Calling all natural anti-Semites.
NefeshBarYochai
Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
pet...@diplo.org
In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
MasterChief
anti-Semites!If you compare communism ,fascism and Zionism ,you will find
many similarities .
<pet...@diplo.org> wrote in message
news:6be2aa66-cd61-4c65...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Frank Arthur
"MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:VOydnWDg9f0K2Rza...@comcast.com...
> Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
> anti-Semites!If you compare communism ,fascism and Zionism ,you will
> find many similarities .
Islamists, Jew haters and assorted anti-Americans continually replay
the 1967 accidental
bombing during the war when 5 Arab countries supplied by Soviet
Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
Israel.
Have you forgotten how soundly Israel defeated the 5 armies and
resulted in the Soviet Union quitting the region in humiliation?
NefeshBarYochai
You know what an anit-semite is.
Dr. Lippschitz
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:gBbgj.46895$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Thank you Uncle Samstein haha
>
>
>
pet...@diplo.org
Do you believe that people who are opposed to the illegal occupation
of Palestine are anti-semites?
NefeshBarYochai
There is no such situation as illegal occupation of Palestine because
there is no country that is called Palestine. Does that help you
imbecile?
flores...@hotmail.com
Yogi makes a better case with his retard sex pervert recitations.
ElParedon
"NefeshBarYochai" <tac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:61412e83-215f-40bc...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> Semites know,
PALESTINIANS ARE SEMITES, ARABS ARE SEMITES, BUT YOU SCUM ARE MONGOLIAN
KHAZARS!
ElParedon
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:gBbgj.46895$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> news:VOydnWDg9f0K2Rza...@comcast.com...
>> Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
>> anti-Semites!
ElParedon
ONE THING IS FOR CERT, YOU ARE NO SEMITE SCHNOOZLE
NefeshBarYochai
> "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
One thing for certain, ElParedon doesn't know his ass from a hole in
the gorund.
ElParedon
SEMITISM IS A LINGUISTIC GROUP, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU FORGOT YIDDISH AND
LEARNT HEEB DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE A SEMITE, SCHNOOZLE
NefeshBarYochai
> "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ebd1f33-9744-4f66...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 7:06 pm, "ElParedon" <ser...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cde8392b-5435-4679...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > > > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > > > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > > > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> > > In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
>
> > You know what an anit-semite is.
> > ONE THING IS FOR CERT, YOU ARE NO SEMITE SCHNOOZLE
>
> SEMITISM IS A LINGUISTIC GROUP, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU FORGOT YIDDISH AND
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know what you ignorant asshole I agree with you, SEMITISM is a
LINGUISTIC GROUP, but I guarantee you that when a Muslim that speaks a
Semitic language preaches to hate the Jews he or she will be labeled
anti-Semitic and that will be the truth. Now crawl back in your
septic tank and don't come out until you can show some respect to your
superiors.
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jan-2008, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
Not everyone is mentally equipped to
answer questions, even ones they spark.
Please keep this in mind, & be kind.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
Avenger
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:xIhgj.5504$qV.4180@trnddc03...
The dumb jew should be locked up in the bughouse.
B'injamin Cr'amer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:TIhgj.5505$qV.3534@trnddc03...
Since when have the Irish given a flying fuck for semites, you stupid,
dyslexic, thick Irish cunt?
>
RJ11
B'injamin Cr'amer <yidsrb...@mosttimes.yes> wrote:
(horrible drivel given the snip)
"Cramer", can you please elaborate further on those "shitty
experiences with hallucinogenics" you had? Message-ID:
<1125145048.cafe8828396fceebe6c6eb01bec409b3@teranews>.
Seems you suffered some serious damage. Why don't you
seek help?
RJ.
pet...@diplo.org
Palestine is the land that jews for thousands of years have tried to
conquer by murdering, stealing, etc.
All anyone has to do is read the Old Testament. Do you remember what
Moses said to the Israelites? Go where...? Take what from who...?
In other words, if you are to believe the crap written by a bunch of
sheep herders passing for rabbis, thousands of years ago, their main
fictional character of that chapter... Moses, tells his fellow
travelers to kill and steal land that belongs to others, thus
violating at least 2 of his famous 10 commandments.
It is time folks realize that the jews have been using the old
testament, a work of fiction, to justify their land grab.
And YOU, are a zealot that has been blinded by fanaticism, ignorant
that in your policy of occupation, you violate the same laws that you
hold sacred, those in the old testament.
> imbecile?- Hide quoted text -
Warhol
> "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ebd1f33-9744-4f66...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 7:06 pm, "ElParedon" <ser...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cde8392b-5435-4679...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > > > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > > > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > > > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> > > In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
>
> > You know what an anit-semite is.
> > ONE THING IS FOR CERT, YOU ARE NO SEMITE SCHNOOZLE
>
> SEMITISM IS A LINGUISTIC GROUP, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU FORGOT YIDDISH AND
> LEARNT HEEB DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE A SEMITE, SCHNOOZLE
Wrong stupid yid... Semite is a Race descendant of Shem (Hashem)...
and should be written Shem'ite... So all you stupid yids learn to
write and come than back to talk about who is and who is not a
ofspring of Shem-Hashem-Hassan...
Even Sephardic jews arn't descendant of the Shemite race... since
Jacob recieved the Baraka of Shem... so to be Shemite, you must be
descendant of Shem and Jacob...
You are children of the devil who dare claim they are shemite while
you are not...
Jesus also referred to "jews" in general when he accused them of being
sons of the devil.
John 8:44 You [jews] belong to your father, the devil, and you
want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the
beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the
father of lies.
Warhol
John 8:31, 33-48;44,47: "Ye (Jews) are of your father, the devil, and
the lusts of your father ye (Jews) will do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abod not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is liar,
and the father of it." "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye
(Jews) therefore hear them not, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD."
John 10:22-26,26: "But ye (Jews) believe not, because ye (Jews) ARE
NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said unto you."
Acts 13:10: "And said, O full of all subtilty and mischief, thou child
(Jew) of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not
cease to pervert the right ways of Yahweh?" (See Verses 5-6)
An Israelite is a descendant of Jacob, who was a descendant of Shem.
Sephardic jews were descendants of Shem, but not of Jacob, so not even
Sephardic jews are Israelites even though they are Semites [read:
descendants of Shem] and Hebrews [read: descendants of Eber]. Askenazi
jews are descendants of Japeth, not Shem, which means that 90% of the
jews in the world, and maybe in Israel today, are not Semites,
Hebrews, Israelites, nor EVEN "jews" [read: Judaeans].
Shemite is a Race and never was what this yids claim today... A
LINGUISTIC GROUP. Thats one more lie cometh from the children of the
Devil
Warhol
> "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Children of the Devil... thats what they are.
Jesus Christ was a Shemite because he was a descendant of Shem. He was
a Hebrew because he was a descendant of Eber. He was an Israelite
because He was a descendant of Jacob. But He was not a "jew" [read:
Judaean] because He LIVED in Galilee, which made Him a Galilean just
like your living in the US makes you an "American" and a Russian
living in Russia makes him a "Russian". He was not an "Ashkenazi Jew"
because He was a descendant of Shem and not Japeth. He was not a
"Sephardic Jew" because He was a descendant of Jacob/David and not of
Edom, from whom the Sephardic Jews are descendants.
Yids you hour has come to surrender, or soon, very soon you will
walketh the plank over the lake of fire.
Nuclear Blast
> You are a hatemongering twit, as dangerous as the islamist fanatics.
> Palestine is the land that jews for thousands of years have tried to
> conquer by murdering, stealing, etc.
There is no land or country called Palestine.
> All anyone has to do is read the Old Testament. Do you remember what
> Moses said to the Israelites? Go where...? Take what from who...?
You don't understand the Torah because you are an imbecile.
> In other words, if you are to believe the crap written by a bunch of
> sheep herders passing for rabbis, thousands of years ago, their main
> fictional character of that chapter... Moses, tells his fellow
> travelers to kill and steal land that belongs to others, thus
> violating at least 2 of his famous 10 commandments.
More imbecilic jargon.
> It is time folks realize that the jews have been using the old
> testament, a work of fiction, to justify their land grab.
You need to use your Koran to wipe your ass you ignorant Arab sons the
bitch.
> And YOU, are a zealot that has been blinded by fanaticism, ignorant
> that in your policy of occupation, you violate the same laws that you
> hold sacred, those in the old testament.
Take you dick out of the muktars ass and see the light.
> On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 4:13 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 6:14 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > > > > > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > > > > > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > > > > > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> > > > > In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
>
> > > > You know what an anit-semite is.
>
> > > Do you believe that people who are opposed to the illegal occupation
> > > of Palestine are anti-semites?
>
> > There is no such situation as illegal occupation of Palestine because
> > there is no country that is called Palestine. Does that help you
> > imbecile?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Nuclear Blast
> On Jan 7, 4:00 am, "ElParedon" <ser...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7ebd1f33-9744-4f66...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 6, 7:06 pm, "ElParedon" <ser...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > "NefeshBarYochai" <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:cde8392b-5435-4679...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > > > > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > > > > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > > > > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> > > > In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
>
> > > You know what an anit-semite is.
> > > ONE THING IS FOR CERT, YOU ARE NO SEMITE SCHNOOZLE
>
> > SEMITISM IS A LINGUISTIC GROUP, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU FORGOT YIDDISH AND
> > LEARNT HEEB DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE A SEMITE, SCHNOOZLE
>
> Wrong stupid yid... Semite is a Race descendant of Shem (Hashem)...
> and should be written Shem'ite... So all you stupid yids learn to
> write and come than back to talk about who is and who is not a
> ofspring of Shem-Hashem-Hassan...
Another ignorant gentile that should be shot.
> Even Sephardic jews arn't descendant of the Shemite race... since
> Jacob recieved the Baraka of Shem... so to be Shemite, you must be
> descendant of Shem and Jacob...
You have no idea what you are writing because you are a dolt.
> You are children of the devil who dare claim they are shemite while
> you are not...
>
> Jesus also referred to "jews" in general when he accused them of being
> sons of the devil.
Takes one to know one. And it's cocksuckers like you that preach that
Jesus is a Jew when every Jew knows Jesus is the King of the
Christians. You though are not a Christian you are a candy ass jack-
off fucked up shit head.
> John 8:44 You [jews] belong to your father, the devil, and you
> want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the
> beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
> When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the
> father of lies.- Hide quoted text -
John often jacked off and tried to fuck Mary Magdeline and was jealous
of Jesus because Jesus has a bigger dick than John. Even to this day
Hookers and Police label those who frequent prostitutes as Johns.
Nuclear Blast
>
> - Show quoted text -
Warhol you let the devil fuck you in the ass. John was a trick of
Mary Magdeline that's why Police and Hookers refer to tricks as
Johns. You are a coward. Not a Christian but an Arab Muslim jack-off
artist that suffers from midget dick syndrome because you live off the
government like a parasite. Jesus is the King of Christians and David
is the King of Jews. You mess with David you will lose and arm or leg
or even you head idiot fuck.
Nuclear Blast
You don't know what the hell you're talking about goy. Goy away and
learn Torak idiot fuck.
Warhol
you believe lies from the devil, your father. Remember the devil's
plan - to kill, steal, and destroy....
Long live the King.... David is the gran'da'dy of Jesus... and Jesus
who was born 360 years after King David had died, found himself
without a history and the holy kingdom had fallen in the hands of
vermin, that even forced Joseph and his family to flee his own
lands... So Jesus grew up in strange lands without knowing the history
of the Maccabees, the glorious ancestors of the sacred bloodline to
whom the Savor belongs. So one day Jesus started to do research about
his roots and discovered the truth that was hidden by those that
claimed they where the reel gods children, while in fact they were the
children of the devil who should walk the plank of Dhabi (David)...
Joseph was indeed of the house of David and so is Jesus.
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the
Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived
in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:20).
Jesus is the legitimate descendant of a long lineage of ancient
patriarch kings. The socalled lineage can be found in the genealogical
record of Matthew and Luke. The sovereign rights to kingship began
with Adam when he was given "dominion" over all the earth. Dominion
is the same as sovereign rule and this crown right right is hereditary
to the firstborn of successive generations. Beginning with Adam the
patriarchal lineage of sovereign kingship and dominion passed down to
Jesus. At his birth, Jesus became the Patriarch King of Israel of the
seed of David.
Jesus was born and his crown right was stolen by Herod, who also
claimed to be a descendant of David while he was the Devil... Jesus
the reel direct descendant of the Patriarch David discovered the truth
about a complex conspiracy prepared by the devil to steal the holy
heritage of his ancestors... That's why we read in the Gospel of John,
the testimony of Jesus declaring about those who claimed to be the
offspring of Israel while they were the offspring of Canaan(Khazars/
Mongols)... John 8:31, 33-48;44,47- John 10:22-26,26 and in Acts
13:10...
The genealogical lineage of Jesus in the two Gospels is verified by
the writings of Josephus who reported that king Herod destroyed all
the genealogical records in Jerusalem destroyed so no one else could
lay a better claim on the throne of David than himself. Of course we
know he did this to keep any Maccabees from ever arising and claiming
birthrights to the throne of David and to re-establish the Kingdom of
Israel. Jesus wanted his Kingdom restored and he knew the truth about
the bloody monster belonging to the bloodline of Herod. (Herod was not
one King but a dynasty of bloody murders who committed many crimes and
destroyed the holy temple of God) So the Herod were nothing but a
pretenders, his ancestory being Gentile. Jesus declared by angelic
announcement to not only be the son of David but also the Lord
Messieh. Jesus was Patriarch King of Je'ru'salem(Land of Salvation)
and Ksra'el'Kebir or Read it Ksar El Kebir., KING OF THE Holy Land!
REVELATION 21:8 - But as for the cowards and the ignoble and the
contemptible and the cravenly lacking in courage and the cowardly
submissive, and as for the unbelieving and faithless, and as for the
depraved and defiled with abominations, and as for murderers and the
lewd and adulterous and the practicers of magic arts and the idolaters
(those who give supreme devotion to anyone or anything other than God)
and all LIARS (those who knowingly convey untruth by word or deed)--
[all of these shall have] their part in the lake that blazes with fire
and brimstone.
So yids this Part one... about the King of Israel and the awaited one
by the Christians and Muslims...The Holy Gospel Of Jesus Christ,
According to Warhol...
Warhol
Sorry but the goy in this case are you and all others who claim they
are jews... soon the hour to walk the plank over the lake of fire will
be there... and then we will see who the elected are and who the beast
are... and you are nothing more than a stupid rat.
"Blessed be the coming kingdom. . . Blessed be King David's kingdom!"
This is what Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, said about
the JEWS!
John 8: 40 But now ye (THE JEWS) seek to kill me, a man that hath
told you the truth, which I have heard of God.
41 Ye (THE JEWS) do the deeds of your father.(Satan, the devil) Then
said they (THE JEWS) to him, We be not born of fornication; we have
one Father, even God
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me:
for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but
he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my
word.
John the Baptizer had this to say about the JEWS!
Matthew 3: 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come
to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers (JEWS), who
hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Re: More About the Jews: (Matt. 5:20; 7:29;12:38,39; 16:20,21; John
5:16; 8:40; 11:54; 19:18; Rev. 3:9; Acts 9:23 and many more!)
JEWS call themselves JEWS but they are not JEWS because they do not
have Shem's DNA genetics.
(1 Chr 16:13) O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob,
his chosen ones.
Nuclear Blast
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a goy. Talks a false Bible and can't even speak Hebrew. You are
what we call a למך
Nuclear Blast
>
> - Show quoted text -
When was the last time you had sexual intercourse with a woman you old
fucking non-Jewish, non-Christian hermit.
You are full of shit. Are you trying to terrorize me with you
blather. You sound like an Arab תֻם תַם
HHW
> Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
Your psychiatrist's name and address, please? It's time for an
intervention.
BTW, what's the exchange rate between the dollar and the NIS?
HHW
> On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
Anyone sympathetic with either the United States or the Palestinians.
HHW
> Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
> many similarities .
>
> <pet...@diplo.org> wrote in message
>
> news:6be2aa66-cd61-4c65...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
In the 60's there was a famous course at Michigan entitled "Communism,
Fascism and Democracy". Several generations sat at that table. I
wonder if it has been updated to something like "Communism, Fascism,
neo-Zionism and Democracy"?
HHW
> "MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:VOydnWDg9f0K2Rza...@comcast.com...
>
> > Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
> > anti-Semites!If you compare communism ,fascism and Zionism ,you will
> > find many similarities .
>
> the 1967 accidental
> bombing during the war when 5 Arab countries supplied by Soviet
> Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
> into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
> and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
> Israel.
>
> Have you forgotten how soundly Israel defeated the 5 armies and
> resulted in the Soviet Union quitting the region in humiliation?
Absolute fiction. This is a lie, a re-invention of history. Tell me
you'll stick around to take the heat and I'll explain it to you.
HHW
> On Jan 6, 2:08 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
>
> > > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> > In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
>
The question had to do with whether you know. You can not define it
without getting yourself into deep trouble. Begin with Hitler and come
forward. I'll help you out.
NefeshBarYochai
Stop jacking off and you won't need to see a psychiatrist idiot fuck
of the imbecile nature.
NefeshBarYochai
You may commit suicide.
hille...@yahoo.com
On Jan 8, 3:19 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The question had to do with whether you know. You can not define it
> without getting yourself into deep trouble. Begin with Hitler and come
> forward. I'll help you out.
Who needs *your* help?!
The definition from dictionary.reference.com is just fine:
"antisemite - a person who discriminates against
or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews."
You seem to fit the definition pretty well, IMO.
Warhol
and you are what we Call a "RAT"... Ha ha ha ... chicken shit, this
yid has even forgotten his Barbarous ‘Türkic Mongolian roots, who have
a A Plot for World Domination.
The Mystery of Satan and the Devil will soon be solved when the world
will known who the true light people are... but thats for later, now
first some basics...
Canaanite, Khazar and Edomite are all names that accurately refer to
the people who call themselves "jews." The name Jew originally meant a
resident of Judea regardless of religion or race, and has long since
lost any association with a true Judahite. Jesus made this clear in
Revelation 2:9, "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews,
and are not but are a synagogue of Satan." And 3:9, "I will make those
of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie;
indeed I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to
know that I have loved you".
Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia tells us that the Mongols
were a people who "For nearly two centuries . . . raided, invaded,
conquered, and destroyed many more highly developed countries and
peoples(Read Moorish Civilization)." Of the Khazars we read: "The
Khazars, a Turkic people, created a commercial and political empire
that dominated substantial parts of South Russia during much of the
7th through 10th centuries. During the 8th century the Khazar
aristocracy and the kagan (king) were converted to Judaism . . . The
Khazars controlled many of the trade routes to the Orient." The
synagogue of Satan has perpetuated the traits of their forebears by
maintaining control of trade which is one of the methods they use to
continue in their quest to overthrow "more highly developed countries
and peoples".
The Khazars are Serpent's seed who converted to Judaism in AD740. The
Maccabean leadership was replaced by the descendants of traditional
enemies of the Jewish people, namely the converted Edomites, Herod and
his family. The Ashkenazim developed the idea of Political Zionism.
Hebrew is nothing more than bad spoken ancient Moorish, a language the
yids have adopted as their own when they destroyed great civilization
like the Moorish of Spain and Middle east or the Kathars in Europe ...
So stupid yids your nose is the problem why you never shall be
descendant of Shem the Patriarch of all Shemitic people... and you
children of the devil were marked with Big ears and a hooked nose...
So shall we recognize you when the 11th hour shall sound.... You gone
walk the plank of my ancestors of whom you said they where pirates and
heretics and Berbers... while you destroyed great civilization and
transformed history to lies that can't stand my truth. This when you
thought your crime shall be forgotten and you children of evil shall
have the heritage of the Greatest Caliph's and steal the holy
Caliphate...
No children of Evil your plot wont work... and the holy kingdom shall
be restored to its rightfully owners as written in all prophecy of all
faith's and you will be thrown into the lake of fire... Mark my words
because that will be your future...
drahcir
H, your delusions, of grandeur, amongst all the others, are getting
the better of you.
drahcir
hehe, what a view! Someone get the cretin some glasses.
Warhol
I just want peace and I dont support anymore lies that can't stand the
light of truth... Children of Demon shall be sent there where they
belong... LAKE OF FIRE aka The HELL you dont believe in... We shall
cleanup vermin as written in your stolen book you call the Talmud...
and in meantime here some more data about your stupid rat race...
THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE
(by Arthur Koestler, Random House)
Information
15 Khazars adopt Judaism as their religion in A.D. 740.
16 Majority of Eastern European Jews are Khazar and Japhetic in
origin, not Semitic. Refers to 1973 Jewish Encyclopedia and A. N.
Poliak, Professor, Medieval Jewish History, Tel Aviv University.
17 Jews more closely related to Hun, Uigur, and Magyrs than to the
seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
18 Khazars exacted tribute from subject peoples.
20 Identified them with the hosts of Gog and Magog.
22 German word Ketzer is our word for Khazar and means heretic or
Jew.
23 Khazars were with Attila the Hun in 4th century.
37-39 Some were phallic worshipers, killed anyone thought to be extra
intelligent and called it an offering to god.
46 Quotes 1,000-year-old Arab historian, "The Khazars and their King
are all Jews...some are of the opinion that Gog and Magog are the
Khazars."
47-50 Khazars were re-exporters of foreign goods, middlemen,
inspectors of trade, goldsmiths, and silversmiths; and they exacted
10% tax on all trade.
59-63 Jews fled Rome and Greece to Khazaria to avoid forced
conversion to Christianity. They adopted Islam when forced,
repudiating it when safe.
72 Khazar King, in a letter, traced his people in Togarma and
Japheth, the ancestors of all the Turkish tribes.
81 In A.D. 864 a monk wrote "there exists a people under the sky in
regions where no Christians can be found, whose name is Gog and Magog,
and who are Huns; among them is one called Gazari [Khazari?], who are
circumcised and observe Judaism in its entirety."
93 Russian communists tried to hide Khazar-Jewish connection!
95-132 History of breaking up of Khazar Empire and integration of
these Jews into Russia, Poland, etc.
135 Khazar kingdom known as a kingdom of "Red" Jews.
141 Khazars joined Ghengis Khan and retained their Judaism.
145 Interchangeable names --Khazar, Zhid (or Yid), and Jew
151 Majority of Jews in Middle Ages were Khazars.
152-154 Jews were mintmasters, royal treasurers, tax collectors, and
money lenders. Principal source of income was foreign trade and the
levying of customs dues and they practiced communal life.
159-161 They lost the name of Khazars and became known as Jews.
During Dark Ages commerce largely in Jewish hands, including slave
trade.
163-167 During Crusades whole families and towns of Jews committed
suicide rather than accept Christianity.
167-171 Proves only a handful of Sephardim Jews were in Europe so the
vast majority of Jews today are Khazar in origin.
172-174 Gives origin of Yiddish language. It is NOT Hebrew!
178 "The Jewish dark ages may be said to begin with the
Renaissance." (Reviews comment: This remark by the Jew Cecil Roth,
coupled with other information, is a sorrowful admission that the Jews
were supreme in the Dark Ages but lost their dominion over Europe when
the Light of God's Word brought about the Renaissance!)
180-199 Quotes from many sources to prove Jews NOT descended from
Biblical Israelites, ending with this, ...evidence from anthropology
concurs with history in refuting the popular belief in a Jewish race
descended from the biblical tribe.
200-222 Refers to others who have written on the same subject.
223 Israeli's right to exist...not based on...the mythological
covenant of Abraham with God; it is based on international law --
i.e., on the United Nations' decision of 1947. . .
224-226 Koestler ends his book by saying he believes many Jews have
learned of their Khazar ancestry and now reject the Chosen-Race
doctrine.
Koestler traces most Jews back to a people called Khazazrs in Western
Asia and southern Russia and links the Khazars with Gomer and Magog,
grandsons of Noah through Japheath. He does prove that most Jews
cannot be Israelites, who descended from Shem (Semites race).
HHW
> > > You know what an anit-semite is.
>
> On Jan 8, 3:19 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The question had to do with whether you know. You can not define it
> > without getting yourself into deep trouble. Begin with Hitler and come
> > forward. I'll help you out.
>
> Who needs *your* help?!
You, for an example.
>
> The definition from dictionary.reference.com is just fine:
> "antisemite - a person who discriminates against
> or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews."
>
> You seem to fit the definition pretty well, IMO.
Your opinion is nonsense. I don't discriminate against Jews, nor am I
prejudiced against them. And I'm certainly not hostile toward them.
You should understand by now that I object to Israeli POLICIES in the
Middle East and to the Israel lobby's activities here in the United
States. Yours is a flat-out dishonest use of the term, Hillel.
Here's what passes for your logic:
P. 1: Hunter criticizes specific Israeli policies vis a vis the
Palestinians based on his humanist principles;
P. 2: Hunter criticizes the Israel lobby's oppression of the American
Congress based on his perception of the American national interest;
THEREFORE, Hillel concludes, Hunter discriminates against, is
prejudiced and is hostile toward Jews as a race/ethnicity.
Think about the structure and obvious purpose of your argument. It is
designed to prevent those of us who object to Israeli policies and to
the Israel lobby's suppression of our Congress from speaking out on
those issues even though the conclusion of your failed syllogism does
not follow from the two premises. At work here are threats that the
dreaded "anti-Semitism" epithets will be hurled at anyone who publicly
criticizes Israeli and lobby policies. Such criticism has no more to
do with hostility to Jews per se than objections to the Nazi Holocaust
during WW II evidences hatred of all Germans. The Likud's
brutalization of the Palestinians no more reflects qualities of all
Jews per se than the Nazi regime's genocide of the Jews was emblematic
of the nature of Germans as a race or culture.
For years in America there has been something of an intellectual reign
of terror. Men and women of good will who have never displayed any
racism at all, many of whom in the sixties and seventies were active
along with their Jewish friends in the struggle against all forms of
racism, are now accused of anti-Semitism for supporting the liberation
of the Palestinian people and for objecting to destructive American
policies which are driven by the lobby.
The era when most all of us were too apprehensive of being labeled to
speak up has ended. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction
and the clock it drives is ticking away. Israel has a limited time to
consolidate its gains and make a decent settlement with its neighbors.
America will not carry this burden forever.
HHW
> On Jan 8, 6:17 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I'm talking about is the paragraph above beginning with
"Islamists" and ending with "Israel". As I say it's fiction, a false
patriotic narrative.
>
> Tell me
>
> > you'll stick around to take the heat and I'll explain it to you.
Same challenge. Would you like to go through it? The 1967 war was
largely an Israeli war of choice. The more recent studies have pretty
much settled that matter. What's happening here is that you're
gradually backing yourself into a corner.
HHW
You did laugh after a fashion.
You know by now that I'm interested in the uses of anti-Semitism as a
political/social weapon. You don't pick up on my wry sense of humor
but I suppose that can't be expected.
hille...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 8, 6:46 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Who needs *your* help?!
> You, for an example.
For what?
What are you good for?
> > The definition from dictionary.reference.com is just fine:
> > "antisemite - a person who discriminates against
> > or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews."
> > You seem to fit the definition pretty well, IMO.
> Your opinion is nonsense.
Since you are so much smarter than the dictionary
writers, why don't you write a dictionary?
> I don't discriminate against Jews, nor am I
> prejudiced against them.
Back to the dictionary:
"discriminate - to make a distinction in favor
of or against a person or thing on the basis
of the group, class, or category to which the
person or thing belongs rather than according
to actual merit; show partiality"
Now let's pick a simple example were I've already
pointed out your double standards, against Jews,
and you did not answer:
################################################
On Dec 25, 5:27 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ``Jews are nothing more than a religion. To have a `Jewish state' is
> like having `a Catholic state' in France,'' said Pappe.
So what?
How comes that the very same Liberals who talk endlessly about
"self determination" are so bent over defining the Jews, regardless
the vast majority of Jews opinion?
And another question for you, can there be an Islamic state?
E.g. according to
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Palestine_%282003%29
"Islam is the official religion in Palestine."
Do you have any problem with that?
Also according to
www.misr.gov.eg/english/laws/Constitution/chp_one/part_one.asp
"Islam is the Religion of the State."
Can you please explain why is it OK for the Egyptians to define
Islam as the state's religion, but Israeli's should not define
Judaism as their state religion?
Come on, try to be a good lawyer and claim two
contradictory positions at once. It is fun to watch.
################################################
What I pointed out is that you reject the idea of
a Jewish state, but you have no problem with the
idea of an Islamic state. You descriminate.
In addition you demand *much* higher standards
from Jews. The last 3,500 years, when the Jews
have defined themselves as a people, are not
enough for you. But the Palestinians, even
though they had defined themsleves as a part
of Syria, and not a separate people,
are certainly a separate people.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian
"The First Congress of Muslim-Christian
Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919),
which met for the purpose of selecting a
Palestinian Arab representative for the
Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following
resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of
Arab Syria, as it has never been separated
from it at any time. We are connected with
it by national, religious, linguistic,
natural, economic and geographical bonds.")
> And I'm certainly not hostile toward them.
...and some of your best friends are Jews.
Find an explanation for your objection to
a Jewish state, while having no objection
to Islamic states. My explanation is:
"HHW discriminate against Jews".
Where is your expalantion?
B'injamin Cr'amer
<hille...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40735156-40d6-4e59...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> > You know what an anit-semite is.
>
> On Jan 8, 3:19 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The question had to do with whether you know. You can not define it
>> without getting yourself into deep trouble. Begin with Hitler and come
>> forward. I'll help you out.
>
> Who needs *your* help?!
You.
B'injamin Cr'amer
The new meaning, jew cunt:
Anti-semite - a person the jews hate.
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Jan-2008, hille...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 8, 6:30 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 6:46 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Who needs *your* help?!
>
> > You, for an example.
>
> For what?
> What are you good for?
He's an excellent bad example, for starters.
Susan
drahcir
Sheesh, here is this cretin preparing the big revelation with "STICK
AROUND TO TAKE THE HEAT" (I am so sure the other poster high-tailed it
out of these parts after this challenge from H), only for us to get
the stale antisemite bull about the 1967 war being a war "of choice".
As I have told you, H, you are nothing but a run of the mill,
antisemite drooler, but you think so incredibly highly of yourself
that you have somehow convinced yourself that you are a firebrand. Get
a grip.
The more recent studies have pretty
> much settled that matter.
LOL! This is from the drooler that also thinks pappe's "studies"
settle the matter. H, I have repeatedly told you, you begin with your
conclusion, then you find "studies", no matter how silly, to support
it. Don't you have the modicum of objectivity left inside that poor,
befuddled brain to see that that is the modus operandi of all bigots?
What's happening here is that you're
> gradually backing yourself into a corner.
Yeah, right, like I backed myself with pappe and mearsheimer. Do you
remember, H, that you were forced to lie to me, claiming you had
refuted things you hadn't? Let me know if you have repressed this
painful memory and I will refresh you with some message id's. You lied
to a complete stranger for no reason! All weaklings such as yourself
eventually must lie, but your lies were so blatant it was a bit scary.
I have been very comfy in the corners you have backed me into thus
far, while you, in the rest of the room, have been nothing but an
embarrassment to yourself.
drahcir
> On Jan 8, 7:31 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 6:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 3:08 pm, pet...@diplo.org wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 3:04 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Just to let all you dirty filthy nasty cowardly Jew hating anti-
> > > > > Semites know, we are putting a bounty on you heads. 1000NIS for each
> > > > > and every one of your dead carcasses will be issued to the person or
> > > > > person who stacks you dead carcasses in front of the Knesset building.
>
> > > > In your view, who or what is an anti-semite? Please clarify.
>
> > > Anyone sympathetic with either the United States or the Palestinians.
>
> > hehe, what a view! Someone get the cretin some glasses.
>
> You did laugh after a fashion.
You picked up on the "hehe" - very observant, H.
>
> You know by now that I'm interested in the uses of anti-Semitism as a
> political/social weapon.
H, your interest is in disparaging jews and anything jewish, like all
antisemites. The above is nothing but smoke you are blowing. You're
just not intelligent nor honest enough to perceive that.
drahcir
> "Islam is the official religion in Palestine."
> Do you have any problem with that?
>
> Also according towww.misr.gov.eg/english/laws/Constitution/chp_one/part_one.asp
> "Islam is the Religion of the State."
>
> Can you please explain why is it OK for the Egyptians to define
> Islam as the state's religion, but Israeli's should not define
> Judaism as their state religion?
>
> Come on, try to be a good lawyer and claim two
> contradictory positions at once. It is fun to watch.
>
> ################################################
>
> What I pointed out is that you reject the idea of
> a Jewish state, but you have no problem with the
> idea of an Islamic state. You descriminate.
>
> In addition you demand *much* higher standards
> from Jews. The last 3,500 years, when the Jews
> have defined themselves as a people, are not
> enough for you. But the Palestinians, even
> though they had defined themsleves as a part
> of Syria, and not a separate people,
> are certainly a separate people.
> "The First Congress of Muslim-Christian
> Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919),
> which met for the purpose of selecting a
> Palestinian Arab representative for the
> Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following
> resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of
> Arab Syria, as it has never been separated
> from it at any time. We are connected with
> it by national, religious, linguistic,
> natural, economic and geographical bonds.")
>
> > And I'm certainly not hostile toward them.
>
> ...and some of your best friends are Jews.
>
> Find an explanation for your objection to
> a Jewish state, while having no objection
> to Islamic states. My explanation is:
> "HHW discriminate against Jews".
>
> Where is your expalantion?
Your question is much too simple and honest for H to answer. He
prefers the antisemite world where "the latest studies" "prove" all
jews and anything jewish are terrible, evil, no good, etc., by hocus--
pocus, connniving, lies, deception, etc. Simple and honest don't fit
into H's repertoire.
dsha...@gmail.com
> Would you like to go through it? The 1967 war was
> largely an Israeli war of choice.
It was nobody's choice.
> The more recent studies have pretty
> much settled that matter.
Not that Humbert would know. His notion of "recent studies" is nothing
more than what he recently read on some Hamas website.
>What's happening here is that you're
> gradually backing yourself into a corner.
Meaning, he should learn to scuttle away from facts like Humbert the
gutless wonder, whenever they bite his flabby arse.
Deborah
HHW
> On Jan 8, 9:52 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 7:29 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 6:17 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 7:29 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 6:17 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 3:19 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:VOydnWDg9f0K2Rza...@comcast.com...
>
> > > > > > Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
> > > > > > anti-Semites!If you compare communism ,fascism and Zionism ,you will
> > > > > > find many similarities .
Of the three, two two based the central tenet of their ideology on
race. ("Drahcir" has objected to my quotation from Pappe on that
subject.) The the third was based on class.
>
> > > > > Islamists, Jew haters and assorted anti-Americans continually replay
> > > > > the 1967 accidental
> > > > > bombing
You can't even say U.S.S. Liberty out loud. Accidental my ass. No one
over here believes that. Not even you, but that's a diversion right
now.
during the war when 5 Arab countries supplied by Soviet
> > > > > Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
> > > > > into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
> > > > > and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
> > > > > Israel.
Will you even acknowledge that there is an alternative explanation as
to Egyptian intentions?
>
> > > > > Have you forgotten how soundly Israel defeated the 5 armies and
> > > > > resulted in the Soviet Union quitting the region in humiliation?
It certainly was a successful war of choice if one looks only at the
military outcome. It was a disaster for Israel and the United States
as a matter of long term policy. It was a hubris driven blunder.
>
> > > > Absolute fiction. This is a lie, a re-invention of history.
>
> > > H, your delusions, of grandeur, amongst all the others, are getting
> > > the better of you.
>
> > What I'm talking about is the paragraph above beginning with
> > "Islamists" and ending with "Israel". As I say it's fiction, a false
> > patriotic narrative.
>
> > > Tell me
>
> > > > you'll stick around to take the heat and I'll explain it to you.
>
> > Same challenge. Would you like to go through it? The 1967 war was
> > largely an Israeli war of choice. Egypt, for example, had no intention of invading Israel. The Israelis and the Americans both knew it. Their intelligence analysts agreed on that. Behind the scenes of course.
>
> Sheesh, here is this cretin preparing the big revelation with "STICK
> AROUND TO TAKE THE HEAT" (I am so sure the other poster high-tailed it
> out of these parts after this challenge from H), only for us to get
> the stale antisemite bull about the 1967 war being a war "of choice".
> As I have told you, H, you are nothing but a run of the mill,
> antisemite drooler, but you think so incredibly highly of yourself
> that you have somehow convinced yourself that you are a firebrand. Get
> a grip.
Let me put on my close-textual-analysis hat here. So far, to a
challenge to debate whether 1967 was largely an israeli war of choice,
he's uttered: "sheesh," "cretin," "big revelation," high-tailed,"
"stale," "antisemite," "bull," "run of the mill," "antisemite" again,
"drooler," "get a grip," and "somehow convinced," in a paragraph only
seven lines long. Giving all due respect to "drahcir's" obvious
brilliance, that looks to me to be something other than an acceptance
of the challenge. I'll take it as a rejection.
>
> The more recent studies have pretty much settled that matter.
>
> LOL! This is from the drooler that also thinks pappe's "studies"
> settle the matter. H, I have repeatedly told you, you begin with your
> conclusion, then you find "studies", no matter how silly, to support
> it. Don't you have the modicum of objectivity left inside that poor,
> befuddled brain to see that that is the modus operandi of all bigots?
Has he changed his mind about the offer of combat? Let's see now:
"drooler," "that thinks" something or other, "studies" in quotes, "I
have repeatedly told you," (haha) "begin with...conclusion," "silly,"
"modicum of objectivity," "poor befuddled brain," "modus operandi,"
"bigots,"
Somehow I don't think so. He has better, more productive things to do.
>
> What's happening here is that you're gradually backing yourself into a corner.
>
> Yeah, right, like I backed myself with pappe and mearsheimer.
You've done nothing whatever to attack Pappe, Mearsheimer and Walt
except smear them. You're a poseur but everyone here knows what you're
doing. That's not good enough now days.
Do you
> remember, H, that you were forced to lie to me, claiming you had
> refuted things you hadn't?
Post your "things" here. I'll evaluate them for refutation whether I
did so before or not. Go ahead, put them up. Just don't destroy the
context.
Let me know if you have repressed this
> painful memory and I will refresh you with some message id's. You lied
> to a complete stranger for no reason!
Since I've "met" you I've experienced no pain whatever.
You pretend not to know the definition of a lie. It's just as you
pretend not to know the difference between criticism of policy and
anti-Semitism. It's clear you have only one option with me, the smear.
On the merits, which you seldom debate, you have very little chance.
Unless you run I'll eat your lunch. I know this irritates you but as
you always flee or smear I get to say it by default. The basic reason
why it's most unlikely you can succeed is that you represent ethnic
cleansing, wars of choice, a "greater Israel," oppression of your
neighbors at the expense of Americans and Palestinians alike and the
corruption of our Congress. I on the other hand am simply trying to
bring about the restoration of a rational basis for American domestic
and foreign policy.
All weaklings such as yourself
> eventually must lie, but your lies were so blatant it was a bit scary.
> I have been very comfy in the corners you have backed me into thus
> far, while you, in the rest of the room, have been nothing but an
> embarrassment to yourself.
THE MERITS, sir. I'll engage you to the bitter end starting here. I
remind you that I'm an American nationalist. I have no deep affection
for any foreign country. I believe that America should follow the
American national interest and in so far as the "special relationship"
is concerned it should end with one exception.
drahcir
> On Jan 9, 11:37 am, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:52 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 7:29 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 6:17 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 7:29 pm, drahcir <sued...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 6:17 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 6, 3:19 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:VOydnWDg9f0K2Rza...@comcast.com...
>
> > > > > > > Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
> > > > > > > anti-Semites!If you compare communism ,fascism and Zionism ,you will
> > > > > > > find many similarities .
>
> Of the three, two two based the central tenet of their ideology on
> race. ("Drahcir" has objected to my quotation from Pappe on that
> subject.) The the third was based on class.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Islamists, Jew haters and assorted anti-Americans continually replay
> > > > > > the 1967 accidental
> > > > > > bombing
>
> You can't even say U.S.S. Liberty out loud. Accidental my ass. No one
> over here believes that. Not even you, but that's a diversion right
> now.
H, you are replying to me. Is it possible for you, in your obvious
state of complete confusion, to restrict your replies to statements
that I have made? Are you so far gone that you cannot discern who said
what anymore?
>
> during the war when 5 Arab countries supplied by Soviet
>
> > > > > > Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
> > > > > > into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
> > > > > > and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
> > > > > > Israel.
>
> Will you even acknowledge that there is an alternative explanation as
> to Egyptian intentions?
H is obviously either a stroke victim, suffering from alzheimers, or
schizophrenic. Can you please get a hold of yourself long enough to
understand that you are attributing others' statements to me? Is that
too much to ask?
>
>
>
> > > > > > Have you forgotten how soundly Israel defeated the 5 armies and
> > > > > > resulted in the Soviet Union quitting the region in humiliation?
>
> It certainly was a successful war of choice if one looks only at the
> military outcome. It was a disaster for Israel and the United States
> as a matter of long term policy. It was a hubris driven blunder.
See above, you poor creature.
LOL! Predictable. Like all droolers, his bark is worse than his bite.
>
> > The more recent studies have pretty much settled that matter.
>
> > LOL! This is from the drooler that also thinks pappe's "studies"
> > settle the matter. H, I have repeatedly told you, you begin with your
> > conclusion, then you find "studies", no matter how silly, to support
> > it. Don't you have the modicum of objectivity left inside that poor,
> > befuddled brain to see that that is the modus operandi of all bigots?
>
> Has he changed his mind about the offer of combat? Let's see now:
>
> "drooler," "that thinks" something or other, "studies" in quotes, "I
> have repeatedly told you," (haha) "begin with...conclusion," "silly,"
> "modicum of objectivity," "poor befuddled brain," "modus operandi,"
> "bigots,"
>
> Somehow I don't think so. He has better, more productive things to do.
>
>
>
> > What's happening here is that you're gradually backing yourself into a corner.
>
> > Yeah, right, like I backed myself with pappe and mearsheimer.
>
> You've done nothing whatever to attack Pappe,
You know, H, you need to see a specialist. Did you forget that I
challenged you to post a positive review? you didn't. Did you forget
that I challenged you to support his description of the mindset of the
israelis? You couldn't. In addition to being an antisemite drooler,
you are really a big bag of hot air.
Mearsheimer and Walt
> except smear them.
SMEAR?? CIte it, please. I POSTED NEARLY TWENTY NEGATIVE REVIEWS,
MOSTLY BY PEERS. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ONE OF THEM , ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIMED
YOU "ALREADY" DID, AN OBVIOUS LIE. YOU YOURSELF POSTED REFERENCE TO A
NEGATIVE REVIEW, WHICH I THEN POSTED, AND WHICH YOU THEN CLAIMED YOU
REFUTED AS WELL, WHICH WAS ALSO A LIE.
You're a poseur but everyone here knows what you're
> doing.
Everyone? Really? Hmm, who's "everyone"? Ben and Mirelle? Really, tell
me whom you have in mind and I will ask them.
That's not good enough now days.
LOL!
>
> Do you
>
> > remember, H, that you were forced to lie to me, claiming you had
> > refuted things you hadn't?
>
> Post your "things" here. I'll evaluate them for refutation whether I
> did so before or not. Go ahead, put them up. Just don't destroy the
> context.
The reviews I posted are there for all to see, as is your lack of
refutation. In the words of carole king, it's too late, baby. Anyway,
no one but a morally bereft person such as yourself could be blind to
the fact that the issue is not that you couldn't refute them. THE
ISSUE IS THAT YOU SAID YOU HAD WHEN YOU HADN'T. CAN YOU GRASP THAT? IS
THAT BEYOND YOUR CAPACITY TO COMPREHEND?
>
> Let me know if you have repressed this
>
> > painful memory and I will refresh you with some message id's. You lied
> > to a complete stranger for no reason!
>
> Since I've "met" you I've experienced no pain whatever.
>
> You pretend not to know the definition of a lie.
A lie is saying something happened, for instance you saying that you
refuted a review, when it didn't.
It's just as you
> pretend not to know the difference between criticism of policy and
> anti-Semitism.
Please, H, have you no dignity? Do you think that there is one soul
who reads your tripe who cannot figure out in 10 seconds what you are
about? Criticism of policy - that's a good one.
It's clear you have only one option with me, the smear.
LOL! H tries to make himself more comfortable.
> On the merits, which you seldom debate, you have very little chance.
H, you are aware, aren't you, that you are engaging in public
masturbation?
> Unless you run I'll eat your lunch.
You are blabbering away as if we have just met. You have had ample
opportunity to enjoy the feast, but somehow have gone hungry.
I know this irritates you but as
> you always flee
Get the message ids of these examples of my fleeing. Look, maybe it's
me with the alzheimer's, i have no recollection of ever leaving a
thread with you. Get the id's and post them in reply. I am waiting.
or smear I get to say it by default. The basic reason
> why it's most unlikely you can succeed is that you represent ethnic
> cleansing, wars of choice, a "greater Israel," oppression of your
> neighbors at the expense of Americans and Palestinians alike and the
> corruption of our Congress. I on the other hand am simply trying to
> bring about the restoration of a rational basis for American domestic
> and foreign policy.
H, your public masturbating is really quite disgusting.
>
> All weaklings such as yourself
>
> > eventually must lie, but your lies were so blatant it was a bit scary.
> > I have been very comfy in the corners you have backed me into thus
> > far, while you, in the rest of the room, have been nothing but an
> > embarrassment to yourself.
>
> THE MERITS, sir. I'll engage you to the bitter end starting here. I
> remind you that I'm an American nationalist. I have no deep affection
> for any foreign country. I believe that America should follow the
> American national interest and in so far as the "special relationship"
> is concerned it should end with one exception.
Is there a point lurking somewhere in this unnecessary verbiage? If
so, get to it, or please, pretty please shut the fuck up.
hille...@yahoo.com
> You can't even say U.S.S. Liberty out loud. Accidental my ass.
Here another example of your prejudice. People who know something
about wars mentioned many example of "friendly fire". You did not
question any of their examples, only the "Liberty", with pretty poor
evidence, caught you attention.
And just to remind you the very partial list from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
# 1461 - War of the Roses: At the Battle of Towton, wind conditions
often resulted in arrows falling amongst friendly troops as well as
the enemy.
# 1471 - Battle of Barnet: The 'radiant star' battle standard used by
the troops commanded by the Earl of Oxford was misidentified as an
enemy standard (which depicted a 'brilliant sun') and were fired on by
their own archers.
# 1801 - Battle of Algeciras Bay: Spanish ships Real Carlos and San
Hermenegildo mistakenly engaged each other in the dark after a British
ships sailed between them and fired at both. 1,700 are killed when the
two ships explode.
# 1809 - Battle of Wagram: French troops mistakenly fired on their
allies from the Kingdom of Saxony. The uniforms of the Saxons were
grey and misidentified as white, the colour of uniform worn by their
Austrian enemy.
# 1815 - Battle of Waterloo: Famously, Marshal Blücher's Prussians
came to the aid of the British, and defeated Napoleon decisively.
Lesser known is that Prussian artillery mistakenly fired on British
artillery causing many casualties, and British artillery returned fire
at the Prussians.
# 1863 - Lt. Gen. T. J. "Stonewall" Jackson, famous Confederate Civil
War general accidentally mortally wounded by his own troops at
Chancellorsville, VA.
# 1914-1918 - World War I: The French have estimated that more than
75,000 French soldiers were casualties of friendly artillery in the
four years of World War I[9].
# 1939
* 6 September - Just days after the start of World War II, in what
was dubbed the Battle of Barking Creek, an RAF Spitfire squadron shot
down two reserve Hurricane aircraft. One of the Hurricane pilots was
killed.
* 10 September British submarine HMS Triton sank another British
submarine, HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a German U-boat and having
received no responses to challenges. Oxley was the first Royal Navy
vessel to be sunk and also the first vessel to be sunk by a British
vessel in the war.
# 1940
* Italian Air Marshal Italo Balbo shot down by his own side.
* Operation Wikinger: German destroyer sunk by Luftwaffe bombs,
another sunk by mines during confusion[10]
# 1941
* Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt
for the German battleship Bismarck
* RAF fighter ace Wing Commander Douglas Bader shot down in what
recent research suggests was a friendly fire incident [11].
# 1942 - Polish submarine ORP Jastrząb was mistakenly sunk by British
destroyer HMS St. Albans and minesweeper HMS Seagull.
# 1943 - Operation Husky (Allied Invasion of Sicily): 144 C-47
transport planes passed over Allied lines shortly after a German air
raid, and were mistakenly fired upon by ground and naval forces, 33
planes were shot down and 37 damaged, resulting in 318 casualties.
# 1944
* British flotilla attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons, off Cap
d'Antifer, Le Havre. HMS Britomart and HMS Hussar sunk. HMS Salamander
damaged beyond repair and scrapped. HMS Jason escaped major damage.
* Operation Wintergewitter (Winter Storm) - Italian Front:
American forward observer John R. Fox called down fire on his own
position to stop a German advance on the town of Sommocolonia, Italy.
In 1997 he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for this
action.
* In October, Soviet troops liberated the city of Nis from
occupying German forces. From here the Soviet tanks began advancing to
the Serbian capital, Belgrade. At the same time, approximately 50 km
west of Nis, the U.S. Air Force was bombing German-Albanian units
entering from Kosovo. These U.S. planes mistook the advancing Soviet
tanks as enemies (probably due to lack of communication) and began
attacking them, the Soviets then called in for air support from Nis
airport and a 5 minute dogfight ensued, ending after both the U.S and
Soviet commanders ordered the planes to retreat.[citation needed]
* Major George E. Preddy, commander of the 328th Fighter Squadron
and the highest-scoring US ace still in combat in the European Theater
at the time, was killed on Christmas Day in Belgium. Preddy chased a
German fighter over an American anti-aircraft battery and was hit by
their fire aimed at his intended target.
# 1945 - Operation Bodenplatte (Baseplate): 900 German fighters and
fighter-bombers launched a surprise attack on Allied airfields,
approximately 300 aircraft were lost, 237 pilots killed, missing, or
captured, and 18 pilots wounded - the largest single-day loss for the
Luftwaffe, many losses were due to friendly anti-aircraft guns.
# 1956 - Suez: Attacks from British Royal Navy carrier-borne aircraft
caused heavy casualties to UK 45 Commando and HQ.
# 1966 - Viet Nam War: USCGC Point Welcome was attacked by USAF
aircraft, with two deaths resulting.
# 1967 - During the Six-Day War conflict between Israel and the Arab
states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, the U.S. Navy signals
intelligence ship, USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli fighter planes
and torpedo boats in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles
(23 km) from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of the Egyptian
town of El Arish, on June 8.
# 1968 - USS Boston, USS Edson, USCGC Point Dume, HMAS Hobart and two
U.S. Swift Boats, PCF-12 and PCF-19 are attacked by US aircraft on
June 17 in the Vietnam War.[12] Several sailors were killed and PCF-19
was sunk. [13]
# 1969 - U.S. Helicopters attack U.S. 3/187th Infantry Battalion CP
during the Battle of Hamburger Hill, killing two and wounding thirty-
five, including Lt. Col. Weldon Honeycutt.
# 1974 - Turkish Destroyer Kocatepe was sunk by Turkish aircraft
during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
# 1982
* HMS Cardiff shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands
Islands.
* 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK) Companies A
and C engage each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland
Islands involving heavy weapons and artillery strikes. At least 8 UK
casualties.
* United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in
firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos. Falkland Islands.
# 1991 - American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacks British
armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same
number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war).
# 1992 - USS Saratoga during a no-notice exercise that included a
simulated RIM-7 launch; confusion ensued, and a sailor launched into
the bridge of the Turkish destroyer Muavenet killing 5.
# 1994 - In the Black Hawk Incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15Cs
involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60
Black Hawks over northern Iraq, killing 29 military and civilian
personnel.
# 2001 - American F/A-18 dropped 3 Mk-82 bombs on a friendly
observation post killing six and wounding 11 at Al Udairi Range,
Kuwait.
# 2002 - American F-16 pilot dropped a 500 lb (228 kg) bomb on
Canadian soldiers performing a live-fire exercise, killing four and
injuring another 8 in the Tarnak Farm incident.
# 2003
* American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special
Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed
was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John
Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed. [14]
* American Patriot missile shot down in error F/A-18C Block 46
Hornet 164974 of VFA-195 50 mi from Karbala, Iraq, killing the pilot.
* American Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado GR.
4A ZG710 'D' of 13 Squadron killing the pilot and navigator, Flight
Lieutenant David Rhys Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main,
both from 9 Squadron
* British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river
patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an
enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw
Peninsula, Iraq.[15]
* British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British
tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two
crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey
Clarke [16]
* 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident
- March 28, 2003 when a pair of American A-10s from the 190th Fighter
Squadron attack four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the
Blues and Royals, killing Lance-Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, during
the invasion of Iraq.
# 2004 - Pat Tillman, famous American football player and friendly
fire victim in Afghanistan.
# 2005
* American soldier Mario Lozano is suspected of killing Italian
intelligence officer Nicola Calipari and wounding Italian journalist
Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Sgrena had been kidnapped and subsequently
rescued by Calipari; however, it is claimed that the car they were
escaping in failed to stop at an American checkpoint, and U.S.
soldiers opened fire.
* American troops opened fire on a Bulgarian convoy. Junior
Sergeant Gardi Gardev was killed.
# 2006
* During Operation Medusa, two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt IIs strafed
their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian
Private Mark Anthony Graham, and seriously wounding five others when
soldiers were trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab
River. Graham was a former Canadian Olympic athlete who competed on
the Canadian 4x400 Men's Relay Team at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.
* A U.S. machine gunner accidentally shot (from behind) and killed
Canadian Pvt. Robert Costall and Vermont National Guard Sgt. John
Thomas near Kandahar, in Afghanistan.
* British Marine Jonathan Wigley, 21, is killed during an intense
battle in Helmand province possibly by American fire. [17]
# 2007
* An American airstrike kills eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. [18]
* U.S. forces kill seven Afghan police officers. [19]
* An USAF F-15s called in to support British ground forces in
Afganistan drops a bomb on those forces, killing Privates Aaron
McClure and Robert Foster, both 19, and John Thrumble, 21, of the 1st
Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, and severely injuring two
others.[20]
* Two Danish soldiers from The Royal Life Guards were killed by
British Javelin anti-tank missiles during combat operations in the
Helmand province, Afghanistan
############################################################################
So let's pick the Liberty and the two example close to it:
# 1966 - Viet Nam War: USCGC Point Welcome was attacked by USAF
aircraft, with two deaths resulting.
# 1967 - During the Six-Day War conflict between Israel and the Arab
states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria
and Iraq, the U.S. Navy signals intelligence ship, USS Liberty was
attacked by Israeli fighter planes
and torpedo boats in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles
(23 km) from the coast of the Sinai
Peninsula, north of the Egyptian town of El Arish, on June 8.
# 1968 - USS Boston, USS Edson, USCGC Point Dume, HMAS Hobart and two
U.S. Swift Boats,
PCF-12 and PCF-19 are attacked by US aircraft on June 17 in the
Vietnam War.[12] Several sailors
were killed and PCF-19 was sunk. [13]
Why is it so clear, to you, that when the US attacked its own ships
it was a case of "friendly fire"?
How comes that the US could not coordinate with its own forces?
Why do you assume that Israel could coordinate with the US Navy,
but the US air force difficulties are so obvious?
Why was it so wrong of Israel to believe the US public statement
that there were no US ships in that area?
IMO if Israel/Jews were no involved then you would have no problem
accepting
the attackers version of "it was a friendly fire". Just like you have
no problem
accepting such a claim with respect to all other cases. And the
reason
for that difference is your prejudice.
If you have another explanation then let's hear it.
Let's hear about a single case from those I mentioned above where you
reject the "friendly fire" claim. Let's hear why your super-
conspiracy
theories work so hard only when Jews are involved.
HHW
I reply to any text in any post which I think needs a reply. I don't
ask you for permission.
>
>
>
> > during the war when 5 Arab countries supplied by Soviet
>
> > > > > > > Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
> > > > > > > into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
> > > > > > > and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
> > > > > > > Israel.
>
> > Will you even acknowledge that there is an alternative explanation as
> > to Egyptian intentions?
>
> H is obviously either a stroke victim, suffering from alzheimers, or
> schizophrenic. Can you please get a hold of yourself long enough to
> understand that you are attributing others' statements to me? Is that
> too much to ask?
I'm not paying much attention to "you". Do you have a problem with
that?
> > > > > > > Have you forgotten how soundly Israel defeated the 5 armies and
> > > > > > > resulted in the Soviet Union quitting the region in humiliation?
>
> > It certainly was a successful war of choice if one looks only at the
> > military outcome. It was a disaster for Israel and the United States
> > as a matter of long term policy. It was a hubris driven blunder.
>
> See above, you poor creature.
You don't like that response? What a shame. You should re-read it.
What bark? You've declined my offer.
> > > The more recent studies have pretty much settled that matter.
>
> > > LOL! This is from the drooler that also thinks pappe's "studies"
> > > settle the matter.
One doesn't need Pappe's studies but that doesn't mean that they
aren't credible. You have said absolutely nothing about the substance
of Pappe's work. You pretend not to have read it. I don't believe that
but if it's true you're pathetic.
H, I have repeatedly told you, you begin with your
> > > conclusion, then you find "studies", no matter how silly, to support
> > > it. Don't you have the modicum of objectivity left inside that poor,
> > > befuddled brain to see that that is the modus operandi of all bigots?
>
> > Has he changed his mind about the offer of combat? Let's see now:
>
> > "drooler," "that thinks" something or other, "studies" in quotes, "I
> > have repeatedly told you," (haha) "begin with...conclusion," "silly,"
> > "modicum of objectivity," "poor befuddled brain," "modus operandi,"
> > "bigots,"
>
> > Somehow I don't think so. He has better, more productive things to do.
>
> > > What's happening here is that you're gradually backing yourself into a corner.
>
> > > Yeah, right, like I backed myself with pappe and mearsheimer.
>
> > You've done nothing whatever to attack Pappe,
>
> You know, H, you need to see a specialist. Did you forget that I
> challenged you to post a positive review? you didn't.
I referred you to Tony Judt. You're forgotten.
Did you forget
> that I challenged you to support his description of the mindset of the
> israelis? You couldn't.
I've read the book. It isn't a psychological treatise.
In addition to being an antisemite drooler,
> you are really a big bag of hot air.
>
> Mearsheimer and Walt
>
> > except smear them.
>
> SMEAR?? CIte it, please. I POSTED NEARLY TWENTY NEGATIVE REVIEWS,
> MOSTLY BY PEERS. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ONE OF THEM , ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIMED
> YOU "ALREADY" DID, AN OBVIOUS LIE. YOU YOURSELF POSTED REFERENCE TO A
> NEGATIVE REVIEW, WHICH I THEN POSTED, AND WHICH YOU THEN CLAIMED YOU
> REFUTED AS WELL, WHICH WAS ALSO A LIE.
Put your review up. I'll deal with it.
>
> You're a poseur but everyone here knows what you're
>
> > doing.
>
> Everyone? Really? Hmm, who's "everyone"? Ben and Mirelle? Really, tell
> me whom you have in mind and I will ask them.
>
> That's not good enough now days.
>
> LOL!
You're not laughing.
That's exactly what I'm about.
>
> It's clear you have only one option with me, the smear.
>
> LOL! H tries to make himself more comfortable.
>
> > On the merits, which you seldom debate, you have very little chance.
>
> H, you are aware, aren't you, that you are engaging in public
> masturbation?
>
> > Unless you run I'll eat your lunch.
>
> You are blabbering away as if we have just met. You have had ample
> opportunity to enjoy the feast, but somehow have gone hungry.
You have yet to say a work yourself on the merits of any of my points.
You simply smear and wax ad hominem. Anyone can do that. It takes
neither knowledge nor brains.
>
> I know this irritates you but as
>
> > you always flee
>
> Get the message ids of these examples of my fleeing.
You've avoided discussing the 1967 war for example.
Look, maybe it's
> me with the alzheimer's, i have no recollection of ever leaving a
> thread with you. Get the id's and post them in reply. I am waiting.
You don't leave the thread. You leave the merits of the issues.
>
> or smear I get to say it by default. The basic reason
>
> > why it's most unlikely you can succeed is that you represent ethnic
> > cleansing, wars of choice, a "greater Israel," oppression of your
> > neighbors at the expense of Americans and Palestinians alike and the
> > corruption of our Congress. I on the other hand am simply trying to
> > bring about the restoration of a rational basis for American domestic
> > and foreign policy.
>
> H, your public masturbating is really quite disgusting.
Pathetic.
>
>
>
> > All weaklings such as yourself
>
> > > eventually must lie, but your lies were so blatant it was a bit scary.
> > > I have been very comfy in the corners you have backed me into thus
> > > far, while you, in the rest of the room, have been nothing but an
> > > embarrassment to yourself.
>
> > THE MERITS, sir. I'll engage you to the bitter end starting here. I
> > remind you that I'm an American nationalist. I have no deep affection
> > for any foreign country. I believe that America should follow the
> > American national interest and in so far as the "special relationship"
> > is concerned it should end with one exception.
>
> Is there a point lurking somewhere in this unnecessary verbiage? If
> so, get to it, or please, pretty please shut the fuck up.
You pretend to have missed the point. Yes, pathetic.
HHW
> On Jan 9, 3:30 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You can't even say U.S.S. Liberty out loud. Accidental my ass.
>
> Here another example of your prejudice.
More abuse of "anti-Semitism". There is plenty of evidence. It
happened in 1967. A lot has been written about it. One can reach a
reasoned judgment based on that evidence and it is not in any sense
prejudicial to do so. It is not something which Americans must be
silent about in order not to offend supporters of the perps.
People who know something
> about wars mentioned many example of "friendly fire". You did not
> question any of their examples, only the "Liberty", with pretty poor
> evidence, caught you attention.
What other "examples"? You appended them to this post, not your
previous one. I've deleted your Wikipedia spam. The Israeli attack on
the U.S.S. Liberty was perpetrated with malice. There is an immense
amount of both direct and circumstantial evidence to that effect. Why
didn't you post Wiki on the Liberty itself instead of changing the
subject to "friendly fire"? There was nothing accidental about it.
There was nothing friendly about that fire at all. The corruption of
Jonathan Pollard was just as deceitful. The corruption of the American
Congress by the lobby is no accident. Douglas Feith's Pollardesque
mock-heroic efforts to drive the nation into war in Iraq using a
direct line to Sharon's office were not inadvertent. They were
felonious, traitorous. The Israeli false flag bombings of American
installations in Cairo in the fifties were malicious, deceitful.
Israel does not have a record as a faithful ally of the United States.
The Liberty is the tip of the iceberg. Even high AIPAC officials have
been involved in anti-American espionage for Israel. America needs to
change this pathological relationship, to get it under control.
>
> And just to remind you the very partial list fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
> Why is it so clear, to you, that when the US attacked its own ships
> it was a case of "friendly fire"?
Try reading the books and articles by the men who were there. I'll
check Ennes out again. We can go through it if you think it would be a
good thing for you.
> How comes that the US could not coordinate with its own forces?
> Why do you assume that Israel could coordinate with the US Navy,
> but the US air force difficulties are so obvious?
> Why was it so wrong of Israel to believe the US public statement
> that there were no US ships in that area?
Again, if you like I can go to the library and check out the primary
work on the subject. We can then go through it and I'll ask *you* the
questions based upon it. Your determination to ask questions about an
irrelevant subject is tiresome.
>
> IMO if Israel/Jews were no involved then you would have no problem
> accepting
> the attackers version of "it was a friendly fire".
You opinion is BS. The event has an elaborate history. One doesn't
have to "accept" anything on faith. You don't always get what you
want, Hillel.
Just like you have
> no problem
> accepting such a claim with respect to all other cases. And the
> reason
> for that difference is your prejudice.
The Liberty was not a case of friendly fire. It's simply one more
reason why America needs to restructure the relationship so that
Israel is firmly back in the client state position, the supplicant.
> If you have another explanation then let's hear it.
Read Ennes' (sic) book. The case against the Israelis is conclusive.
We should have terminated the "special realtionship" then, on the
spot.
> Let's hear about a single case from those I mentioned above where you
> reject the "friendly fire" claim. Let's hear why your super-
> conspiracy
> theories work so hard only when Jews are involved.
Friendly fire isn't the result of malice. Your argument that because
accidents happen in warfare, and therefore the Liberty was an accident
is fallacious. You suppress a premise. It is not in the friendly fire
category. It was a deliberate attack on a supposed "ally" on a bright
sunlit day with repeated and careful aerial recon beforehand and the
giant holiday colors flying. Then there was the torpedo attack and the
machine gunning of the survivors in life boats, all up close, very
close. Frankly, hillel, I think the kind of chutzpah you're engaged in
right now is disgusting.
But you know that though emblematic of the exploitation we've endured
at the hands of Israel, the USS Liberty is peripheral. America is a
global superpower, not a regional pipsqueak turned Frankenstein
monster. We have different interests. Just get out of the West Bank
and you can have continued support. You're killing to goose which lays
golden eggs.
hille...@yahoo.com
> There is plenty of evidence.
That our poor Marine can't follow...
> What other "examples"? You appended them to this post, not your
> previous one. I've deleted your Wikipedia spam.
I see.
I claim that there are many examples of friendly fire.
You delete all other examples and claim that the Liberty is unique.
There is no need to check any other cases, no need to compare
to any other battle confusion or miscommunications.
No need to look for patterns.
The issue is that you are pretty ignorant about the issue of
friendly fire, and you refuse to learn anything about the issue.
Knowledge can put at risk your prejudices, do you avoid it.
> The Israeli attack on
> the U.S.S. Liberty was perpetrated with malice.
That's a conclusion of you.
Stick to the facts.
> Why
> didn't you post Wiki on the Liberty itself instead of changing the
> subject to "friendly fire"?
My theory is "friendly fire".
You reject it without understanding *anything* about the subject.
Actually, your ignorance is the best evidence you have. Your
argument is along the lines of "HHW has never heard
about cases of friendly fire, therefore it could not happen
in the Liberty".
Now let me explain you the subject, again, very slowly.
It is not enough to be on a ship to understand management of
ships. The NSA guys have no clue what actually happened,
just see their silly theories about radio jamming while the
explanation is pretty simple. Admiral Kidd, who spent plenty
of time in sea on destroyers was qualified to investigate, and
he took testimonies under oath. He had the data, and the
knowledge to parse the data, two things that you just don't
have because you refuse to have them. You could read
Admiral Kidd's report, online, but you are not going to
spend anytime on something that silly. A Marine like you
understands ships much better than any Navy Admiral.
Anyway, take a look at some of the data collected by people
who understand something about the US Navy and try to
fit it into your prejudices.
http://www.libertyincident.com/harrisletter.html
##############################################
Letter to Editor of the US Naval Institute Proceedings
(Stewart Harris)
In June 1967, LTJG Stewart M. Harris was the Communications Officer
aboard the USS Davis, the first US Navy ship to reach the Liberty
after the attack.
June 10, 2003
Mr. Fred Rainbow
Editor
Annapolis, MD 21402-5034
Re: Friendless Fire (June 2003 Proceedings)
When I boarded Liberty on the morning of 9 June 1967, I found chaos,
confusion, wounded men, a little fire and a lot of smoke. Now, thirty-
six years later, the Naval Institute Proceedings has added a great
deal of smoke to a fire that should have gone out long ago.
That summer morning in 1967, I was communications officer for
ComDesRon 12, SOPA for destroyers Davis and Massey, the first 6th
Fleet units to reach Liberty. My assignment was to interview survivors
regarding the attack, make a cursory damage assessment, and draft the
first reports from the scene to CTG60.1. Knowing that Captain
McGonagle had been wounded, I went first to the wardroom, assuming it
would be sickbay, or that from there I could be directed to where the
captain was. The wardroom was empty, the forward bulkhead riddled with
dozens of holes from cannon fire. The morning light shone through
holes and a slight smell of cordite hung in the air. I went aft,
heading for crew's mess, and alternate sickbay. I found the ship's
doctor tending to torn and broken men, their bodies covering most of
the tables. Still searching for Captain McGonagle, I was directed back
to the bridge. En route I passed the CT spaces where the torpedo had
struck. The explosion should have sunk the Liberty. The fact that it
hit a major cross member rather than penetrating the hull was all that
saved the ship. Inspecting the place of the explosion 18 hours after
the event was a trauma. Knowing that the bodies of a dozen or more men
were still in the space made reporting on the damage that much more
daunting. Viewing the space from above was imprecise, but the hole
implied that the ship's side was blown out, probably all the way down
to the stem. The ship was in danger of breaking in half, a truly
catastrophic failure.
I found Captain McGonagle on the bridge, on his back, with his legs
propped up in the air to lessen the blood loss. He had been on the
bridge and in that position since the attack, remaining there all
night and conning the ship by the stars from flat on his back. He
recounted the attack: a section of two unidentified, but probably
Israeli aircraft from dead ahead at 1405 local, followed moments later
by a section of two more that made attacks from the port beam.
McGonagle estimated a total of six strafing runs. Most of the damage
was inflicted by the first section, including important personnel
losses on the bridge. The majority of McGonagle's line officers were
killed or wounded in this attack, including McGonagle himself,
although he did not include this as an important matter. The bow on
attacks ignited 55 gallon fuel drums stored on the port side, 01
level, just outside radio central. Another fire started in the motor
whale boat just aft of the bridge on the starboard side. While there
was no doubt the national ensign was flying at the time of the air
attacks, McGonagle specifically stated that there was little or no
relative wind. He believed the light wind and the twin fires just aft
of the bridge to have contributed to the aircraft being unable to
identify the ship. At the conclusion of the air attacks, the ship was
still able to perform her assigned mission, although the personnel
casualties among the ship's company were critical.
The worst was yet to come.
At 1420, three small targets were sighted from the bridge, on the
starboard beam at three or four miles and closing. These were the
Israeli motor torpedo boats (MTBs) which would inflict the most
grievous blow.
At 1426, according to the ship's log, the bridge noticed the steaming
ensign had been lost and holiday colors were ordered hoisted. Captain
McGonagle said the boats continued to approach, to within 2000 yards
and "seemed to be just milling around". Liberty attempted to identify
itself by flashing light, but with the smoke and electrical problems,
was unable to do so.
At 1427 local, 22 minutes after the first attack by aircraft, a man
not assigned topside duties grabbed on the ship's fifty caliber
machine guns and began to fire on the MTBs. This was in direct
violation of McGonagle's orders and the firing continued in spite of
shouts from the bridge to cease fire.
Whatever had caused the MTBs to hesitate and "mill around" was
resolved by the fire from Liberty. The MTBs formed a line abreast and
charged in, deck guns firing and loosed a torpedo barrage. By 1435, it
was all over. Liberty sustained more hits from the MTBs' machine guns,
but the most important hit, the one that almost sank her, was the
single torpedo hit in the starboard side. This ended the attack,
according to Captain McGonagle.
Of the 293 souls aboard Liberty, more than 200 received Purple Hearts,
thirty four of them posthumously.
This horrible but rather straightforward story has now grown into a
cottage industry of claims and counterclaims, books, TV, and even a
proposed movie deal. The Liberty Veterans Association (LVA) was formed
in 1982 to stimulate interest in the attack and advance the claim that
the attack was deliberate. While specifically disavowing any anti-
Semitic interest, the LVA has become a haven for hangers-on with just
such designs. The Liberty listserve was one of the first places
readers could learn that 4000 Jews had not gone to work at the World
Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Among the claims advanced on the
listserve prior to its demise under the weight of anti-Israeli and
even anti-Semitic screeds were these:
A periscope was seen alongside Liberty during the attack. It was
reported that this sub was close enough not only to hear the attack,
but to take pictures through its periscope. The sub was identified as
USS Amberjack. When the sub was identified, both the captain and the
chief of the boat stated that the report was not true and that the sub
was nowhere near Liberty. The sub was in fact several hundred miles
away, laying off Alexandria, watching the comings and goings of Soviet
traffic.
One of the repeated claims is that everybody in the Sixth Fleet should
be court marshaled for failing to come to the aid of Liberty while she
was under attack. At a minimum, so LVA members claimed, this was
cowardice in the face of the enemy. The attack began at 1405, Liberty
got out its first message to USS Saratoga at 1420, and the attack was
over at 1435. Saratoga rebroadcast the message to the fleet at 1436.
These facts do not enter into the calculus of the LVA. The timeline
itself casts a different light on claims that the aircraft from Sixth
Fleet carriers were recalled by the White House. The impossibility of
the communications link is beside the point because the fleet was not
alerted until after the torpedo attack. Only the carriers' prop driven
A-1s had the range to reach Liberty. They were more than 500 miles
away. At 200 knots, it would have been hours before the A-1s reached
Liberty. The rejoinder from the LVA advocates? Time and distance don't
matter.
Such has been the level of discussion with the LVA group, one of Mr.
Walsh's repeated reference sources.
The publication of Mr. Walsh's article is little more than the
comparison of two books, one more than 20 years old, albeit recently
revised. And the inclusions of "references" such as "Ennes, email 3
March 2003" and "Ennes, email 9 March 2003" should have sent your
editors to General Quarters. Most of the remaining references rely on
first one book and then the other. In truth, the first footnote in Mr.
Walsh's article explains the point of view for the entire piece:
"Background on the attack is largely from James Ennes, Jr. Assault on
the Liberty."
The author has stated his most important reference, and it betrays him
in the first paragraph when he includes "rockets" in the ordnance used
against Liberty, a small thing, but indicative of what is to follow in
the article. According to contemporary (1967) reports in Aviation
Week, the first section of attacking Mirages could not be configured
to carry rockets. The second section of Israeli jets, Super Mysters,
carried cannon and napalm bombs. Although one fragment of napalm was
found aboard after the attack, it is all but impossible to assign any
of the ensuing fires to that weapon. My personal inspection revealed
multiple fragment holes and damage consistent with exploding cannon
shells, but no "point" impacts associated with rocket hits.
Mr. Walsh states, "Although Liberty crew members insist the attack
lasted about an hour and a quarter, Judge Cristol's book asserts that
the Israeli jets and MTBs finished their grisly business in only 22 to
25 minutes." The longer attack scenario is a favorite of the LVA.
"Hours and hours of attack," they often claim. Perhaps Judge Cristol
asserts the shorter period of time because that is what Captain
McGonagle told the Chief of Naval Operations in Liberty DTG 0817175Z
June 67:
"1. At time 081205Z . . ship attacked by unidentified jet fighters
believed to be Israeli . . ." and later in the same paragraph, "Approx
081227Z took torp boat under fire with 50 cal mach guns. . . torp
boats launched torp and strafing attack . . . approx 1 min later ship
sustained torp hit stbd side."
Maybe that is why Judge Cristol "asserts" such a thing.
As to whether or not the Israelis identified Liberty during the late
morning when Mr. Ennes was on the bridge, Mr. Walsh advances two
conversations Mr. Ennes, as OOD, had with CT Chief Smith (subsequently
killed in the torpedo attack) and with unidentified "Liberty's radio
operators" who told Ennes they had heard the attackers make a positive
identification of Liberty in the clear. Mr. Walsh's support for this
claim is two emails of Mr. Ennes. Mr. Ennes says it is so and Mr.
Walsh reports it as so.
The jamming stories are particularly interesting. The claim every
Liberty frequency was jammed proves the attack was deliberate and well
planned. Considering the state of the art, especially for airborne
jammers, this would have been quite a feat. When I spoke to Captain
McGonagle the morning of 9 June 1967, he made no mention of jamming.
No other fleet units reported it. We now know an EC-121 was in the
area and filed no reports of jamming. When ship's company was able to
get the transmitter on the right frequency (see the testimony of Chief
Wayne Smith, RMC on 14 June 1967) they were able to get out almost
immediately. Some jamming.
Most of the complaints about difficulties in radio central could more
easily be explained by the burning 55 gallon drums just on the other
side of the bulkhead. Survivors report the bulkhead "too hot to
touch." Several cable runs connecting the radio shack with ship's
transmitters and receivers passed through the bulkhead just at the
point of the blaze and were very badly burned by fire. Some cable runs
and antennas were shot up. Reports of "buzz saw" noises were probably
dead shorts to the deck or adjacent cables. Getting out under these
conditions would involve a lot of switching between antennas and
equipment before a solution could be found. And, of course, it helps
to be on the right frequency.
The misidentification of Liberty by her attackers, both aircraft and
MTBs, continues to mystify, especially among the ranks of those who
have never been to sea. Start with the given that the United States
had stated at the UN that there were no US ships within 300 miles of
Israel. Then, take the photo that accompanies the USNI article and set
it up at a distance of three or four feet. Imagine yourself coming
across the water at that target, trying to aim your guns and avoid any
of hers, assuming she has some, and then tell me about the flags
flying. All the flags. Tough test.
And the MTBs were a mile from the Liberty. They had been told that
there was an Egyptian shp in the area. The one in front of them was
burning from IAF attacks. And then the ship fires on them. If it
wasn't American - and everyone knew there were no American ships
within 300 miles - what else could it be than some old Egyptian
transport? All those funny antennas on deck? Just makes it more clear
that it is a military target.
In the midst of all this, Cristol is not without fault. Jets attacking
at 600 knots is a little silly. And I heard the Judge "debate" Ennes
and Joe Meadors of KPFK, an interview Mr. Walsh includes among his
"references". Cristol did not take these two seriously enough. Of
course, some of their claims are hard to take seriously, but Judge
Cristol underestimated their dedication to the cause. Cristol
participated in only the first fifteen minutes of the broadcast,
leaving Ennes and Meadors alone to exchange softballs for the final
fifteen minutes. As an aside, anyone in the Los Angeles area should
make an effort to listen to KPFK. They certainly put forth an
"alternate" view of the universe.
There exists the possibility information will become available that
will shed new light on the events thirty six years ago. Questions
remain that will forever preclude a complete exoneration of Israel.
The record of events is incomplete in some key places. In other
places, logs conflict and fading memories remember things that may or
may not have happened. An analytical investigation of events on 8 June
1967 could still provide useful information.
Your publication of Mr. Walsh's article, however, with all its
inaccuracies, biases and questionable sourcing does not sustain the
intellectual level of debate within the magazine I have come to expect
over the last 27 years. But the use of the USNI to further the blind
ambitions of this small group of revisionist historians is an even
greater disappointment.
Sincerely,
Stewart M. Harris
(then)Lt(jg)
USN 1964-69
##############################################
The issue, that you make quite an effort to miss, is the
ability to understand the data. E.g.
www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm
"During the attack and intermittently thereafter, the
hicom voice circuit was subjected to loud jamming
regardless of frequency. This electronic interference
was described as a steady carrier without modulation."
The solid data is communication problems.
People with strong prejudice, like you, jump immediately
into a conclusion about Israeli jamming. You can't think
about any other reason, therefore that "must" be the
answer.
Now compare your "thought" process to Harris'
He accepted the testimony as valid, he is not into
conspiracy theories. But he looked for explanation.
So he mentioned several problem with your "answer":
"The jamming stories are particularly interesting. The
claim every Liberty frequency was jammed proves the
attack was deliberate and well planned. Considering
the state of the art, especially for airborne jammers,
this would have been quite a feat. When I spoke to
Captain McGonagle the morning of 9 June 1967,
he made no mention of jamming. No other fleet
units reported it. We now know an EC-121 was
in the area and filed no reports of jamming. When
ship's company was able to get the transmitter
on the right frequency (see the testimony of Chief
Wayne Smith, RMC on 14 June 1967) they were
able to get out almost immediately. Some jamming."
See the thought process of a Naval officer. He
understands something about jamming, he knows
that jamming from a long distance covers a wide
area and US ships/plane in the area missed that.
(I'd add the US embassy in Tel Aviv with its
forest of antennas on the roof.) So he assumes
that the answer is close to Liberty, probably in
the ship itself, and comes with an answer:
"Several cable runs connecting the radio shack
with ship's transmitters and receivers passed
through the bulkhead just at the point of the
blaze and were very badly burned by fire. Some
cable runs and antennas were shot up. Reports
of "buzz saw" noises were probably dead shorts
to the deck or adjacent cables. Getting out
under these conditions would involve a lot of
switching between antennas and equipment
before a solution could be found. And, of course,
it helps to be on the right frequency."
Compare that clear thought process, of a Navy
communications officer, to the NSA guys who
were on the ship but could not see the
cables burning and/or did not know that a
burning cable can cause some communication
problems. (IMO they knew all of that but.
like you, they ignore all data that does not
support their prejudice.)
B'inyamin C'r'amer
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56818850-2ad4-4f3c...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Still lying, slime, I see.
Still prepared to claim the yids don't use Palestinians as human shields,
filthy, lying slime?
B'inyamin C'r'amer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68024a48-611a-4109...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
B'inyamin C'r'amer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e8c048c-a69b-4e82...@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
B'inyamin C'r'amer
<hille...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1df872c4-c48a-44dd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 3:30 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can't even say U.S.S. Liberty out loud. Accidental my ass.
Here another example of your prejudice. People who know something
about wars mentioned many example of "friendly fire". You did not
question any of their examples, only the "Liberty", with pretty poor
evidence, caught you attention.
Probably has something to do with the level of cover up that was applied to
this event.
B'inyamin C'r'amer
<hille...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f90a5657-6010-4f92...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 9:41 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There is plenty of evidence.
>
> That our poor Marine can't follow...
>
>> What other "examples"? You appended them to this post, not your
>> previous one. I've deleted your Wikipedia spam.
>
> I see.
> I claim that there are many examples of friendly fire.
> You delete all other examples and claim that the Liberty is unique.
Given the hebes flying the attack jets clearly saw the US flag on the
'Liberty', yes, it is unique.
B'inyamin C'r'amer
What's the matter, dickieboi. Truth unkind to you jew cunts?
Get used to it laddie. You've thousands of years of bad press.
B'inyamin C'r'amer
"E. Barry Bruyea" <lobb...@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:qnqbo3d7sespo8t1e...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:17:20 -0800 (PST), HHW <coaste...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 6, 3:19 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote:
>>> "MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:VOydnWDg9f0K2Rza...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> > Someone opposed to Zionist domination,hell they even call Jews
>>> > anti-Semites!If you compare communism ,fascism and Zionism ,you will
>>> > find many similarities .
>>>
>>> the 1967 accidental
>>> Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
>>> into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
>>> and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
>>> Israel.
>>>
>>> resulted in the Soviet Union quitting the region in humiliation?
>>
>>you'll stick around to take the heat and I'll explain it to you.
>
>
Can you explain how 6 million, minus 2.9 million can equal 6 million??????
>
>
drahcir
A simple "oops" would have sufficed.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > during the war when 5 Arab countries supplied by Soviet
>
> > > > > > > > Planes, Armor and advisors decided to wipe out Isreal and drive it
> > > > > > > > into the sea. 1000 Soviet tanks travelling from Egypt towards Israel
> > > > > > > > and Ilyushin bombers, loaded in Egypt ready for the final assault on
> > > > > > > > Israel.
>
> > > Will you even acknowledge that there is an alternative explanation as
> > > to Egyptian intentions?
>
> > H is obviously either a stroke victim, suffering from alzheimers, or
> > schizophrenic. Can you please get a hold of yourself long enough to
> > understand that you are attributing others' statements to me? Is that
> > too much to ask?
>
> I'm not paying much attention to "you". Do you have a problem with
> that?
Yes, This is a reply to me. You obviously forgot. Understandable,
given your condition.
Where? Show it or be deemed a liar yet again.
>
> > > > The more recent studies have pretty much settled that matter.
>
> > > > LOL! This is from the drooler that also thinks pappe's "studies"
> > > > settle the matter.
>
> One doesn't need Pappe's studies but that doesn't mean that they
> aren't credible. You have said absolutely nothing about the substance
> of Pappe's work.
Yes, I have. You just forgot. Again, understandable, given your
condition.
You pretend not to have read it. I don't believe that
> but if it's true you're pathetic.
LOL!
> H, I have repeatedly told you, you begin with your
>
>
>
> > > > conclusion, then you find "studies", no matter how silly, to support
> > > > it. Don't you have the modicum of objectivity left inside that poor,
> > > > befuddled brain to see that that is the modus operandi of all bigots?
>
> > > Has he changed his mind about the offer of combat? Let's see now:
>
> > > "drooler," "that thinks" something or other, "studies" in quotes, "I
> > > have repeatedly told you," (haha) "begin with...conclusion," "silly,"
> > > "modicum of objectivity," "poor befuddled brain," "modus operandi,"
> > > "bigots,"
>
> > > Somehow I don't think so. He has better, more productive things to do.
>
> > > > What's happening here is that you're gradually backing yourself into a corner.
>
> > > > Yeah, right, like I backed myself with pappe and mearsheimer.
>
> > > You've done nothing whatever to attack Pappe,
>
> > You know, H, you need to see a specialist. Did you forget that I
> > challenged you to post a positive review? you didn't.
>
> I referred you to Tony Judt. You're forgotten.
You posted a Judt review of Pappe? Perhaps I overlooked it. Please
cite the message id.
> Did you forget
>
> > that I challenged you to support his description of the mindset of the
> > israelis? You couldn't.
>
> I've read the book. It isn't a psychological treatise.
Hehe, you are so transparent, it is really shameful.
>
> In addition to being an antisemite drooler,
>
> > you are really a big bag of hot air.
>
> > Mearsheimer and Walt
>
> > > except smear them.
>
> > SMEAR?? CIte it, please. I POSTED NEARLY TWENTY NEGATIVE REVIEWS,
> > MOSTLY BY PEERS. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ONE OF THEM , ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIMED
> > YOU "ALREADY" DID, AN OBVIOUS LIE. YOU YOURSELF POSTED REFERENCE TO A
> > NEGATIVE REVIEW, WHICH I THEN POSTED, AND WHICH YOU THEN CLAIMED YOU
> > REFUTED AS WELL, WHICH WAS ALSO A LIE.
>
> Put your review up. I'll deal with it.
Yeah, just like you "dealt" with Gelb's review. You are a joke. As I
said, it's too late, baby. What is important here is not that you
didn't "deal with them" at the time, because you obviously couldn't,
it's that, just like the Gelb, you said you had dealt with them when
you hadn't. You felt compelled to lie to a total stranger on usenet. I
believe you lied about my "smear" as well, which you mysteriously
forgot to cite. Prove me wrong.
>
> > You're a poseur but everyone here knows what you're
>
> > > doing.
>
> > Everyone? Really? Hmm, who's "everyone"? Ben and Mirelle? Really, tell
> > me whom you have in mind and I will ask them.
>
> > That's not good enough now days.
>
> > LOL!
>
> You're not laughing.
That's what LOL signifies. But if you mean I'm not laughing *with*
you, you're right.
H, you need to stop the charade. You will rapidly lose whatever
modicum of respect anyone has left for you.
>
>
> > It's clear you have only one option with me, the smear.
>
> > LOL! H tries to make himself more comfortable.
>
> > > On the merits, which you seldom debate, you have very little chance.
>
> > H, you are aware, aren't you, that you are engaging in public
> > masturbation?
>
> > > Unless you run I'll eat your lunch.
>
> > You are blabbering away as if we have just met. You have had ample
> > opportunity to enjoy the feast, but somehow have gone hungry.
>
> You have yet to say a work yourself on the merits of any of my points.
LOL! It appears that unless I say, "of course, H you are brilliant and
always correct", I am not commenting on your "points".
> You simply smear
Again with the imaginary smear.
and wax ad hominem. Anyone can do that. It takes
> neither knowledge nor brains.
>
> > I know this irritates you but as
>
> > > you always flee
>
> > Get the message ids of these examples of my fleeing.
>
> You've avoided discussing the 1967 war for example.
That's not good enough. You need to supply the quotes. I say your
poor, befuddled "brain" is confusing me with another poster, just as
you did when you thought you were replying to me but weren't. It
should be easy for you to prove me wrong. Do it.
>
> Look, maybe it's
>
> > me with the alzheimer's, i have no recollection of ever leaving a
> > thread with you. Get the id's and post them in reply. I am waiting.
>
> You don't leave the thread. You leave the merits of the issues.
Ah, I flee, but I don't leave the thread, I leave the "merits". I see.
Would you mind referring me to just one of these fleeings, please?
>
>
> > or smear I get to say it by default. The basic reason
>
> > > why it's most unlikely you can succeed is that you represent ethnic
> > > cleansing, wars of choice, a "greater Israel," oppression of your
> > > neighbors at the expense of Americans and Palestinians alike and the
> > > corruption of our Congress. I on the other hand am simply trying to
> > > bring about the restoration of a rational basis for American domestic
> > > and foreign policy.
>
> > H, your public masturbating is really quite disgusting.
>
> Pathetic.
Yes, you are right, it's pathetic, too.
>
>
>
> > > All weaklings such as yourself
>
> > > > eventually must lie, but your lies were so blatant it was a bit scary.
> > > > I have been very comfy in the corners you have backed me into thus
> > > > far, while you, in the rest of the room, have been nothing but an
> > > > embarrassment to yourself.
>
> > > THE MERITS, sir. I'll engage you to the bitter end starting here. I
> > > remind you that I'm an American nationalist. I have no deep affection
> > > for any foreign country. I believe that America should follow the
> > > American national interest and in so far as the "special relationship"
> > > is concerned it should end with one exception.
>
> > Is there a point lurking somewhere in this unnecessary verbiage? If
> > so, get to it, or please, pretty please shut the fuck up.
>
> You pretend to have missed the point.
Nah, you pretend to have made one.
Yes, pathetic.
HHW
> On Jan 9, 9:41 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is plenty of evidence.
>
> That our poor Marine can't follow...
Follow this:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
Don't forget to watch the BBC documentary.
hille...@yahoo.com
<yidsarebollo...@alltimes.yes> wrote:
> Given the hebes flying the attack jets clearly saw the US flag on the
> 'Liberty', yes, it is unique.
Let's go over it, slowly.
1) What is larger, a Mirage III or a flag?
2) Who had more eyes to look around, the pilot or the crew of the
deck?
3) Who had binoculars, the pilot or the crew?
So the crew could not recognize that they were attacked by a Mirage,
a pretty easy to recognize plane. (I could do that at age 10. I had
problems with other planes, but the Mirage was easy.) The pilot did
not see the US flag. You will go forever for the failure of the pilot
but
you never stop and ask "but why did the Liberty's crew failed in a
more simple task?"
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 9, 9:41 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is plenty of evidence.
>
> That our poor Marine can't follow...
Neither can I, ZioTurd. That lengthy bit of straw-grabbery
you lifted did not include ONE instance even remotely
similar to the USS Liberty attack, which was prolonged
with many opportunities for Israel to identify it as a
U.S. vessel, which Israel did in fact do, but of course
continued the attack anyway.
> > What other "examples"? You appended them to this post, not your
> > previous one. I've deleted your Wikipedia spam.
>
> I see.
> I claim that there are many examples of friendly fire.
But none with a prolonged 75-minute intermittent attack, after nine
hours
of surveillance by Israel.
> You delete all other examples and claim that the Liberty is unique.
> There is no need to check any other cases, no need to compare
> to any other battle confusion or miscommunications.
> No need to look for patterns.
>
> The issue is that you are pretty ignorant about the issue of
> friendly fire,
But many of us are pretty informed about the USS Liberty attack,
including a veritable Who's Who of military and gov't officials who
condemned the deliberate attack and cover-up that followed.
HHW
You're responsible for your own style. Your filthy record here will
endure. I'm quite sure you take pride in the way it showcases your
moral fibre, your heroic chutzpah.
I'm interested in systematic examination of given real-world issues.
You don't want to do that. I'm not going to waste time responding to
your filth. If you want to go through the Gelb review of M & W's book,
fine, line by line if you like. I have the book on my desk and should
have access to the Gelb screed on the web. The question is whether
you're serious or just want to distract attention from the policy
matters involved. So far you're doing *nothing* but the latter,
unsuccessfully.
If you want to discuss what millions of Americans believe are the
pathologies inherent in the relationship between the US and Israel,
fine. I'll explain my views as you explain yours. But you seem not
interested in genuine debate. Your recent posts are absolutely nothing
but ad hominem slurs. It makes no sense to respond to that crap. I'm
not interested in visiting you in the gutter.
If you climb out of that gutter and suck it up enough to look at the
issues I'm prepared to deal with you. So far you've displayed no
intellectual courage whatever. What you actually want to do is to
prevent these issues being discussed in the open with hundreds of
readers, many of them a part of our accomplished Jewish minority.
In closing, a few little factoids for you:
Dyan, in his "Story of My Life" does not mention the USS Liberty
crisis.
Benny Morris and Ian Black in their "Israel's Secret Wars, A History
of Israel's Intelligence Services" do not mention the USS Liberty
crisis.
As to wars of choice:
"In the U.S., it is intoned with ritual uniformity that Israel's wars,
prior to the 1982 Lebanon invasion, were strictly defensive. Even
serious political analysts make such statements, for example Hans
Morgenthau, who wrote that 'Four times the Arabs tried to eliminate
Israel by war'; it is, furthermore, 'an undisputed historical fact'
that the wars had to do with 'the existence of a Jewish state in the
midst of the Arab world.' (27) In press reporting, this is also taken
regularly as an undisputed historical fact. As one of innumerable
examples, consider David Shipler's explanation of why the invasion of
Lebanon in 1982 caused a 'crisis of conscience' in Israel:
'...this has been a different kind of war for Israel. Never before did
Israel go to war when its actual existence was not threatened. Never
before was it clearly responsible for initiating the fighting without
being provoked by some Arab military move with devastating
potential.' (28)
"Similarly, Robert Moskin describes Chaim Herzog's history of the Arab-
Israeli wars as 'a volume that anyone who wants to understand what
Israel has endured will have to read or refer to,' (29) implying that
the wars have all been 'endured' by Israel, a passive victim of Arab
aggressiveness. (fn. omitted) The assumption that prior to the 1982
Lebanese invasion, Israel's posture was strictly defensive is shared
not only by a wide range of political analysts and journalists, but
also by people regarded as critics of Israeli adventurism. Jacobo
Timerman, for example, published a critique of the Lebanon invasion
that is regarded as quite harsh, and in part is. He begins by
asserting that Israel's 'previous wars were in defense against
aggression... The fact that the invasion of Lebanon was the first war
launched by the state of Israel could not go unnoticed.' (30)
"Such statements, which are common, are untrue---indeed,
astonishing---....."
The above was written by an American scholar in 1984.
HHW
> On Jan 10, 2:28 am, "B'inyamin C'r'amer"
>
> <yidsarebollo...@alltimes.yes> wrote:
> > Given the hebes flying the attack jets clearly saw the US flag on the
> > 'Liberty', yes, it is unique.
>
> Let's go over it, slowly.
> 1) What is larger, a Mirage III or a flag?
> 2) Who had more eyes to look around, the pilot or the crew of the
> deck?
> 3) Who had binoculars, the pilot or the crew?
Watch the BBC documentary. Putting numbers in front of incompetent
sentences adds nothing to their impact.
>
> So the crew could not recognize that they were attacked by a Mirage,
> a pretty easy to recognize plane. (I could do that at age 10. I had
> problems with other planes, but the Mirage was easy.) The pilot did
> not see the US flag. You will go forever for the failure of the pilot
> but
> you never stop and ask "but why did the Liberty's crew failed in a
> more simple task?"
"The pilot" (there were a bunch of pilots) reported to his command by
radio that it was an American ship and was told to attack nonetheless.
Watch the BBC documentary which examines the cover-ups in both the
United States and in Israel.
Your logic, sir:
P. I: Hillel says "I could recognize a Mirage by the age of ten."
THEREFORE, the Israeli pilots thought the U.S.S. Liberty was an
Egyptian horse transport one third its size.
hille...@yahoo.com
> > That our poor Marine can't follow...
On Jan 10, 8:48 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Follow this:
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
> Don't forget to watch the BBC documentary.
Since our poor Marine still has some problems understanding
how Navy's investigations work, let's go over it, slowly.
As you should have learned in law school, the job of witnesses
is to tell what they saw, not what they concluded. Only an
expert witness can present conclusions. The fact finder
is *not* the witness. Usually it is a jury. The court system
has a tool to find the facts without punishing anybody, so
people can't take the Fifth, it is called "Grand Jury".
The Navy has a similar tool, but instead of using a jury it
uses a "Court of Inquiry". Such a court of inquiry was
held in 1967 and you can find the data in
www.libertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf
You can certainly criticize the conclusions, but it
will be useful if you could explain, using page number
and paragraph, where the court made wrong assumptions.
And now to your "source",
www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
It brings a pretty serious charge:
"retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara
told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that
the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.""
The charge has several problems:
1) It does not explain why Johnson and McNamara acted
that way.
2) It does not explain why Boston, the "senior legal counsel
for the Navy's Court of Inquiry" did not raise the issue in
1967. What kind of counsel sits still when a cover up is
going on? Why did not he contact the Judge Advocate
General's Corps of the Navy and passed the information?
3) It does not explain why the charge was not raised
before 19999, when Admiral Kidd was still alive . What
exactly prevented Boston from raising the issue long
after Johnson and McNamara left office?
Till Boston will manage to explain those issues, especially
#3, his testimony is under a heavy cloud. Just look at
the claims he made:
"I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral
Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that
the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
Those "personal conversations" are what better lawyers
than you call "hearsay". They may have some value
when the person who said so is alive and can give some
testimony about what he said. But, for some reason,
Boston waited till Admiral Kidd was dead.
Anyway, more of your favorite web site junk:
"Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a
deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate."
As you should have known, Moorer served as the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 until 1974.
That was after Johnson and McNamara left office.
If he thought that Admiral Kidd's Court of Inquiry
did a bad job then he had the right, even the duty,
to tell the US Navy to put a new Court of Inquiry
to investigate the Liberty. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Board_of_Inquiry
"In any case, the authority calling for the board of inquiry,
must be of an authority superior to the authority related
to the unanticipated event."
Moorer did not do that in between 1967 and 1970, when
he was the Chief of Naval Operations. He also did not
do that in 1970, only 3 years after
the attack. And he does not explain why he did
not do what he could do to investigate.
But he "wants Congress to investigate".
My explanation for the inaction in 1970, and the
demand now, is that he knew that a new Navy
Court of Inquiry would not support his conclusions.
The Navy would once again put an admiral with long
career as a commander of ships in sea as the head
of the court. And the admiral, based on the same
data as Kidd, and personal experience, will reach
the same conclusions. Congress is a more
like a jury - good lawyering can beat solid data.
What is your explanation?
dsha...@gmail.com
> I reply to any text in any post which I think needs a reply.
Excepting all of those which prove Humbert doesn't know his ass from
his elbow.
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> That lengthy bit of straw-grabbery
> you lifted did not include ONE instance even remotely
> similar to the USS Liberty attack,
I see.
In no other case airplanes attacked US ships...
Are you sure you read the list?
> which was prolonged
> with many opportunities for Israel to identify it as a
> U.S. vessel, which Israel did in fact do, but of course
> continued the attack anyway.
Had you read the testimony you would discovered that
the torpedo boats were not sure what to do. Only
after the Liberty shot at them they decided that it
was probably an enemy target. So yes, this is
pretty unique. But what is *your* point?
> > I see.
> > I claim that there are many examples of friendly fire.
> But none with a prolonged 75-minute intermittent attack, after nine
> hours
> of surveillance by Israel.
Your creative arithmetic is impressive. See
http://www.libertyincident.com/harrisletter.html
"The attack began at 1405, Liberty got out its first
message to USS Saratoga at 1420, and the attack
was over at 1435." How you got from that 75 minutes,
only your math teachers know.
Anyway, if you wanted longer "friendly fire" examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
"3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK)
Companies A and C engage each other in an hour-long
firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons
and artillery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties."
And if you prefer a US example then there is the
three *days* battle in Alaska, see
www.ww2pacific.com/friendly.html
"In the reoccupation of Kiska, Alaska, to retake that
island from the Japanese, 35,000 US Army and Navy
units along with Canadian attacked and fought for three
days in fogbound crags suffering 25 killed, 31 wounded.
The Japanese had already evacuated their 5,000 men
from the island. All the fighting was between friendly units."
Now think why you will be willing to explore the Liberty
forever, but you have no such interest in Kiska or the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)
> But many of us are pretty informed about the USS Liberty attack,
Well Mr. "pretty informed", why don't you read Admiral Kidd's
report first? You can find it in
http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf
hille...@yahoo.com
> "The pilot" (there were a bunch of pilots) reported to his command by
> radio that it was an American ship and was told to attack nonetheless.
Say who?
What is your proof?
Is it in the third rate hearsay level or you just "read it over the
internet"?
Give the primary source, when and where, not "the BBC". Also,
if the intention was to sink the ship, and hide all traces, ASAP,
why were the wrong bombs used?
Anyway, there was a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC-121_Warning_Star
in that area. The US Navy recorded the conversations.
Either 8 administrations (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
Bush, Clinton, Bush) had an interest in a cover up or there
was no cover up.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 10, 10:25 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > That lengthy bit of straw-grabbery
> > you lifted did not include ONE instance even remotely
> > similar to the USS Liberty attack,
>
> I see.
> In no other case airplanes attacked US ships...
> Are you sure you read the list?
>
> > which was prolonged
> > with many opportunities for Israel to identify it as a
> > U.S. vessel, which Israel did in fact do, but of course
> > continued the attack anyway.
>
> Had you read the testimony you would discovered that
> the torpedo boats were not sure what to do. Only
> after the Liberty shot at them they decided that it
> was probably an enemy target. So yes, this is
> pretty unique. But what is *your* point?
I guess my point is that I'm not in the mood to
wallow in the shit with an anti-American ZioNazi.
Your "sources" are all bogus and of course
favor the coverup version of events, to cover
for Israel's crime.
Do you really expect to ever convince informed
Americans that Israel--that has a long history
of crimes against humanity, and a string of war
criminals and terrorists as Prime Ministers--
was innocent of wrongdoing in attacking
the Liberty? Let's just say the cred level
is just about zero.
HHW
> On Jan 10, 10:55 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "The pilot" (there were a bunch of pilots) reported to his command by
> > radio that it was an American ship and was told to attack nonetheless.
>
> Say who?
> What is your proof?
> Is it in the third rate hearsay level or you just "read it over the
> internet"?
> Give the primary source, when and where, not "the BBC". Also,
> if the intention was to sink the ship, and hide all traces, ASAP,
> why were the wrong bombs used?
Shall I play your game? Prove it's wrong.
Have you watched the BBC documentary yet? No one should miss that.
>
> Anyway, there was ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC-121_Warning_Star
> in that area. The US Navy recorded the conversations.
> Either 8 administrations (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
> Bush, Clinton, Bush) had an interest in a cover up or there
> was no cover up.
What are your sources? Say who? Was testimony about these
conversations or the transcripts included in the Naval Board of
Inquiry record? This gets downright funny.
--------------------------------------------------
BBC Documentary on the USS Liberty:
"Dead in the Water"
"If it was an accident, it was the best planned accident I've ever
heard of" - USS Liberty survivor
Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of
the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American
servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense
secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the
incident was an accident.
In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference,
retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading
the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of
'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said retired
Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who
spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel
he formed with other former military officials. The panel also
included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.
Torpedo hole in USS Liberty
"Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?"
Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief
of naval operations at the time of the attack.
Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants
Congress to investigate. [Newsday]
Israel claims the USS Liberty was mistaken for the out-of-service
Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir - can you spot the difference?
El Quseir
USS Liberty
According to a 1981 NSA report on the incident, the El Quseir "was
approximately one-quarter of the Liberty's tonnage, about one-half its
length, and offered a radically different silhouette."
Photos of attack on USS Liberty
Click images for full sized photos
The assault was initiated by French-built high performance Mirage jets
armed with cannons and rockets
After the ship was disabled by aircraft cannon, rockets and napalm,
Israeli torpedo boats were sent in
Crews mess hall used as an emergency room
Liberty deck crew resting after recovering bodies of shipmates
30mm cannon holes
GTR 5 USS Liberty
30mm cannon holes
GTR 5 USS Liberty
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty
survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman
Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior
Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately,
so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag
and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base,
where he was arrested.
Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an
Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The
attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they
were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the
statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.
The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S.
Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has
confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland
Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by
authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any
interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.
[Washington Report]
"Then, inexplicably, at 2 p.m., unmarked Israeli aircraft began
attacking the ship." [Ledger Enquirer]
Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the
single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking.
Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship
and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would
be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked
aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack
the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to
sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.
Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a
position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty
and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on
Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting
with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio
transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially
9-11 itself, Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as
targets for the United States.
The official US investigation is discredited. And with it, every claim
of innocence for Israel that relied on the official investigation as a
source.
The real question facing the American people is why the US Government
seems more concerned with protecting Israel after they are caught
playing these dirty tricks, rather than doing something to convince
Israel not to kill any more Americans.
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell
you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified
information." -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report
on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
NefeshBarYochai
40. And he took his staff in his hand, and chose five smooth stones
from the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, and in
his knapsack; and his sling was in his hand; and he drew near to the
Philistine.
41. And the Philistine came on and drew near to David; and the man who
carried the shield went before him.
42. And when the Philistine looked around, and saw David, he disdained
him; for he was but a youth, red haired and good looking.
43. And the Philistine said to David, Am I a dog, that you come to me
with sticks? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.
44. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give your
flesh to the birds of the air, and to the beasts of the field.
45. Then said David to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword,
and with a spear, and with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of
the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have
defied.
46. This day will the Lord deliver you into my hand; and I will strike
you, and take your head off you; and I will give the carcass of the
camp of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air, and to the
wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a
God in Israel.
47. And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saves not with
sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you to
our hands.
48. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew
near to meet David, that David hurried, and ran toward the army to
meet the Philistine.
49. And David put his hand in his bag, and took from there a stone,
and slung it, and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the
stone sunk his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
50. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a
stone, and struck the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword
in the hand of David.
51. And David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword,
and drew it from its sheath, and slew him, and cut off his head with
it. And when the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they
fled.
52. And the men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued
the Philistines, until you come to the valley, and to the gates of
Ekron. And the wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to
Shaaraim, to Gath, and to Ekron.
53. And the people of Israel returned from chasing after the
Philistines, and they plundered their tents.
54. And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to
Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent.
HHW
> The US Navy recorded the conversations.
> Either 8 administrations (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
> Bush, Clinton, Bush) had an interest in a cover up or there
> was no cover up.
That's a laugher. Here's your logic:
P. 1: No American president has admitted that there was a cover up of
Israeli crimes in the U.S.S. Liberty affair.
THEREFORE, there was no cover up.
NefeshBarYochai
The IDF attacked the Liberty because the radio operator in the message
center of the Liberty was transmitting to and from Egyptian armed
forces and not transmitting to the IDF and Israel was at war with
Egypt.
HHW
I think it was former Chief of Staff Adm. Moorer who described it as a
"classic all-American cover up". One wonders what motive Hillel will
ascribe to this burst of candor? Anti-Semitism I suppose.
Captain Boston, the military lawyer involved from the beginning, who
was interviewed for the BBC documentary "Dead in the Water," said that
the basis for the bankruptcy of the Court of Inquiry was that its
conclusions were not based on the evidence. I don't know what could be
more damning.
"Dead in the Water" everybody. The BBC documentary is compelling on
this issue. It *could not* have been made by an American company.
NefeshBarYochai
hille...@yahoo.com
> > the torpedo boats were not sure what to do. Only
> > after the Liberty shot at them they decided that it
> > was probably an enemy target. So yes, this is
> > pretty unique. But what is *your* point?
On Jan 10, 12:06 pm, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I guess my point is that I'm not in the mood to
> wallow in the shit with an anti-American ZioNazi.
> Your "sources" are all bogus and of course
> favor the coverup version of events, to cover
> for Israel's crime.
Have your read the testimony?
Yes or No?
You can find it on anti Israeli web sites like
www.ussliberty.org/torpedo.htm
#######################################
[CAPT. McGonagle:] When the boats reached an approximate range of
2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signaling to us.
Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli
flag. This was later verified. It was not possible to read the signals
from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of
view by smoke and flames.
1430 [LOG:] ONE ROUND FIRED BY MACHINE GUN 51. C.O. ORDERED HOLD
FIRE.
[CAPT. McGonagle:] At this time, I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell
him to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the
aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in
error. I wanted to hold fire to see if we could read the signal from
the torpedo boat and perhaps avoid additional damage and personnel
injuries. The man on machine gun 51 fired a short burst at the boats
before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do.
########################################
Do you claim the McGonagle lied in the above statement?
Yes or No?
hille...@yahoo.com
> Shall I play your game? Prove it's wrong.
Go for it.
> Have you watched the BBC documentary yet? No one should miss that.
Why?
In what ways is it better than Admiral Kidd's report?
Why secondary sources are better than primary sources?
> > Anyway, there was ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC-121_Warning_Star
> > in that area. The US Navy recorded the conversations.
> > Either 8 administrations (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
> > Bush, Clinton, Bush) had an interest in a cover up or there
> > was no cover up.
> What are your sources? Say who?
Primary and secondary sources.
You can find a good summary in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
read the "NSA Tapes & Recent Developments" chapter.
It points to primary source
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/
Also, www.libertyincident.com/harrisletter.html
"We now know an EC-121 was in the area and
filed no reports of jamming."
hille...@yahoo.com
> > Either 8 administrations (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
> > Bush, Clinton, Bush) had an interest in a cover up or there
> > was no cover up.
On Jan 10, 12:11 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's a laugher. Here's your logic:
> P. 1: No American president has admitted that there was a cover up of
> Israeli crimes in the U.S.S. Liberty affair.
> THEREFORE, there was no cover up.
Therefore the probability of a cover up is low.
You can have a successful cover up, long term, only if:
1) Few people know the secret.
2) Nobody suspects.
If you search for gold for 40 years, and find nothing,
there is a high probability that there is just no gold.
hille...@yahoo.com
> I think it was former Chief of Staff Adm. Moorer who described it as a
> "classic all-American cover up". One wonders what motive Hillel will
> ascribe to this burst of candor? Anti-Semitism I suppose.
The motive is simple - had Moorer learned something from
Liberty he could prevent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)
He had to put those two cases apart, even though
there is plenty of similarity.
But again, when a man who has the means to
investigate does not do so then he has no right
to complain on those who follow his lead.
> Captain Boston, the military lawyer involved from the beginning, who
> was interviewed for the BBC documentary "Dead in the Water," said that
> the basis for the bankruptcy of the Court of Inquiry was that its
> conclusions were not based on the evidence.
So he said...
Boston also signed the original report.
As you should have learned in law school, people who
contradict themselves in testimonies are pretty
worthless as witnesses.
> I don't know what could be more damning.
Going back to the evidence and show conclusions that
can explain better the data.
Do it or shut up.
Count 1
"Dead in the Water" everybody. The BBC documentary is compelling on
this issue. It *could not* have been made by an American company.
Thank you for this recommendation. I will look into finding and watching a
copy. Does this documentary address the obvious question, that is *if* the
IDF knew it was attacking a US ship *before* the attack started then why
they did they break off?
If the documentary did address this, can you summarise their response here?
Again, thank you for the recommendation.
HHW
> > > > There is plenty of evidence.
> > > That our poor Marine can't follow...
>
> On Jan 10, 8:48 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Follow this:
> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
> > Don't forget to watch the BBC documentary.
>
> Since our poor Marine still has some problems understanding
> how Navy's investigations work, let's go over it, slowly.
You really need to see the documentary. EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THE
DOCUMENTARY BY THE BBC. It's title is "DEAD IN THE WATER". It disposes
of a great deal of the obfuscatory crap coming from Hillel.
>
> As you should have learned in law school, the job of witnesses
> is to tell what they saw, not what they concluded.
It's a good idea though that the recording devices at the hearing be
actuated. One of the witnesses who testified for some two or three
hours later discovered that his testimony was not recorded. SEE THE
BBC DOCUMENTARY, "DEAD IN THE WATER".
Only an
> expert witness can present conclusions.
You're out of your depth. You have no idea whether this rule for civil
practice applies in the military courts. The rules of evidence there
are much altered from what we know in civilian life.
The fact finder
> is *not* the witness.
Oh, really? That fatuous observation even required emphasis.
Usually it is a jury.
Of course, juries are commonly found in the military.
The court system
> has a tool to find the facts without punishing anybody, so
> people can't take the Fifth, it is called "Grand Jury".
The grand jury system has nothing to do with military courts. You're
incompetent here.
>
> The Navy has a similar tool, but instead of using a jury it
> uses a "Court of Inquiry". Such a court of inquiry was
> held in 1967 and you can find the data inwww.libertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf
> You can certainly criticize the conclusions, but it
> will be useful if you could explain, using page number
> and paragraph, where the court made wrong assumptions.
Your url is not hot. But should you wish to run off on that goose
chase yourself and make some sort of point about the legitimacy of
that fake inquiry be sure to articulate it and give page number and
paragraph.
>
> And now to your "source",www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
> It brings a pretty serious charge:
> "retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara
> told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that
> the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite
> overwhelming evidence to the contrary.""
He certainly did. What motive would he have to lie about it?
>
> The charge has several problems:
> 1) It does not explain why Johnson and McNamara acted
> that way.
Your logic, sir:
P. 1: The President of the United States and Secretary of Defense gave
orders to subordinates.
P. 2: They did not explain to their subordinates their motives for
giving the orders.
THEREFORE, they did not give the orders.
> 2) It does not explain why Boston, the "senior legal counsel
> for the Navy's Court of Inquiry" did not raise the issue in
> 1967.
Your logic, sir:
P. 1: Captain Boston, then a serving naval officer, and his colleagues
received orders from the President and Defense Secretary to put in the
fix.
P. 2: Captain Boston was not quite ready to retire in 1967 and did not
embarrass the President of the United States or the Secretary of
Defense, his direct superiors at the top of the chain of command, by
accusing them of an obstruction of justice;
THEREFORE Captain Boston lied.
What kind of counsel sits still when a cover up is
> going on? Why did not he contact the Judge Advocate
> General's Corps of the Navy and passed the information?
See above. Captain McGonagle of the Liberty did not acknowledge that
it was a cover up until thirty years later, only two years before his
death.
> 3) It does not explain why the charge was not raised
> before 19999, when Admiral Kidd was still alive . What
> exactly prevented Boston from raising the issue long
> after Johnson and McNamara left office?
It's the same tradition of military loyalty which has prevented Colin
Powell from speaking up about the scams which drove us into war in
Iraq. "Yours is not to question why. . . ."
> Till Boston will manage to explain those issues, especially
> #3, his testimony is under a heavy cloud. Just look at
> the claims he made:
> "I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral
> Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of
> Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that
> the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite
> overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
What more explanation would you want. I'm amazed that you provide us
with this.
> Those "personal conversations" are what better lawyers
> than you call "hearsay". They may have some value
> when the person who said so is alive and can give some
> testimony about what he said. But, for some reason,
> Boston waited till Admiral Kidd was dead.
When did Boston retire?
> Anyway, more of your favorite web site junk:
> "Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a
> deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate."
I'm rather fond of Ennes's book. Little of that is web site material.
>
> As you should have known, Moorer served as the
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 until 1974.
> That was after Johnson and McNamara left office.
> If he thought that Admiral Kidd's Court of Inquiry
> did a bad job then he had the right, even the duty,
> to tell the US Navy to put a new Court of Inquiry
> to investigate the Liberty.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Board_of_Inquiry
Your url is not hot. Try again.
P. 1: A legal officer did not speak up when Hillel thinks he should
have;
THEREFORE, the Liberty inquiry was perfectly fine.
> "In any case, the authority calling for the board of inquiry,
> must be of an authority superior to the authority related
> to the unanticipated event."
>
> Moorer did not do that in between 1967 and 1970, when
> he was the Chief of Naval Operations. He also did not
> do that in 1970, only 3 years after
> the attack. And he does not explain why he did
> not do what he could do to investigate.
> But he "wants Congress to investigate".
P. 1: Admiral Moorer's ambition was to become Chief of Naval
Operations;
P. 2. Admiral Moorer's chances of becoming Chief of Naval Operations
would be gravely diminished by accusing a former President and
Secretary of Defense, various serving senior officers (and himself) of
having committed an obstruction of justice.
THEREFORE, the Court of Inquiry's decision must have been clean as the
new-driven snow.
>
> My explanation for the inaction in 1970, and the
> demand now, is that he knew that a new Navy
> Court of Inquiry would not support his conclusions.
> The Navy would once again put an admiral with long
> career as a commander of ships in sea as the head
> of the court. And the admiral, based on the same
> data as Kidd, and personal experience, will reach
> the same conclusions. Congress is a more
> like a jury - good lawyering can beat solid data.
>
> What is your explanation?
Your explanation is completely innocent of facts. It is a mere
assertion. They explain nothing.
Here's how your mind set on it's usual disinformation mode works:
P. 1: Hillel speculates without factual basis as to what was in the
mind of Adm. Moorer;
P. 2: Hillel speculates without factual basis as to which type of
officer might be assigned to head a new court of inquiry;
P. 3: Hillel also speculates as to the mind-set of the speculative
officer who might, speculatively, be appointed to head a new court of
inquiry.
P. 4: Hillel rejects a Congressional inquiry into the Liberty events
because it might function like a jury and could possibly reach a
result different from the Court of Inquiry.
THEREFORE, The court of inquiry's findings were as clean as the new
driven snow.
HHW
You're at risk of dying before having ever said anything substantive.
You might try it at least.
Count 1
Follow this:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
***
WRH is a sham site, unworthy of quoting.
Here is an example of their poor reasoning process (from the link you
posted);
"Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single
fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking."
BS. It is not at all surprising that the IAF were flying unmarked aircraft
in the region. It was an active war zone and the fact that the planes were
unmarked is neither relevant nor even interesting. "That fact alone" does
absolutely **NOT** 'prove' that they knew who they were attacking.
Unfortunately, just about everything else on Rivero's site is just as lame.
Some even more so.
The Babbling Babbler of Walkinshire
Count 1
***
You know by now that I'm interested in the uses of anti-Semitism as a
political/social weapon.
***
Interesting. I haven't seen you comment a lot on Iran's, Hamas',
Hezbollah's, and Saudi Arabia's use of anti-semitism as a political and
social weapon.
I must have missed them.