palestinian affairs.
>
> > Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
>
> ***
> Sure, Ratner, they're insane for opposing Israeli aggressions and
> crimes.
Here's what I actually said:
Sure, Ratner, they're insane for opposing Israeli aggressions and
crimes. Isn't it obvious? Chosen people don't commit crimes. They're
exempt from the rules. Understanding such opposition as a matter of
principled behavior, i.e., as a morally required "defensive jihad,"
is
just beyond your ken. Surely naught but "Jew haters" could see such
convictinons as anything but insanity.
> ***
>
> Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
Chosen people have a right to a double standard. The other side is
insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
Opposition to what
> you call 'aggressions and crimes' can be addressed through any number of
> legal ways which would be far more effective as well.
They've been trying to do that too. It hasn't worked and you know why.
>
> A condition of their insanity is their belief American's would change their
> policies as a result of terrorism. And that's just "fucking nutz".
You pretend simultaneously to be a Canadian and an expert on American
culture. Take your pick.
HHW
Hasn't Osama has said recently that it is the primary reason?
HHW
Bin Laden's talked to us quite a few times. I'll have to post one of
the web sites.
HHW
Yeah, but the concept of "appeasement" historically isn't even
understood here.
B. H. Cramer
>> > Smart men, they understood the realities of the times they lived in.
>> > I'm
>> > just glad there aren't too many more Americans like Mr. Watson here
>> > incapable of understanding their own times.
> ***
> Yeah, yeah, I just don't understand that Israel ought to be exempt
> from the rules the rest of the world has to live by to avoid running
> afoul of the International Criminal Court.
> ***
>
> What you don't understand is the world you are creating with your belief
> that terrorists should be appeased.
Not only is the Jewnited States appeasing the terrorists (Ersatz israel) but
they fund their terrorist activities to boot.
You're a dickhead.
B. H. Cramer
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f03126d8-7c4b-443e...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> What you don't understand is the world you are creating with your belief
>> that terrorists should be appeased.
>That is official U.S. policy. The appeasment of terrorist Israel is
>always
>top priority now.
And financing said terrorist israel. Don't forget the financing.
Count 1
***
Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
***
??
***
The other side is
insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
***
I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted. The fiction around El
Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrell.
Opposition to what
> you call 'aggressions and crimes' can be addressed through any number of
> legal ways which would be far more effective as well.
***
They've been trying to do that too. It hasn't worked and you know why.
***
Bin Laden has never made any attempt to do such things. Ever.
> A condition of their insanity is their belief American's would change
> their
> policies as a result of terrorism. And that's just "fucking nutz".
***
You pretend simultaneously to be a Canadian and an expert on American
culture. Take your pick.
***
Only a person with as small a mind as your own could think the two are
incompatible. But I'm no
'expert' - just an interested observer.
I notice you've failed to respond to my posts detailing how you are an
appeaser, and coward. I'll take your silence as an admission that you have
no capable response.
B. H. Cramer
>> Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
>
> ??
>
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim.
Balls there wasn't.
You are a goddamned liar, C(o)unt.
Dr. Lippschitz
"Joe Bruno" <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:d32ba492-7841-4a36...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
HHW
> > Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
>
> ??
>
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
> the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted. The fiction around El
> Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAEOoitK4cA
HHW
> > Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
>
> ??
>
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
> the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted. The fiction around El
> Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prLPvqttW9c
HHW
HHW
> > Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
>
> ??
>
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
> the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted. The fiction around El
> Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrell.
Maybe you'll feel good about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHk_fDr-PQ
HHW
> > Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
>
> ??
>
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
> the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted. The fiction around El
> Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4CBj_fQ678
HHW
> > Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
>
> ??
>
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura, nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
> the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted. The fiction around El
> Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgTGUYQ1q7U
Count 1
This is all just a diversion from your original subject of this thread, a
question I have provided an answer for and you failed to address.
Additionally your incapacity to address the charge of cowardly appeaser is
noted and will be remembered.
But I would like to thank you for putting together a post without calling me
Richard. It's not much, but its a start.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=55&x_article=991#tantura
(...)
During the December 2000 trial, attorney Erdinast discredited Katz's
so-called evidence. For example, in his thesis Katz had quoted a central
witness called Abu Fahmi saying that the IDF had rounded up villagers, lined
them up against the walls and murdered them. Erdinast, having obtained a
court order forcing Katz to hand over the tapes of his interviews,
demonstrated that there were no such quotes. On the contrary, Abu Fahmi had
repeatedly asserted that the IDF did not murder the villagers after they
surrendered.
Confronted with many such gross discrepancies between the quotes in his
thesis and the recorded interviews, Katz insisted under oath that he had
been misunderstood and that he had never believed there was a massacre.
Under court order, he later signed an apology and agreed to publish ads at
his own expense publicizing his disavowal of the massacre claim. He wrote:
"After checking and re-checking the evidence, I am now certain beyond any
doubt that there is no basis at all for the allegation that after Tantura
surrendered, there was any killing of residents by the Alexandroni Brigade,
or any other fighting unit of the IDF. I would like to clarify that what I
wrote was misunderstood, and that I did not mean to suggest that there had
been a massacre in Tantura, nor do I believe that there ever was a massacre
at Tantura."
But within a day, Katz recanted his apology, claiming that because he was in
poor health he was pressured by his family to sign an apology in exchange
for dropping the charges against him. He insisted now that he was "sure
there was a massacre even if I can't know because I wasn't there." The judge
refused to accept Katz's retraction, and his appeal to a higher court was
similarly dismissed.
Meanwhile, University of Haifa appointed a committee to re-examine Katz's
thesis. The committee discovered fabrications and distortions of quotes in
Katz's work and disqualified the thesis, removing it from the university's
bookshelves. Katz accepted the offer to revise his thesis, and resubmitted
it in 2002 to five new university-appointed examiners, but the new,
lengthier thesis did not receive passing grades; Katz was awarded a
"non-research" degree.
(...)
HHW
> This is all just a diversion from your original subject of this thread, a
> question I have provided an answer for and you failed to address.
> Additionally your incapacity to address the charge of cowardly appeaser is
> noted and will be remembered.
Your world is repulsively twisted. How is it that a disinclination to
fight more anti-Muslim wars in support of Israel's drang nach Osten is
the act of a cowardly appeaser? I don't want us to fight more of them
because WE don't have anything to gain by doing it. That fact matters
to Americans. At least to those who understand it. America has nothing
to gain and much more to lose in a generalized and unnecessary war
against a large part of the Muslim World in which there can be no
victory and there is no exit strategy.
So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
typical. Especially given the fact that a couple of the senior
officers of the Israeli unit which perpetrated the mass murder there
have ADMITTED it happened and there is vast testimony from other eye
witnesses.
> But I would like to thank you for putting together a post without calling me
> Richard. It's not much, but its a start.
With this willfully incompetent post you will need a head start.
> http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=55&x_article=991#...
Camera is a part of the Israel lobby which is dedicated to attacking
any criticism of Israel or of Israeli policy found in the press. It
specializes in ominous warnings that the writer is very close to
crossing the line into something for which he will be punished. It
demands retractions and corrections. It wants to publicly humiliate
whenever it can. The implication is that it will make it unpleasant
for the writer or publication in question. Camera has a GIANT conflict
of interest and you are a fool to quote it.
What this Camera piece does reflect, faintly, is that Mr. Katz was the
subject of intense intimidation in Israel because of the embarrassing
nature of his thesis written as a graduate student based on his
Tantura research. He caved in, initially, when veterans of the
Alexandroni Brigade, which had perpetrated the massacre, sued him and
it looked like the power of the whole Israeli system was arrayed
against him, including that of his own University. The massacre is
described by Professor Pappe in "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" at
p. 133 et. seq. Pappe's account is also based upon his own work
underlying two professional articles, "The Tantura case in Israel: The
Katz Research and Trial", Journal of Palestine Studies, 30(3), Spring,
2001, pp. 19-39 and "Historical Truth, Modern Historiography, and
Ethical Obligations: The Challenge of the Tantura Case," Holy Land
Studies, vol. 3/2 November 2004.
Your quote is one of the most contemptible things Camera has ever
done. The historical problem (other than ethical/moral considerations)
is lack of context. There is much cumulatively irrefutable evidence of
the Tantura massacre and the last time I checked, political pressure
had prevented the graves from being opened.
Here is a Jewish officer's description of the executions at Tantura:
"Prisoners were led in groups to a distance of 200 meters aside and
there they were shot. Soldiers would come to the commander-in-chief
and say, 'My cousin was killed in the war.' His commander heard that
and instructed the troops to take a group of five to seven people
aside and execute them. Then a soldier came and said his brother had
died in one of the battles. For one brother the retribution was
higher. The commander ordered the troops to take a larger group and
they were shot, and so on."
Hundreds were murdered.
Here is Eli Shimoni, senior officer in the Alexandroni Brigade in
Maariv, 4 February 2001:
"I have no doubt a massacre took place in Tantura. I did not go out
into the streets and shout it about. It is not exactly something to be
proud of. But once the affair was publicized, one should tell the
truth. After 52 years, the state of Israel is strong and mature enough
to confront its past." (Both of these quoted are taken from Chapter 6
of Pappe's "Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" entitled, "The Phony War
and the Real War Over Palestine".
The bottom line for the meeting of Ben-Gurion's "Consultancy" on 11
May, 1948 is reflected in a letter he sent to the commanders of the
Hagana Brigades reminding them of their first responsibility, that:
"...the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan
Dalet" (he used the noun bi'ur, which means either 'cleansing the
leaven' in Passover or 'root out', 'eliminate').
The evidence as to what actually happened in 1947-48 is massive. The
real war of 47-48 was against the Palestinian people, not Arab
armies.
You have some education but you're a radicalized ethnic partizan. You
have to know at least basically what happened in 1947-48. You simply
won't admit you do. Instead you pass out obvious disinformation. I see
that as morally offensive behavior. It's the sort of thing the lobby
does constantly. It's the sort of thing an earlier generation of
Israeli historians did as a matter of course.
Tell us, is anyone in your family displaying the courage it takes to
fight the Middle Eastern Mujaheddin? Have you served in the military
even in peace time? How about the entire present generation of your
family? What credentials have you for talking about "cowardice"? I
want to know whose blood you want to shed on the alter of fighting
"appeasement" on behalf of Israel.
HHW
> > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the ME.
> > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
> > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> ****
> But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> Sweden, etc.?
> ***
>
> Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK?
They have attacked the UK. And for similar reasons. It's just that now
days Britain is not as important an imperial meddler as the U.S. We're
the primary target.
Why don't you answer the gentleman's question? It is well designed.
Switzerland, Japan and Sweden don't meddle in the Middle East. They
just do their business and go on about their own affairs. That's not
characteristic of the U.S. or Imperial Britain. Your corporate
insanity thesis is transparent balderdash. You won't admit reading
Michael Sheuer. And even if you have not, you won't "on principle." I
should think you'd be ashamed of yourself. But then your threshold of
shame has to be high what with all that chutzpah.
Joe Bruno
> On Jun 27, 11:50 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 27, 5:13 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 27, 2:39 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You've completely misrepresented what I said.
> > > > I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
>
> > > But it was the major reason. This is always downplayed in America,
> > > naturally.
>
> > Proof????????
> > You've personally talked with Bin Laden?
> > That's funny. I thought he didn't speak English, only Arabic.
>
> For anyone interested (not you obviously), from a rock solid and
> easily available source, see Mearsheimer and Walt, _The Israel
> Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_, pages 66-67.
>
That's not good enough. Post the text you are referring to.
The Meershimer and Walt book came out, strangely enough, right after a
Saudi prince had
donated millions of $ to US Universities to fund "Islamic studies".
Meershimer and Walt also appeared publicly with Arab-American groups
to support their position in Washington.
As Abe Foxman said:"They have crossed the line". They can no longer be
considered objective."
And, of course, you believe everything they say. ROTFL!
last_per...@yahoo.com
> On Jun 27, 3:55 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 11:50 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 27, 5:13 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 2:39 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You've completely misrepresented what I said.
> > > > > I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
>
> > > > But it was the major reason. This is always downplayed in America,
> > > > naturally.
>
> > > Proof????????
> > > You've personally talked with Bin Laden?
> > > That's funny. I thought he didn't speak English, only Arabic.
>
> > For anyone interested (not you obviously), from a rock solid and
> > easily available source, see Mearsheimer and Walt, _The Israel
> > Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_, pages 66-67.
>
> That's not good enough.
Aw, we know.
> Post the text you are referring to.
Go fok ya mutha, you lazy zionist twerp. I'm not going
to do any more work for you. Get the book yourself.
> The Meershimer and Walt book came out, strangely enough, right after a
> Saudi prince had
> donated millions of $ to US Universities to fund "Islamic studies".
> Meershimer and Walt also appeared publicly with Arab-American groups
> to support their position in Washington.
You can't even spell "Mearsheimer", and save the pathetic lies
for your next kkkosher klan meeting, right along with Miss Lillian
being Hitler's mistress, and the one about Isreal being a real
country.
> As Abe Foxman said:"They have crossed the line". They can no longer be
> considered objective."
LMAO! Quoting Abe Foxman in any context other than abject ridicule
is proof of bottom-dweller status.
> And, of course, you believe everything they say.
Yeah, I guess I've always had that problem with facts.
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's the post I made on the subject earlier:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/dae72dfeabb0ff46?hl=en
last_per...@yahoo.com
>
> Here's the post I made on the subject earlier:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/dae72dfeabb0ff46?h
Sooo, the claim is that somehow Saudi money had something to do
with the Mearsheimer Walt book......?
Only one thing begs to be asked:
PROOF???????????????
Blowing lies out of your ass (or quoting a complete zionist clown
like Foxman) does not constitute anything even remotely resembling
proof.
Count 1
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7dd37700-67e0-4f3e...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 9:11 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This is all just a diversion from your original subject of this thread, a
>> question I have provided an answer for and you failed to address.
>> Additionally your incapacity to address the charge of cowardly appeaser
>> is
>> noted and will be remembered.
>
> Your world is repulsively twisted. How is it that a disinclination to
> fight more anti-Muslim wars in support of Israel's drang nach Osten is
> the act of a cowardly appeaser?
That's not the reasoning, and you know it. You want to reassass and revise
current foriegn policy - specifically support for Israel - because
terrorists say that's what motivated them.
I don't want us to fight more of them
> because WE don't have anything to gain by doing it.
"Anti muslim wars" is a fantasy.
That fact matters
> to Americans. At least to those who understand it. America has nothing
> to gain and much more to lose in a generalized and unnecessary war
> against a large part of the Muslim World in which there can be no
> victory and there is no exit strategy.
>
> So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
> typical.
Typical of what Midge? Attacking the source and not the argument?
Interesting that you do so below about CAMERA. But in this case it's
actually a observation of the particular fiction surrounding a massacre at
Tantura. The original 'eyewitness' recanted and the Phd student had his
thesis pulled for shoddy research. There are as many people who will say no
massacre happened as there are those who say it did, but you'll ignore them.
Especially given the fact that a couple of the senior
> officers of the Israeli unit which perpetrated the mass murder there
> have ADMITTED it happened and there is vast testimony from other eye
> witnesses.
Yes there is vast testimony from eye witnesses that one didn't occur. Why
you're incapable of trusting those who don't demonize Israel is a condition
of your prejudice.
>> But I would like to thank you for putting together a post without calling
>> me
>> Richard. It's not much, but its a start.
>
> With this willfully incompetent post you will need a head start.
>
>> http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=55&x_article=991#...
>
> Camera is a part of the Israel lobby which is dedicated to attacking
> any criticism of Israel or of Israeli policy found in the press.
Nope.
Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in
America is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted
to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East.
CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about
Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion
ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the
public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan
organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli
political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli
conflict.
It
> specializes in ominous warnings that the writer is very close to
> crossing the line into something for which he will be punished. It
> demands retractions and corrections. It wants to publicly humiliate
> whenever it can. The implication is that it will make it unpleasant
> for the writer or publication in question. Camera has a GIANT conflict
> of interest and you are a fool to quote it.
LOL - Instead of dealing with the substance you attack CAMERA. You're a
funny guy.
<snip>
> You have some education but you're a radicalized ethnic partizan. You
> have to know at least basically what happened in 1947-48. You simply
> won't admit you do. Instead you pass out obvious disinformation. I see
> that as morally offensive behavior. It's the sort of thing the lobby
> does constantly. It's the sort of thing an earlier generation of
> Israeli historians did as a matter of course.
What a total crock. All you do is rely on historians who consider their
'feelings' when assessing 'facts', or have their thesis papers dismissed,
and then even the rewrites fail. You couldn't be more of a partisan hack if
you were wearing one of those Hamas headbands.
> Tell us, is anyone in your family displaying the courage it takes to
> fight the Middle Eastern Mujaheddin?
Yes. I have family members serving in Afghanistan.
Have you served in the military
> even in peace time?
No.
How about the entire present generation of your
> family?
Yes.
> What credentials have you for talking about "cowardice"?
I know the meaning of the word and I see how the definition fits you to a
'T'. You want America to reassess her relationship - including financial and
military - with Israel because terrorists who attacked you demand it.
That's appeasement, and that makes you a coward.
I
> want to know whose blood you want to shed on the alter of fighting
> "appeasement" on behalf of Israel.
I want to know whose blood you want to shed given the enormous rise in
terrorism your cowardice would bring America. I can't answer your question
because it's nonsensical.
Count 1
On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the
> > ME.
> > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following
> > declared
> > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> ****
> But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> Sweden, etc.?
> ***
>
> Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK?
***
They have attacked the UK. And for similar reasons. It's just that now
days Britain is not as important an imperial meddler as the U.S. We're
the primary target.
***
The point being that before 9/11 the logic to attack the US is as easily
applied to the UK, so don't look for rationality from these people.
***
Why don't you answer the gentleman's question?
***
"Don't look for rationality from these people."
***
It is well designed.
Switzerland, Japan and Sweden don't meddle in the Middle East. They
just do their business and go on about their own affairs. That's not
characteristic of the U.S. or Imperial Britain.
****
OBL blames and attacked the US based on his belief of a 'Zionist-Crusader
Alliance'. That is to say, he blames the US based on his own paranoid
delusions.
It's right there in his original declaration of war. Haven't you read it
yet?
***
Your corporate
insanity thesis is transparent balderdash. You won't admit reading
Michael Sheuer. And even if you have not, you won't "on principle." I
should think you'd be ashamed of yourself. But then your threshold of
shame has to be high what with all that chutzpah.
***
Lies. I educated you as to who Scheurer even was, you still thought he was
anonymous, and have told you on numerous occassions I have read Hubris. I
then assisted you by telling you how to find many video interviews with him
online.
Something you need to keep in mind when consuming Scheurer. Remember all
that talk about how the CIA failed to predict this attack by Al-Quaeda?
Remember Mr. Clark apologizing for failing the American people? All of that
comes to a nexus at the desk Scheurer was running for all that time.
I'd have quit too. He spent all that time telling the Clinton administration
that people need to take this stuff seriously, that OBL is a new kind of
threat, and no one listened. Escalating Islamic terrorism in the 90's was
responded to with cruise missiles that blew up empty camps. Then 9/11
happens, and the damn bastards have the audacity to blame the CIA - even
though the AQ desk guy has been barking up that tree for years.
He's pissed, and he has every right to be. If he had been listened to, 9/11
probably wouldn't have happened, and America could right now be engaged in
the ideological (not military) struggle that this whole conflict is *really*
about.
HHW
> On Jun 27, 3:55 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 11:50 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 27, 5:13 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 2:39 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You've completely misrepresented what I said.
> > > > > I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
>
> > > > But it was the major reason. This is always downplayed in America,
> > > > naturally.
>
> > > Proof????????
> > > You've personally talked with Bin Laden?
> > > That's funny. I thought he didn't speak English, only Arabic.
It is carefully reviewed in Mearsheimer and Walt.
>
> > For anyone interested (not you obviously), from a rock solid and
> > easily available source, see Mearsheimer and Walt, _The Israel
> > Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_, pages 66-67.
I've got pp. 66 and 67 open before me as we speak. Joe certainly
doesn't want to read that. He'll have trouble sleeping. Reserve Naval
Officers don't like to think about conflicts of interest like that.
>
> That's not good enough. Post the text you are referring to.
I'm off to dinner with friends but I'll do it no later than tomorrow.
> The Meershimer and Walt book came out, strangely enough, right after a
> Saudi prince had
> donated millions of $ to US Universities to fund "Islamic studies".
That one event follows another does not indicate that it was caused by
it. That's a fallacy your average high school debate coach will bench
you for.
There is a near exception, however: that President Obama follows
President Bush.
B. H. Cramer
>
> "HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7dd37700-67e0-4f3e...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 28, 9:11 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> This is all just a diversion from your original subject of this thread,
>>> a
>>> question I have provided an answer for and you failed to address.
>>> Additionally your incapacity to address the charge of cowardly appeaser
>>> is
>>> noted and will be remembered.
>>
>> Your world is repulsively twisted. How is it that a disinclination to
>> fight more anti-Muslim wars in support of Israel's drang nach Osten is
>> the act of a cowardly appeaser?
>
> That's not the reasoning, and you know it. You want to reassass and revise
> current foriegn policy - specifically support for Israel - because
> terrorists say that's what motivated them.
No. That is what the collected US Security Agencies told the 911 Commission
was the reason.
Do please try to keep up and also do please try to maintain at least a
modicum of honesty.
dsha...@hotmail.com
> > So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
> > typical.
On Jun 28, 3:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Typical of what Midge? Attacking the source and not the argument?
That's typical of HHW.
> Interesting that you do so below about CAMERA. But in this case it's
> actually a observation of the particular fiction surrounding a massacre at
> Tantura. The original 'eyewitness' recanted and the Phd student had his
> thesis pulled for shoddy research.
Teddy was going for his masters, not a PhD. It failed the first
examination. Katz revised it and resubmitted it; it was failed again,
and he was given a "nonresearch MA", whatever that is. The massacre
tale came from Katz's claim that one of the "witnesses" said that
after they surrendered, the Alexandroni brigade lined the villagers
against a wall and shot them all. But when Katz produced his tapes of
the interview with said "witness", the statement could not be found.
What was found was the statement of Katz's "witness" that there was no
shooting after they surrendered.
>There are as many people who will say no
> massacre happened as there are those who say it did, but you'll ignore them.
>> Especially given the fact that a couple of the senior
> > officers of the Israeli unit which perpetrated the mass murder there
> > have ADMITTED it happened and there is vast testimony from other eye
> > witnesses.
This is nothing but HHW's typical substitution of cowflops for facts.
The Alexandroni veterans all stated that no massacre occurred.
> Yes there is vast testimony from eye witnesses that one didn't occur. Why
> you're incapable of trusting those who don't demonize Israel is a condition
> of your prejudice.
Katz was a disciple of HHW's god Ilan Pappe, which is no doubt why he
tries to defend him. Omri, Gaby Cohen, Kim and I went through all this
years ago with the rogerer and his gang.
> > Camera is a part of the Israel lobby which is dedicated to attacking
> > any criticism of Israel or of Israeli policy found in the press.
> Nope.
> Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in
> America is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted
> to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East.
> CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about
> Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion
> ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the
> public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan
> organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli
> political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli
> conflict.
> > It
> > specializes in ominous warnings that the writer is very close to
> > crossing the line into something for which he will be punished. It
> > demands retractions and corrections. It wants to publicly humiliate
> > whenever it can. The implication is that it will make it unpleasant
> > for the writer or publication in question. Camera has a GIANT conflict
> > of interest and you are a fool to quote it.
>
> LOL - Instead of dealing with the substance you attack CAMERA. You're a
> funny guy.
Sauce for the goose is evidently not sauce for the gander in HHW's
topsy-tur
> <snip>
> > You have some education but you're a radicalized ethnic partizan. You
> > have to know at least basically what happened in 1947-48.
Which HHW doesn't.
> What a total crock. All you do is rely on historians who consider their
> 'feelings' when assessing 'facts', or have their thesis papers dismissed,
> and then even the rewrites fail. You couldn't be more of a partisan hack if
> you were wearing one of those Hamas headbands.
Does HHW rely on any historians? I was under the impression that he
relies only on snippets from his god Pappe, and on amazon.com customer
comments of books he pretends to have read.
> > Tell us, is anyone in your family displaying the courage it takes to
> > fight the Middle Eastern Mujaheddin?
> Yes. I have family members serving in Afghanistan.
> > Have you served in the military
> > even in peace time?
> No.
> > How about the entire present generation of your
> > family?
> Yes.
> > What credentials have you for talking about "cowardice"?
What a ridiculous spate of diversonary and absurd questions.
> I know the meaning of the word and I see how the definition fits you to a
> 'T'. You want America to reassess her relationship - including financial and
> military - with Israel because terrorists who attacked you demand it.
> That's appeasement, and that makes you a coward.
> > I
> > want to know whose blood you want to shed on the alter of fighting
> > "appeasement" on behalf of Israel.
> I want to know whose blood you want to shed given the enormous rise in
> terrorism your cowardice would bring America. I can't answer your question
> because it's nonsensical.
It's easy to answer the question immediately above. HHW wants any
blood shed which is not his own.
Deborah
B. H. Cramer
"dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddc7bea5-eca7-4215...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
>> > typical.
>On Jun 28, 3:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Typical of what Midge? Attacking the source and not the argument?
>That's typical of HHW.
Lying cunt.
That's entirely a yid thing.
Count 1
"dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddc7bea5-eca7-4215...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
> > typical.
On Jun 28, 3:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Typical of what Midge? Attacking the source and not the argument?
***
That's typical of HHW.
***
Time to ignore the old man. A proven liar, now we can add appeasing coward.
He clearly brings nothing of value to this forum, just the same lies told
over and over again, mainly online.
Add to that his obviously insane belief that I'm drahcir, or I haven't read
Scheurer's work, and he's clearly inconsequential.
B. H. Cramer
>
> "dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ddc7bea5-eca7-4215...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
>> > typical.
>
> On Jun 28, 3:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Typical of what Midge? Attacking the source and not the argument?
> ***
> That's typical of HHW.
> ***
>
> Time to ignore the old man. A proven liar,
He certainly is not. It's the shoveari slime, and you, who are doing the
lies, jew cunt.
4PeaceMirelle
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
<Hein...@mailgate.org> wrote:
>As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
>prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
>numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!
The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.
Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.
# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).
# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:
Cider-Braised Jewish Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Kikes.
# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.
# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.
# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?
# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/
____________________________________________________
Mirelle
HHW
> > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the ME.
> > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following declared
> > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> ****
> But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> Sweden, etc.?
> ***
>
> decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan of
> Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
> current state of Palestinian affairs.
>
> Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
Your against-the-wall position, not the facts, requires you to
"disagree". For you it is a necessity to keep the American people
embroiled in the Zionist's bloody, criminal campaign against the
Palestinian people. Accordingly you can't tolerate the idea that the
Arabs are normal beings who are simply responding to external assault.
You're in a corner and must pretend that they are crazy. It's okay to
exterminate crazy people. There's plenty of European precedent for
that. But a legitimate resistance to aggression, a legitimate war of
national liberation against a criminal occupation? Oh no, you can't
admit that. It would lead to having eventually to evacuate the West
Bank. It would result in the loss of what's left of the ostensible
moral high ground, the high ground which today is based only on lies
such as I describe here.
HHW
> "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YmL8k.26818$kx.12987@pd7urf3no...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Graeme" <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:dfe4f9ed-fb57-4ae3...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jun 25, 4:25 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> >>> > reconsidered.
>
> >>>http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/46282d17b8cad3c3...
>
> >>> In this post from about two weeks ago I asked you a simple question
> >>> which
> >>> you opted out of answering. It works here as well;
>
> >>> "So tell me - what parts of US policy shouldn't be altered as a result
> >>> of
> >>> terrorism?" (You know those Salafists don't think much of democracy....)
>
> >> None as the result of terrorism. U.S. policy should be altered on the
> >> basis of common sense: If the U.S. constantly gets involved in other
> >> people's conflicts all over the world, it's inevitable that one side
> >> or the other will attack us. The wonder of it is that the Serbs or
> >> Somalis or someone else the U.S. attacked haven't done so also.
>
> > No, actually it isn't a wonder at all. This whole 'US policy motivates
> > terrorism' schtick is total horseshit anyway.
>
> Not according to the collected US Security agencies spokesmen at the 911
> Commission hearing.
>
> Watch the linked video to hear the words from their own mouths.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
Shame on you, Cramer. You're embarrassing the poor fellow.
HHW
> "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
A smoke screened retreat.
Count 1
On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. You are not a target because of your 'involvement' in the
> > ME.
> > You are a target because a lone zealot with a cult like following
> > declared
> > you a target based on his own insanity.
>
> ****
> But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> Sweden, etc.?
> ***
>
> Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME for
> decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current Sultan
> of
> Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for the
> current state of Palestinian affairs.
>
> Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
***
Your against-the-wall position, not the facts, requires you to
"disagree".
***
I have no requirement to disagree. I disagree for the reasons I list.
If you feel capable enough to address those reasons - do so.
***
For you it is a necessity to keep the American people
embroiled in the Zionist's bloody, criminal campaign against the
Palestinian people. Accordingly you can't tolerate the idea that the
Arabs are normal beings who are simply responding to external assault.
***
Interesting statement to make. So you think Al-Queada represent 'Arabs'. I
have no such prejudice, AQ represents 'Arabs' about as much the FLDS
represents 'westerners'.
***
You're in a corner and must pretend that they are crazy.
It's okay to exterminate crazy people.
***
I disagree. It is OK to exterminate murderers, and what murderers aren't
'crazy' on some level?
***
There's plenty of European precedent for
that. But a legitimate resistance to aggression, a legitimate war of
national liberation against a criminal occupation? Oh no, you can't
admit that.
***
I know - eventually all you 'blame the US and Israel' types always end up
exposing yourselves as admirers of terrorism. You actually stood there and
watched those planes hit those buildings and thought to yourself 'now that's
a legitimate thing to do.' You probably already knew they had a valid
reason before you even knew what the reason was.
The world is waiting for the Palestinian Ghandhi.
***
It would lead to having eventually to evacuate the West
Bank.
***
Israel's been trying to evac for a while. They recently offered another deal
that had 91% of WB with concessions given to the Palestinians.
***
It would result in the loss of what's left of the ostensible
moral high ground,
***
You just described 9/11 as a legitimate response to supposed 'aggression'.
At this point you need to be concerned about your loss of common sense.
***
the high ground which today is based only on lies
such as I describe here.
***
?? News Flash Moron-Boy - you tell lies, you don't 'describe' them.
HHW
> "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Richard Ratner of Sommerville MA,
Were it not for Israel and the Israel lobby, this unfolding tragedy
for the American people and nation would not be happening:
ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
PREPARING THE BATTLEFIELD
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
JULY 7, 2008
Operations outside the knowledge and control of commanders have eroded
“the coherence of military strategy,” one general says.
Audio: Seymour M. Hersh talks about the White House and Iran.
Iran; Bush, George W. (Pres.) (43rd); Foreign Policy; Presidential
Findings; Covert Operations; Fallon, William (Admiral); Congressional
Oversight
ate last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to
fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according
to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional
sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four
hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding
signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s
religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the
minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident
organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s
suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special
Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from
southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These
have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for
interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the
President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the
scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the
Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command
(JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current
and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in
the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious
questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified,
must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way
and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican
leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of
their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight.
Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous
appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees,
which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and
trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person
familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition
groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range
of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where
Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and
“there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it,
according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the
escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the
Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since
the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the
Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while
the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has
said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
The request for funding came in the same period in which the
Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence
Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted
its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the
significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to
diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to
counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the
N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials,
including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John
McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile,
the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership
has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both
directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by
supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods.
(There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the
Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties
remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
FROM THE ISSUECARTOON BANKE-MAIL THIS
Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s
concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement
about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon
officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that
bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation
issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-
record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the
Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.)
Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a
preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll
create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be
battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the
Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was
speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the
senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for
myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the
consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he
said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were
“pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a
military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding
told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war
on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers,
including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct
military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who
until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in
charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon
resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating
his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last
year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S.
policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them
as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first
choice.”
Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had
heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his
public statements. “Too many people believe you have to be either for
or against the Iranians,” he told me. “Let’s get serious. Eighty
million people live there, and everyone’s an individual. The idea that
they’re only one way or another is nonsense.”
When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, “Did I bitch about some of
the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very
stupid.”
The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions
of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given
the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others.
“The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the
Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding
said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re
authorizing.”
enior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the
possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail
differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference
in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential
defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the
journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in
Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)
The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the
C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert
operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those
of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under
the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of
the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A.
operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the
President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the
field without congressional interference. But the borders between
operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional
assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make
contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to
direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base
in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a
partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s
task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not
directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization
among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years,
has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military
one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The
C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding
does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after
September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had
never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was
that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that
term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything
is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added,
“The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a
shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior
congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade
of mush.”
“The agency says we’re not going to get in the position of helping to
kill people without a Finding,” the former senior intelligence
official told me. He was referring to the legal threat confronting
some agency operatives for their involvement in the rendition and
alleged torture of suspects in the war on terror. “This drove the
military people up the wall,” he said. As far as the C.I.A. was
concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all
authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what
they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting
support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing
legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force
in ambiguous terms.
The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to
congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the
director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a
special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language
did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives
on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or
harm.
The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently
wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal
action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June,
he had received no answer.
Members of Congress have expressed skepticism in the past about the
information provided by the White House. On March 15, 2005, David
Obey, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led House
Appropriations Committee, announced that he was putting aside an
amendment that he had intended to offer that day, and that would have
cut off all funding for national-intelligence programs unless the
President agreed to keep Congress fully informed about clandestine
military activities undertaken in the war on terror. He had changed
his mind, he said, because the White House promised better
coöperation. “The Executive Branch understands that we are not trying
to dictate what they do,” he said in a floor speech at the time. “We
are simply trying to see to it that what they do is consistent with
American values and will not get the country in trouble.”
Obey declined to comment on the specifics of the operations in Iran,
but he did tell me that the White House reneged on its promise to
consult more fully with Congress. He said, “I suspect there’s
something going on, but I don’t know what to believe. Cheney has
always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a
way to do it. We still don’t get enough information from the agencies,
and I have very little confidence that they give us information on the
edge.”
None of the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight—Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee
chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee
chairman Silvestre Reyes—would comment on the Finding, with some
noting that it was highly classified. An aide to one member of the
Democratic leadership responded, on his behalf, by pointing to the
limitations of the Gang of Eight process. The notification of a
Finding, the aide said, “is just that—notification, and not a sign-off
on activities. Proper oversight of ongoing intelligence activities is
done by fully briefing the members of the intelligence committee.”
However, Congress does have the means to challenge the White House
once it has been sent a Finding. It has the power to withhold funding
for any government operation. The members of the House and Senate
Democratic leadership who have access to the Finding can also, if they
choose to do so, and if they have shared concerns, come up with ways
to exert their influence on Administration policy. (A spokesman for
the C.I.A. said, “As a rule, we don’t comment one way or the other on
allegations of covert activities or purported findings.” The White
House also declined to comment.)
A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even
with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year
before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on,
“We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money.
Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this
Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so
secretive.”
ne irony of Admiral Fallon’s departure is that he was, in many areas,
in agreement with President Bush on the threat posed by Iran. They had
a good working relationship, Fallon told me, and, when he ran CENTCOM,
were in regular communication. On March 4th, a week before his
resignation, Fallon testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, saying that he was “encouraged” about the situations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the role played by Iran’s leaders, he
said, “They’ve been absolutely unhelpful, very damaging, and I
absolutely don’t condone any of their activities. And I have yet to
see anything since I’ve been in this job in the way of a public action
by Iran that’s been at all helpful in this region.”
Fallon made it clear in our conversations that he considered it
inappropriate to comment publicly about the President, the Vice-
President, or Special Operations. But he said he had heard that people
in the White House had been “struggling” with his views on Iran. “When
I arrived at CENTCOM, the Iranians were funding every entity inside
Iraq. It was in their interest to get us out, and so they decided to
kill as many Americans as they could. And why not? They didn’t know
who’d come out ahead, but they wanted us out. I decided that I
couldn’t resolve the situation in Iraq without the neighborhood. To
get this problem in Iraq solved, we had to somehow involve Iran and
Syria. I had to work the neighborhood.”
Fallon told me that his focus had been not on the Iranian nuclear
issue, or on regime change there, but on “putting out the fires in
Iraq.” There were constant discussions in Washington and in the field
about how to engage Iran and, on the subject of the bombing option,
Fallon said, he believed that “it would happen only if the Iranians
did something stupid.”
Fallon’s early retirement, however, appears to have been provoked not
only by his negative comments about bombing Iran but also by his
strong belief in the chain of command and his insistence on being
informed about Special Operations in his area of responsibility. One
of Fallon’s defenders is retired Marine General John J. (Jack)
Sheehan, whose last assignment was as commander-in-chief of the U.S.
Atlantic Command, where Fallon was a deputy. Last year, Sheehan
rejected a White House offer to become the President’s “czar” for the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “One of the reasons the White House
selected Fallon for CENTCOM was that he’s known to be a strategic
thinker and had demonstrated those skills in the Pacific,” Sheehan
told me. (Fallon served as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the
Pacific from 2005 to 2007.) “He was charged with coming up with an
over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by
law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military
operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not
happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the
overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of
responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him
out.”
The law cited by Sheehan is the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, known
as Goldwater-Nichols, which defined the chain of command: from the
President to the Secretary of Defense, through the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on to the various combatant commanders, who
were put in charge of all aspects of military operations, including
joint training and logistics. That authority, the act stated, was not
to be shared with other echelons of command. But the Bush
Administration, as part of its global war on terror, instituted new
policies that undercut regional commanders-in-chief; for example, it
gave Special Operations teams, at military commands around the world,
the highest priority in terms of securing support and equipment. The
degradation of the traditional chain of command in the past few years
has been a point of tension between the White House and the uniformed
military.
“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue
civilian influence and direction of nonconventional military
operations,” Sheehan said. “If you have small groups planning and
conducting military operations outside the knowledge and control of
the combatant commander, by default you can’t have a coherent military
strategy. You end up with a disaster, like the reconstruction efforts
in Iraq.”
Admiral Fallon, who is known as Fox, was aware that he would face
special difficulties as the first Navy officer to lead CENTCOM, which
had always been headed by a ground commander, one of his military
colleagues told me. He was also aware that the Special Operations
community would be a concern. “Fox said that there’s a lot of strange
stuff going on in Special Ops, and I told him he had to figure out
what they were really doing,” Fallon’s colleague said. “The Special
Ops guys eventually figured out they needed Fox, and so they began to
talk to him. Fox would have won his fight with Special Ops but for
Cheney.”
The Pentagon consultant said, “Fallon went down because, in his own
way, he was trying to prevent a war with Iran, and you have to admire
him for that.”
n recent months, according to the Iranian media, there has been a
surge in violence in Iran; it is impossible at this early stage,
however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their
impact on the Iranian leadership. The Iranian press reports are being
carefully monitored by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who has
taught strategy at the National War College and now conducts war games
centered on Iran for the federal government, think tanks, and
universities. The Iranian press “is very open in describing the
killings going on inside the country,” Gardiner said. It is, he said,
“a controlled press, which makes it more important that it publishes
these things. We begin to see inside the government.” He added,
“Hardly a day goes by now we don’t see a clash somewhere. There were
three or four incidents over a recent weekend, and the Iranians are
even naming the Revolutionary Guard officers who have been killed.”
Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have
assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, and the Iranian government
acknowledged that an explosion in a cultural center in Shiraz, in the
southern part of the country, which killed at least twelve people and
injured more than two hundred, had been a terrorist act and not, as it
earlier insisted, an accident. It could not be learned whether there
has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but,
according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the
U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some
incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its
support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was
overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in
Tehran, to great effect. “This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to
blame the C.I.A.,” Gardiner said. “This is new, and it’s an escalation—
a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and
shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the ‘Great
Satan.’ ” In Gardiner’s view, the violence, rather than weakening
Iran’s religious government, may generate support for it.
Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran,
and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing
money” (to use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a
covert setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and
whom it benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official
said, “We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and
our communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the
argument that the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many
times have we tried this without asking the right questions? Is the
risk worth it?” One possible consequence of these operations would be
a violent Iranian crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which
could give the Bush Administration a reason to intervene.
A strategy of using ethnic minorities to undermine Iran is flawed,
according to Vali Nasr, who teaches international politics at Tufts
University and is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. “Just because Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan have ethnic
problems, it does not mean that Iran is suffering from the same
issue,” Nasr told me. “Iran is an old country—like France and Germany—
and its citizens are just as nationalistic. The U.S. is overestimating
ethnic tension in Iran.” The minority groups that the U.S. is reaching
out to are either well integrated or small and marginal, without much
influence on the government or much ability to present a political
challenge, Nasr said. “You can always find some activist groups that
will go and kill a policeman, but working with the minorities will
backfire, and alienate the majority of the population.”
The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident
organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the
groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of
Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former
C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South
Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni
fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also
describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off
the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The
irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists,
just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef,
who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the
leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni
fundamentalists.
One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is
the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement,
which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights
of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose
followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani
extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al
Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The
Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of
Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard
members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the
Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S.
support.
The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing
ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq,
known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the
Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.
The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more
than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and
intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of
the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me,
may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with
the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added,
“The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are
thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only
knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank
accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the
Administration intends.”
The Kurdish party, PJAK, which has also been reported to be covertly
supported by the United States, has been operating against Iran from
bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. (Iran, like Iraq and
Turkey, has a Kurdish minority, and PJAK and other groups have sought
self-rule in territory that is now part of each of those countries.)
In recent weeks, according to Sam Gardiner, the military strategist,
there has been a marked increase in the number of PJAK armed
engagements with Iranians and terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. In
early June, the news agency Fars reported that a dozen PJAK members
and four Iranian border guards were killed in a clash near the Iraq
border; a similar attack in May killed three Revolutionary Guards and
nine PJAK fighters. PJAK has also subjected Turkey, a member of NATO,
to repeated terrorist attacks, and reports of American support for the
group have been a source of friction between the two governments.
Gardiner also mentioned a trip that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-
Maliki, made to Tehran in June. After his return, Maliki announced
that his government would ban any contact between foreigners and the
M.E.K.—a slap at the U.S.’s dealings with the group. Maliki declared
that Iraq was not willing to be a staging ground for covert operations
against other countries. This was a sign, Gardiner said, of “Maliki’s
increasingly choosing the interests of Iraq over the interests of the
United States.” In terms of U.S. allegations of Iranian involvement in
the killing of American soldiers, he said, “Maliki was unwilling to
play the blame-Iran game.” Gardiner added that Pakistan had just
agreed to turn over a Jundallah leader to the Iranian government.
America’s covert operations, he said, “seem to be harming relations
with the governments of both Iraq and Pakistan and could well be
strengthening the connection between Tehran and Baghdad.”
he White House’s reliance on questionable operatives, and on plans
involving possible lethal action inside Iran, has created anger as
well as anxiety within the Special Operations and intelligence
communities. JSOC’s operations in Iran are believed to be modelled on
a program that has, with some success, used surrogates to target the
Taliban leadership in the tribal territories of Waziristan, along the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But the situations in Waziristan and Iran
are not comparable.
In Waziristan, “the program works because it’s small and smart guys
are running it,” the former senior intelligence official told me.
“It’s being executed by professionals. The N.S.A., the C.I.A., and the
D.I.A.”—the Defense Intelligence Agency—“are right in there with the
Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence, and they’re dealing with
serious bad guys.” He added, “We have to be really careful in calling
in the missiles. We have to hit certain houses at certain times. The
people on the ground are watching through binoculars a few hundred
yards away and calling specific locations, in latitude and longitude.
We keep the Predator loitering until the targets go into a house, and
we have to make sure our guys are far enough away so they don’t get
hit.” One of the most prominent victims of the program, the former
official said, was Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Taliban commander, who
was killed on January 31st, reportedly in a missile strike that also
killed eleven other people.
A dispatch published on March 26th by the Washington Post reported on
the increasing number of successful strikes against Taliban and other
insurgent units in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A follow-up article noted
that, in response, the Taliban had killed “dozens of people” suspected
of providing information to the United States and its allies on the
whereabouts of Taliban leaders. Many of the victims were thought to be
American spies, and their executions—a beheading, in one case—were
videotaped and distributed by DVD as a warning to others.
It is not simple to replicate the program in Iran. “Everybody’s
arguing about the high-value-target list,” the former senior
intelligence official said. “The Special Ops guys are pissed off
because Cheney’s office set up priorities for categories of targets,
and now he’s getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But
it takes a long time to get the right guys in place.”
The Pentagon consultant told me, “We’ve had wonderful results in the
Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flags—basic
counterintelligence and counter-insurgency tactics. And we’re
beginning to tie them in knots in Afghanistan. But the White House is
going to kill the program if they use it to go after Iran. It’s one
thing to engage in selective strikes and assassinations in Waziristan
and another in Iran. The White House believes that one size fits all,
but the legal issues surrounding extrajudicial killings in Waziristan
are less of a problem because Al Qaeda and the Taliban cross the
border into Afghanistan and back again, often with U.S. and NATO
forces in hot pursuit. The situation is not nearly as clear in the
Iranian case. All the considerations—judicial, strategic, and political
—are different in Iran.”
He added, “There is huge opposition inside the intelligence community
to the idea of waging a covert war inside Iran, and using Baluchis and
Ahwazis as surrogates. The leaders of our Special Operations community
all have remarkable physical courage, but they are less likely to
voice their opposition to policy. Iran is not Waziristan.”
Gallup poll taken last November, before the N.I.E. was made public,
found that seventy-three per cent of those surveyed thought that the
United States should use economic action and diplomacy to stop Iran’s
nuclear program, while only eighteen per cent favored direct military
action. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse a
military strike. Weariness with the war in Iraq has undoubtedly
affected the public’s tolerance for an attack on Iran. This mood could
change quickly, however. The potential for escalation became clear in
early January, when five Iranian patrol boats, believed to be under
the command of the Revolutionary Guard, made a series of aggressive
moves toward three Navy warships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Initial reports of the incident made public by the Pentagon press
office said that the Iranians had transmitted threats, over ship-to-
ship radio, to “explode” the American ships. At a White House news
conference, the President, on the day he left for an eight-day trip to
the Middle East, called the incident “provocative” and “dangerous,”
and there was, very briefly, a sense of crisis and of outrage at Iran.
“TWO MINUTES FROM WAR” was the headline in one British newspaper.
The crisis was quickly defused by Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the
commander of U.S. naval forces in the region. No warning shots were
fired, the Admiral told the Pentagon press corps on January 7th, via
teleconference from his headquarters, in Bahrain. “Yes, it’s more
serious than we have seen, but, to put it in context, we do interact
with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their Navy regularly,”
Cosgriff said. “I didn’t get the sense from the reports I was
receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats.”
Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: within a week, the
Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the
Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and
press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long
known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s
demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence
official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had
supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S.
didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a
meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was
how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.
n June, President Bush went on a farewell tour of Europe. He had tea
with Queen Elizabeth II and dinner with Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla
Bruni, the President and First Lady of France. The serious business
was conducted out of sight, and involved a series of meetings on a new
diplomatic effort to persuade the Iranians to halt their uranium-
enrichment program. (Iran argues that its enrichment program is for
civilian purposes and is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.) Secretary of State Rice had been involved with developing a
new package of incentives. But the Administration’s essential
negotiating position seemed unchanged: talks could not take place
until Iran halted the program. The Iranians have repeatedly and
categorically rejected that precondition, leaving the diplomatic
situation in a stalemate; they have not yet formally responded to the
new incentives.
The continuing impasse alarms many observers. Joschka Fischer, the
former German Foreign Minister, recently wrote in a syndicated column
that it may not “be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for
the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation
before they are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things
will soon get serious. Deadly serious.” When I spoke to him last week,
Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said
that the latest European approach includes a new element: the
willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less
than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The
proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new
centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction
activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran
would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal
negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they
have good will.”
The big question, Fischer added, is in Washington. “I think the
Americans are deeply divided on the issue of what to do about Iran,”
he said. “Some officials are concerned about the fallout from a
military attack and others think an attack is unavoidable. I know the
Europeans, but I have no idea where the Americans will end up on this
issue.”
There is another complication: American Presidential politics. Barack
Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with
no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic
groundwork had been laid). That position has been vigorously
criticized by John McCain. The Washington Post recently quoted Randy
Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s national-security director, as
stating that McCain supports the White House’s position, and that the
program be suspended before talks begin. What Obama is proposing,
Scheunemann said, “is unilateral cowboy summitry.”
Scheunemann, who is known as a neoconservative, is also the McCain
campaign’s most important channel of communication with the White
House. He is a friend of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief of
staff. I have heard differing accounts of Scheunemann’s influence with
McCain; though some close to the McCain campaign talk about him as a
possible national-security adviser, others say he is someone who isn’t
taken seriously while “telling Cheney and others what they want to
hear,” as a senior McCain adviser put it.
It is not known whether McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, has been formally briefed on the
operations in Iran. At the annual conference of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, in June, Obama repeated his plea for “tough
and principled diplomacy.” But he also said, along with McCain, that
he would keep the threat of military action against Iran on the table.
♦
fla...@verizon.net
On 26-Jun-2008, Lazarus Cain <rspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
> >
> > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
> > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>
> It was known immediately that 9/11 was a response to US support for
> Israel.
Only by people who lie about such things.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 26-Jun-2008, Lazarus Cain <rspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, Israel and US made matters worst by making a mess out
> of Iraq and Lebanon
Wow, this is too dumb to be a lie.
Israel was STOPPED from winning in Lebanon.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 27-Jun-2008, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 11:28 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 1:17 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But why did that cult attack the U.S. and not Switzerland, Japan,
> > > Sweden, etc.?
> > > ***
> >
> > > Why didn't they attack (initially) the UK? They've had bases in the ME
> > > for
> > > decades as well, and in fact participated in a coup by the current
> > > Sultan of
> > > Oman in the 70's. Additionally the UK bears much responsibility for
> > > the
> > > current state of Palestinian affairs.
> >
> > > Don't look for rationality from these people. They're insane.
> >
> > Sure, Ratner,
>
> This is what I mean... Why do you act like an ass?
>
It's not an act.
Susan
> Is that ingrained in your programming?
>
> Why do you troll like all the other freaks on this forum? Why are you
> such a CREEP?
>
> Is that a function of being a loser liberal?
HHW
enemies.
SEYMOUR HERSH INTERVIEW by Wajahat Ali
Posted in Interviews, Iraq War, Middle East by Wajahat Ali on January
16th, 2008
Going 15 Rounds with Seymour Hersh
By WAJAHAT ALI
“I‘m having a horrible day,” grumbled Seymour Hersh, the 70 year-old
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, arguably the most
revered of his time, and reporter for the prestigious New Yorker
magazine.
Almost a week before, I called Seymour Hersh on a lark trying to score
an interview regarding his New Yorker article “Shifting Targets: The
Administration’s plan for Iran,” an explosive piece outlining the Bush
Administration’s strategic and aggressive preparation for a potential
attack on Iran. When Hersh writes, everyone reads, and the world pays
attention.
Even The White House, through press secretary Dana Perino, was forced
to respond to his article, publicly stating, “[The White House] is not
going to comment on any possible scenario that an anonymous source
continues to feed into Sy Hersh. We don’t discuss such things. We are
pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran.”
During our first phone call, Hersh sounded hurried and rushed, a
habitual trait I noticed, preparing for an international phone
interview. “Listen, I got a call coming in from overseas, it’s gonna’
come in any moment. Just give me a call at the office,” he informed
me.
I persisted, “How about next week? We can do the interview over the
phone. I can call-”
“No, no. I’m traveling to the West Coast next week. I’m busy, but give
me a call the week after, all right? Let’s do this later. Call my
office. Ok?”
“Great,” I replied and hung up the phone, ecstatic after scoring
potential interview time with the Pulitzer winning journalist.
Fast forward one week, I’m casually sitting behind my desk with my
laptop in front of me, calling Hersh’s office number to leave a
message on his machine reminding him of the interview upon his return
from the publicity trip.
The phone rings. It rings again. Instead of a soothing, feminine,
robotic automated voice message, a surly and flustered voice answers,
“Hello?”
“Um, uh, hey, Seymour? This is Wajahat ”
“Who?”
“Uh, Wajahat Ali? Anyway, I wasn’t expecting you. I called to leave a
message on your voice mail, and you pick up. Great! How was your trip?
I thought you’d be back next week ”
“Ugh, it was terrible. A terrible trip. I’m having a horrible day.
That trip was just whowho are you, again? Why are you calling?”
questioned an obviously irritated and surly Hersh.
“I’m calling to schedule an interview we talked about last week,
remember?” I answered oblivious to his current temperament.
Little did I know this simple question would unleash the notoriously
intense feistiness and doggedness of Hersh, a man whose words and
attitude cut straight to the point, fast and furious, shooting off
half a dozen questions in a row without pause. His aggressive style
reminded me of an ethnic, immigrant uncle: blunt, honest, gruff, but
oddly endearing.
“Why do you want an interview? Who are you again? Islamic what?
Islamic? Listen, you know I did Jazeera right? Al Jazeera? They’re
Muslim (pauses). Oh, God. I mean, so, so what? What, you want an
interview or something? Is that what you want? I - I usually do the
pimping for my pieces for 2-3 days after they’re published, but once
it’s done I move on. I move on, ya’ know? That was last week. This is
this week. I got a lot of reporting to do (Sigh, sounds overwhelmed).
I got a lot of reporting to do.”
I’ve been hit with a freight train, and I’m just trying re-attach my
jaw let alone talk. My brain fires off an intelligent and lucid
response, but before my lips can move, Hersh is on the loose again.
“What do you want from me? I mean, I really don’t like doing this. You
know these interviews. Once it’s done, I move on. I I mean you
shoulda’ called last week. Why didn’t you call last week?” he asked.
“Um, I actually did call last week, but you said call back in 2
weeks,” I answered calmly and logically.
“Oh,” replied Hersh, and for a second I sensed a silence, and thus an
opportunity.
“Mr. Hersh, it won’t take long. I just wanted your thoughts on the
recent ”
“I hate it when people ask what I think. Who am I? I mean who cares
what I think? Who cares about my thoughts? I just hate that. I hate
answering that. I’m a reporter. I report the facts. I’m just a
reporter. I’m just being up front with you.”
I am momentarily stunned. However, the ethnic, South Asian salesman in
me comes alive and, like a snake charmer, I’m prepared to cajole,
console, placate, and adulate in order to convince my reluctant
client. But before I can utter a word, Hersh retaliates with a blow.
“Ok, a sample question. Suppose we did this interview, what would a
sample question sound like? Hit me with a sample question. Go!”
commanded Hersh.
The bell rings. The Heavyweight advances, and now you’re on your toes
for Round 1.
ALI: (Slightly flustered and caught off guard) Ok, I have one. Here’s
a sample. Recently at the Democratic debate, Senator Mike Gravel
called out Hillary Clinton for voting on Senator Lieberman’s
aggressive resolution against Iran that condemned Iran’s Revolutionary
Guard as a terrorist group. What I want to ask is, should we expect
anything different from the Democrats if they are elected in regards
to U.S. foreign policy, specifically in regards to Iraq? Iran?
HERSH: I have no idea. I would certainly hope so. How would I possible
know? I don’t see them doing anything different with Iraq, despite
concede it. Just concede it I don’t know what else they can do that
is different. And who says they’re going to win? I don’t see that they
are going to win. I’m not sure they are, and I don’t know why people
think that. They haven’t done anything different. They haven’t brought
anything new to the table that hasn’t already been said by the
Republicans. They just talk the talk. They talk the talk. If I knew
this I mean, who would win (the presidential race), I’d be at the
race track everyday. Not reporting. You just don’t know. No one knows.
Listen, this is politics, and I’m just a guy who writes who writes
stories about the war. When people ask me about politics it drives me
crazy! I’m not a fan of politics. I don’t like discussing politics.
You can’t make me something I’m not.
ALI: I understand. Trust me, trust me, I’m not trying to. But, there
you go, that would be an example of a sample question if we did an
interview
HERSH: What!? We are doing an interview! What the fuck were you
doing?! This is the interview! Get out your recorder, let’s go. Let’s
go.”
ALI: Ok, great, let’s do it. Private contractors in Iraq, specifically
Blackwater, have been on the news nonstop for the past few months
regarding numerous allegations of reckless shooting and violence.
What’s your take on this?
HERSH: Oh, there’s been a lot of wrongdoing by them. A lot of
arrogance. [Blackwater] drive around like they own the world over
there. They increase a lot of resentment amongst the Iraqi civilian
population against us [The U.S.] by behaving like this. Listen, if
you’re an occupier then you act like an occupier. Occupiers act like
occupiers. There is no way that Iraqi people will ever respond in any
positive way to what Blackwater does.
ALI: How will the Iraqis respond to this? You highlighted the Abu
Ghraib scandal in your book, Chain of Command. You know private
contractors CACI and Titan were responsible for much of those abusive
interrogations and you described the blowback resulting from [Abu
Ghraib]. What’s the blowback on this one?
HERSH: There is no way Iraqi people will respond to will they have
never responded to will. It’s exactly the same problem we encountered
in Afghanistan. I mean, a lot of people who normally would have been
or should have been supportive of us, I mean, they should have
supported us initially, those people have come to realize they don’t
like us since we became an “occupier.”
You know being an “occupier” is risky business. It is really hard to
be “occupier.” Occupiers never win. They never have. They’ve always
ended up getting squeezed out. Anyone, I mean anyone, who has been
following this war closely knows Blackwater is doing just what they’ve
been doing all along. They only reason it’s in the news is because of
the absolutely egregious way they behaved, and the fact Iraq decided
to go public against them. Listen, Blackwater is operating they way
they’ve always operated. They only take care of their clients and
their client’s needs. That’s what matters. Anyone else who isn’t the
client doesn’t matter.
ALI: Recently, a maelstrom has been raised over the new Mearsheimer/
Walt book “The Israel Lobby” describing the influence of
HERSH: I don’t know Israeli Lobby? I don’t know if I’d call them an
Israeli Lobby.
ALI: Well, do you buy it? The influence and pressure of certain pro
Israeli lobbies on the U.S. government? What’s the level of influence,
if any, or is it overblown?
HERSH: There’s AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee).
You have AIPAC. It is a powerful lobby, you know, it’s an interest
group. But Israel - Israel doesn’t need a lobby. It has direct
connections right here, right here in town (Washington D.C.). I mean,
of course, it’s a monumental force. But that’s the reality. It’s been
a reality forever - in my life at least. Money talks is the old
cliché, and B.S. walks. But you know, it’s just interest groups.
That’s the way they are, and everyone does it. Everyone.
ALI: Right.
HERSH: For example, the Muslims that’s a good example. They solidly
voted for Bush (2000 election).
ALI: The Muslims came out en masse and voted for him.
HERSH: Right, I mean the Muslims, the interest group, it’s not nearly
as organized, or powerful or well funded as others, but you know,
there was enough money and enough percentage of votes that made a real
effort in the Muslim community. [The Muslims] are conservative.
Conservative in how they follow their religion, you know, very
conservative. They (Muslim Americans) keep their heads down, out of
trouble, just keep your head down they believe, and they say, “just
mind your own business.” And the Muslims are successful in business;
they have a high degree of talent in making money in areas of big
business. In the business world for example in Lebanon you can see
it with the Shia there. So, it is inevitable. Anyway, that’s how
interests group work, always. But, I can’t calibrate the numbers for
you to determine their influence.
ALI: Over the past couple of years, it’s become fashionable and
clichéd amongst certain circles to compare our involvement in Iraq to
the Vietnam War. Now, you’ve been there, you were there reporting on
Vietnam, breaking the My Lai massacre story back then. And here you
are now with Iraq. As a person who has actually lived through it and
reported on both, are there any similarities, or is it premature to
compare?
HERSH: One thing is similar. We are out there fighting in a country
with uneducated, 18 year old boys with weapons. They’re frightened -
frightened. They’re frightened because they don’t know the country,
they don’t know the culture. They’re not even interested in knowing
about the culture. Fear is there. [The U.S. soldiers] never see an
enemy sometimes, and weeks go by. And they continue to lose fellow
soldiers, they lose them to snipers, they lose them to mines, and
eventually and inevitably, they take the war to the people they can
see. And in Iraq, that’s the local population. Happens in all wars.
All of ‘em. Civilians are the ones treated differently.
Vietnam was always a tactical mistake. We lose the war, we are driven
off in ‘75, and in four to five years we are back in that country
playing Monopoly with Vietnam’s economy. You know, making investments,
several investments in that country. That is not ‘gonna happen here.
We are in a strategic debate with about 1.3, what, 1.5 billion Muslims
-
ALI: Around 1.5 -
HERSH: Yeah, so 1.5 billion Muslims. We are in a real strategic war
here, and we really misplayed it. We did more for Osama than he could
do for himself. We played a part in recruiting for him. This is a part
of the world where America is not going to be wanted. Same thing in
Afghanistan, especially in the Southern part of Afghanistan.
ALI: You make a good point. You know I’m Pakistani-American, son of
Pakistani immigrants, but I have family there still. And we talk to
them often and I used to visit all the time, but the level of Anti-
Americanism in that country is amazing, which it didn’t have 10 years
ago, but now, it’s just overwhelming.
HERSH: Well, I specifically was discussing the southern region of
Afghanistan.
ALI: But the border between the two
HERSH: Yes, right, you’re right. Like Afghanistan, Pakistan is the
same issue, the exact same issue as with Afghanistan in terms of a
tremendous lack of popularity for our government amongst the people
there. This will increase particularly as we pit Sunni against Shia.
ALI: So there’s this rise of Anti-Americanism unfortunately around
that region. In your research, have you found the main cause of hatred
against America?
HERSH: American violence. It’s the violence. Do we know I mean, how
many bombs are dropped? How many shells are fired? Who knows what the
accurate number is? I know I don’t. There was, last year I think, I
believe there was a number reported in the “The Lancet” that said the
Iraqi causalities numbered in 600,000 killed [The Lancet medical
journal reporting published in October '06 estimated 654,965 excess
deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population]. That number is
breathtakingit’s breathtaking. I believe, however, the numbers and
causalities are actually much greater than have been reported.
Every family in Iraq knows someone who has been killed. Americans are
invariably blamed. We are going to have serious situations resulting
from that. This is a society [Iraq] that does deal with revenge. We
probably created a lot of new jihadists and martyrs and anger, anger
with how we behaved and the resulting casualties that are innocent
Iraqis.
ALI: On the ground in Iraq, what specifically causes the blowback
against our troops, what causes the violence?
HERSH: Americans are frightened. They are frightened in Iraq. Not
frightened in, you know, a cowardly way. But frightened like anyone I
mean, it’s natural to be like that, anyone would. You’re a solider in
Iraq, you’re now manning a checkpoint there. You don’t know the
language, you don’t know Arabic. You don’t know their culture. Now,
[the Iraqis] arrive at the checkpoints. They miss the checkpoints. You
yell at them to stop, but they don’t understand you, they don’t speak
the language, so they keep driving. They don’t stop. You open fire.
And now you’ve made enemies. We are occupiers right now.
ALI: I want to get back to the Sunni-Shia comment you made. As you
know, America has history in that region, specifically the Iran-Iraq
war of the 1980’s. We know that the U.S., through then Vice President
Bush, was heavily involved, trying to bleed both sides against the
middle, weakening the Shia theocracy of Iran and hedging bets for the
Sunni regime of Saddam. So, now, is it going to be good ‘ol “divide
and conquer” with the sectarian situation? How will U.S. forces and
policy play with the Sunni-Shia dynamic in the Muslim world?
HERSH: Brother versus brother. It’s going to be brother versus
brother. Sunni versus Shia. There’s an incredible sectarian war
happening right now in Iraq. Things are always tense between both
groups there. We know Saddam mistreated the Shia when he was in power.
But, it was nothing then like it is now. The killing now is
unbelievable.
The new policy of America is that we are going to work with Israelis
and moderate Sunnis, those include Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. We’re
going to join forces with Western forces in Europe. Then, America and
Israel are going to go after people we don’t like. People like Iran,
Hamas, Hizbollah. There is a coalition forming, a coalition that forms
and pits brother against brother, a fitnah. You know that’s not an
exact meaning of the word, it’s an Arabic word. But it’s fitnah
[dissention, disunity]. And we have strange bedfellows working with
us Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - all are going to be used to put
pressure on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. It’s a unique notion. It’s
“the Re-direction” you are seeing it right now. I wrote about in the
New Yorker. It’s called “the Re-direction.”
["The Re-direction," according to Hersh in his March piece, is the
Bush Administration's new policy towards the Middle East. In order to
undermine Iran, which is Shiite, the administration has decided to
cooperate with Saudi's Sunni government in Lebanon to engage in
"clandestine operations that intend to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite
organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in
clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria."]
You are seeing tremendous pressure now. For example, now, right now in
Lebanon, America’s position, the Bush Administration’s position is to
support the Siniora government as an example of their belief in
democracy. We are not interested in hearing the complaints of the
Shias [Hezbollah] and other groups.
[Hersh elaborates on this point in the same article, where he quotes
an official who states, "We are in a program to enhance the Sunni
capability to resist Shiite influence, and we're spreading the money
around as much as we canIn this process, we're financing a lot of bad
guys with some serious potential unintended consequencesIt's a very
high-risk venture."]
ALI: Let’s talk of Iran. Based on what you’ve said and written, and
what we’ve heard countless times by the Administration regarding
Iran’s potential nuclear capability, their hostility towards America,
and so forth, is there real, credible evidence to suggest that,
indeed, Iran poses a threat?
HERSH: Oh, the White House believes it. They believe that, no
question. They believe Iran’s Revolutionary guard, the Government,
it’s all part of one unified group that is dedicated to help kill
Americans. [The White House] describes the Revolutionary Guard as an
active, radical commando unit. Of course our intelligent community is
bitterly, bitterly divided over this. And the Administration has not
even come close to making its case on this. We have to remember, when
it was 1992, Saddam fell after the war, and for a brief time, you
know, for a brief time there was a rebellion against Saddam’s regime
by the Shia. We did nothing. We knew about it, and we did not nothing.
We let Saddam fly helicopters to kill these Shias. Since then there
has been a lot of bitterness against America. So, there is always two
sides, right? Two sides to a story? Well, this has six, seven sides.
ALI: But what does the White House say, or believe, that Iran
concretely does to help the insurgency in Iraq?
HERSH: America says that Iran supplies arms. They supply arms,
weapons, I.E.D’s which - do you know about them? They are these
improvised explosive devices, these explosive devises that are
incredibly effective. They think Iran is supplying intelligence on
several issues, and they see Iran as being directly responsible for
what’s happening in Iraq.
Ok, one more. That should be enough right? You should have enough for
a piece, right?
ALI: Should be enough, yeah. So, according to your sources and
research, in your opinion, has Iran actually done anything to warrant
this belief that it is a legitimate threat to America?
HERSH: Well, Some believe, like I do, some people believe that Iran is
doing nothing different than what it has done for the past two to
three decades in supporting the Shia. I mean, that’s what they are in
interested in to support the Shia. But there is no notion that this
government, our government has proven its case yet. They U.S. may do
what they want to do against Iran. I mean, who is going to stop this
president? Who is going to stop him? I don’t know. (Pause) Ok, so are
we good?
ALI: We are good.
HERSH: Ok, no more right? Promise no more phone calls?
ALI: Promise no more phone calls.
HERSH: Great. Thanks. Bye
Ding. Ding. Ding. End of Round 15. And with that, Hersh hangs up the
phone off and returns to do what he does best reporting. He doesn’t
believe that people care about his opinions or his thoughts. I mean,
he’s not a politician, so why should they, right? He’s just a
reporter. That’s all. So, please folks, let’s not go and try to make
him something he’s not.
Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist
nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and recent J.D.
whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders,” is the first major play about
Muslim Pakistani Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is
at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at
wajah...@gmail.com
HHW
> "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ddc7bea5-eca7-4215...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
> > > typical.
>
> On Jun 28, 3:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:>
>
> Time to ignore the old man. A proven liar, now we can add appeasing coward.
> He clearly brings nothing of value to this forum, just the same lies told
> over and over again, mainly online.
You cant post here and ignore me.
> Add to that his obviously insane belief that I'm drahcir, or I haven't read
> Scheurer's work, and he's clearly inconsequential.
Of course, inconsequential. But you can't post here and ignore me.
Dr. Hussein Lippschitz
> On Jun 27, 1:39 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 9:21 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 26, 10:11 pm, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 25, 12:10 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB57...
>>
>> > > > Because doing so would suggest that the policy ought to be
>> > > > reconsidered. Watch Representative Hamilton squirm on this issue.
>>
>> > > of his motivation.
>> > > He also objects to the presence of US troops on Saudi soil.
bin Laden isn't even permitted in Saudi Arabia. The US and Saudis decide
with each other what they want to do.
>> > > He also doesn't like non-Moslems.
>>
>> > He didn't say "only" part, but he did cite it and other complaints.
bin Laden is a common power mad criminal. Who cares what he says or who he
blames. Only a moron would fall for that smokescreen.
>
> I was not clear here. I meant he didn't use the word "only". They way
> you used the word seemed to have the effect of minimalizing the
> importance of the factor. Actually as time goes on and more writers
> address it, it seems to become more and more important.
>
>> > There is no basis for concluding that 9/11 was an irrational attack
>> > motivated by simple dislike of us, our religions, our culture, etc.
>
> This sentence was meant as a response to your "He also doesn't like
> non-Muslims."
>
> In
>> > fact experts tend to agree with Dr. Sheuer who proves the contrary in
>> > two books after many years running the al Queda desk in the CIA. They
>> > are: "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris".
>
> I think it was something like six years. I acknowledge that using
> "many" is perhaps a bit much. However, his entire career concentrated
> on the Near and Middle East so the point is nearly moot.
>
> You have a
>> > national security background as an officer, I'd be very interested in
>> > your opinion of one or both of them.
>>
>> You've completely misrepresented what I said.
>
> I plead to hasty draftsmanship but not to an intent to misrepresent
> you. On the contrary I respect what you have posted here over time and
> wish we would hear more from you.
>
>
>> I said our policy towards Israel is one reason but not the only one.
>> Where did Bin Laden go to hide? Afghanistan, which was a Moslem
>> fundamentalist regime under the Taliban. Moslem Fundies don't accept
>> the existence of other religions.
>
> They do, however, tolerate their existence in non-Muslim regions. They
> fight incursions from the outside. We call what they do terrorism in
> order to demonize it. They call it "defensive jihad". I highly
> recommend the two books by "Anonymous," i.e., Martin Sheuer. We'll be
> on the same page then. I suspect you'll find his analysis something of
> a relief as it makes sense of Muslim religious ideology and behavior.
>
>> If you think they do, I'd recommend you read the Koran. I have.
>> It specifically badmouths both Christians and Jews.
>
> I've read lots of out of context quotes from the Koran but haven't
> been able to bring myself to read it through. I had an awful time
> getting through the Christian version of your Torah.
>
> The Torah badmouths many different peoples of other religions and
> groups. There is much gratuitous sectarian carnage there, including
> genocide. In turn the Christian Gospels are not kind to the Jews, a
> fact Mel Gibson has capitalized on. I think such ethnocentric origin
> myths are characteristic of man made religions world wide. Anyhow it's
> not competent for an advanced country to run national policy in the
> 21st Century on something said about various other peoples in ancient
> religious texts. Credulity has its limits.
>
>
>
>> Dr Sheuer ran the Al-Qaeda desk for "many years"?
>> LOL! How long has Al_Qaeda been in existence?
>> Maybe 15 years at the most. Maybe less.
>
> I referenced that above.
>
>
>> Bin Laden is not "irrational"?
>> Someone asked him how he felt about the fact that Moslems have been
>> killed in his attacks.
>
>> He said:"It was the will of Allah".
>
> Any leader of a religious bent might say the equivalent. Take the
> leadership of the Crusades for example.
>
>> He's an irrational religious zealot.
>
> Not in the least more irrational that the ultra-orthodox in Israel.
> Here we have have two "chosen peoples" clashing.
>
>> He's a multi-millionairre, yet he spends his life and money living in
>> caves, running from the authorities and killing people he never met.
>
> Like the Jews out of Egypt killing the Canaanites, men, women and
> children indiscriminately.
>
>> His fellow terrorist troops are not well paid, yet they risk their
>> lives, motivated by him with religious fervor.
>
> All true. But he is a great hero in the Muslim world because of his
> *principled* resistance to Western and Israeli incursions and
> policies. He is a great charismatic leader of men. It's true whether
> we like it or not.
>
>> He calls Saudi Arabia"Sacred soil" because it contains the Holy City
>> of Mecca.
>
> Just as Jerusalem is sacred.
>
>
>> I don't need anything but common sense to know what I see.
>
> So much for generations of the efforts of scholars. I think, Joe, that
> we've always got to make our own judgment in last analysis. The
> better educated that judgment is, the better chance we have to get it
> right. Common sense is the distillation of human experience. We
> experience books.
>
>
>> You can have your experts.
>
> I'll take them and add the common sense you rely on. The alternative
> is obviously worse.
>
>> As any attorney who has used them as witnesses in court can tell you,
>> the so-called experts are very often wrong. You can get an expert to
>> defend any point of view if you pay him enough.
>
> As with academic opinion and peer review there is a winnowing process
> in litigation. Many who qualify as experts at trial have done it
> dozens of times. They are recognized in their field. Of course they
> try to assist those who retain them. Their first duty, however, is to
> tell the litigant whether the case is supported by the facts and their
> discipline. If it isn't it will never survive a motion for summary
> judgment.
>
> They also know that they will be cross examined both in preliminary
> depositions and at trial and that the record they make in those
> experiences will be preserved forever. They are under oath which has a
> sobering effect professionally. The attorney examining an opposing
> witness also has an expert who advises him how to handle the cross
> examination so as to raise as many legitimate questions as possible
> about the other side's case. No human system is perfect. We have no
> choice but to use experts. The rules of evidence prohibit laymen from
> giving opinion testimony on matters which lie in a recognized realm of
> expertise. There's really no alternative. The cynicism you display
> above reflects a lack of knowledge of how the civil trial system works
> and also the irrational dislike of lawyers which is primarily founded
> on misunderstanding what they do. As it gets worse and worse with time
> it seems to me to be more and more akin to the irrationalities
> inherent in anti-semitism.
>
HHW
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Here's where this stupid Israeliocentric priority has gotten us. Now
we are invading Pakistan:
Web Search powered by
YAHOO! SEARCH
Print Email Share
2 Comments
NATION WORLD
Clash of agencies stalls terror fight
By Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde
The New York Times
Article Last Updated: 06/30/2008 12:07:18 AM MDT
Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden moved to Pakistan and has been able
to rebuild its ability to attack. (Associated Press file photo)
WASHINGTON — Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided
to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to
authorize the Pentagon's Special Operations forces to launch missions
into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top
leaders of al-Qaeda.
Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about
Osama bin Laden's terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal
areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in
Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy
disagreements, and turf battles between U.S.
counterterrorism agencies.
The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was
designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave
an easier path into the tribal areas for U.S. commandos, who for years
have bristled at what they see as Washington's risk-averse attitude
toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue
that catching bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior
lieutenants alive.
But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are
still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in
Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A
senior Defense Department official said there was "mounting
frustration" in the Pentagon at the continued delay.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a
"war on terrorism" and made the destruction of bin Laden's network the
top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the
Bush administration will leave office with al-Qaeda having
successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal
areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the
region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.
A recent U.S. airstrike killing Pakistani troops has only inflamed
tensions along the mountain border and added to tensions between
Washington and Pakistan's new government.
The story of how al-Qaeda, Arabic for "the base," has gained a new
haven is in part a story of U.S. accommodation to President Pervez
Musharraf of Pakistan, whose advisers played down the terrorist
threat. It is also a story of how the White House shifted its sights,
beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and
Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.
Just as it had on Sept. 10, 2001, al-Qaeda now has a band of terror
camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western
targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are
smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001.
However, despite dozens of U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan since
2002, one retired CIA officer estimated that the makeshift training
compounds now have as many as 2,000 Arab and Pakistani militants, up
from several hundred three years ago.
Publicly, senior U.S. and Pakistani officials have said that the
creation of a Qaeda haven in the tribal areas was in many ways
inevitable — that the lawless badlands where ethnic Pashtun tribes
have resisted government control for centuries were a natural place
for a dispirited terror network to find refuge. The U.S. and Pakistani
officials also blame a disastrous cease-fire brokered between the
Pakistani government and militants in 2006.
But more than four dozen interviews in Washington and Pakistan tell
another story. U.S. intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in
Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the CIA in 2006, was
often undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush
administration and within the intelligence agency, including about
whether U.S. commandos should launch ground raids inside the tribal
areas.
Inside the CIA, the fights included clashes between the agency's
outposts in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Islamabad. There were also battles
between field officers and the counterterrorism center at CIA
headquarters, whose preference for carrying out raids remotely, via
Predator missile strikes, was derided by officers in the Islamabad
station as the work of "boys with toys." An early arrangement that
allowed U.S. commandos to join Pakistani units on raids inside the
tribal areas was halted in 2003 after protests in Pakistan. Another
combat mission that came within hours of being launched in 2005 was
scuttled because some CIA officials in Pakistan questioned the
accuracy of the intelligence, and because aides to Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld believed that the mission force had become too
large.
Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the
war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention
from the tribal areas.
When U.S. military and intelligence officials requested additional
Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones
were available because they had been sent to Iraq.
Some former officials say Bush should have done more to confront
Musharraf, by aggressively demanding that he acknowledge the scale of
the militant threat.
Western military officials say Musharraf was instead often distracted
by his own political problems, and effectively allowed militants to
regroup by brokering peace agreements with them.
Even critics of the White House agree that there was no foolproof
solution to gaining control of the tribal areas. But by all accounts
the administration failed to develop a comprehensive plan to address
the militant problem there, and never resolved the disagreements
between warring agencies that undermined efforts to fashion any
coherent strategy.
"We're just kind of drifting," said Richard L. Armitage, who as deputy
secretary of state from 2001 to 2005 was the administration's point
person for Pakistan.
In March 2002, several hundred bedraggled foreign fighters — Uzbeks,
Pakistanis and a handful of Arabs — fled the towering mountains of
eastern Afghanistan and crossed into Pakistan's South Waziristan
tribal area.
Savaged by U.S. air power in the battles of Tora Bora and the Shah-i-
Kot valley, some were trying to make their way to the Arab states in
the Persian Gulf. Some were simply looking for a haven.
They soon arrived at Shakai, a remote region in South Waziristan of
tree-covered mountains and valleys.
Venturing into nearby farming villages, they asked local tribesmen if
they could rent some of the area's walled family compounds, paying two
to three times the impoverished area's normal rates as the militants
began to lay new roots.
"They slowly, steadily from the mountainside tried to establish
communication," recalled Mahmood Shah, the chief civilian
administrator of the tribal areas from 2001 to 2005.
In many ways, the foreigners were returning to their home base.
In the 1980s, bin Laden and hundreds of Arab and foreign fighters
backed by the United States and Pakistan used the tribal areas as a
staging area for cross-border attacks on Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
The militants" flight did not go unnoticed by U.S. intelligence
agencies, who began to report beginning in the spring of 2002 that
large numbers of foreigners appeared to be hiding in South Waziristan
and neighboring North Waziristan.
But Gen. Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai, the commander of Pakistani forces
in northwestern Pakistan, was skeptical.
In an interview earlier this year, Aurakzai recalled that he regarded
the warnings as "guesswork," and said his soldiers "found nothing,"
even when they pushed into dozens of square miles of territory that
neither Pakistani nor British forces had ever entered.
The general, a tall, commanding figure who was born in the tribal
areas, was Musharraf's main adviser on the border areas, according to
former Pakistani officials. For years, he would argue that U.S.
officials exaggerated the threat in the tribal areas and that the
Pakistani Army should avoid causing a tribal rebellion at all costs.
Former U.S. intelligence officials said Aurakzai's sweeps were slow-
moving and easily avoided by militants. Robert L. Grenier, the CIA
station chief in Islamabad from 1999 to 2002, said that Aurakzai was
dismissive of the reports because he and other Pakistani officials
feared the kind of tribal uprising that could have been touched off by
more intrusive military operations.
"Aurakzai and others didn't want to believe it because it would have
been an inconvenient fact," Grenier recalled.
Until recent elections pushed Musharraf off center stage in Pakistan,
senior Bush administration officials consistently praised his
cooperation in the Qaeda hunt.
Beginning shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Musharraf had allowed
U.S. forces to use Pakistani bases to support the U.S.
invasion of Afghanistan, while Pakistani intelligence services worked
closely with the CIA in tracking down Qaeda operatives. But from their
vantage point in Afghanistan, the picture looked different to U.S.
Special Operations forces who saw signs that the militants whom the
Americans had driven out of Afghanistan were effectively regrouping on
the Pakistani side of the border.
When U.S. military officials proposed in 2002 that Special Operations
forces be allowed to establish bases in the tribal areas, Pakistan
flatly refused. Instead, a small number of "black" Special Operations
forces — Army Delta Force and Navy SEAL units — were allowed to
accompany Pakistani forces on raids in the tribal areas in 2002 and
early 2003.
That arrangement only angered both sides. U.S. forces used to
operating on their own felt that the Pakistanis were limiting their
movements. And while Pakistani officials publicly denied the presence
of Americans, local tribesmen spotted the Americans and protested
their presence.
Under pressure from Pakistan, the Bush administration decided in 2003
to end the U.S. military presence on the ground.
In a recent interview, Armitage said he had supported the pullback in
recognition of the political risks that Musharraf had already taken.
"We were pushing them almost to the breaking point," Armitage said.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 added another complicating factor,
by cementing a view among Pakistanis that U.S. forces in the tribal
areas would be a prelude to an eventual U.S. occupation.
To have insisted that U.S. forces be allowed to cross from Afghanistan
into Pakistan, Armitage added, "might have been a bridge too far."
Bush's re-election in 2004 brought with it another problem once the
president overhauled his national security team. By early 2005,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Armitage had resigned, joining
George J. Tenet, who had stepped down earlier as director of central
intelligence. Their departures left the administration with no senior
officials with close personal relationships with Musharraf.
In order to keep pressure on the Pakistanis about the tribal areas,
officials decided to have Bush raise the issue in personal phone calls
with Musharraf.
The conversations backfired. Two former U.S. government officials say
they were surprised and frustrated when instead of demanding action
from Musharraf, Bush instead repeatedly thanked him for his
contributions to the war on terror. "He never pounded his fist on the
table and said, "Pervez you have to do this," said a former senior
intelligence official who saw transcripts of the phone conversations.
But another senior administration official defended the president,
saying that Bush had not gone easy on the Pakistani leader.
"I would say the president pushes quite hard," said the official, who
would speak about the confidential conversations only on condition of
anonymity. At the same time, the official said that Bush was keenly
aware of the "unique burden" that rested on any head of state, and had
the ability to determine "what the traffic will bear" when applying
pressure to foreign leaders.
As attacks into Afghanistan by militants based in the tribal areas
continued, tensions increased between the CIA stations in Kabul and
Islamabad, whose lines of responsibility for battling terrorism were
blurred by the porous border that divides Afghanistan and Pakistan,
and whose disagreements reflected animosities between the two
countries.
Along with the Afghan government, the CIA officers in Afghanistan
expressed alarm at what they saw as a growing threat from the tribal
areas. But the CIA officers in Pakistan played down the problem to the
extent that some colleagues in Kabul said their colleagues in
Islamabad were "drinking the Kool-Aid," as one former officer put it,
by accepting Pakistani assurances that no one could control the tribal
areas.
On several occasions, senior CIA officials at agency headquarters had
to intervene to dampen tensions between the dueling CIA outposts.
Other intragovernmental battles raged at higher altitudes, most
notably over the plan in early 2005 for a Special Operations mission
intended to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's top deputy, in what
would have been the most aggressive use of U.S. ground troops inside
Pakistan. The New York Times disclosed the aborted operation in a 2007
article, but interviews since then have produced new details about the
episode.
As described by current and former government officials, Zawahri was
believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting at a
compound in Bajaur, a tribal area, and the plan to send commandos to
capture him had the support of Porter J. Goss, the CIA director, and
the Special Operations commander, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
But even as Navy SEALs and Army Rangers in parachute gear were
boarding C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan, there were frenzied
exchanges between officials at the Pentagon, Central Command and the
CIA about whether the mission was too risky. Some complained that the
U.S. commando force was too large, numbering more than 100, while
others argued that the intelligence was from a single source and
unreliable.
Goss urged the military to carry out the mission, and some CIA
officials in Washington even tried to give orders to execute the raid
without informing Ryan C. Crocker, then the U.S. ambassador in
Islamabad. But other CIA officials were opposed to the raid, including
a former officer who said in an interview that he had "told the
military guys that this thing was going to be the biggest folly since
the Bay of Pigs." In the end, the mission was aborted after Rumsfeld
refused to give his approval for it. The decision remains
controversial, with some former officials seeing the episode as a
squandered opportunity to capture a figure who might have led the
United States to bin Laden, while others dismiss its significance,
saying that there had been previous false alarms and that there
remained no solid evidence that Zawahri was present.
By late 2005, many inside the CIA headquarters in Virginia had reached
the conclusion that their hunt for bin Laden had reached a dead end.
Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who at the time ran the CIA's clandestine
operations branch, decided in late 2005 to make a series of swift
changes to the agency's counterterrorism operations.
He fired Grenier, the former Islamabad station chief who in late 2004
took over as head of the agency's Counterterrorist Center. The two men
had barely spoken for months, as each saw the other as having a
misguided approach to the CIA's mission against al-Qaeda.
Many inside the agency believed this personality clash was beginning
to affect CIA operations.
Grenier had worked to expand the agency's counterterrorism focus,
reinforcing operations in places like the Horn of Africa, Southeast
Asia and North Africa. He also reorganized and renamed Alec Station,
the secret CIA unit formed in the 1990s to hunt bin Laden at a time
when al-Qaeda was in its infancy.
Grenier believed a unit focusing on bin Laden was an anachronism,
given the spread of Qaeda-affiliated groups around the world since the
Sept. 11 attacks.
But Rodriguez believed that the Qaeda hunt had lost its focus on bin
Laden and the militant threat in Pakistan.
So he appointed a new head of the Counterterrorism Center, who has not
been publicly identified, and sent dozens more CIA operatives to
Pakistan. The new push was dubbed Operation Cannonball, and Rodriguez
demanded urgency, but the response had a makeshift air.
There was nowhere to house an expanding headquarters staff, so giant
Quonset huts were erected outside the cafeteria on the CIA's leafy
Virginia campus, to house a new team assigned to the bin Laden
mission. In Pakistan, the new operation was staffed not only with CIA
operatives drawn from around the world, but also with recent graduates
of "The Farm," the agency's training center at Camp Peary in Virginia.
"We had to put people out in the field who had less than ideal levels
of experience," one former senior CIA official said. "But there wasn't
much to choose from."
One reason for this, according to two former intelligence officials
directly involved in the Qaeda hunt, was that by 2006 the Iraq war had
drained away most of the CIA officers with field experience in the
Islamic world. "You had a very finite number" of experienced officers,
said one former senior intelligence official. "Those people all went
to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq." Militants inside
Pakistan only continued to gain strength. In the spring of 2006,
Taliban leaders based in Pakistan launched an offensive in southern
Afghanistan, increasing suicide bombings by sixfold and U.S. and NATO
casualty rates by 45 percent. At the same time, they assassinated
tribal elders who were cooperating with the government.
Once again, Pakistani Army units launched a military campaign in the
tribal areas. Once again, they suffered heavy casualties.
And once again, Musharraf turned to Aurakzai to deal with the problem.
Having retired from the Pakistani Army, Aurakzai had become a
provincial governor in Waziristan, and he immediately began
negotiating with the militants. On Sept. 5, 2006, Aurakzai signed a
truce with militants in North Waziristan, one in which the militants
agreed to surrender to local tribes and carry out no further attacks
in Afghanistan.
To help sell Washington on the peace deal, Musharraf brought Aurakzai
to the Oval Office several weeks later.
In a presentation to Bush, Aurakzai advocated a strategy that would
rely even more heavily on cease-fires, and said striking deals with
the Taliban inside Afghanistan could allow U.S. forces to withdraw
from Afghanistan within seven years.
But the cease-fire in Waziristan had disastrous consequences. In the
months after the agreement was signed, cross-border incursions from
the tribal areas into Afghanistan rose by 300 percent. Some U.S.
officials began to refer to Aurakzai as a 'snake oil salesman." By the
fall of 2006, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan had had enough.
Intelligence reports were painting an increasingly dark picture of the
terror threat in the tribal areas. But with senior Bush administration
officials consumed for much of that year with the spiraling violence
in Iraq, the Qaeda threat in Pakistan was not at the top of the White
House agenda.
Bush had declared in a White House news conference that fall that al-
Qaeda was "on the run." To get Washington's attention, the commander,
Lt. Gen. Karl W.
Eikenberry, ordered military officers, Special Operations forces and
CIA operatives to assemble a dossier showing Pakistan's role in
allowing militants to establish a haven.
Behind the general's order was a broader feeling of outrage within the
military — at a terror war that had been outsourced to an unreliable
ally, and at the grim fact that America's most deadly enemy had become
stronger.
For months, military officers inside a walled-off compound at Bagram
Air Base in Afghanistan, where a branch of the military's classified
Joint Special Operations Command is based, had grown increasingly
frustrated at what they saw as missed opportunities in the tribal
areas.
U.S. commanders had been pressing for much of 2006 to get approval
from Rumsfeld for an operation to capture Sheik Saiid al-Masri, a top
Qaeda operator and paymaster whom U.S. intelligence had been tracking
in the Pakistani mountains.
Rumsfeld and his staff were reluctant to approve the mission, worried
about possible U.S. military casualties and a popular backlash in
Pakistan.
Finally, in November 2006, Rumsfeld approved operation of Navy SEALs
and Army Delta Force commandos to move into Pakistan and capture
Masri. But the operation was put on hold days later, after Rumsfeld
was pushed out of the Pentagon, a casualty of the Democratic sweep of
the 2006 election.
When Eikenberry presented his dossier to several members of Bush's
Cabinet, some inside the State Department and CIA dismissed the
briefing as exaggerated and filled with unsophisticated analysis. But
the White House took note of his warnings, and decided to send Vice
President Dick Cheney to Islamabad in March 2007, along with Stephen
R. Kappes, the deputy CIA director, to register U.S. concern.
That visit was the beginning of a more aggressive effort by the
administration to pressure Pakistan's government into stepping up its
fight,. The decision last year to draw up the Pentagon order
authorizing for a Special Operations campaign in the tribal areas was
part of that effort.
But the fact that the order remains unsigned reflects the bureaucratic
fighting that persists, particularly from State Department officials
opposed to any change that would allow military missions to be
launched without the approval of the U.S.
ambassador in Islamabad. With Qaeda operatives now described in
intelligence reports as deeply entrenched in the tribal areas and
immersed in the civilian population, there is also a view among some
military and CIA officials that the opportunity for decisive U.S.
action against the militants may have been lost.
Pakistani military officials, meanwhile, express growing frustration
with the U.S. pressure, and point out that Pakistan has lost more than
1,000 members of its security forces in the tribal areas since 2001,
nearly double the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan.
Some architects of America's efforts in Pakistan defend the Bush
administration's record in the tribal areas, and vigorously deny that
Washington took its eye off the terror threat as it focused on Iraq
policy. Some also question whether bin Laden and Zawahri, al-Qaeda's
top two leaders, are really still able to orchestrate large-scale
attacks.
"I do wonder if it's in fact the case that al-Qaeda has really
reconstituted itself to a pre-9/11 capability, and in fact I would say
I seriously doubt that," said Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan
between 2004 and 2006 and currently the ambassador to Iraq.
"Their top-level leadership is still out there, but they're not
communicating and they're not moving around. I think they're symbolic
more than operationally effective," Crocker said.
But while Bush vowed early on that bin Laden would be captured "dead
or alive," the moment in late 2001 when bin Laden and his followers
escaped at Tora Bora was almost certainly the last time the Qaeda
leader was in U.S. sights, current and former intelligence officials
say. Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of
time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of
Pakistan is carried out on American soil.
"The United States faces a threat from al-Qaeda today that is
comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001," said Seth Jones, a
Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at RAND Corp.
"The base of operations has moved only a short distance, roughly the
difference from New York to Philadelphia."
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
You read a little, Ratner, very little, but it doesn't matter. You're
an absolutely disloyal Jewish Zionist who doesn't give a damn about
his home country, or should I say host country. Here is a Cliff's
Notes style outline of Scheuer's Imperial Hubris. It and "Through Our
Enemies' Eyes" are indispensable reading for those willing to think
outside the Zionist Box.
Summary of Imperial Hubris
[edit]Preface
Author a "career-long 'headquarters' officer . . . focused exclusively
on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam, and the affairs of
South Asia -- Afghanistan and Pakistan" (ix-x). Conclusions: (1) "We
are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or
terrorism"; (2) current policies make the military "America's only
tool"; (3) bin Laden's reasons are "U.S. policies and actions in the
Muslim world"; (4) his war depends on "the tenets" of Islam; (5) U.S.
interest in "Persian Gulf oil" central; (6) war may last many decades
and be fought "mostly on U.S. soil" (x-xi). Foreboding of future
attack; reproach to neglect of "duty" by "leaders" (xii).
[edit]Acknowledgments
Foreign Broadcast Information Service; a small group of "mostly women"
officers working "against the bin Laden target" (xiii); references to
U.S. martial past (xii, xiv, passim).
[edit]Introduction: "Hubris Followed by Defeat"
U.S. is completing the radicalization of the Islamic world (xv). War
in Afghanistan "is being lost" (xvi). Invasion of Iraq was
militaristic, untimely, "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked
war" (xvi-xvii). Osama bin Laden's strength is his ideas, grounded in
Islam (xvii-xviii). He is waging "a defensive jihad" to advance
"clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy
goals" (xviii). Sources: bin Laden's pronouncements, Ayman al-
Zawahiri, Sulayman Abu Gayeth, 3 web sites (Al-Ansar, Al-Neda, and Al-
Islah), various secondary sources (xix). Importance of Internet
emphasized (xx). Hubris seems to doom us; "al Qaeda sees the world
clearer than we" (xxi).
[edit]Ch. 1: Some Thoughts on the Power of Focused, Principled Hatred
Most Muslims reject separation of religion from politics (2). So they
take seriously anti-Islamic statements from U.S. evangelists (2-4).
Like most Muslims, bin Laden sincerely loves God (4). Islam's "loving
tone" (4-6). Defensive jihad is a personal obligation, requiring no
authority (sources: Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes) (6-8). U.S. policies
and actions, not values, are the cause (8-11). Evidence of U.S. attack
on Islam, from Muslims' perspective: (1) U.S. challenging Muslim
jihad, charity, and curricula (11); (2) U.S. supporting oppression of
Muslims, apostate Muslim regimes, anti-Muslim economic and military
sanctions, and control of oil in Muslim lands (12-13); (3)
politically, U.S. denies self-determination to Muslim lands, occupies
Muslim states, supports Israeli expropriation of Palestine (13-14).
These views are nearly universal in the Muslim world and cannot be
undone through PR (14-16). U.S. is seen as the restorer of colonialism
(16). The fault is not in them, but in us: the cause of the war is
"their love for Allah and their hatred for a few, specific U.S.
policies and actions" (17). Bin Laden and the mujahideen are
"legitimate and romantic heroes" loved as "symbols of hope" (18-19).
[edit]Ch. 2: An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat -- The United
States in Afghanistan
Intelligence advice: "do the checkables first" (21-22). Al Qaeda has
achieved seven major "victories": Aden, Mogadishu, Riyadh, Dharan,
Nairobi/Dar es Salaam, Aden, 9/11 (22-24). U.S. should have had plans
for immediate response and executed them -- but did not (24-27). U.S.
had vast expertise on Afghanistan, but failed to use it after 9/11
(27-30). Lessons from the Soviet war in Afghanistan available, but
unused (30-32). By Sept. 1, 2001, the Afghan Northern Alliance was a
defeated force, and after the assassination of Ahmed Shah Masood on
Sept. 9, certainly not the basis of a national government (33-35).
Masood represented only "a small subset of the country's Tajik
minority" (35-37). The Karzai régime and its allies are hopelessly
unrepresentative (37-39). U.S. ignored key Islamic commanders (41-45).
The Karzai government is doomed (45-46). Seven truths about Afghans
ignored by U.S.: (1) only Pashtuns rule durably (47); (2) the U.S.
backed Westernized Afghans, not the "Muslim tribal xenophobes" who
matter (48-49); (3) Afghans can't be controlled by money (49-51); (4)
strong central governments, like the one Karzai is seeking, cause war
in Afghanistan (52); (5) Afghanistan is a cauldron of international
tensions (53-54); (6) Pakistan's national security depends on an
Islamist, Pashtun-dominated régime (54-56); (7) an Islamic régime in
Kabul is inevitable (56-57).
[edit]Ch. 3: Not Down, Not Out: Al Qaeda's Resiliency, Expansion, and
Momentum
Al-Qaeda's fighters compared to those of the Army of Northern Virginia
in the American Civil War (59-60). Al Qaeda follows principles of
successful insurgent groups (60-61). When attacked, the Taliban
dispersed effectively (61-66). U.S. lacks knowledge of al-Qaeda's
order of battle, so cannot estimate damage to the organization
(66-68). U.S. still hampered by a "law-enforcement mentality" (69-71).
Two recent studies are good: Jason Burke's Al Qaeda: Casting a Shadow
of Terror (2003), and Rohan Gunaratna, Inside al Qaeda's Global
Network of Terror (2002) (71). Al-Qaeda extremely popular in Saudi
Arabia (71-74). Ansar al-Islam received effective help from al-Qaeda
in northern Iraq (74-75). Al-Qaeda is present in Lebanon, but does not
cooperated operationally with Hezbollah (76-77; see 229). Al-Qaeda's
effective use of the Internet (78-84). Given U.S. policies, "blood-
soaked offensive military actions" are the only path to victory
(84-86). The following "balance sheet of 2001-2004" excludes Kashmir,
Philippines, Algeria, Palestine, and Aceh (Indonesia) (86).
"Victories" for U.S. and allies "almost entirely tactical" (87-91). Al
Qaeda's and allies' "victories" show "strategic environment" has
shifted in their favor (91-100). Acc. to al-Qurashi, al-Qaeda
considers the U.S. center of gravity to be the economy, not public
opinion (101-02).
[edit]Ch. 4: The World's View of bin Laden: A Muslim Leader and Hero
Coming into Focus?
"Viewed from any angle, Osama bin Laden is a great man," "world-
changing" in Western eyes and revered by tens of millions of Muslims
(103-05). The evil-criminal view (105-07). Denigrations of his mind
and capacity for leadership (107-09). Said by some to be dominated by
al-Zawahiri (109). The thesis that Islam is a "failed civilization"
lashing out in resentment (109-13) does not jibe with bin Laden's
view: he blames Muslims themselves (114-15). Ideals of tolerance and
multiculturalism impede analysis (115-16). Bin Laden as military
genius (Christopher Bellamy) (117). Bin Laden as business genius
(Larry Seaquist; Bruce Hoffman) (117-18). These miss the religious
inspiration of the Islamic hero (118-21). Testimony of those who know
him (121-22). Influence of size of his enemy (U.S.) (123). Bin Laden
inspires love (124-25). He, like Abraham Lincoln, represents belief in
a moral universe (Scheuer quotes again from Kent Gramm's Gettysburg: A
Meditation on War and Values (1994) (125-26; also xii and passim).
[edit]Ch. 5: Bin Laden Views the World: Some Old, Some New, and a
Twist
Importance of bin Laden's words, neglected by the West (127-29). Main
concept: defending the ummah [= Islamic community bound by religious
ties on a tribal model (OED)] from U.S. attacks (129-31). Al-Qaeda's
role is principally to awaken and incite Muslims (131-34). Suicide
bombers perceived positively in Muslim world as heroes of "self-
sacrifice, patriotism, and worship" (135). Bin Laden's elegy of 9/11
hijackers misunderstood in West (135-36). Bin Laden frustrated by
inadequate response from Muslim middle and upper-middle classes (137).
Poem by bin Laden; use of poetry (138). Bin Laden's historical
uniqueness comes from focusing Islamic resistance on the international
level, on the U.S. (139-40). The centrality of Afghanistan is due to a
need for a new Muslim state as a world center from which to launch a
new caliphate (140-44). Recent refinements: allowing some attacks on
non-U.S. targets (145-47), creating a vulnerability should a free-
lancer cause Europe and U.S. to come together again (148); attacking
"apostate régimes" more directly and accusing clerics of compliance
with corrupt U.S.-backed power (148-52); preparing Muslim opinion by
presenting arguments justifying WMD attack on U.S. (152-58). Bin
Laden's 2001 statements on U.S. attitudes, unheeded (158-61).
[edit]Ch. 6: Blinding Hubris Abounding: Inflicting Defeat on Ourselves
-- Non-Wars, Leaks, and Missionary Democracy
American élites' blinding "imperial hubris" (term also used in Through
Our Enemies' Eyes [2001]) endangers U.S. safety (163-168). The case of
bin Laden is a maximal instance of this (168). Bin Laden's fidelity to
his words demonstrated by pattern of post-9/11 attacks (169-70).
1990-2003 U.S. "victories" are really only self-declared -- no foe has
been defeated (170). E.g. Afghanistan (171-77). Castigates U.S.
military hierarchy: "lieutenant colonel . . . seems to be where truth-
telling stops" (177). Win-quick and low-casualties-on-both-sides an
"immoral" approach to war that violates the "basic lesson of military
history since Alexander" (177-80). E.g. Afghanistan (180-81), Iraq
(181-82). Placing Mongolian and Indian troops in Iraq shows ignorance
of history (182-83). It is un-American to argue that only those with
military experience can criticize military policy and operations
(183-84). Some U.S. general should resign to protest recent U.S.
approach to war (184-85). U.S. policy mentality too legalistic
(185-86). CIA & FBI have "fundamentally incompatible" missions -- one
breaks the law, the other enforces it (187-88). Law-enforcement focus
lulls public (188-89). Islamists not affected by legal approach
(189-90). We need to "fix the problems" in "intelligence community
cooperation" (190-92). Endemic leaking by officials is treason due to
hubris (192-99). John Quincy Adams in 1821: "America does not go
abroad in search of monsters to destroy" (200-01). Invasion of
Afghanistan is an arrogant attempt to do just that (201-03). Worse,
U.S. leaders show no knowledge of American history (203-04). U.S.
political achievements hard-won and not historically transferable
(204-05). Muslim society, "where God and Caesar are the same,"
presents special difficulties (205-06). Recommendation: "Victory, I
think, lies in a yet undetermined mix of stronger military actions and
dramatic foreign policy change" (207).
[edit]Ch. 7: When the Enemy Sets the Stage: How America's Stubborn
Obtuseness Aids Its Foes
Unlike Khomeini in Iran, bin Laden has six focuses foreign policy
goals: (1) end U.S. aid to Israel; (2) U.S. withdrawal from Arabian
peninsula; (3) end of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; (4)
end of U.S. support for Muslim oppression by China, Russia, India,
etc.; (5) Muslim control of oil and sale at market prices (6) Islamist
régimes instead of U.S.-protected Muslim régimes (209-12). Invasion of
Iraq an unexpected gift to bin Laden (212-14). U.S. failed correctly
to analyze the threat in the 1990s (214-16). Camps were training not
only "terrorists" but, especially, "insurgents" (216-22). As a result
"the brutal reality . . . is that we must kill many thousands of these
fighters" (222). Coalition-building after 9/11 wasted time, imposed
civilized standards, and counterproductively associated the U.S. with
oppression elsewhere (222-26). Israel: "Objectively, al Qaeda does not
seem too far off the mark when it describes the U.S.-Israel
relationship as a detriment to America" (227-30). Post-9/11 measures
that have increased Muslims' anti-American feelings: Immigration rule
changes (231-33); interference with freedom of speech (233-34); hi-
tech war briefings (234-35).
[edit]Ch. 8: The Way Ahead: A Few Suggestions for Debate
Risk aversion in the intelligence bureaucracy (237-38). Guidelines for
use in defeating bin Laden and militant Islam: don't overblow the war
(239); stop glorifying bereavement (239-40); accept that we are hated
for our policies and acts (240-41); be bloody-minded and kill in large
numbers (241-42); fight without principle ("engaging in whatever
martial behavior is needed") (242); "stop knee-jerk yellow
ribboning" (242-43); depend on ourselves, not others (specifically,
Pakistan) (243-44); rely on real expertise (244-45); deal with bin
Laden as a warrior, not a terrorist (246-47); attain energy self-
sufficiency (247-48); break the military-industrial institutional
nexus, perhaps by "banning many post-retirement jobs in exchange for a
full-salary annuity after thirty years" (248-49); accept that we are
at war with Islam (249-50); "learn to watch others die with
equanimity" (Ralph Peters) (250-52). War cannot be avoided, but new
policies affecting the length and cost of war are possible (253-54).
Recommended reading (254). We must accept that bin Laden is "a worthy
and dangerous foe" (255). U.S. needs a frank and public policy debate
(255-57). Questions: Does support for Israel serve U.S. interests?
(257) Do we have a duty to defend freedom beyond our borders, or to
"abandon the sordid legacy of Woodrow Wilson's internationalism"?
(257-58) What do we gain from backing corrupt tyrannical Muslim
régimes, except for cheap oil? Have we the moral courage for energy
self-sufficiency? Do we need bases on the Arabian peninsula? Do we
have the moral right to spread democracy? (258) Hopes for policy
changes, but "as always, the majority must rule" (259).
[edit]Epilogue: No Basis for Optimism
Americans have still not recognized the nature of the war they are
losing (citing George Tenet's late-Feb. 2004 testimony to a Senate
committee) (261-63).
[edit]Bibliography
8 pages. Of interest: Ralph Peters, Beyond Terror: Strategy in a
Changing World (2002) and Fighting for the Future: Will America
Triumph? (1999). Genieve Abdo, No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph
of Islam (2000). C.J. Chivers and David Rohde, "Turning out Guerrillas
and Terrorists to Wage Holy War," New York Times (March 18, 2002).
Stephen Biddle, Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare: Implications
for Army and Defense Policy (2002). George Crile, Charlie Wilson's
War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in
History (2003). Lester A. Grau and Michael A. Gress, eds. and trans.,
The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost (2002).
[edit]Reviews of Imperial Hubris
These reviews, ranging from high praise to scathing criticism, are
presented in chronological order.
Richard A. Clarke, Finally the CIA gets it right, Washington Post,
June 27, 2004
Michiko Kakutani, A Dark View of U.S. Strategy, New York Times, July
9, 2004
Mark Follman, A spook speaks out, Salon Magazine, July 13, 2004
Faye Bowers, We have met the enemy and he is us, Christian Science
Monitor, July 13, 2004
Benjamin Schwarz, A Review, Atlantic Monthly, August 10, 2004
James. H. Joyner, Jr., Book Review, Strategic Insights, vol. 3, no. 9,
September, 2004
Jason Burke, Why do they hate us?, The Guardian, September 4, 2004
Eric Margolis, Why West is losing, Toronto Sun, September 12, 2004
Jeff Helmreich, Empirical Hubris, Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 4, no.
4, September 13, 2004
David Frum, Uncertain Trumpet, National Review, November 16, 2004
Michael Scheuer, An author reviews the reviews of his book,
lewrockwell.com, February 7, 2005
Thomas Joscelyn, CIA Conspiracy Theorist, Weekly Standard, February
16, 2005
Charles Glass, Cyber-Jihad, London Review of Books, vol. 28, no. 5,
March 9, 2006
HHW
> On Jun 27, 10:59 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 10:19 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Smart men, they understood the realities of the times they lived in. I'm
> > > > > just glad there aren't too many more Americans like Mr. Watson here
> > > > > incapable of understanding their own times.
>
> > > ***
> > > Yeah, yeah, I just don't understand that Israel ought to be exempt
> > > from the rules the rest of the world has to live by to avoid running
> > > afoul of the International Criminal Court.
> > > ***
>
> > > What you don't understand is the world you are creating with your belief
> > > that terrorists should be appeased.
>
> > That is official U.S. policy. The appeasment of terrorist Israel is
> > always
> > top priority now.
>
> Yeah, but the concept of "appeasement" historically isn't even
> understood here.
Apparently you want to use the term without understanding the history
of it.
dsha...@hotmail.com
>> > > So, Richard, instead of dealing with Tantura, you attack Katz. That's
> >> > typical.
>> On Jun 28, 3:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Typical of what Midge? Attacking the source and not the argument?
> "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ddc7bea5-eca7-4215...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> ***
>> That's typical of HHW.
> ***
On Jun 29, 8:00 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time to ignore the old man. A proven liar, now we can add appeasing coward.
> He clearly brings nothing of value to this forum, just the same lies told
> over and over again, mainly online.
> Add to that his obviously insane belief that I'm drahcir, or I haven't read
> Scheurer's work, and he's clearly inconsequential.
I thought he said you were supposed to be Rattner.
Deborah
HHW
> > Nope. They're insane because they conduct mass murder.
>
> ***
> Chosen people have a right to a double standard.
> ***
You obviously think so. You believe that that they should never be
criticized for their multifarious crimes much less convicted and
sentenced for them. The history of Israel is replete with unpunished
crimes justified as were those of Soviets and Nazis by ideology. I
propose that they be punished. And I further propose that because of
them we should reconsider our relationship with "The Jewish State"
from top to bottom. We've got to do a lot of that sort of self-
examination ourselves.
> ***
> The other side is
> insane because of conducting mass murder, but when Israelis are
> accused of it it's just anti-semitic lies. Deir Yassin is an example.
> Tantura is another. The Egyptian captives at El Arish in 1967 is
> another. Just count the dead since 1947, Richard. That's all you need.
> ***
>
> I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura,
You're contemptible. Two Israeli officers who were there have admitted
it. One on the front page of Maarive. I've already posted the
quotations and you did not respond to them.
nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
> the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted.
The very same day he signed that product of pressure and intimidation,
he retracted it and asked the judge to continue the trial. The Israeli
judge wouldn't permit it.
The fiction around El
> Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrel.
Fool, there are *many* others and you've witnessed the grainy old
photos of the massacre itself. You are a shame to the Jewish people.
You're of the sort who manufacture anti-semitism, who create
unpleasant yet memorable experiences.
> Opposition to what
>
> > you call 'aggressions and crimes' can be addressed through any number of
> > legal ways which would be far more effective as well.
Not through the so-called democratic Israeli legal system. IDF
murderers are not convicted of crimes. Neither are IDF torturers.
>
> ***
> They've been trying to do that too. It hasn't worked and you know why.
> ***
>
> Bin Laden has never made any attempt to do such things. Ever.
>
> > A condition of their insanity is their belief American's would change
> > their
> > policies as a result of terrorism. And that's just "fucking nutz".
Let's see now, you're a 57 or 58 year old Jewish American who escaped
the Vietnam draft, who's never served in any military, living in
Sommerville MA, pretending to be a non-Jewish Canadian posting from
Canada, who specializes in calling non-Jewish Americans, i.e.,
America's "goyim" 98%, whose kids have done the fighting for Israel
while yours have not, but who don't want America to get into any more
wars for Israel, cowards. Yes, that's a pretty good summary of your
sleaze and hypocrisy.
>
> ***
> You pretend simultaneously to be a Canadian and an expert on American
> culture. Take your pick.
> ***
>
> Only a person with as small a mind as your own could think the two are
> incompatible. But I'm no
> 'expert' - just an interested observer.
You certainly are interested, not disinterested but interested.
You're not loyal to your native land but to a third class pipsqueak of
a country in the wastes of the Middle East.
>
> I notice you've failed to respond to my posts detailing how you are an
> appeaser, and coward. I'll take your silence as an admission that you have
> no capable response.
Consider this to be it. I'll add to it here and there as time goes on
Ratner.
dsha...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 27, 9:34 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'll count the dead from the 'murdered', but most of that list is just
> > nonsense. There was no massacre at Tantura,
> You're contemptible. Two Israeli officers who were there have admitted
> it. One on the front page of Maarive.
HHW still can't get the names right, much less the facts,
as Hillel pointed out some time ago.
>I've already posted the
> quotations and you did not respond to them.
Nothing to respond to, since HHW posted nothing from the newspaper in
question.
"Teddy Katz wrote a master's thesis at Haifa University
arguing that the Alexandroni Brigade committed a massacre
in the Arab village of Tantura during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
The veterans of the brigade sued Katz for libel. During the
court hearing Katz conceded by issuing a statement
withdrawing his own work. He then tried to withdraw his
statement, but the court disallowed it and ruled against him."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandroni_Brigade
Katz had his day in court, the evidence he brought to prove
his assertions actually disproved them, and he lost his case
-- which, incidentally, was funded by his buds at the PLO.
On this basis, HHW automatically asserts that poor old
Katz told the truth but was merely the victim of some kind of
"pressure".
>> nor at Deir Yassim. assom and
>>the 'historian' who made the claim later recanted.
>The very same day he signed that product of pressure and intimidation,
>he retracted it and asked the judge to continue the trial. The Israeli
>judge wouldn't permit it.
Who, the Deir Yassin "historian"? Oh, the Katz trial. Well, that
assertion of HHW is on a par with his claim that he posted some
"quotes".
> > The fiction around El
> > Arish means you've really been scaping the bottom of the barrel.
> Fool, there are *many* others and you've witnessed the grainy old
> photos of the massacre itself. You are a shame to the Jewish people.
Like HHW give's a rat's tush about Jews - live ones, anyway.
[snip senile raving]
Deborah
Count 1
Nothing to respond to, since HHW posted nothing from the newspaper in
question.
Becoming a common thing for the old man, he thinks he's posted material he
hasn't, and can't remember the material that others have posted.
He's even constructed a bizarre 'back story' for me - a strange fantasy of
how I'm a jewish vietnam draft dodger living in Massacheussets and
pretending to post from Canada. (I didn't realize one could dodge the draft
by moving to MA.)
Apparently this fantasy is all he needs to conclude that I'm a sleazy
hypocrite. Just like Pappe and Katz, draw conclusions from fantasies.
Add to this the fact that he is a coward who would appease terrorists and
doesn't give a shit about the untold hordes of dead American's that would be
created by such appeasement and clearly he inhabits the 'useless troll'
category as well as Mirelle or Creamer.
Joe Bruno
> On Jun 28, 4:53 pm, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 3:55 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 27, 11:50 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 5:13 am, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 27, 2:39 am, Joe Bruno <jbr...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You've completely misrepresented what I said.
>
> > > > > naturally.
>
> > > > Proof????????
> > > > You've personally talked with Bin Laden?
> > > > That's funny. I thought he didn't speak English, only Arabic.
>
> It is carefully reviewed in Mearsheimer and Walt.
>
>
>
> > > For anyone interested (not you obviously), from a rock solid and
> > > easily available source, see Mearsheimer and Walt, _The Israel
> > > Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_, pages 66-67.
>
> I've got pp. 66 and 67 open before me as we speak. Joe certainly
> doesn't want to read that. He'll have trouble sleeping. Reserve Naval
> Officers don't like to think about conflicts of interest like that.
U.S.Naval Officers are bound by a code of honor. We are obligated to
tell the truth, regardless
of it's implications. Your silly little implication is as transparent
as glass and I want that
post, no matter how many flimsy excuses you give for running away from
it.
>
>
>
> > That's not good enough. Post the text you are referring to.
>
> I'm off to dinner with friends but I'll do it no later than tomorrow.
But you never did.
>
> > The Meershimer and Walt book came out, strangely enough, right after a
> > Saudi prince had
> > donated millions of $ to US Universities to fund "Islamic studies".
>
> That one event follows another does not indicate that it was caused by
> it. That's a fallacy your average high school debate coach will bench
> you for.
We're not discussing physics.
Besides, I made no declaration that they were on the Saudi payroll.
I said nothing about "cause".
I merely asked a question about a possible conflict of interest.
If you were a CPA or lawyer(I'm the CPA), you not only want to avoid
conflicts of interest;
you want to a avoid any possible appearance of conflict of interest.
But, you're a loose cannon who slings all sorts of wild claims.
Ethics and integrity are foreign concepts to you.
Judging by what others say about you here, I'd guess your reputation
is damaged far beyond any
possible repair.
HHW
Count 1
Yes, he thinks I'm drahcir, which is Richard backwards. HHW lacks the
intelligence necessary to do a simple nntp trace.
Personally I'm flattered to be confused with drahcir. Few could slam 'em
back down like him.
Given the example the moaner and HHW set, I'm glad I don't drink alcohol.
Look what its done to their ....uhhhh..... 'brains'.