Saruman as Sheikh Yassin
Michael O'Neill
>
> A blog at:
>
> http://www.joshclaybourn.com/blog/archives/001925.html
>
> has two photos that show the startling similarity in appearance between
> Saruman of the LOTR film and the Hamas (i.e. terrorist) leader Sheikh
> Ahmed Yassin recently killing by the Israeli military.
>
> I don't agree with all the parallels he or some of the posters draw, but
> there are those photos, so incredibly much alike.
>
> Amazing!
>
> --Mike Perry, Seattle
==========================================================
It just goes to show you how influential an old man in a wheelchair can
be in the Arab world.
But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism look
like fascists.
I have known a lot of Jews growing up in Dublin. People of refinement and
quality without exception.
I have visited what people of a catholic upbringing refer to as the Holy
Land, walked the path of Calvary, seen what's left of the Garden, visited
the Wailing Wall, and touched the stone in Bethlehem.
Atrocities like Shiek Yassin's assassination have no place in a Jewish,
Christian or Muslim world. They achieve nothing, and get the wider
religious practice of Orthodox and "ordinary" Judaeism, as opposed to the
narrower political sphere of secular and military Zionism, a bad name.
Mind you, a crippled Muslim cleric distorting the teachings of Mohammed
and assuring suicide bombers of their martyrdom status is betraying his
*political* leadership, not just his religious status.
Equally the atrocities committed by the Palestinians have not helped the
cause of reconciliation or peace.
In fact, when you have two enemies so implacable in their determination
to destroy each other, its very difficult to see where either side has
the moral upper hand. Neither has, in my opinion.
You'd almost think that, at some level, the extremists of both sides are
working together to ensure the moderates don't get into power...
Israel should be concerned, with worldwide condemnation of the use of a
missile attack to take out a crippled old man and his minders.
But then, we're living in times where atrocities are occurring far too
often. 9-11, Bali, Afghanistan, Iraq, Madrid. Who benefits in a world of
atrocities? Only the extremists, and extremist governments.
I wonder has anyone ever told a terrorist that he's doing the
government's job of re-election for them? That's what usually happens.
But not in Spain. They've sussed it.
M.
"Atrocity is recognized as such by victim and perpetrator alike, by all
who learn about it at whatever remove. Atrocity has no excuses, no
mitigating argument. Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past.
Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity. It is
self-perpetuating upon itself -- a barbarous form of incest. Whoever
commits atrocity also commits those future atrocities thus bred."
The Apocrypha of Muad'Dib
Ty
news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
> But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism look
> like fascists.
Yeah, poor Yassin. Unfairly killed by those mean Israeli fascists. (Do you
even know what a "fascist" is?)
Let's see...under Yassin's inspiration and direction, Hamas launched 425
terrorist attacks against Israel over the past three and a half years. Among
these were more than 50 suicide bombings, such as the March 2002 bombing of
a Passover celebration at a seaside hotel and the June 2002 suicide bombing
of a Jerusalem bus carrying children on their way to school. All told, Hamas
has killed some 377 Israelis and wounded 2,076 others, a horrifyingly huge
number given Israel's relatively small population. Indeed, in proportion to
our own population, that would be similar to al-Qaeda killing 17,000
Americans, and wounding another 93,000. Typically, the majority of Israeli
casualties were children, women and older men. Perhaps not so
coincidentally, the majority of Palestinian casualties are young men...
Well, I say good riddance. And I'm going to be very interested to see if the
leadership of Hamas is like the leadership of every other group of Islamist
lunatics so far. I.e., not so very brave when *they*, rather than their
mindless followers, are being targeted for elimination. Despite their lurid
rhetoric ("kill the infidels, let the dogs drink their blood running in the
street, etc."), these scumbags sure do seem to be interested in saving their
own skins ("I am willing to negotiate").
> Atrocities like Shiek Yassin's assassination have no place in a Jewish,
Atrocities? The bastard engineered the slaughter of 377 innocent people in
the last 3 years alone. Surely even you would agree that he earned what he
got?
Sheesh. Next thing you know, you're gonna be complaining that we took Saddam
down...
<ahem>
--Ty
Tux Wonder-Dog
random in their own homes by the IDF over the last few years.
Makes Hamas look like amateurs. 425 attacks? From September 29th to the
3rd March, 94 Israelis were killed - 27 civilians, 67 soldiers. From the
same date up till Feb 18th, 1,231 Palestinians were killed. O yes, and at
least 344 were children under the age of 18.
A horrifying number considering the small size of the Palestinian
population.
Whose life is more important? Jewish or Palestinian?
I grew up reading about just what happens when a people's lives are
considered less valuable - the atrocities suffered by the Australian
Aborigines, the casual way the South African Bushmen were hunted down, the
way in which Jews suffered during the Middle Ages in Europe - and now you
go and try and tell me that I must take the same attitude as those killer
back then, in relation to the Palestinians?
Maybe you see Saruman as Sheikh Yassin; I see Ariel Sharon as the Witch-King
of Angmar.
Wesley Parish
Ty wrote:
--
"Good, late in to more rewarding well." "Well, you tonight. And I was
lookintelligent woman of Ming home. I trust you with a tender silence." I
get a word into my hands, a different and unbelike, probably - 'she
fortunate fat woman', wrong word. I think to me, I justupid.
Let not emacs meta-X dissociate-press write your romantic dialogs...!!!
J Swanson
news:10603mn...@corp.supernews.com:
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
<snip>
>> Atrocities like Shiek Yassin's assassination have no place in a
>> Jewish,
>
> Atrocities? The bastard engineered the slaughter of 377 innocent
> people in the last 3 years alone. Surely even you would agree that he
> earned what he got?
>
> Sheesh. Next thing you know, you're gonna be complaining that we took
> Saddam down...
>
> <ahem>
Saddam Hussein is alive, waiting to be tried in a legitimate court. Of
course that is the only acceptable way for a civilized nation to treat
criminals that it, as an occupying power, find in the territory it
controls.
John
--
Tar-Elenion, about the nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
"What is relevant is that it was completely worth it if it saved just one
more Allied life (perhaps my father)."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3014887714d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-8&selm=MPG.18f132cf357a1540989745%40netnews.attbi.com
'You think, as is your wont, my lord, of Gondor only,' said Gandalf. 'Yet
there are other men and other lives, and time still to be. And for me, I
pity even his slaves.'
Morgil
"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:10603mn...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
>
> > But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism look
> > like fascists.
>
> Yeah, poor Yassin. Unfairly killed by those mean Israeli fascists. (Do you
> even know what a "fascist" is?)
There are many definitions. Present Israel government fits
into most of them.
> Let's see...under Yassin's inspiration and direction, Hamas launched 425
> terrorist attacks against Israel over the past three and a half years.
Among
> these were more than 50 suicide bombings, such as the March 2002 bombing
of
> a Passover celebration at a seaside hotel and the June 2002 suicide
bombing
> of a Jerusalem bus carrying children on their way to school.
And now that Yassim is gone, they will of course stop all
such activities, right? What a strange little world you live in...
FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
to take over.
> Well, I say good riddance. And I'm going to be very interested to see if
the
> leadership of Hamas is like the leadership of every other group of
Islamist
> lunatics so far. I.e., not so very brave when *they*, rather than their
> mindless followers, are being targeted for elimination.
Considering that they *have* been targets for the Israel
for years now, I'd say their "bravery"(by your definition)
is unquestionable. For cowardly leaders, try White House
(again by *your* definition)
Morgil
Ty
news:c3p9un$26l$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
> > "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
> > > But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism
look
> > > like fascists.
> > Yeah, poor Yassin. Unfairly killed by those mean Israeli fascists. (Do
you
> > even know what a "fascist" is?)
> There are many definitions. Present Israel government fits
> into most of them.
Perhaps you could enlighten us and tell us the particular definition that
you think the Israeli government fits.
> > Let's see...under Yassin's inspiration and direction, Hamas launched 425
> > terrorist attacks against Israel over the past three and a half years.
> > Among
> > these were more than 50 suicide bombings, such as the March 2002 bombing
> > of
> > a Passover celebration at a seaside hotel and the June 2002 suicide
> > bombing
> > of a Jerusalem bus carrying children on their way to school.
>
> And now that Yassim is gone, they will of course stop all
> such activities, right? What a strange little world you live in...
Well, we can now be sure that *Yassin* won't be planning any more murders,
can't we?
Besides -- you have to start somewhere. Even the best pest exterminator
can't kill *all* the roaches with one treatment...
> FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> to take over.
You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset the
little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist attacks
against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
Is *that* your argument?
> > Well, I say good riddance. And I'm going to be very interested to see if
> > the
> > leadership of Hamas is like the leadership of every other group of
> > Islamist
> > lunatics so far. I.e., not so very brave when *they*, rather than their
> > mindless followers, are being targeted for elimination.
>
> Considering that they *have* been targets for the Israel
> for years now
Incorrect. Generally, due to pressure from appeaseniks in Europe and
America, the Israelis have *not* targeted the terrorist leadership. The fact
that mass murderer Yassir Arafat continues to waste oxygen is proof of that.
That is changing now. Israel is now going after these scumbags and I'm very
interested to see how personally brave they really are. Judging from their
peers, I'd have to wager that the answer is "not at all". However, nothing
would please me more than for all the terrorist leaders to be willing to die
for Allah. I'm sure that the IDF will accomodate them.
In my part of the country, we have a saying -- "You shoot rabid dogs. You do
*not* pet them." This seems like good advice with terrorist leaders as well.
Of course, you *are* right that trying to kill them will no doubt make some
of them angry.
Well, you can't make an omelett without breaking a few eggs, I always say.
And I'm just not convinced that you should worry too much about angering
someone who already wants you dead and is doing everything he can to kill
you. Perhaps you disagree?
> ...I'd say their "bravery"(by your definition)
> is unquestionable. For cowardly leaders, try White House
> (again by *your* definition)
<yawn>
When has the White House ordered suicide bombers to specifically target and
slaughter civilians?
--Ty
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
>
> > But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism look
> > like fascists.
>
> Yeah, poor Yassin. Unfairly killed by those mean Israeli fascists. (Do you
> even know what a "fascist" is?)
[snip chest-thumping apologia for an atrocity]
Yes, living less than 150 miles from Belfast I know what a terrorist is
and the effects an ongoing terrorist presence can have on an economy and
the tourist trade.
And of course, having visited the Palestinian enclaves I know what the
effects of repression on a subject populace can be like.
But of course being Irish I'd know from our history and my father's
stories what living under British repression was like for ordinary
people, particularly under the yoke of the Black and Tans.
Living less than one hour flying time away from London I know what
state-sposored terrorism is [the Dublin and Monaghan bombings].
I have also visited Cyprus and Russia and seen first hand the effects of
partition on the one hand and decades of state-led repression on the
other.
> Atrocities? The bastard engineered the slaughter of 377 innocent people in
> the last 3 years alone.
Whether he was a fatherless child or not, I find your argument that he
was solely responsible for the killings specious in the extreme. As far
as I know he acted as a figurehead and indeed during his years in an
Israeli prison he could do little else.
Did the Hamas leadership simply hand him the reins of power on his
release? I think not.
Saying he was resoinsible for those terrible Israeli murders is like
blaming Bobby Sands for terror operations carried out by the IRA. Sands
was a figurehead too. So I understand about that as well, you see.
> Surely even you would agree that he earned what he
> got?
No, quite frankly I don't, and I am disgusted by your comments along with
many people who see Americans and Israelis expressing your kind of
sentiment whenever they murder someone.
The brutal and over-the-top killing of Saddam's sons and the 14-year-old
boy found with them was also an atrocity.
They should have been captured.
That's what tear gas is for.
Like Saddam they should have been alive to stand trial.
That's what the law is for.
The law exists to try people for crimes and make them pay their debt to
society.
The fair application of the law is in everyone's interest, victim,
victim's relatives, perpetrator, perpetrator's relatives alike and the
population as a whole, inconvenient as it might be for a high signatory
to the Geneva Convention, the Protocols and the Hague Convention to be
seen to abide by the law.
The committing of atrocities is to nobody's benefit except those leaders
whose support comes not from their electorate's reasoned appreciation of
good government policies, but from the fear, uncertainty and doubt bred
by continued violence and atrocity.
> Sheesh. Next thing you know, you're gonna be complaining that we took
> Saddam down...
I have no problem with Saddam being deposed.
I have several problems with
(i) the manner in which the invasion was carried out,
(ii) the type of weapons used in the invasion,
(iii) the non-existence the prime cause of the invasion, WMD's,
[how Colin Powell, the expendable, must rue the day he was talked into
giving his detailed presentation on the locations and tonnages of
Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction to the United Nations]
(iv) the undermining of the United Nations,
(v) the destruction of private property and infrastructure in a country
not a war with the UNited States and not implicated in ANY way in the
9-11 atrocity and finally and most importantly
(vi) the wanton and reckless killing of innocent civilians and
journalists by trigger happy American troops during and after the
invasion, including allied troops.
But thank you for your comments Ty.
Its always instructive to see the Fascist disregard for human life
underlined in print.
I'm sure George Walker Bush would say you're a good American.
Here's your dog biscuit.
M.
Michael O'Neill
[usual blather]
> When has the White House ordered suicide bombers to specifically
> target and slaughter civilians?
> --Ty
Just before they agreed to pay the head of Pakastini ISI compensation for
the families of the Al-Q'ida terrorists who were on the planes that were
flown into the twin towers.
But take out the phrase "ordered suicide bombers" so that the question
becomes:
> When has the White House told anyone to specifically
> target and slaughter civilians?
And the list grows significantly:
Just before they urged Pinochet to redouble his efforts in Chile to quell
the popular resistence to the overthrow of the Allende democratically
elected government.
Just before they handed over the names of suspected persons unfriendly to
their presence in Indochina and South East Asia during the Vietnam War.
Just before they flew back to America from Indonesia befofe the invasion
of East Timor.
Just before the invasion of Cyprus.
Just before the commencement Operation Condor in Latin America creating
the continent-wide atrocity of "the disappeared".
Just before they invaded Guatamala to take land back from landless
peasants.
I could go on, but I'd hate to see you so completely rebutted. I'll leave
you a little dignity, which is a lot more than your precious White House
has left hundreds of thousand of people the world over.
You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
Nazis, didn't you?
They weren't in the White House then, of course...
M.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> >
> > "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
> >
> > > But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism
look
> > > like fascists.
> >
> > Yeah, poor Yassin. Unfairly killed by those mean Israeli fascists. (Do
you
> > even know what a "fascist" is?)
>
> [snip chest-thumping apologia for an atrocity]
Pointing out that the poor little darling planned the *murder* of hundreds
of civilians is chest-thumping?
Hmmn.
> And of course, having visited the Palestinian enclaves I know what the
> effects of repression on a subject populace can be like.
I'll just bet you do.
> > Atrocities? The bastard engineered the slaughter of 377 innocent people
in
> > the last 3 years alone.
>
> Whether he was a fatherless child or not, I find your argument that he
> was solely responsible for the killings specious in the extreme.
You must try *really* hard to excuse his role in planning the murder of
hundreds of civilians. Yet, you also complain that the Israelis did to him
what he's done to Israeli civilians for decades.
How can you reconcile such absurdly inconsistent positions without losing
your slender grip on reality?
> > Surely even you would agree that he earned what he
> > got?
>
> No, quite frankly I don't, and I am disgusted by your comments along with
> many people who see Americans and Israelis expressing your kind of
> sentiment whenever they murder someone.
>
> The brutal and over-the-top killing of Saddam's sons and the 14-year-old
> boy found with them was also an atrocity.
Aw, poor babies. I'm sure the thousands of people tortured by Saddam's boys
share your angst.
<shrug>
I find your coddling of murderers to be sickening, cowardly and despicable.
There is nothing moral or civilized in such behavior. People like you are
why Bad Guys get as far as they do.
> They should have been captured.
>
> That's what tear gas is for.
Well, maybe they just aren't as smart as you are.
But one of the things that I learned on becoming a grownup is that the Real
World almost never gives us a perfect option. Instead, we must choose from a
variety of sub-optimum options. Such as tolerating casualties in the short
run to likely save far more lives in the long run. Or taking a course of
action with necessarily incomplete information. Or eliminating a murderous
scumbag before he can kill hundreds more of your civilians.
I've also found that people who decry these real world choices in favor of
some hypothetical (and utterly impractical) ideal choice are almost always
(a) disengenuous; (b) feckless; (c) cowardly; (d) lazy; or/and (e) deluded,
immature or otherwise incompetent.
Thus I believe it is with you. You posture and moralize incessantly. Yet,
despite all the self-righteous jeremiads, you are all too willing to let the
Israelis suffer horrendous civilians casualties at the hands of uncivilized
psychopaths, rather than allow the Israelis to simply kill the murdering
scumbags.
Indeed, where were all you whingeing lefties when Hamas murdered Israeli
civilians a few days back? Apparently, you have no problem with homicide
bombers killing civilians, but a big problem with the Israelis taking out
the bastard who planned it.
Such hypocrisy makes me skeptical of your tiresome moralizing.
Even worse than your hypocrisy is the complete absence of logic in your
positions. You condemn the Israelis for killing a leader of Hamas -- yet you
fail to condemn Hamas for *targeting* Israeli civilians.
Do you realize that proportionally, Hamas has killed or wounded the
equivalent of about 18,000 British civilians? I wonder if you'd be so
peace-loving if some Islamic lunatics slaughtered that many of *your*
civilians. Of course, it's always easy to demand that someone else turn the
other cheek, isn't it?
It makes me wonder how anyone can take you seriously...
> Like Saddam they should have been alive to stand trial.
>
> That's what the law is for.
Oh, so terrorism is a law enforcement issue?
What color did you say the sky was in your world?
> The fair application of the law is in everyone's interest, victim,
> victim's relatives, perpetrator, perpetrator's relatives alike and the
> population as a whole, inconvenient as it might be for a high signatory
> to the Geneva Convention, the Protocols and the Hague Convention to be
> seen to abide by the law.
Uh, you need to read the Geneva Conventions sometimes. You'll find that most
of these Islamist lunatics are war criminals under international law. This
means that any nation that apprehends them is required to try them under
their military code of justice or turn them over to another nation that
will. And as (unlawful) combatants, they are legitimate military targets.
You lefties seem to believe that international law is some warm and fuzzy
system. It isn't. It's quite harsh, especially on non-state combatants.
Kinda reminds me of some lefty friends who (loudly) demanded that the
Guantanamo detainees be treated per international law. I pointed out that
under international law, they would be war criminals, guilty of major
breaches of the Laws of War and would be subject to the death penalty under
the UCMJ. If the US didn't want to try them, the appropriate remedy under
international law would be to return them to Afghanistan for trial as war
criminals. If I were a detainee's lawyer or family member, I'd be screaming
"please stop helping me now". Funny thing; after I explained that, the
lefties stopped whining about the detainees...
> The committing of atrocities is to nobody's benefit except those leaders
> whose support comes not from their electorate's reasoned appreciation of
> good government policies, but from the fear, uncertainty and doubt bred
> by continued violence and atrocity.
Well, time will tell. I do note Israeli deaths from suicide bombings were
halved in the last year, compared to the previous year. All due to the far
more aggressive (and unpopular in Europe and in the Middle East) measures
the Israelis have taken in that period. This contradicts the absurd notion
that terrorism can't be beaten.
> > Sheesh. Next thing you know, you're gonna be complaining that we took
> > Saddam down...
>
> I have no problem with Saddam being deposed.
Are you sure?
> I have several problems with
<snip>
As I thought. To avoid admitting that in fact you did/do oppose Saddam's
removal, you resort to the following pathetic technique:
1. You claim to support his removal;
2. But you then impose conditions that make it impossible for him to
actually be removed.
What's surprising is that you honestly don't seem to realize how artless and
obvious you are.
You really should stick to your forte -- hysterical overreaction -- and
leave the subtlety to people smarter than you. Which would be most of them.
> But thank you for your comments Ty.
You're welcome.
> Its always instructive to see the Fascist disregard for human life
> underlined in print.
Again, do you actually know what a "fascist" is? Or are you (again) using
hackneyed cliches because you simply lack the skill to rebut my arguments?
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>
> [usual blather]
Uh, why not answer some of the questions -- if you can:
***
You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset the
little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist attacks
against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
Is *that* your argument?
And I'm just not convinced that you should worry too much about angering
someone who already wants you dead and is doing everything he can to kill
you. Perhaps you disagree?
***
> > When has the White House ordered suicide bombers to specifically
> > target and slaughter civilians?
> Just before they agreed to pay the head of Pakastini ISI compensation for
> the families of the Al-Q'ida terrorists who were on the planes that were
> flown into the twin towers.
Never heard that. Got a *credible* source for that info?
("Credible source" means a non-conspiracy kook source.)
> But take out the phrase "ordered suicide bombers" so that the question
> becomes:
>
> > When has the White House told anyone to specifically
> > target and slaughter civilians?
>
> And the list grows significantly:
<snip of insane lefty rant blaming all problems on America>
You're not one of those folks who claims to have been abducted by aliens,
are you?
> You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> Nazis, didn't you?
Uh no.
Of course, I do know that liberal icon Joseph Kennedy admired Hitler and
actively opposed US intervention in WWII.
Tell me -- are you auditioning for "The X Files: The Next Generation"?
--Ty
Morgil
"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:1060cor...@corp.supernews.com...
> > FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> > leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> > to take over.
>
> You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset the
> little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
> innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist attacks
> against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
>
> Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
>
> Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
> everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
> lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
>
> Is *that* your argument?
So you *want* the hardlinesrs to take over and kill even more
Isrealians?? I guess I should have known you were a closet-Nazi.
That explains a lot really. Of course your complete ignorance of
facts goes a long way as well.
Morgil
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:406036A8...@indigo.ie...
> > Ty wrote:
> >
> > [usual blather]
>
> Uh, why not answer some of the questions -- if you can:
>
> ***
>
> You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset the
> little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
> innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist attacks
> against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
>
> Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
>
> Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
> everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
> lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
>
> Is *that* your argument?
>
> And I'm just not convinced that you should worry too much about angering
> someone who already wants you dead and is doing everything he can to kill
> you. Perhaps you disagree?
>
> ***
One rhetorical question does not an examination make. I answered no
questions because you asked no questions, Ty.
> > > When has the White House ordered suicide bombers to specifically
> > > target and slaughter civilians?
>
> > Just before they agreed to pay the head of Pakastini ISI compensation for
> > the families of the Al-Q'ida terrorists who were on the planes that were
> > flown into the twin towers.
>
> Never heard that. Got a *credible* source for that info?
Got a credible source for denial?
But to answer specifically, criminals seldom confess, but their actions
speak louder than words.
Following the money and seeing who has benefitted from 9-11 points the
way straight to the Bush adminstration and their allies, the Saudis and
the Pakistani Secret Service.
It was telling that Mossad or German intelligence *wasn't* involved.
> ("Credible source" means a non-conspiracy kook source.)
Sorry Ty, but since every source that questions the government of the day
inevitably gets branded as a "conspiracy kook", your Fascist attempt to
erase the existence of people who disagree will be treated with the
derision it deserves.
So-called "conspiracy kooks" have been proved right in the past.
Did you know there are people who *still* believe the "lone gunman"
theory of the Kennedy Assassination is the truth?
Amazing what some people will believe when its peddled by official
sources and any dissenters get labelled "conspiracy kooks".
Despite the obvious evidence on the Zapruder Tape.
Then there's the Minority Report of Congressional investigation into the
Pearl Harbour attack, which, along with recently released documents,
proves that FDR knew of the impending attack and kept the troops at Pearl
in the dark.
And of course there's the plan for Operation Northwoods. Formally
documented and released to public view.
Both the above are on the National Security Archive website IIRC. We'll
see the 9-11 atrocity there in time.
> > But take out the phrase "ordered suicide bombers" so that the question
> > becomes:
> >
> > > When has the White House told anyone to specifically
> > > target and slaughter civilians?
> >
> > And the list grows significantly:
>
> <snip of insane lefty rant blaming all problems on America>
This is not a leftist rant.
Documentation and written statements not controverted by the persons
named there or subject to libel action is available online and most is
derived from official sources.
The White House Policy of the discrimate use of overwhelming force in the
killing of civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia is in the public
domain and online.
The White House policy regarding support for the Suharto regime and the
supply of USG weapons and material which the White House knew was not to
be used for defensive purposes is in the public domain and online.
The White House Policy regarding the kidnapping and murder of René
Schneider including the supply of weapons and finance to the perpetrators
is in the public domain and online.
The record of White House Policy on Guatamala is in the public domain and
online.
> You're not one of those folks who claims to have been abducted by aliens,
> are you?
>
> > You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> > Nazis, didn't you?
>
> Uh no.
Did you know that they laundered money for Nazi industrialist Thyssen and
were paid handsomely for their trouble?
> Of course, I do know that liberal icon Joseph Kennedy admired Hitler
> and actively opposed US intervention in WWII.
Senator Charles Lindbergh opposed American involvement in the Second
World War as did 80% of Americans before the FDR-generated Pearl Harbour
atrocity - that changed their minds.
Lindbergh cannot be called a coward, and Kennedy served his country in
the war.
> Tell me -- are you auditioning for "The X Files: The Next Generation"?
>
> --Ty
No Ty.
I'm publicising some known facts about how the leaders of America, the
home of the brave, carry out foreign policy and domestic assassinations.
Did you know, for example, that Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush are
on record as not knowing where they were when Kennedy was assassinated?
M.
Ty
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
> > > FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> > > leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> > > to take over.
> >
> > You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset
the
> > little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
> > innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist
attacks
> > against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
> >
> > Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
> >
> > Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
> > everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
> > lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
> >
> > Is *that* your argument?
>
> So you *want* the hardlinesrs to take over and kill even more
> Isrealians??
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time buying your story that he was a "moderate"
terrorist leader.
> I guess I should have known you were a closet-Nazi.
I invoke Godwin's Law and claim victory.
> That explains a lot really. Of course your complete ignorance of
> facts goes a long way as well.
Non answer.
Try again:
***
You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset the
little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist attacks
against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
Is *that* your argument?
***
--Ty
Aris Katsaris
>
> FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> to take over.
There exists no moderate side in Hamas leadership. Its
manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
and woman and child.
No moderate exists in Hamas -- there simply exist people
that support the position that Hamas should be constantly
attacking and killing Israelis, and people claiming that occasionally
they should pause so as to have a chance to regroup and
strike at a later time.
Aris Katsaris
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > Uh, why not answer some of the questions -- if you can:
> >
> > ***
> >
> > You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset
the
> > little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
> > innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist
attacks
> > against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
> >
> > Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
> >
> > Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
> > everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
> > lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
> >
> > Is *that* your argument?
> >
> > And I'm just not convinced that you should worry too much about angering
> > someone who already wants you dead and is doing everything he can to
kill
> > you. Perhaps you disagree?
> >
> > ***
>
>
> One rhetorical question does not an examination make. I answered no
> questions because you asked no questions, Ty.
Yes I did. You are simply unwilling to answer them because your answers (if
truthful) will make your absurdity obvious. So let's try again:
***
You know, you're right. This is terrible. You wouldn't want to upset the
little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter a bunch of
innocent civilians. Why, I'll bet they might even launch terrorist attacks
against Israeli civilians using suicide bombers.
Oh wait -- they're already doing that, aren't they?
Soooo -- you say that the Israelis should coddle lunatics who have done
everything in their power to slaughter Israeli civilians. Otherwise, the
lunatics will get mad and, uh, slaughter Israeli civilians?
Is *that* your argument?
And I'm just not convinced that you should worry too much about angering
someone who already wants you dead and is doing everything he can to kill
you. Perhaps you disagree?
***
> > > Just before they agreed to pay the head of Pakastini ISI compensation
for
> > > the families of the Al-Q'ida terrorists who were on the planes that
were
> > > flown into the twin towers.
> >
> > Never heard that. Got a *credible* source for that info?
>
> Got a credible source for denial?
Uh no. But I really don't think it's my job to *disprove* your crazy
assertions. I rather think it's your job to prove them.
> But to answer specifically, criminals seldom confess, but their actions
> speak louder than words.
Ah, so the answer to my question is "no, I don't have any credible sources
to back up my claims".
> Following the money and seeing who has benefitted from 9-11 points the
> way straight to the Bush adminstration and their allies, the Saudis and
> the Pakistani Secret Service.
What *are* they teaching in schools these days? This is your evidence? Some
half baked delusional rant about purported beneficiaries of 9-11?
> > ("Credible source" means a non-conspiracy kook source.)
>
> Sorry Ty, but since every source that questions the government of the day
> inevitably gets branded as a "conspiracy kook",
Uh, no. I brand kooks as such on their own merits. You have *earned* the
designation of "conspiracy kook", so wear it with pride.
> ...your Fascist
Will you ever tell us what you think the definition of "fascist" is?
> attempt to
> erase the existence of people who disagree
"Erase the existence of people"???
Perhaps you think too highly of my powers.
<grins evilly; runs fingers through hair to conceal protruding horns>
Or do you?
KNEEL! KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! BWAHAHAHA...er, uh <ahem>.
> will be treated with the derision it deserves.
<points; laughs>
Sadly, *you* are the main target of derision. You've even managed to make
bobbyhaqq seem halfway sane by comparison -- no mean feat, that.
On the positive side, you do seem to be taking my advice -- emphasizing your
strengths (hysterical overreaction) rather than your weaknesses (reasoned
discourse).
> So-called "conspiracy kooks" have been proved right in the past.
When?
> Did you know there are people who *still* believe the "lone gunman"
> theory of the Kennedy Assassination is the truth?
<scratches head>
Uh...yeah.
> Then there's the Minority Report of Congressional investigation into the
> Pearl Harbour attack
<sigh>
I get it -- you *are* auditioning for the new X-Files series, aren't you?
> > <snip of insane lefty rant blaming all problems on America>
>
> This is not a leftist rant.
And I'm not a conservative.
<snip of insane lefty/conspiracy rant>
How sad it must be to live a life filled with such paranoia.
> > > You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> > > Nazis, didn't you?
> >
> > Uh no.
>
> Did you know that they laundered money for Nazi industrialist Thyssen and
> were paid handsomely for their trouble?
Uh no.
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes -- got any credible --
i.e., non kook -- sources for this information?
> > Of course, I do know that liberal icon Joseph Kennedy admired Hitler
> > and actively opposed US intervention in WWII.
>
> Senator Charles Lindbergh opposed American involvement in the Second
> World War as did 80% of Americans before the FDR-generated Pearl Harbour
> atrocity - that changed their minds.
Ahhhh, that explains it all now.
Personally, I disagree. I don't think it was FDR. I think it was Col.
Mustard in the Conservatory with the lead pipe...
> > Tell me -- are you auditioning for "The X Files: The Next Generation"?
> No Ty.
You should. You're a natural.
> I'm publicising some known facts about how the leaders of America, the
> home of the brave, carry out foreign policy and domestic assassinations.
>
> Did you know, for example, that Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush are
> on record as not knowing where they were when Kennedy was assassinated?
Uh no.
Did you know that I'm not on record as not knowing where I was when Milli
Vanilli were stripped of their Grammy?
--Ty
Ty
news:c3piai$147o$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>
> "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c3p9un$26l$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> > FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> > leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> > to take over.
>
> There exists no moderate side in Hamas leadership. Its
> manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
> a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
> and woman and child.
So you think that being a "moderate" is incompatible with thirsting for the
murder of every Israeli man, woman and child? How narrow minded of you! :-)
> No moderate exists in Hamas -- there simply exist people
> that support the position that Hamas should be constantly
> attacking and killing Israelis, and people claiming that occasionally
> they should pause so as to have a chance to regroup and
> strike at a later time.
Agreed.
Personally, I think that they're psychopaths who've found a way to indulge
their murderous perversions in a socially acceptible way. People like that
will give no quarter -- and they deserve no quarter.
It's real simple -- terrorists are at war with civilization itself. There is
no middle ground in this fight.
Indulgent feckless Western lefties who delude themselves into thinking that
they can reason with such lunatics are simply whistling through the
graveyard. You cannot reasonably expect to befriend a rabid dog, no matter
how much you appease him. <shrug>
I figure that the left will come around when a terrorist nuke goes off on
the Arc d'Triomphe or in downtown Berlin. Pity that it will take tens of
thousands of dead French civilians for them to realize who the Bad Guys
really are.
--Ty
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:c3piai$147o$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> >
> > "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c3p9un$26l$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > >
> > > FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> > > leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> > > to take over.
> >
> > There exists no moderate side in Hamas leadership. Its
> > manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
> > a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
> > and woman and child.
>
> So you think that being a "moderate" is incompatible with thirsting for the
> murder of every Israeli man, woman and child? How narrow minded of you! :-)
>
> > No moderate exists in Hamas -- there simply exist people
> > that support the position that Hamas should be constantly
> > attacking and killing Israelis, and people claiming that occasionally
> > they should pause so as to have a chance to regroup and
> > strike at a later time.
>
> Agreed.
Agreed.
> Personally, I think that they're psychopaths who've found a way to indulge
> their murderous perversions in a socially acceptible way. People like that
> will give no quarter -- and they deserve no quarter.
Agreed.
> It's real simple -- terrorists are at war with civilization itself. There is
> no middle ground in this fight.
Agreed.
> Indulgent feckless Western lefties who delude themselves into thinking that
> they can reason with such lunatics are simply whistling through the
> graveyard. You cannot reasonably expect to befriend a rabid dog, no matter
> how much you appease him. <shrug>
That's "whistling past the graveyard", but - agreed.
> I figure that the left will come around when a terrorist nuke goes off on
> the Arc d'Triomphe or in downtown Berlin. Pity that it will take tens of
> thousands of dead French civilians for them to realize who the Bad Guys
> really are.
I agree with all your points except this one Ty.
We all know who the Bad Guys really are.
M.
Ty
> I agree with all your points except this one Ty.
> We all know who the Bad Guys really are.
Okay, I'll bite. Who do you think the Bad Guys are?
--Ty
Morgil
"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:1060m85...@corp.supernews.com...
Those who indicate that terrorists blowing up a nuke
in Europe would be a good thing, troll.
Morgil
Morgil
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> kirjoitti
viestissä:c3piai$147o$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>
> "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c3p9un$26l$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> > FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> > leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> > to take over.
>
> There exists no moderate side in Hamas leadership. Its
> manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
> a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
> and woman and child.
Moderate by Hamas standards of course. Those who
think negotiations and ceasefire are a possibility and
don't want all out war. The next few months will show
if there's a difference.
Morgil
Michael O'Neill
Its like painting by numbers.
M.
Bruce Tucker
> The brutal and over-the-top killing of Saddam's sons and the
14-year-old
> boy found with them was also an atrocity.
Saddam's sons were fighting back with everything they had. They *chose*
to go out in a blaze of glory rather than be taken alive. In a wartime
situation it's not their enemies' responsibility to risk their lives
further in futile attempts to preserve their lives when they themselves
don't wish to be captured. Saddam himself was given the opportunity to
surrender, and he took it and was not harmed in any manner.
I don't think you can fairly compare that situation to an assassination
by firing air-to-surface antitank missiles at an old man in a wheelchair
in a civilian-populated area in a semi-autonomous neighboring country
with whom no official state of hostilities exists. I would think even
those who agree with the policy of targeting Hamas and other terrorist
leaders would recognize that this method is outrageous. Of the seven
people killed only two aside from Yassin himself are identified as being
members of his entourage - the others were presumably just unlucky
passers-by or fellow worshippers. This sort of "collateral damage" in a
community with which Israel is supposedly engaged in peaceful
negotiations is unacceptable regardless of the perceived need, and is
going to cause severe repercussions worldwide.
I can only imagine the justifiable outrage, among political foes of the
current government as well as supporters, if al Qaeda or some other
organization assassinated an American government official by firing
missiles into a church or a school where that official was making an
appearance, killing schoolchildren or churchgoers who happened to be
there at the same time. We would think that the most barbaric and
outrageous attack in our history after 9/11. Now whether Yassin has done
things that no American official has done to merit his fate is a
question I won't debate, but it appears that at least four ordinary
civilians died with him and many others were severely injured; are we
saying that just by virtue of being Palestinian and being at the same
mosque or on the same street as Yassin they merited death? I cannot
accept such a conclusion.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Michael O'Neill
Well, normally I don't go to Jewish websites. Its a given that there's a
huge agenda here but I like to see how other people view the world [why
else would I even bother ot read your posts]. The piece below caught my
eye and started me thinking. I note for the record that the views
expressed are those of Mr. Loftus and not mine. However, if true, the
comments in the piece certainly make you wonder why America hasn't
already deposed the Saudi Princes for being such allegedly repressive
dictators and anti-American to boot. Then there's the similarity to
Fascist Eugenics, the declaration of an entire people as sub-human [the
Jews] and the known friendship between the Bush family and the Saudi
Royals. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Certainly there is an equal and
opposite to Wahhabinism in Zionist teachings which regard the rest of us
as Goys, but there you go.
From:
http://www.jewishxpress.com/issue27/coverup.html
Lawsuit to expose federal cover-up of Saudi-funded terrorist net in
Florida
The following is a statement by John Loftus
For 20 years, I have served without compensation as a lawyer for federal
whistleblowers within the US intelligence community. In the last year, I
have received highly classified information from several of my
confidential clients concerning a Saudi covert operation. The Saudi
relationship is so sensitive that, for more than a decade, federal
prosecutors and counter-terrorist agents have been ordered to shut down
their investigations for reasons of foreign policy.
I am filing a lawsuit in Hillsborough County Court to expose the manner
in which Florida charities were used as a money laundry for
tax-deductible terrorism. The complaint cites specific testimony,
including highly classified information which has never been released
before. Simply put, the Saudi Government was laundering money through
Florida charities run by the University of South Florida - Tampa
Professor Sami Al Arian for the support of terrorist groups in the Middle
East. Through the Al Arian network and others, the Saudi Government
secretly funded Al Qaida, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
The Saudi purpose was twofold: the destruction of the State of Israel and
the prevention of the formation of an independent Palestinian State.
Two particular terrorist groups, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
were specifically chosen and funded by the Saudis for their willingness
to undermine Arafat's Palestinian Authority. The secret Saudi goal was
to create such animosity between Israel and the Palestinian Authority
that it would wreck any chance for the creation of an independent
Palestinian State.
Their tactics specifically called for the intimidation or murder of those
Palestinians who were willing to work with Israel for peace. To put it
bluntly, the covert Saudi network in Florida funded the murders of fellow
Muslims for the crime of wanting to create the first democratic Arab
State. Whatever harm the Israelis may have done, they did build an
excellent public education system, including several universities, for
the benefit of their Palestinian neighbors. That was the problem:
While literacy in the Arab world is below 50%, in Israel it is 97%.
Israel is the only place in the Middle East where an Arab woman can vote.
After 50 years, Israel has created the first Arab class exposed to
democracy, literacy and western values. To the Saudis, a democratic
Palestinian nation would be a cancer in the Arab world, a destabilizing
example of freedom that would threaten Arab dictators everywhere. As King
Fahd said, "Next to the Jews, we hate the Palestinians the most." The
harder the Israelis and Palestinians worked for peace, the more money
King Fahd poured into his murder for hire program. The Saudi Government
has already begun its spin operations, claiming that this terror network
was a rogue operation financed by a radical Saudi businessman without the
support or knowledge of the Saudi Government.
The truth is that many of the Saudi princes, notably Prince Bandahar and
Prince Alwaheed, are good and loyal friends of America who want to lead
Saudi Arabia into the modern world. Unfortunately, they are now in the
minority in their own country. King Fahd is on his death bed, and his
nephew and heir apparent, Crown Prince Abdullah depends on the most
radical southern and eastern clans for his political base. The southern
faction is the center of popular support for Al Qaida and the Taliban,
because it is the home of the most extreme Muslim sect, the Wahabbis.
Ninety-nine percent of the Muslim world rejects the Wahabbi religious
tenets as utterly repugnant to the teachings and examples of the Prophet
as written down in the Hadith. Since most Wahabbis are functionally
illiterate, they cannot read about this conflict on their own.
Typically, they memorize a few passages of the Koran taken out of
context, and never read the accompanying Hadith for explanation. For the
example, Wahabbis are taught by rote that Jews are subhuman who should be
killed as a religious duty. In contrast, the Hadith explains that the
prophet Mohammed honored Jews, married a Jewish wife, forbade forced
conversions of Jews, always bowed in respect when a Jewish funeral
passed, and promised that good and faithful Jews would go to Paradise
just as good Muslims and Christians would, and that the Jews would have
their Holy Place in the West (meaning Jerusalem) while Muslims would have
their Holy Place in the East (meaning Mecca). Illiteracy is a weapon of
oppression. The Saudis, and their Wahabbis, the Taliban, have decreed
that women cannot work or even sit in the front seat of a car. In
contrast, the Hadith records that the Prophet worked for his wife, and
that she drove her own caravans in international commerce. The Prophet
forbade racism, the Wahabbis practice it, especially against their
non-Arab Shiite minority. The Wahabbis (both in Saudi Arabia and the
Taliban) discriminate viciously against women.
The Prophet, who lovingly raised three daughters, insisted that women
should have substantially equal rights in contract, ownership and
divorce. The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and
recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices
tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme
importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to
unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful
Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia
and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Muslim scholars
speak derisively about the primitive Wahabbi apostasy, but rarely in
public. The reason for this deafening silence is simple: Most Mosques in
the world are impoverished and depend upon Saudi subsidies for their
operation. In return, however, the Saudis have gained a foothold for
proselytizing and radicalizing the Muslim youth through religious
education in the form of militant Wahabbism. Children learn to hate
because they are being taught that way.
The Saudis dabbled with funding anti-Semitic hate groups as a means of
breaking down American support for Israel. After the fall of communism,
the Saudis took over funding the most militant terror organizations for
direct attacks against Jewish and Palestinian supporters of the peace
process. Year after year, members of the intelligence community warned
that a rising wave of terror was coming. [TEXT MISSING] something about
terrorism, he was told to stop because it would embarrass the Saudi
Government. John O'Neill quit his job as head of FBI counter-terrorism
for the same reason. Jonathan Pollard went to jail. Federal agents in
Tampa, who had known about the Saudi-Sami Al Arian connection since 1990,
were ordered to drop the investigation in 1995. The Saudi
influence-buying machine had effectively shut down any threat of criminal
prosecution. Those Americans, including a former President, who lobbied
for the Saudis have a lot to answer for. So do the Saudis. With the
explosive growth of Al Qaida and their Taliban allies, the Saudis finally
recognized that they had gone too far.
As Osama Bin Laden laughingly related on videotape, he was approached
prior to the attack on the twin Trade Towers by his relatives, who
offered him $300,000,000 to cancel the operation. Apparently, the Bin
Laden family really had not broken off all ties and knew exactly what was
coming. So, my clients say, did the Saudis. Six months later, a
much-chagrined Prince Abdullah belatedly announced that the Saudis would
release the names of the terrorists whom their charities had unwittingly
funded, but only in Somalia and Asia. The main Saudi charities in
Herndon, Virginia, and the Al Arian network in Florida are still
untouched. My clients are betting that the American influence peddlers
hired by the Saudis will succeed once again in derailing a federal
investigation. They came to me for help in exposing the cover-up.
That is why I am filing this lawsuit. In the months to come, the American
public may finally begin to learn why the Saudi-Sami Al Arian terror
networks went untouched for so long. It wasn't an intelligence failure,
it was a foreign policy failure. The orders were not to embarrass the
Saudi government. Year after year, the cover-up orders came from the
State Department and the White House. The CIA, the FBI, and the Justice
Department just did what they were told. No one intended the harsh
consequences of letting the Saudis get away with it again and again.
Only after September 11, when the Treasury Department found the financial
transactions linking the Saudi charities directly to Osama bin Laden, did
American officials realize the extent of their betrayal. We are not alone
in our grief and anger. Saudi money sabotaged every Israeli initiative to
make peace. The bewildered Palestinians may finally realize that they
have been stabbed in the back by an Arab brother. The rules have changed
after September 11, but the bottom line remains the same: If we want to
stop terrorism, we have to tell the Saudis to stop funding it.
============================================
FWIW
M.
Bruce Tucker
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> kirjoitti
> viestissä:c3piai$147o$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> >
> > manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
> > a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
> > and woman and child.
>
> Moderate by Hamas standards of course. Those who
> think negotiations and ceasefire are a possibility and
> don't want all out war.
Such a position is antithetical to that of Hamas - Hamas is by
definition the faction of the Palestinian polity which believes that
negotiations and peace are useless and wants all-out war a la outrance.
Why do you think Hamas ramped *up* its suicide bombings every time there
was a cease-fire or it looked like Arafat was getting anywhere with his
negotiations? Those who believe in moderation are members of other
Palestinian factions.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > The brutal and over-the-top killing of Saddam's sons and the
> 14-year-old
> > boy found with them was also an atrocity.
>
> Saddam's sons were fighting back with everything they had. They *chose*
> to go out in a blaze of glory rather than be taken alive.
<snip agreed points>
I think you miss the point.
It *is* in the interest of the occupying power under the Geneva
Convention to bring criminals such as Saddam's sons to justice, not least
to bring them before the new Iraq judiciary for trial in order to
legitamise the incoming government.
This was a clumsy, missed opportunity for the United States. I'm being
generous. They couldn't have been more stupidly ignorant of the needs of
the political situation.
As I said before, tear gas would have solved the problem. I didn't see
any reporting of its use at all.
This isn't about leniency for the sons of Saddam.
This isn't about about lawful killing by the state where the matter is
beyond doubt.
This is about supporting the rule of law.
So if Uday and Usay had been captured, tried, found guilty and sentenced
to death I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Due procees of Law
would have occurred and the occupying force would have shown itself to be
upholders of law and order, the basis of civil freedoms.
It didn't happen that way, discrediting America and its allies in the
invasion.
The fact that not a few Americans post to this newsgroup supporting the
use of summary execution when dealing with criminals seems to say
something about the way they view the effectiveness of their own criminal
justice system.
For the record, I *do* have a beef about state killing where the matter
isn't beyond doubt as has been reported about Death Row inmates in the
United States and the quality of legal representation available to them.
I *do* have a beef about the killing of the 14-year-old, a senseless
death which has received little news coverage, then or since.
M.
Morgil
"Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:c3pq53$6rs$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> kirjoitti
> > viestissä:c3piai$147o$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> > >
> > > There exists no moderate side in Hamas leadership. Its
> > > manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
> > > a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
> > > and woman and child.
> >
> > Moderate by Hamas standards of course. Those who
> > think negotiations and ceasefire are a possibility and
> > don't want all out war.
>
> Such a position is antithetical to that of Hamas - Hamas is by
> definition the faction of the Palestinian polity which believes that
> negotiations and peace are useless and wants all-out war a la outrance.
There was also a more moderate side, which
acknowledged that a compromise would not
be entirely out of question if circumstances
were right, but it got blown away.
Morgil
Bruce Tucker
> I think you miss the point.
No, I think *you* do.
You speak of "summary executions" and "due process" as if Uday and Qusay
were judicially murdered on someone's orders. They were not. Terms like
"summary execution" and "due process" have no meaning in a firefight. A
death in mutual combat can by no stretch of the imagination be
considered a "summary execution", and defending oneself in battle is
hardly a denial of one's enemies' "due process". It's absurd to claim
that it is. Equally absurd is your comparison of such a death,
particularly where the battle was initiated by the deceased, to an
assassination-by-Hellfire missile.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Jette Goldie
"Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
> MP wrote:
> >
> > A blog at:
> >
> > http://www.joshclaybourn.com/blog/archives/001925.html
> >
> > has two photos that show the startling similarity in appearance between
> > Saruman of the LOTR film and the Hamas (i.e. terrorist) leader Sheikh
> > Ahmed Yassin recently killing by the Israeli military.
> >
> > I don't agree with all the parallels he or some of the posters draw, but
> > there are those photos, so incredibly much alike.
> >
> > Amazing!
> >
> > --Mike Perry, Seattle
>
>
> ==========================================================
>
> It just goes to show you how influential an old man in a wheelchair can
> be in the Arab world.
>
> But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism look
> like fascists.
>
> quality without exception.
>
> I have visited what people of a catholic upbringing refer to as the Holy
> Land, walked the path of Calvary, seen what's left of the Garden, visited
> the Wailing Wall, and touched the stone in Bethlehem.
>
> Atrocities like Shiek Yassin's assassination have no place in a Jewish,
> religious practice of Orthodox and "ordinary" Judaeism, as opposed to the
> narrower political sphere of secular and military Zionism, a bad name.
>
> Mind you, a crippled Muslim cleric distorting the teachings of Mohammed
> and assuring suicide bombers of their martyrdom status is betraying his
> *political* leadership, not just his religious status.
>
> Equally the atrocities committed by the Palestinians have not helped the
> cause of reconciliation or peace.
>
> In fact, when you have two enemies so implacable in their determination
> to destroy each other, its very difficult to see where either side has
> the moral upper hand. Neither has, in my opinion.
Build a bl**dy wall around the whole place, put a lid on it,
refuse to let any aircraft leave their airspace, and wait
20 years. No interaction - no trading, no refugees - NO
contact. In that time there *will* be peace..... of one sort
or another.
--
Jette
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
"I don't care WHO started it - STOP IT NOW!!"
Ty
I never said that or implied it. So are you a liar or merely an illiterate
buffoon?
Hmmn. Now that I think about it, I may have posed a false delimma. You could
be a lying, illiterate buffoon.
--Ty
Viet Vet from Hell
news:106152v...@corp.supernews.com:
> Hmmn. Now that I think about it, I may have posed a false delimma. You
> could be a lying, illiterate buffoon.
delimma?
illiterate
buffoon
--
viet vet fro m hell
Backpeddling in defense of red herrings is no vice.
Ad hominem in pursuit of strawmen is no virtue.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > Okay, I'll bite. Who do you think the Bad Guys are?
> Well, normally I don't go to Jewish websites. Its a given that there's a
> huge agenda here but I like to see how other people view the world [why
> else would I even bother ot read your posts]. The piece below caught my
> eye and started me thinking. I note for the record that the views
> expressed are those of Mr. Loftus and not mine. However, if true, the
> comments in the piece certainly make you wonder why America hasn't
> already deposed the Saudi Princes for being such allegedly repressive
> dictators and anti-American to boot.
Allegedly?
Hey listen, I'll be the first to agree that we ought to put Saudi Arabia at
the top of the target list for the War on Terror...
> ...The bewildered Palestinians may finally realize that they
> have been stabbed in the back by an Arab brother.
If the Palestinians haven't figured out that *all* of their "Arab brothers"
have exploited them for the past 50 years, I just don't think that they'll
suddenly wise up now.
--Ty
Ty
news:Xns94B5D5731...@195.67.237.53...
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in
> news:106152v...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Hmmn. Now that I think about it, I may have posed a false delimma. You
> > could be a lying, illiterate buffoon.
>
> delimma?
Yas. Corect. Egsactly.
--Ty
Morgil
"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:106152v...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Those who indicate that terrorists blowing up a nuke
> > in Europe would be a good thing, troll.
>
> I never said that or implied it. So are you a liar or merely an illiterate
> buffoon?
>
> Hmmn. Now that I think about it, I may have posed a false delimma. You
could
> be a lying, illiterate buffoon.
Or could it be you just didn't realise what you were saying?
It would seem most of your comments fall to that cathegory.
Morgil
Tar-Elenion
says...<snip>
>
> > > > You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> > > > Nazis, didn't you?
> > >
> > > Uh no.
> >
> > Did you know that they laundered money for Nazi industrialist Thyssen and
> > were paid handsomely for their trouble?
>
> Uh no.
>
> I know I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes -- got any credible --
> i.e., non kook -- sources for this information?
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8054
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Ty
> "Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> kirjoitti
> viestissä:106152v...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c3pnc8$ehf$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> > > Those who indicate that terrorists blowing up a nuke
> > > in Europe would be a good thing, troll.
> >
> > I never said that or implied it. So are you a liar or merely an
illiterate
> > buffoon?
> >
> > Hmmn. Now that I think about it, I may have posed a false delimma. You
> could
> > be a lying, illiterate buffoon.
>
> Or could it be you just didn't realise what you were saying?
Nah.
I think it's pretty much that you're a lying, illiterate buffoon. However, I
invite you to prove that you're *not* a lying idiot. Please explain how the
following statement can be reasonably interpreted as holding that a
terrorist nuke going off in Europe is a good thing:
"I figure that the left will come around when a terrorist nuke goes off on
the Arc d'Triomphe or in downtown Berlin. Pity that it will take tens of
thousands of dead French civilians for them to realize who the Bad Guys
really are."
Personally, I think that you freaked out when you realized that my
prediction may prove true and that Europe might face terrible consequences
for their coddling of Islamist fanatics. <blink> Did you honestly think that
being nice to Islamist lunatics would keep them from slaughtering you if
they get the chance?
Of course, I wonder how any sane nation or leader could possibly sell
nuclear technology to those nuts. I'd be *very* interested in hearing from
Monsieur Ch-Iraq what bizarre thought process led him to conclude "oui, oui,
what we really need to do is sell nuclear technology to the Iraqis..." Yeah,
Jacques, *capital* idea, that. I guess that's more of that "sophisticated"
European thinking.
<rolls eyes>
--Ty
Zimri
> Build a bl**dy wall around the whole place, put a lid on it,
> refuse to let any aircraft leave their airspace, and wait
> 20 years. No interaction - no trading, no refugees - NO
> contact. In that time there *will* be peace..... of one sort
> or another.
That's what Ariel Sharon is doing.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
because everyone else is doing it
Joe
"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:10603mn...@corp.supernews.com...> news:406008DB...@indigo.ie...
>
> > But as for Yassin, his death merely makes the people behind Zionism look
> > like fascists.
>
Let's see, under Sharon, Israel's army has been busy grinding Palestinian
children into hamburger, using human shields to knock on doors of supected
militants, using tanks to fire on children who throw rocks,
bobbyhaqq
> I invoke Godwin's Law and claim victory.
>
First time I recall you claiming victory it was in the early days of
the war in Iraq, as I recall you were posting about some WMD that were
found, and how the entire thing would be finished early and the US
would find the people of Iraq welcoming and the dying would be
finished in no time.
Michael O'Neill
The peace of death was not what I had in mind.
Of course, it worked well enough in Scotland, didn't it?
:-)
M.
Michael O'Neill
Not only do they realise it, they see it as a kind of honour to be on the
front line against the "Great Satan", America.
Until I read about FDR and the Pearl Harbour atrocity, read the bried for
Operation Northwoods, read about the atrocities committed at the
instigation of and Nixon and with the blessing of Ford, and learnt about
the CIA's and the current Administration's involvement with the people
behind 9-11 I always discounted that slander.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > I think you miss the point.
>
> No, I think *you* do.
Ehrm, no, I think *you* do Bruce.
How long have you been back?
> You speak of "summary executions" and "due process" as if Uday and Qusay
> were judicially murdered on someone's orders. They were not.
On the contrary, they *were* murdered on someone's orders.
Unless you state that you accept that without reservation, you are seen
to support the terrible vista of roving bands of American troops engaging
in firefights with people firing from houses throughout Iraq.
Ummm, on second thought, you *may* be right.
No-one's orders. That would explain a lot of what's gone on *since* the
American "victory" in Iraq.
> Terms like
> "summary execution" and "due process" have no meaning in a firefight.
Yes, you're right again. A massacre is a massacre.
> A
> death in mutual combat can by no stretch of the imagination be
> considered a "summary execution", and defending oneself in battle is
> hardly a denial of one's enemies' "due process". It's absurd to claim
> that it is.
Its absurd to call an invasion of a country without sufficient means to
defend itself and possessing no weapons of mass destruction with which to
do so a "war". Don't flatter yourself.
> Equally absurd is your comparison of such a death,
> particularly where the battle was initiated by the deceased, to an
> assassination-by-Hellfire missile.
Correct. Uday and Usay at least had a chance to fire back.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> O'Neil blathered
>
> >> The brutal and over-the-top killing of Saddam's sons and the
> >14-year-old boy found with them was also an atrocity.
>
> have been a problem. Of course, you don't care to see that.
It has been reported that Saddam *had* tried to appease the Americans
before the war, but that his overtures had been ignored and/or
disregarded by the White House.
Why would his sons have expected different treatment? Not that I am
suggesting they deserved anything other then a fair trial, but remember
they had just seen their father's offer to treat ignored by America and
their country invaded, with Bushes "dead or alive" threat still ringing
in their ears. Remember too that as the ultimate "insiders" they already
knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and that America was
invading on a pretext.
Even if an offer to surrender had been made by the occupying force, was
it likely they would have trusted the person making the offer? I think
not. This was foreseeable by the commanders of the army, who must have
been briefed on the real position regarding weapons of mass destruction
before engaging the enemy.
Otherwise that would have been a gross dereliction of duty by the
administration. That left it up to the commanders of the occupying forces
to devise a strategy capture the key players and bring them to justice.
But you act as if you know that they were offered a chance to surrender
and refused it. Do you have proof of this?
> You just want to
> complain becasue neither opne of them will
> lead Iraq and continue Sodamn's legacy.
Saddam has other descendants, who, given the tribal nature of social
organisation in Iraq, may one day be called to govern that country.
The basis for the occupying force apprehending or killing the three
people is not clear. No crimes were committed by them on American soil.
In fact no crimes were committed by Saddam on American soil as far as I
am aware and no support was given to Al-Q'ida by any Iraqi, which is a
secular country and had waged a ten-year war with Iran, an Islamic
Fundamentalist country. There was in short no causus belli.
I think one should beware of using force instead of the law as a means to
deal with conflicts.
I think one should go out of one's way to capture and try criminals and
then deal with them in accordance with the law. If that law includes the
death penalty and the case for the prosecution and defense alike if clear
and without fudging, then so be it.
Not following this policy could well become the undoing of the World's
Greatest Nation.
However in Uday and Usay's case the full facts about the confrontation
are not known.
What is known is that an occupying force killed two known people of
terrible reputation and a third unknown person. That there was an
extended firefight resulting in three deaths is fact.
What is also known is that tear gas or nerve gas or stun grenades could
have been used to capture them alive, a far more persuasive way of
showing America stood for the rule of law than killing them.
America is not the world's policeman and is not fit for the task given
its repeated and continuing policy of supporting third world dictators
[Uzbekistan] with arms, materiel, "advisors" and intelligence
information.
Its self-styling as the World's Greatest Nation is given the lie when you
realise that far greater crimes have been committed by its citizens and
remain unpunished.
I see that fat little fuck Henry Kissinger is still free, and he makes
Saddam look like a choirboy. So does that sycophant Alexander Haig. Both
are running rightfully scared of the concept of Universal Jurisdiction as
applied to war crimes and you can add Colin Powell and both Bush
Presidents to that list.
If you're going to police the world, look to your own backyard first,
before others do. Because a corrupt police force is a terrible thing.
Indeed some would say the term "the World's Greatest Nation" is a
misnomer. Personally I think America being run for the benefit of
commercial interests to the detriment of the population as a whole
without much thought for the consequences.
It must be the only nation where the commercial, military, criminal,
legal and political spheres coincide and overlap to such a degree, apart
from third world fascist dictatorships. No wonder America likes doing
business with them!
Let the facts speak for themselves:
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam03232004.html
From the outside its a bit like watching an animation of a dinosaur
eating all around it, forgetting its young and leaving them to fend for
themselves. And we all know what happened to the dinosaurs. I think I'll
go smash an egg.
M.
Michael O'Neill
Given that you're right wing and see the "left coming round" as a Good
Thing, any close parsing of the comments you made reveals that you'd be
happy to see a terrorist nuke going off in the middle of Paris to achieve
your political ambitions.
Even the Germans didn't destroy Paris, which puts you somewhere to the
right of Hitler.
Invoke all the laws you want Ty, it cannot hide that fact that you're
some Fascist bastard!
M.
Ty
news:406172F8...@indigo.ie...
<snip of anguished hand wringing over the fates of poor Saddam and his boys>
> The basis for the occupying force apprehending or killing the three
> people is not clear. No crimes...
They were enemy combatants under international law -- and probably also
unlawful combatants under IL as well. This made them legitimate military
targets.
Is this really so hard?
> Not following this policy could well become the undoing of the World's
> Greatest Nation.
Interesting that people like you can only imagine a positive scenario that
involves American defeat, capitulation or appeasement. And that when we fail
to do so, you conclude that this will somehow weaken us. How bizarre.
> America is not the world's policeman
Funny, you seem to have been quite happy with American troops being sent (by
a Democrat that is) to Kosovo, Haiti, etc.
Curious that you've become a sudden isolationist.
> Its self-styling as the World's Greatest Nation is given the lie when you
> realise that far greater crimes have been committed by its citizens and
> remain unpunished.
Heh. You whine about purported American abuses while ignoring *far* worse
crimes committed by nearly everyone else. Amazing.
> I see that fat little fuck Henry Kissinger is still free, and he makes
> Saddam look like a choirboy. So does that sycophant Alexander Haig.
As bad as Saddam? Have you taken your medication today??
Funny, I don't recall either of those guys feeding people into woodchippers,
torturing children or maintaining rape squads. Saddam -- who you apparently
have so much sympathy for -- did all these things and far more.
You are either insane or a *very* sorry person indeed to have such sympathy
for the likes of Saddam.
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > Nah.
> >
> > I think it's pretty much that you're a lying, illiterate buffoon.
However, I
> > invite you to prove that you're *not* a lying idiot. Please explain how
the
> > following statement can be reasonably interpreted as holding that a
> > terrorist nuke going off in Europe is a good thing:
> >
> > "I figure that the left will come around when a terrorist nuke goes off
on
> > the Arc d'Triomphe or in downtown Berlin. Pity that it will take tens of
> > thousands of dead French civilians for them to realize who the Bad Guys
> > really are."
>
> Given that you're right wing and see the "left coming round" as a Good
> Thing, any close parsing of the comments you made reveals that you'd be
> happy to see a terrorist nuke going off in the middle of Paris to achieve
> your political ambitions.
I challenge you to prove this from my statement. Otherwise we'll have no
choice but to conclude that you are not only a paranoid conspiracy kook, but
also a lying idiot.
> Invoke all the laws you want Ty, it cannot hide that fact that you're
> some Fascist bastard!
Oooh -- a devastating rebuttal. Is this the best you lefty conspiracy kooks
can do?
I am embarrassed for you -- which is saying a lot considering how little I
think of you.
--Ty
Ty
news:oy68c.895347$X%5.648976@pd7tw2no...
> Let's see, under Sharon, Israel's army has been busy grinding Palestinian
> children into hamburger, using human shields to knock on doors of supected
> militants, using tanks to fire on children who throw rocks,
Again, the data appear to disagree with this assertion. It appears most
Palestinian casualties are among armed young men, while most Israeli
casualties are among unarmed noncombatants.
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > If the Palestinians haven't figured out that *all* of their "Arab
brothers"
> > have exploited them for the past 50 years, I just don't think that
they'll
> > suddenly wise up now.
>
> Not only do they realise it, they see it as a kind of honour to be on the
> front line against the "Great Satan", America.
I learned some years ago not to be surprised when crazy people believe crazy
things...
Which is why I am seldom surprised by anything *you* say.
Amused, perhaps. But not surprised.
--Ty
Michael O'Neill
It says you know you overstepped the mark and are now backpedaling for
all you're worth, fascist.
M.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > Invoke all the laws you want Ty, it cannot hide that fact that you're
> > > some Fascist bastard!
> >
> > Oooh -- a devastating rebuttal. Is this the best you lefty conspiracy
kooks
> > can do?
> >
> > I am embarrassed for you -- which is saying a lot considering how little
I
> > think of you.
> >
> > --Ty
>
> It says you know you overstepped the mark and are now backpedaling for
> all you're worth, fascist.
Well, I'd rather be a lefty-defined "fascist" than a pathetic, paranoid,
lying conspiracy kook.
But unfortunately, the guilty pleasure of making you look like an idiot
(admittedly not too difficult) is no longer worth the tedium of reading your
drivel.
Therefore, I think that I must also now bid you adieu.
--Ty
Michael O'Neill
Silly boy.
> > The basis for the occupying force apprehending or killing the three
> > people is not clear. No crimes...
>
> They were enemy combatants under international law -- and probably also
> unlawful combatants under IL as well. This made them legitimate military
> targets.
They weren't combatants at all. America unlawfully invaded the country.
> Is this really so hard?
Seeing through the American Administration's lies is easy. You just stop
giving them and benefit of the doubt, ask "who benefits?" and follow the
money.
> > Not following this policy could well become the undoing of the World's
> > Greatest Nation.
>
> Interesting that people like you can only imagine a positive scenario that
> involves American defeat, capitulation or appeasement. And that when we fail
> to do so, you conclude that this will somehow weaken us. How bizarre.
On the contrary, if America decides to prosecute its war criminals I'll
be even happier, whatever its military or economic status.
> > America is not the world's policeman
> Funny, you seem to have been quite happy with American troops being sent (by
> a Democrat that is) to Kosovo, Haiti, etc.
Kosovo is a crisis still occurring. The UN involvement had terrible terms
of reference, were unable because of them to achieve their objectives of
protecting the population and the ultimate resolution of the matter is
still not achieved. Where the Balkan states are concerned, I doubt that
it will ever be achieved.
> Curious that you've become a sudden isolationist.
I believe in the use of force in self defense. Defending others is always
a difficult proposition, especially where they're happy to let you do all
the work. I'd have thought America knew all about that by now.
> > Its self-styling as the World's Greatest Nation is given the lie when you
> > realise that far greater crimes have been committed by its citizens and
> > remain unpunished.
>
> Heh. You whine about purported American abuses while ignoring *far* worse
> crimes committed by nearly everyone else. Amazing.
I cannot call to mind people committing great crimes, including
terrorism, in the western hemisphere where they weren't sponsored by
American covert intervention.
> > I see that fat little fuck Henry Kissinger is still free, and he makes
> > Saddam look like a choirboy. So does that sycophant Alexander Haig.
>
> As bad as Saddam? Have you taken your medication today??
Much worse than Saddam.
> Funny, I don't recall either of those guys feeding people into woodchippers,
> torturing children or maintaining rape squads. Saddam -- who you apparently
> have so much sympathy for -- did all these things and far more.
You must have a censored press. Oh, wait, you *do*.
> You are either insane or a *very* sorry person indeed to have such sympathy for the likes of Saddam.
That was an inexpert piece of oratory on your part.
Saying someone is much worse than Saddam is not the same thing as
expressing sympathy for Saddam.
Not agreeing with your position is not the same as agreeing with someone
else's.
I show Saddam no sympathy, he deserves none.
I ask for no mercy for Saddam. He must be tried and judged in accordance
the law.
I endorse none of the crimes carried out in his name.
However, I accept what America refuses to see [but will shortly be faced
with], that part of the reason Saddam's regime was so brutal was in order
to keep Iraq together as a unified state - for the ultimate benefit of
the Western agenda in the Middle East.
I ask for the law to be upheld, because without the law, we are merely
technologically-empowered savages.
As for Kissinger and Haig, both were Nixon's advisors during Vietnam, but
Kissinger went far beyond being a mere advisor. He micro-managed the
bombing of Laos and Cambodia in every detail.
He was and is far worse than Saddam ever could be, even if Saddam was
still in power, given the limitations of Saddam's funding, his
manufacturing base and the training and equipment of his army.
When America finally gets around to prosecuting people like Kissinger for
their War Crimes and their Crimes Against the Peace, then I'll believe it
might be able to deal fairly with the rest of the world.
As for you Ty, you're overdue an education about Kissinger the Great
America Statesman. The piece below is from a book by Christopher Hitchens
entitled The Trial of Henry Kissinger. It only deals with Kissinger's
culpability in Vietnam. There is much more. Kissinger still advise
America. I have read his book "Does America Need a Foreign Policy." He
wanted Saddam removed too... after you read this, you might ask yourself
"why?"
M.
================================================
From:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1809_302/69839383/p15/article.jhtml?term=kissinger
A SAMPLE OF CASES: KISSINGER'S WAR CRIMES IN INDOCHINA
Some statements are too blunt for everyday, consensual discourse. In
national "debate," it is the smoother pebbles that are customarily
gathered from the stream and used as projectiles. They leave less of a
scar, even when they hit. Occasionally, however, a single hard-edged
remark will inflict a deep and jagged wound, a gash so ugly that it must
be cauterized at once. In January 1971 there was a considered statement
from General Telford Taylor, who had been chief U.S. prosecuting counsel
at the Nuremberg trials. Reviewing the legal and moral basis of those
hearings, and also the Tokyo trials of Japanese war criminals and the
Manila trial of Emperor Hirohito's chief militarist, General Yamashita
Tomoyuki, Taylor said that if the standard of Nuremberg and Manila were
applied evenly, and applied to the American statesmen and bureaucrats who
designed the war in Vietnam, then "there would be a very strong
possibility that they would come to the same end [Yamashita] did." It is
not every day that a senior American soldier and jurist delivers the
opinion that a large portion of his country's political class should
probably be hooded and blindfolded and dropped through a trapdoor on the
end of a rope.
In his book Nuremberg and Vietnam, General Taylor also anticipated one of
the possible objections to this legal and moral conclusion. It might be
argued for the defense, he said, that those arraigned did not really know
what they were doing; in other words, that they had achieved the foulest
results but from the highest and most innocent motives. The notion of
Indochina as some Heart of Darkness "quagmire" of ignorant armies has
been sedulously propagated, then and since, in order to make such a
euphemism appear plausible. Taylor had no patience with such a view.
American military and intelligence and economic and political teams had
been in Vietnam, he wrote, for much too long to attribute anything they
did "to lack of information." It might have been possible for soldiers
and diplomats to pose as innocents until the middle of the 1960s, but
after that time, and especially after the My Lai massacre of March 16,
1968, when serving veterans reported major atrocities to their superior
officers, nobody could reasonably claim to have been uninformed, and of
those who could, the least believable would be those who--far from the
confusion of battle--read and discussed and approved the panoptic reports
of the war that were delivered to Washington.
General Taylor's book was being written while many of the most
reprehensible events of the Indochina war were still taking place, or
still to come. He was unaware of the intensity and extent of, for
example, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Enough was known about the
conduct of the war, however, and about the existing matrix of legal and
criminal responsibility, for him to arrive at some indisputable
conclusions. The first of these concerned the particular obligation of
the United States to be aware of, and to respect, the Nuremberg
principles:
Military courts and commissions have customarily rendered their judgments
stark and unsupported by opinions giving the reasons for their decisions.
The Nuremberg and Tokyo judgments, in contrast, were all based on
extensive opinions detailing the evidence and analyzing the factual and
legal issues, in the fashion of appellate tribunals generally. Needless
to say they were not of uniform quality, and often reflected the logical
shortcomings of compromise, the marks of which commonly mar the opinions
of multi-member tribunals. But the process was professional in a way
seldom achieved in military courts, and the records and judgments in
these trials provided a much-needed foundation for a corpus of judge-made
international penal law. The results of the trials commended themselves
to the newly formed United Nations, and on Dec. 11, 1946, the General
Assembly adopted a resolution affirming "the principles of international
law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment
of the Tribunal."
However history may ultimately assess the wisdom or unwisdom of the war
crimes trials, one thing is indisputable: At their conclusion, the United
States Government stood legally, politically and morally committed to the
principles enunciated in the charters and judgments of the tribunals. The
President of the United States, on the recommendations of the Departments
of State, War and Justice, approved the war crimes programs. Thirty or
more American judges, drawn from the appellate benches of the states from
Massachusetts to Oregon, and Minnesota to Georgia, conducted the later
Nuremberg trials and wrote the opinions. General Douglas MacArthur, under
authority of the Far Eastern Commission, established the Tokyo tribunal
and confirmed the sentences it imposed, and it was under his authority as
the highest American military officer in the Far East that the Yamashita
and other such proceedings were held. The United States delegation to the
United Nations presented the resolution by which the General Assembly
endorsed the Nuremberg principles.
Thus the integrity of the nation is staked on those principles, and today
the question is how they apply to our conduct of the war in Vietnam, and
whether the United States Government is prepared to face the consequences
of their application.
Facing and cogitating these consequences himself, General Taylor took
issue with another United States officer, Colonel William Corson, who had
written that
"[r]egardless of the outcome of ... the My Lai courts-martial and other
legal actions, the point remains that American judgment as to the
effective prosecution of the war was faulty from beginning to end and
that the atrocities, alleged or otherwise, are a result of a failure of
judgment, not criminal behavior."
To this Taylor responded:
"Colonel Corson overlooks, I fear, that negligent homicide is generally a
crime of bad judgment rather than evil intent. Perhaps he is right in the
strictly causal sense that if there had been no failure of judgment, the
occasion for criminal conduct would not have arisen. The Germans in
occupied Europe made gross errors of judgment which no doubt created the
conditions in which the slaughter of the inhabitants of Klissura [a Greek
village annihilated during the Occupation] occurred, but that did not
make the killings any the less criminal."
Referring this question to the chain of command in the field, General
Taylor noted further that the senior officer corps had been
"more or less constantly in Vietnam, and splendidly equipped with
helicopters and other aircraft, which gave them a degree of mobility
unprecedented in earlier wars, and consequently endowed them with every
opportunity to keep the course of the fighting and its consequences under
close and constant observation. Communications were generally rapid and
efficient, so that the flow of information and orders was unimpeded."
"These circumstances are in sharp contrast to those that confronted
General Yamashita in 1944 and 1945, with his troops reeling back in
disarray before the oncoming American military powerhouse. For failure to
control his forces so as to prevent the atrocities they committed, Brig.
Gens. Egbert F. Bullene and Morris Handwerk and Maj. Gens. James A.
Lester, Leo Donovan and Russel B. Reynolds found him guilty of violating
the laws of war and sentenced him to death by hanging."
Nor did General Taylor omit the crucial link between the military command
and its political supervision; again a much closer and more immediate
relationship in the American-Vietnamese instance than in the
Japanese-Filipino one, as the regular contact between, say, General
Creighton Abrams and Henry Kissinger makes clear:
"How much the President and his close advisers in the White House,
Pentagon and Foggy Bottom knew about the volume and cause of civilian
casualties in Vietnam, and the physical devastation of the countryside,
is speculative. Something was known, for the late John McNaughton (then
Assistant Secretary of Defense) returned from the White House one day in
1967 with the message that "We seem to be proceeding on the assumption
that the way to eradicat the Vietcong is to destroy all the village
structures, defoliate all the jungles, and then cover the entire surface
of South Vietnam with asphalt.""
This was noticed (by Townsend Hoopes, a political antagonist of General
Taylor's) before that metaphor had been extended into two new countries,
Laos and Cambodia, without a declaration of war, a notification to
Congress, or a warning to civilians to evacuate. But Taylor anticipated
the Kissinger case in many ways when he recalled the trial of the
Japanese statesman Koki Hirota, who served briefly as Prime Minister and
for several years as Foreign Minister between 1933 and May, 1938, after
which he held no office whatever. The so-called "rape of Nanking" by
Japanese forces occurred during the winter of 1937-38, when Hirota was
Foreign Minister. Upon receiving early reports of the atrocities, he
demanded and received assurances from the War Ministry that they would be
stopped. But they continued, and the Tokyo tribunal found Hirota guilty
because he was "derelict in his duty in not insisting before the Cabinet
that immediate action be taken to put an end to the atrocities," and "was
content to rely on assurances which he knew were not being implemented."
On this basis, coupled with his conviction on the aggressive war charge,
Hirota was sentenced to be hanged.
Melvin Laird, as secretary of defense during the first Nixon
Administration, was queasy enough about the early bombings of Cambodia,
and dubious enough about the legality or prudence of the intervention, to
send a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking, "Are steps being taken,
on a continuing basis, to minimize the risk of striking Cambodian people
and structures? If so, what are the steps? Are we reasonably sure such
steps are effective?" No evidence has surfaced that Henry Kissinger, as
national security adviser or secretary of state, ever sought even such
modest assurances. Indeed, there is much evidence of his deceiving
Congress as to the true extent to which such assurances as were offered
were deliberately false. Others involved--such as Robert McNamara;
McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser to both Kennedy and Johnson;
and William Colby--have since offered varieties of apology or contrition
or at least explanation. Henry Kissinger, never. General Taylor described
the practice of air strikes against hamlets suspected of "harboring"
Vietnamese guerrillas as "flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention on
Civilian Protection, which prohibits `collective penalties,' and
`reprisals against protected persons,' and equally in violation of the
Rules of Land Warfare." He was writing before this atrocious precedent
had been extended to reprisal raids that treated two whole
countries--Laos and Cambodia--as if they were disposable hamlets.
For Henry Kissinger, no great believer in the boastful claims of the war
makers in the first place, a special degree of responsibility attaches.
Not only did he have good reason to know that field commanders were
exaggerating successes and claiming all dead bodies as enemy soldiers--a
commonplace piece of knowledge after the spring of 1968--but he also knew
that the issue of the war had been settled politically and
diplomatically, for all intents and purposes, before he became national
security adviser. Thus he had to know that every additional casualty, on
either side, was not just a death but an avoidable death. With this
knowledge, and with a strong sense of the domestic and personal political
profit, he urged the expansion of the war into two neutral
countries--violating international law--while persisting in a
breathtakingly high level of attrition in Vietnam itself.
From a huge menu of possible examples, I have chosen cases that involve
Kissinger directly and in which I have myself been able to interview
surviving witnesses. The first, as foreshadowed above, is Operation
"Speedy Express":
My friend and colleague Kevin Buckley, then a much admired correspondent
and Saigon bureau chief for Newsweek, became interested in the
"pacification" campaign that bore this breezy code name. Designed in the
closing days of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration, it was put into full
effect in the first six months of 1969, when Henry Kissinger had assumed
much authority over the conduct of the war. The objective was the
American disciplining, on behalf of the Thieu government, of the
turbulent Mekong Delta province of Kien Hoa.
On January 22, 1968, Robert McNamara had told the Senate that "no
regular North Vietnamese units" were deployed in the Delta, and no
military intelligence documents have surfaced to undermine his claim, so
that the cleansing of the area cannot be understood as part of the
general argument about resisting Hanoi's unsleeping will to conquest. The
announced purpose of the Ninth Division's sweep, indeed, was to redeem
many thousands of villagers from political control by the National
Liberation Front (NLF), or "Vietcong" (VC). As Buckley found, and as his
magazine, Newsweek, partially disclosed at the rather late date of June
19, 1972,
"All the evidence I gathered pointed to a clear conclusion: a staggering
number of noncombatant civilians--perhaps as many as 5,000 according to
one official--were killed by U.S. firepower to "pacify" Kien Hoa. The
death toll there made the My Lai massacre look trifling by
comparison...."
"The Ninth Division put all it had into the operation. Eight thousand
infantrymen scoured the heavily populated countryside, but contact with
the elusive enemy was rare. Thus, in its pursuit of pacification, the
division relied heavily on its 50 artillery pieces, 50 helicopters (many
armed with rockets and mini-guns) and the deadly support lent by the Air
Force. There were 3,381 tactical air strikes by fighter bombers during
"Speedy Express."..."
""Death is our business and business is good," was the slogan painted on
one helicopter unit's quarters during the operation. And so it was.
Cumulative statistics for "Speedy Express" show that 10,899 "enemy" were
killed. In the month of March alone, "over 3,000 enemy troops were
killed ... which is the largest monthly total for any American division
in the Vietnam War," said the division's official magazine. When asked to
account for the enormous body counts, a division senior officer explained
that helicopter gun crews often caught unarmed "enemy" in open
fields...."
"There is overwhelming evidence that virtually all the Viet Cong were
well armed. Simple civilians were, of course, not armed. And the enormous
discrepancy between the body count [11,000] and the number of captured
weapons [748] is hard to explain--except by the conclusion that many
victims were unarmed innocent civilians...."
"The people who still live in pacified Kien Hoa all have vivid
recollections of the devastation that American firepower brought to their
lives in early 1969. Virtually every person to whom I spoke had suffered
in some way. "There were 5,000 people in our village before 1969, but
there were none in 1970," one village elder told me. "The Americans
destroyed every house with artillery, air strikes, or by burning them
down with cigarette lighters. About 100 people were killed by bombing,
others were wounded and others became refugees. Many were children killed
by concussion from the bombs which their small bodies could not
withstand, even if they were hiding underground.""
"Other officials, including the village police chief, corroborated the
man's testimony. I could not, of course, reach every village. But in each
of the many places where I went, the testimony was the same: 100 killed
here, 200 killed there."
Other notes by Buckley and his friend and collaborator Alex Shimkin (a
worker for International Voluntary Services who was later killed in the
war) discovered the same evidence in hospital statistics. In March 1969,
the hospital at Ben Tre reported 343 patients injured by "friendly" fire
and 25 by "the enemy," an astonishing statistic for a government facility
to record in a guerrilla war in which suspected membership in the
Vietcong could mean death. And Buckley's own citation for his
magazine--of "perhaps as many as 5,000" deaths among civilians in this
one sweep--is an almost deliberate understatement of what he was told by
a United States official, who actually said that "at least 5,000" of the
dead "were what we refer to as non-combatants"--a not too exacting
distinction, as we have already seen, and as was by then well understood.
[Italics mine.]
Well understood, that is to say, not just by those who opposed the war
but by those who were conducting it. As one American official put it to
Buckley,
"The actions of the Ninth Division in inflicting civilian casualties were
worse [than My Lai]. The sum total of what the 9th did was overwhelming.
In sum, the horror was worse than My Lai. But with the 9th, the civilian
casualties came in dribbles and were pieced out over a long time. And
most of them were inflicted from the air and at night. Also, they were
sanctioned by the command's insistence on high body-counts.... The result
was an inevitable outcome of the unit's command policy."
The earlier sweep that had mopped up My Lai--during Operation "Wheeler
Wallawa"--had also at the time counted all corpses as those of enemy
soldiers, including the civilian population of the village, who were
casually included in the mind-bending overall total of 10,000.
Confronted with this evidence, Buckley and Shimkin abandoned a lazy and
customary usage and replaced it, in a cable to Newsweek headquarters in
New York, with a more telling and scrupulous one. The problem was not
"indiscriminate use of firepower" but "charges of quite discriminating
use--as a matter of policy in populated areas." Even the former
allegation is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention; the second
charge leads straight to the dock in Nuremberg or The Hague.
Since General Creighton Abrams publicly praised the Ninth Division for
its work, and drew attention wherever and whenever he could to the
tremendous success of Operation "Speedy Express," we can be sure that the
political leadership in Washington was not unaware. Indeed, the degree of
micromanagement revealed in Kissinger's memoirs quite forbids the idea
that anything of importance took place without his knowledge or
permission.
Of nothing is this more true than his own individual involvement in the
bombing and invasion of neutral Cambodia and Laos. Obsessed with the idea
that Vietnamese intransigence could be traced to allies or resources
external to Vietnam itself, or could be overcome by tactics of mass
destruction, Kissinger at one point contemplated using thermonuclear
weapons to obliterate the pass through which ran the railway link from
North Vietnam to China, and at another stage considered bombing the dikes
that prevented North Vietnam's irrigation system from flooding the
country. Neither of these measures (reported respectively in Tad Szulc's
history of Nixon-era diplomacy, The Illusion of Peace, and by Kissinger's
former aide Roger Morris) was taken, which removes some potential war
crimes from our bill of indictment but which also gives an indication of
the regnant mentality. There remained Cambodia and Laos, which supposedly
concealed or protected North Vietnamese supply lines.
As in the cases postulated by General Telford Taylor, there is the crime
of aggressive war and then there is the question of war crimes. In the
postwar period, or the period governed by the U.N. Charter and its
related and incorporated conventions, the United States under Democratic
and Republican administrations had denied even its closest allies the
right to invade countries that allegedly gave shelter to their
antagonists. Most famously, President Eisenhower exerted economic and
diplomatic pressure at a high level to bring an end to the invasion of
Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel in October 1956. (The British
thought Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser should not control "their"
Suez Canal, the French believed Nasser to be the inspiration and source
of their troubles in Algeria, and the Israelis claimed that he played the
same role in fomenting their difficulties with the Palestinians.
The United States maintained that even if these propaganda fantasies were
true, they would not retrospectively legalize an invasion of Egypt.)
During the Algerian war of independence, the United States had also
repudiated France's claimed right to attack a town in neighboring Tunisia
that succored Algerian guerrillas, and in 1964, at the United Nations,
Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had condemned the United Kingdom for attacking
a town in Yemen that allegedly provided a rear guard for rebels operating
in its then colony of Aden.
All this law and precedent was to be thrown to the winds when Nixon and
Kissinger decided to aggrandize the notion of "hot pursuit" across the
borders of Laos and Cambodia. As William Shawcross reported in his 1979
book, Sideshow, even before the actual territorial invasion of Cambodia,
for example, and very soon after the accession of Nixon and Kissinger to
power, a program of heavy bombardment of the country was prepared and
executed in secret. One might with some revulsion call it a "menu" of
bombardment, since the code names for the raids were "Breakfast,"
"Lunch," "Snack," "Dinner," and "Dessert." The raids were flown by B-52
bombers, which, it is important to note, fly at an altitude too high to
be observed from the ground and carry immense tonnages of high explosive;
they give no warning of approach and are incapable of accuracy or
discrimination.
Between March 1969 and May 1970, 3,630 such raids were flown across the
Cambodian frontier. The bombing campaign began as it was to go on--with
full knowledge of its effect on civilians and flagrant deceit by Mr.
Kissinger in this precise respect.
To wit, a memorandum prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to
the Defense Department and the White House stated plainly that "some
Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operation" and that "the
surprise effect of attack could tend to increase casualties." The target
district for "Breakfast" (Base Area 353) was inhabited, explained the
memo, by about 1,640 Cambodian civilians; "Lunch" (Base Area 609), by 198
of them; "Snack" (Base Area 351), by 383; "Dinner" (Base Area 352), by
770; and "Dessert" (Base Area 350), by about 120 Cambodian peasants.
These oddly exact figures are enough in themselves to demonstrate that
Kissinger must have been lying when he later told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that areas of Cambodia selected for bombing were
"unpopulated."
As a result of the expanded and intensified bombing campaigns, it has
been officially estimated that as many as 350,000 civilians in Laos and
600,000 in Cambodia lost their lives. (These are not the highest
estimates.) Figures for refugees are several multiples of that. In
addition, the widespread use of toxic chemical defoliants created a
massive health crisis that naturally fell most heavily on children,
nursing mothers, the aged, and the already infirm. That crisis persists
to this day.
Although this appalling war, and its appalling consequences, can and
should be taken as a moral and political crisis for American
institutions, for at least five United States presidents, and for
American society, there is little difficulty in identifying individual
responsibility during this, its most atrocious and indiscriminate stage.
Richard Nixon, as commander in chief, bears ultimate responsibility and
only narrowly escaped a congressional move to include his crimes and
deceptions in Indochina in the articles of impeachment, the promulgation
of which eventually compelled his resignation. But his deputy and closest
adviser, Henry Kissinger, was sometimes forced, and sometimes forced
himself, into a position of virtual co-presidency where Indochina was
concerned.
For example, in the preparations for the invasion of Cambodia in 1970,
Kissinger was caught between the views of his staff--several of whom
resigned in protest when the invasion began--and his need to please his
president. His president listened more to his two criminal
associates--John Mitchell and Bebe Rebozo--than he did to his secretaries
of state and defense, William Rogers and Melvin Laird, both of whom were
highly skeptical about widening the war. On one especially charming
occasion, Nixon telephoned Kissinger, while drunk, to discuss the
invasion plans. He then put Bebe Rebozo on the line. "The President wants
you to know if this doesn't work, Henry, it's your ass." "Ain't that
right, Bebe?" slurred the commander in chief. (The conversation was
monitored and transcribed by one of Kissinger's soon-to-resign staffers,
William Watts.) It could be said that in this instance the national
security adviser was under considerable pressure; nevertheless, he took
the side of the pro-invasion faction and, according to the memoirs of
General William Westmoreland, actually lobbied for that invasion to go
ahead.
A somewhat harder picture is presented by former chief of staff H. R.
Haldeman in his Diaries. On December 22, 1970, he records:
"Henry came up with the need to meet with the P today with Al Haig and
then tomorrow with Laird and Moorer because he has to use the P to force
Laird and the military to go ahead with the P's plans, which they won't
carry out without direct orders.
In his White House Years, Kissinger claims that he usurped the customary
chain of command whereby commanders in the field receive, or believe that
they receive, their orders from the president and then the secretary of
defense. He boasts that he, together with Haldeman, Alexander Haig, and
Colonel Ray Sitton, evolved "both a military and a diplomatic schedule"
for the secret bombing of Cambodia. On board Air Force One, which was on
the tarmac at Brussels airport on February 24, 1969, he writes, "we
worked out the guidelines for bombing of the enemy's sanctuaries." A few
weeks later, Haldeman's Diaries for March 17 record:
Historic day. K[issinger]'s "Operation Breakfast" finally came off at
2:00 PM our time.
K[issinger] really excited, as was P[resident].
The next day's entry:
K[issinger]'s "Operation Breakfast" a great success. He came beaming in
with report, very productive.
It only got better. On April 22, 1970, Haldeman reports that Nixon,
following Kissinger into a National Security Council meeting on Cambodia,
"turned back to me with a big smile and said, `K[issinger]'s really
having fun today, he's playing Bismarck.'"
The above is an insult to the Iron Chancellor. When Kissinger was finally
exposed in Congress and the press for conducting unauthorized bombings,
he weakly pleaded that the raids were not all that secret, really,
because Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia had known of them. He had to be
reminded that a foreign princeling cannot give permission to an American
bureaucrat to violate the United States Constitution. Nor, for that
matter, can he give permission to an American bureaucrat to slaughter
large numbers of his "own" civilians. It's difficult to imagine Bismarck
cowering behind such a contemptible excuse. (Prince Sihanouk, it is worth
remembering, later became an abject puppet of the Khmer Rouge.)
Colonel Sitton, the reigning expert on B-52 tactics at the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, began to notice that by late 1969 his own office was being
regularly overruled in the matter of selecting targets. "Not only was
Henry carefully screening the raids," said Sitton, "he was reading the
raw intelligence" and fiddling with the mission patterns and bombing
runs. In other departments of Washington insiderdom, it was also noticed
that Kissinger was becoming a Stakhanovite committeeman. Aside from the
crucial 40 Committee, which planned and oversaw all foreign covert
actions, he chaired the Washington Special Action Group (WSAG), which
dealt with breaking crises; the Verification Panel, concerned with arms
control; the Vietnam Special Studies Group, which oversaw the day-to-day
conduct of the war; and the Defense Program Review Committee, which
supervised the budget of the Defense Department.
It is therefore impossible for him to claim that he was unaware of the
consequences of the bombings of Cambodia and Laos; he knew more about
them, and in more intimate detail, than any other individual. Nor was he
imprisoned in a culture of obedience that gave him no alternative, or no
rival arguments. Several senior members of his own staff, most notably
Anthony Lake and Roger Morris, resigned over the invasion of Cambodia,
and more than two hundred State Department employees signed a protest
addressed to Secretary of State William Rogers. Indeed, both Rogers and
Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird were opposed to the secret bombing
policy, as Kissinger himself records with some disgust in his memoirs.
Congress also was opposed to an extension of the bombing (once it had
agreed to become informed of it), but even after the Nixon-Kissinger
Administration had undertaken on Capitol Hill not to intensify the raids,
there was a 21 percent increase of the bombing of Cambodia in the months
of July and August 1973. The Air Force maps of the targeted areas show
them to be, or to have been densely populated.
Colonel Sitton does recall, it must be admitted, that Kissinger requested
the bombing avoid civilian casualties. His explicit motive in making this
request was to avoid or forestall complaints from the government of
Prince Sihanouk. But this does no more in itself than demonstrate that
Kissinger was aware of the possibility of civilian deaths. If he knew
enough to know of their likelihood, and was director of the policy that
inflicted them, and neither enforced any actual precautions nor
reprimanded any violators, then the case against him is legally and
morally complete.
As early as the fall of 1970, an independent investigator named Fred
Branfman, who spoke Lao and knew the country as a civilian volunteer, had
gone to Bangkok and interviewed Jerome Brown, a former targeting officer
for the United States Embassy in the Laotian capital of Vientiane. The
man had retired from the Air Force because of his disillusionment at the
futility of the bombing and his consternation at the damage done to
civilians and society. The speed and height of the planes, he said, meant
that targets were virtually indistinguishable from the air. Pilots often
chose villages as targets, because they could be more readily identified
than alleged Pathet Lao guerrillas hiding in the jungle. Branfman, whom I
interviewed in San Francisco in the summer of 2000, went on to provide
this and other information to Henry Kamm and Sydney Schanberg of the New
York Times, to Ted Koppel of ABC, and to many others. Under pressure from
the United States Embassy, the Laotian authorities had Branfman deported
back to the United States, which was probably, from their point of view,
a mistake. He was able to make a dramatic appearance on Capitol Hill on
April 22, 1971, at a hearing held by Senator Edward Kennedy's
subcommittee on refugees. His antagonist was the State Department's
envoy, William Sullivan, a former ambassador to Laos. Branfman accused
him in front of the cameras of helping to conceal evidence that Laotian
society was being mutilated by ferocious aerial bombardment.
Partly as a consequence, Congressman Pete McCloskey of California paid a
visit to Laos and acquired a copy of an internal U.S. Embassy study of
the bombing. He also prevailed on the U.S. Air Force to furnish him with
aerial photographs of the dramatic damage. Ambassador Sullivan was so
disturbed by these pictures, some of them taken in areas known to him,
that his first reaction was to establish to his own satisfaction that the
raids had occurred after he left his post in Vientiane. (He was later to
learn that, for his pains, his own telephone was being tapped at Henry
Kissinger's instigation, one of the many such violations of American law
that were to eventuate in the Watergate tapping-and-burglary scandal, a
scandal that Kissinger was furthermore to plead--in an astounding
outburst of vanity, deceit, and self-deceit--as his own alibi for
collusion in the 1974 Cyprus crisis.)
Having done what he could to bring the Laotian nightmare to the attention
of those whose constitutional job it was to supervise such questions,
Branfman went back to Thailand and from there to Phnom Penh, capital of
Cambodia. Having gained access to a pilot's radio, he tape-recorded the
conversations between pilots on bombing missions over the Cambodian
interior. On no occasion did they run any checks designed to reassure
themselves and others that they were not bombing civilian targets. It had
been definitely asserted, by named U.S. government spokesmen, that such
checks were run. Branfman handed the tapes to Sydney Schanberg, whose New
York Times report on them was printed just before the Senate met to
prohibit further blitzing of Cambodia (the very resolution that was
flouted by Kissinger the following month).
From there Branfman went back to Thailand and traveled north to Nakhorn
Phanom, the new headquarters of the U.S. Seventh Air Force. Here, a war
room code-named Blue Chip served as the command and control center of the
bombing campaign. Branfman was able to pose as a new recruit just up from
Saigon and ultimately gained access to the war room itself. Consoles and
maps and screens plotted the progress of the bombardment. In conversation
with the "bombing officer" on duty, he asked if pilots ever made contact
before dropping their enormous loads of ordnance. Oh, yes, he was
assured, they did. Were they worried about hitting the innocent? Oh,
no--merely concerned about the whereabouts of CIA "ground teams"
infiltrated into the area. Branfman's report on this, which was carried
by Jack Anderson's syndicated column, was uncontroverted by any official
denial.
One reason that the American command in Southeast Asia finally ceased
employing the crude and horrific tally of "body count" was that, as in
the relatively small but specific case of Operation "Speedy Express"
cited above, the figures began to look ominous when they were counted up.
Sometimes, totals of "enemy" dead would turn out, when computed, to be
suspiciously larger than the number of claimed "enemy" in the field. Yet
the war would somehow drag on, with new quantitative goals being set and
enforced. Thus, according to the Pentagon, the following are the casualty
figures between the first Lyndon Johnson bombing halt in March 1968 and
February 26, 1972: Americans: 31,205 South Vietnamese regulars: 86,101
"Enemy": 475,609
The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refugees estimated that in the same
four-year period, rather more than 3 million civilians were killed,
injured, or rendered homeless.
In the same four-year period, the United States dropped almost 4,500,000
tons of high explosive on Indochina. (The Pentagon's estimated total for
the amount dropped in the entire Second World War is 2,044,000.) This
total does not include massive sprayings of chemical defoliants and
pesticides.
It is unclear how we count the murder or abduction of 35,708 Vietnamese
civilians by the CIA's counterguerrilla "Phoenix program" during the
first two and a half years of the Nixon-Kissinger Administration. There
may be some "overlap." There is also some overlap with the actions of
previous administrations in all cases. But the truly exorbitant death
tolls all occurred on Henry Kissinger's watch; were known and understood
by him; were concealed from Congress, the press, and the public by him;
and were, when questioned, the subject of political and bureaucratic
vendettas ordered by him. They were also partly the outcome of a
secretive and illegal process in Washington, unknown even to most Cabinet
members, of which Henry Kissinger stood to be, and became, a prime
beneficiary.
On that closing point one may once again cite H. R. Haldeman, who had no
further reason to lie and who had, by the time of his writing, paid for
his crimes by serving a sentence in prison. Haldeman describes the moment
in Florida when Kissinger was enraged by a New York Times story telling
some part of the truth about Indochina:
"Henry telephoned J. Edgar Hoover in Washington from Key Biscayne on the
May morning the Times story appeared."
"According to Hoover's memo of the call, Henry said the story used
"secret information which was extraordinarily damaging." Henry went on to
tell Hoover that he "wondered whether I could make a major effort to find
out where that came from ... and to put whatever resources I need to find
out who did this. I told him I would take care of this right away.""
"Henry was no fool, of course. He telephoned Hoover a few hours later to
remind him that the investigation be handled discreetly "so no stories
will get out." Hoover must have smiled, but said all right. And by five
o'clock he was back on the telephone to Henry with the report that the
Times reporter "may have gotten some of his information from the
Southeast Asian desk of the Department of Defense's Public Affairs
Office." More specifically, Hoover suggested the source could be a man
named Mort Halperin (a Kissinger staffer) and another man who worked in
the Systems Analysis Agency.... According to Hoover's memo, Kissinger
"hoped I would follow it up as far as we can take it and they will
destroy whoever did this if we can find him, no matter where he is.""
"The last line of that memo gives an accurate reflection of Henry's rage,
as I remember it."
"Nevertheless, Nixon was one hundred percent behind the wiretaps. And I
was, too."
And so the program started, inspired by Henry's rage but ordered by
Nixon, who soon broadened it even further to include newsmen. Eventually,
seventeen people were wiretapped by the FBI including seven on
Kissinger's NSC staff and three on the White House staff.
And thus, the birth of the "plumbers" and of the assault on American law
and democracy that they inaugurated. Commenting on the lamentable end of
this process, Haldeman wrote that he still believed that ex-president
Nixon (who was then still alive) should agree to the release of the
remaining tapes. But:
This time my view is apparently not shared by the man who was one reason
for the original decision to start the taping process. Henry Kissinger is
determined to stop the tapes from reaching the public....
Nixon made the point that Kissinger was really the one who had the most
to lose from the tapes becoming public. Henry apparently felt that the
tapes would expose a lot of things he had said that would be very
disadvantageous to him publicly.
Nixon said that in making the deal for custody of his Presidential
papers, which was originally announced after his pardon but then was shot
down by Congress, that it was Henry who called him and insisted on
Nixon's right to destroy the tapes. That was, of course, the thing that
destroyed the deal.
A society that has been "plumbed" has the right to demand that its
plumbers be compelled to make some restitution by way of full disclosure.
The litigation to put the Nixon tapes in the public trust is only
partially complete; no truthful account of the Vietnam years will be
available until Kissinger's part in what we already know has been made
fully transparent.
Until that time, Kissinger's role in the violation of American law at the
close of the Vietnam War makes the perfect counterpart to the 1968 covert
action that helped him to power in the first place. The two parentheses
enclose a series of premeditated war crimes that still have power to stun
the imagination.
=================================================
Michael O'Neill
Try proving I've lied before you scuttle back into your hole.
M.
Michael O'Neill
The vision I've just had of you tittering manfully over your keyboard
will remain a charished memory.
M.
J Swanson
> Ty wrote:
>> Well, I'd rather be a lefty-defined "fascist" than a pathetic,
>> paranoid, lying conspiracy kook.
>>
>> But unfortunately, the guilty pleasure of making you look like an
>> idiot (admittedly not too difficult) is no longer worth the tedium of
>> reading your drivel.
>>
>> Therefore, I think that I must also now bid you adieu.
>
> Try proving I've lied before you scuttle back into your hole.
LOL
Want to bet that he won't? I get the impression that he tries to finish,
with a vague but irritating feeling that all his hyperboles didn't make any
success after all. Tomorrow he will have forgotten the whole thing,
babbling 24/7 in another thread, in another newsgroup, under another nic.
If not, there's a killfile... :)
John
--
Tar-Elenion, about the nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
"What is relevant is that it was completely worth it if it saved just one
more Allied life (perhaps my father)."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3014887714d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-8&selm=MPG.18f132cf357a1540989745%40netnews.attbi.com
'You think, as is your wont, my lord, of Gondor only,' said Gandalf. 'Yet
there are other men and other lives, and time still to be. And for me, I
pity even his slaves.'
Bruce Tucker
> It has been reported that Saddam *had* tried to appease the Americans
> before the war, but that his overtures had been ignored and/or
> disregarded by the White House.
It has been insinuated, not reported. learn the difference. What has
been reported is that another in the endless attempts at deception,
diversion, and bad-faith dealing was attempted, to follow all the others
of the last 14 years.
> Why would his sons have expected different treatment?
Because the situation was entirely different. Saddam did not attempt to
*surrender* before the war - he attempted to avoid being held
accountable for his actions, which is an entirely different thing.
If there are any reports of *any* regime officials who attempted to
surrender to coalition forces and were instead killed on the spot, I am
not aware of them and you have not produced them.
> Not that I am
> suggesting they deserved anything other then a fair trial,
What - the commander on the spot should have ordered his men to cease
firing, brought in a judge from the JAG corps, and held a trial in
between the bursts of fire from the house where Saddam's sons were holed
up?
> Even if an offer to surrender had been made by the occupying force,
was
> it likely they would have trusted the person making the offer? I think
> not. This was foreseeable by the commanders of the army, who must have
> been briefed on the real position regarding weapons of mass
destruction
> before engaging the enemy.
Right - because it was all a big lying conspiracy and everyone was in on
it except you and John Kerry.
You believe what you want to believe, Michael. You're obviously well out
into la-la land by now.
> > You just want to
> > complain becasue neither opne of them will
> > lead Iraq and continue Sodamn's legacy.
>
> Saddam has other descendants, who, given the tribal nature of social
> organisation in Iraq, may one day be called to govern that country.
Saddam's regime was neither traditional nor tribal on a national scale,
so this is doubtful. His Sunni co-religionists only held the position of
power they did because they were installed by the British.
> The basis for the occupying force apprehending or killing the three
> people is not clear. No crimes were committed by them on American
soil.
They were parties to the violation of agreements to which the US was a
party and which the US had been called on to enforce on almost a daily
basis since 1991. In addition, they were parties to shocking and
egregious human rights violations on a scale that defies description.
Neither of these bases requires a crime to have been committed on US
soil. In addition, while Iraq probably did not have direct ties to al
Qaeda, it was definitely a major player in the sponsorship of
international terrorism as shown by its sponsorship of, among others,
Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, and Abu Nidal.
> What is also known is that tear gas or nerve gas or stun grenades
could
> have been used to capture them alive, a far more persuasive way of
> showing America stood for the rule of law than killing them.
You have been watching too many James Bond movies and Star Trek
episodes. Tear gas may or may not have been moderately effective, but it
is no panacea. I've known plenty of people who have been to protests and
gotten a facefull and gone on doing what they were doing (some people
are relatively immune, especially if they are exposed a lot - a friend
who was an MP could almost breathe the stuff) - others get a whiff and
are out for the count. Nerve gas is of course lethal and 100% illegal,
and the US does not maintain or deploy it - "knockout gas" is pure
science fiction, at least for now. Stun grenades are not like getting
hit with a phaser set to stun, they are explosive devices, just without
the fragmentation. They are more to daze and disorient people in a room
just before assaulting infantry or law enforcement rush in. You can't
just shoot them in from a distance and hope everyone in the building is
"stunned" into submission.
What it boils down to is you're just Monday morning quarterbacking and
reaching for something that isn't there. Saddam chose to give up
peacefully and didn't suffer a scratch. His sons chose to open fire and
go out in a blaze of glory and they got what they wanted. This was not a
controlled domestic law enforcement situation where police could just
cordon off the area and wait the suspects out; it was a firefight in the
still-volatile immediate aftermath of a war and they didn't have the
luxury you have sitting at your keyboard of second-guessing every move.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Bruce Tucker
> >
> > They were enemy combatants under international law -- and probably
also
> > unlawful combatants under IL as well. This made them legitimate
military
> > targets.
>
> They weren't combatants at all. America unlawfully invaded the
country.
International law does not make any distinction in the status of
combatants based on such judgments. It is quite clear on this point.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Hashemon Urtasman
Bruce Tucker wrote:
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote
>
>
>>It has been reported that Saddam *had* tried to appease the Americans
>>before the war, but that his overtures had been ignored and/or
>>disregarded by the White House.
>
>
> It has been insinuated, not reported. learn the difference. What has
> been reported is that another in the endless attempts at deception,
> diversion, and bad-faith dealing was attempted, to follow all the others
> of the last 14 years.
>
>
Actually Saddam was being advised by the French and Russians for some
years, who had sewn up Iraqi oil contracts and had some Iraqi debt, and
*they* probably wanted him to comply with inspections at all costs. So
then (maybe) he was trying to comply with the inspections, (because
there are no WMDs so far) but nothing was going to prevent the US
invasion.
"Good housekeeping" is how I would put it. The US cleaned up the
neighbourhood--finally, 30 years after it sold its soul to the devil by
sending weapons in it.
> What it boils down to is you're just Monday morning quarterbacking and
> reaching for something that isn't there. Saddam chose to give up
> peacefully and didn't suffer a scratch. His sons chose to open fire and
> go out in a blaze of glory and they got what they wanted. This was not a
Actually on the news recently somebody said ALL the Iraqi 'deck of
cards' surrendered peacefully and bargained--except the two sons.
The real test of Americas 'rule of law' will be where they the trial for
Saddam, if they will allow the trial to expose *their* involvement in
his crimes, or will they just give him a kick in the gut and say he died
of 'unknown causes', or hold a show trial with a 10 minute delay and
blip out all incriminating evidence against them--the way the WMD
accounting report (before the war) to the UN was censored before it was
released.
The sons going down in a blaze of gunfire (to hellfire) was not the
soldiers fault. Their coming to the peak of power 30 years before was
the US fault though. That's where the 'accounting difficulties' for the
US lie--in the origin of this regime, not in its ending.
Ty
news:Xns94B6AE176A...@195.67.237.53...
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> > Try proving I've lied before you scuttle back into your hole.
>
> LOL
>
> Want to bet that he won't?
Ah you've caught me. See, my patience with idiots fluctuates from a high of
"pretty low" to "nonexistence". And unfortunately, I'm on a downswing and
have to cull the morons that I'm willing to interact with.
Adieu.
--Ty
J Swanson
news:1063efr...@corp.supernews.com:
Yeah, yeah. Whatever.
> Adieu.
Michael O'Neill
I think you need to read the Geneva Protocol again to refresh your memory
of the relevant sections.
Iraq ratified the Geneva Convention 12th January 1981 with an effective
date of 12th April 1981.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/leb/Genev.htm
According to the Fourth Geneva Convention:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
The people in the house were taking no active part in hostilities, and
the occupying power had no right to detain them under Iraqi or
international law, ergo the following applies under international law.
=================================
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples
====================================
The account given in this link:
...merely underlines this point.
"Khazraji said Zaidan was also heard urging the Americans not to enter
his house, because they would face fierce resistance.
The accounts of Sanchez and the neighbors were consistent regarding the
active part of the siege beginning at 10 a.m. with a bullhorn call
ordering those inside to come out. With no answer, Sanchez said later,
negotiations were essentially over.
Ten minutes later, troops knocked on the door. Again, there was no
response, so the soldiers burst in and immediately faced small-arms fire,
apparently from AK-47s wielded by Uday, Qusai, Mustafa and the bodyguard
from the barricaded second floor, Sanchez said."
======================================
The occupying forces had no legal right to be in the country in the first
place, never mind to go around detaining people.
I ask again - why wasn't tear gas used to take them alive? That was the
proper course of action, but one not even considered by the typical
trigger-happy American troops. Don't bother telling me that tear gas and
stun grenades wouldn't have worked!!
You need to grow up, sonny, and realise that the people reading and
posting here don't operate at the level of shyster lawyers.
M.
Morgil
"Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:c3sc5k$ic4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > What is also known is that tear gas or nerve gas or stun grenades
> could
> > have been used to capture them alive, a far more persuasive way of
> > showing America stood for the rule of law than killing them.
>
> You have been watching too many James Bond movies and Star Trek
> episodes. Tear gas may or may not have been moderately effective, but it
> is no panacea. I've known plenty of people who have been to protests and
> gotten a facefull and gone on doing what they were doing (some people
> are relatively immune, especially if they are exposed a lot - a friend
> who was an MP could almost breathe the stuff) - others get a whiff and
> are out for the count. Nerve gas is of course lethal and 100% illegal,
> and the US does not maintain or deploy it - "knockout gas" is pure
> science fiction, at least for now.
I wouldn say so. Whatever it was that the Russians used
in the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis seemed effective
enough. In fact so effective that it killed about 100 hostages,
but it also knocked out all the terrorists in an instant.
Morgil
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
I agree with your last point but differ on the former one.
The sons were killed by US soldiers. That much isn't in dispute. It was
obvious and foreseeable that they would try to fight it out and it was
incumbent upon the commanders to deploy countermeasures to bring them to
justice.
The account given in this link:
...merely underlines this point.
"Khazraji said Zaidan was also heard urging the Americans not to enter
his house, because they would face fierce resistance.
The accounts of Sanchez and the neighbors were consistent regarding the
active part of the siege beginning at 10 a.m. with a bullhorn call
ordering those inside to come out. With no answer, Sanchez said later,
negotiations were essentially over.
Ten minutes later, troops knocked on the door. Again, there was no
response, so the soldiers burst in and immediately faced small-arms fire,
apparently from AK-47s wielded by Uday, Qusai, Mustafa and the bodyguard
from the barricaded second floor, Sanchez said."
==============================================
The occupying forces were warned they would face fierce resistance. That
goes beyong foreseeability.
No shots were fired until the soldierd entered the building. That's known
as self defense in America.
Whether Uday and Qusai deserved to die isn't the question.
They were non-combatants who fired on intruders entering their place of
residence unlawfully and without their permission.
They were killed in a firefight provoked by the actions of American
troops who broke into the place they were staying in without any legal
authorization to do so and who had effective methods of neutralization
available to them which would have allowed them to capture the occupants
of the house.
That's called murder.
Troops have continued their heavy-handed illgal breaking and entry all
over Iraq, shaming Muslim women by their presence and use of dogs.
They are not trained for facing down guerilla action and were misled by
ther commanders about the level of support they would receive in Iraq.
If the previous decade and more of sanctions hadn't made the Iraqis hate
the west and America in particular then the unlawful killing of innocents
as well as the likes of Saddam's sons by the armed forces of the
occupying power certainly has.
Let them get the fuck out of Iraq.
They've done more than enough damage to its people, its society, its
infrastructure, and its priceless artworks.
But while it lasts, the behavious of America as a nation, both at home
and abroad will be under the microscope by the rest of the world.
That's the kind of attention the only Superpower attracts, when it looks
like its going rogue and is being run by liars, criminals and frauds.
M.
Bruce Tucker
> >
> > International law does not make any distinction in the status of
> > combatants based on such judgments. It is quite clear on this point.
>
> I think you need to read the Geneva Protocol again to refresh your
memory
> of the relevant sections.
I have read it. There is nothing in it to contradict the point above.
Combatant and noncombatant status is quite clearly defined with no
reference made to the justice or legality of the larger cause for which
the alleged combatants are fighting. One does not gain or lose combatant
status based on the "legitimacy" of the presence of one's army's
presence in the country. I defy you to quote me any passage that says
otherwise.
> The people in the house were taking no active part in hostilities,
You are using a perverse definition of "active part". One does not
become a noncombatant the moment one takes one's finger off the trigger.
Uday and Qusay were members of the Iraqi armed forces and therefore
combatants.
> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members
> of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
> combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
Pray tell me which of these categoriessons of Saddam fit into?
> Ten minutes later, troops knocked on the door. Again, there was no
> response, so the soldiers burst in and immediately faced small-arms
fire,
> apparently from AK-47s wielded by Uday, Qusai, Mustafa and the
bodyguard
> from the barricaded second floor, Sanchez said."
Your account is exactly the same as what I have read. The Americans
called on the occupants to surrender, knokced on the door, attempted to
enter, and were met by small arms fire, and then, and only then,
returned fire, and the suspects were killed in the ensuing exchange of
fire.
How you can deescribe the suspects as "taking no active part in
hostilities" when they were armed and shooting at the moment of their
deaths, having initiated the battle by opening fire on the soldiers
attempting to apprehend them, is beyond my understanding. They opened
fire on American troops - what more active part in hostilities could
they possibly take?
> The occupying forces had no legal right to be in the country in the
first
> place, never mind to go around detaining people.
That is your assumption, and anyway, as I have said, has no effect on
their status as combatants or not. None of the material you quoted
states anything to the effect that one becomes a noncombatant if the
forces with whom one is engaged in combat are themselves not legitimate
combatants - for that matter, the Americans' status as lawful combatants
is in no way compromised by judgments about the legality of the
invasion.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Michael O'Neill
Bruce, those of us who read and post regularly to Usenet have been
predicting the possible course of the invasion for years now. You need to
catch up. As regards the ineffectiveness of tear gas, its only used to
disable, not render unconscious, but the Russians seem to know what to
use and how to use it. Perhaps George should ring up Putin and ask his
advice on how to deal with things in Iraq.
Crude though they are the Russians know how to keep the peace in a city.
Saying it should not be used because its ineffective is a lie you''re
using to boslter the argument supporting the use of lethal force by
troops who illegally broke into a private house in the middle of an
unlawful invasion in order to murder two people.
At least call a spade a spade, but don't expect leniency from people the
next time troops break into a house where desperadoes are holed up. Is it
any surprise that after the killings the Iraqis started to use suicide
bombers? Nope, is the answer.
American troops are dying daily for that misguided piece of illegal
killing. I predicted that an occupation would lead to this and I called
for the troops to be sent home last Christmas and Iraq handed over to the
Iraqis. That's not the voice of an armchair general.
That's called an accurate prediction based on realistic assessment of
events from someone who understand the situation and its consequences far
better than that wizend and senile old fuckwit who's still being allowed
run the Department of Defense.
You might learn from it.
But I'm not holding my breath.
M.
Bruce Tucker
>
> "Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> kirjoitti
> viestissä:c3sc5k$ic4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> >
> > and the US does not maintain or deploy it - "knockout gas" is pure
> > science fiction, at least for now.
>
> I wouldn say so. Whatever it was that the Russians used
> in the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis seemed effective
> enough. In fact so effective that it killed about 100 hostages,
> but it also knocked out all the terrorists in an instant.
Yes, minor detail, that. And one wonders what sort of permanent brain
damage the survivors might have suffered. Also the authorities in that
situation were able to surround and approach the building freely and
seal off all exits and ventilation, which they couldn't do here.
Another minor detail is that it would also be a gross violation of
treaties against use of chemical weapons to deploy such a potentially
lethal agent in wartime. But aside from all that, it sounds like a nifty
idea.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
François
could at least pretend to play the game geez. I've seen some subjects
where people were triing to compare the situation in Iraq now and in the
first Dune book , the most enlightened (and funny) sitation i've
gathered came from someone telling that Bush couldn't possibly be seen
as the Baron Harkonnen since the baron was actually...smart.
Personly i don't see a lot of connections there,however the relation
between spice and oil is worth looking at , not that the two stuffs
themselves have much to do with each others but their trade might... Our
economy is based on oil and as the Space Guild stipulate : The spice
must flow...
The situation is the same in our society , we need oil, right now the
core of our economy is based on it , When Saddam pulled his troups out
of Kuwait in 91 he did something which in my mind was a very important
turning point in our history, he set fire on the major oil fields there
, it took months (or was it years) to put off the fires.
Back to Dune:
When you have to power to destroy something , you control it (or
something like that , i havent the book with me)
My theory is that this gesture must have made quite an impression on the
Americans , after all most analysts agree that in that time Iraq had an
impressive military force which after a decade of war with its neighbour
Iran had the experience and the ability to do away with let say... Saudi
Arabia. Think the same scenario there, Saudi Arabia is the world major
source of oil, if the same thing had happened there the consequences for
the world economy would have been to say the least spectacular.
The similarities between those aspects of the trade of spice in Dune and
oil in our world has surely been discuted before in this newsgroup but i
just wanted to get this thread back to a more Dune oriented
discussion...
In article <4061C919...@indigo.ie>, o...@indigo.ie says...
Michael O'Neill
Attention Deficit Disorder.
M.
Michael O'Neill
People in houses being hunted by soldiers of a foreign power are not
defined as combatants.
The soldiers trespassed on the house and the people in it defended
themselves by firing their weapons.
If they were belligerents or combatants they would have fired on sighting
the soldiers. Your argument has just followed your head.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> kirjoitti
> > viestissä:c3piai$147o$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> > >
> > > There exists no moderate side in Hamas leadership. Its
> > > manifesto declares the complete destruction of Israel as
> > > a goal, using the means of murdering every Israeli man
> > > and woman and child.
> >
> > Moderate by Hamas standards of course. Those who
> > think negotiations and ceasefire are a possibility and
> > don't want all out war.
>
> Such a position is antithetical to that of Hamas - Hamas is by
> definition the faction of the Palestinian polity which believes that
> negotiations and peace are useless and wants all-out war a la outrance.
> Why do you think Hamas ramped *up* its suicide bombings every time there
> was a cease-fire or it looked like Arafat was getting anywhere with his
> negotiations? Those who believe in moderation are members of other
> Palestinian factions.
Why do Bushes Saudi "allies" allegedly fund Hamas?
M.
Michael O'Neill
Well, you can contribute to any thread, but they're difficult beasts to
control or direct. A bit like an enraged sandworm with a load of fremen
riding on its back.
As for your comments, yes and no.
You cannot burn oilfields in the way you suggest as far as I know.
Personally I think there's far too much dependence on hydrocarbon based
oil.
I don't know what eejit decided to use it anyway. Nasty smelly horrible
stuff.
We should be looking at water power [hydrogen plus oxygen] which is far
closer to usage than fusion, where the theoreticals haven't been worked
out yet and which doesn't seem to lend itself to independently powered
vehicles.
Water atoms get split using electricity and the hydrogen and oxygen get
drawn off into tanks for later re-combination in the combustion in two to
one proportions. No carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide byproducts - just
water in the exhaust!
And in the interim, although largely unknown to Americans, there's diesel
power. Not Vin Diesel. Diesel oil.
Diesel engines can be converted to run on used and filtered vegetable
oil. Vegetable oil is a renewable resource.
And so is alcohol, which is already used to power drag racers. So far
from looking like a slower and greyer future, we could be getting into
work A LOT QUICKERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But of course Big Oil doesn't have a monopoly on either water or
vegetable oil or alcohol production, so this interesting little factoid
is not getting much coverage.
Ireland of course is surrounded by water and can grow nearly any crop -
and we have vast underground cisterns filled with poitín - oops! There
goes our greatest secret...
Think about what happened when the God Emperor Leto died and melange
became a scarce commodity, then the reverse when the axolotl tanks were
able to produce melange artificially.
That's the scenario Big Oil worries about. Except that the technology for
converting diesel engines to use vegetable oil already exists and filter
technology is in widespread use already.
And I seem to recall titanium bearings can use water as a lubricant.
Of course you could always use new, clean oil.
"You want ten gallons of yer four star olive oil there pardner...?"
Or water.
"Nope, two pints of water please, thanks."
The main objective to running on alcohol or vegetable oil is cost, but
cost varies inversely with supply, given sufficient raw materials at a
reasonable price. With economies of scale, most things can be produced
using machines for little more than the cost of their raw materials.
And od course with water, alcohol and oil there are no lethally toxic
by-products unlike, say, with nuclear fission.
FWIW
M.
Jette Goldie
"Zimri" <zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Nj68c.9957$i07...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> "Jette Goldie" ...
>
> > Build a bl**dy wall around the whole place, put a lid on it,
> > refuse to let any aircraft leave their airspace, and wait
> > 20 years. No interaction - no trading, no refugees - NO
> > contact. In that time there *will* be peace..... of one sort
> > or another.
>
>
> That's what Ariel Sharon is doing.
he's building the wall - but I think he plans to have gates - and
he's probably not planning to roof it over.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Jette Goldie
> > refuse to let any aircraft leave their airspace, and wait
> > 20 years. No interaction - no trading, no refugees - NO
> > contact. In that time there *will* be peace..... of one sort
> > or another.
>
Oh, I dunno - they *might* make peace with each other
short of that - if no one is helping either side.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > "Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> kirjoitti
> > viestissä:c3sc5k$ic4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > >
> > > Nerve gas is of course lethal and 100% illegal,
> > > and the US does not maintain or deploy it - "knockout gas" is pure
> > > science fiction, at least for now.
> >
> > I wouldn say so. Whatever it was that the Russians used
> > in the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis seemed effective
> > enough. In fact so effective that it killed about 100 hostages,
> > but it also knocked out all the terrorists in an instant.
>
> Yes, minor detail, that. And one wonders what sort of permanent brain
> damage the survivors might have suffered. Also the authorities in that
> situation were able to surround and approach the building freely and
> seal off all exits and ventilation, which they couldn't do here.
Ahhh, you're just a whinger looking for excuses.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> news:40619ABE...@indigo.ie:
>
> > Ty wrote:
>
> >> Well, I'd rather be a lefty-defined "fascist" than a pathetic,
> >> paranoid, lying conspiracy kook.
> >>
> >> But unfortunately, the guilty pleasure of making you look like an
> >> idiot (admittedly not too difficult) is no longer worth the tedium of
> >> reading your drivel.
> >>
> >> Therefore, I think that I must also now bid you adieu.
>
> >
> > Try proving I've lied before you scuttle back into your hole.
>
> LOL
>
> Want to bet that he won't? I get the impression that he tries to finish,
> with a vague but irritating feeling that all his hyperboles didn't make any
> success after all. Tomorrow he will have forgotten the whole thing,
> babbling 24/7 in another thread, in another newsgroup, under another nic.
>
> If not, there's a killfile... :)
LOL!
Nope, he's far to much fun.
I'm reminded of the conversation with the Edric steersman in Dune
Messiah.
Ty knows all the little tricks of turning arguments against an opponent,
but is too lazy to do his research [unlike Tar Elenion] and not qualified
enough to rebut from personal knowledge [unlike Nuki Mouse].
That's his limit, but the kids over in alt.fan.dune couldn't be arsed to
argue with him and so he gets away with it.
Not any more though, not after the meandering circular fascist discussion
threads the group has become infested with recently.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Joe" <j...@all.spammers.must.die.die.die.com> wrote in message
> news:oy68c.895347$X%5.648976@pd7tw2no...
>
> > Let's see, under Sharon, Israel's army has been busy grinding Palestinian
> > children into hamburger, using human shields to knock on doors of supected
> > militants, using tanks to fire on children who throw rocks,
>
> Again, the data appear to disagree with this assertion. It appears most
> Palestinian casualties are among armed young men, while most Israeli
> casualties are among unarmed noncombatants.
And this is because the armed young Palestian men aren't in tanks and
fighter planes and bulldozers, while the only Israelis who aren't in
these things are the civilians.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote
> > > Build a bl**dy wall around the whole place, put a lid on it,
> > > refuse to let any aircraft leave their airspace, and wait
> > > 20 years. No interaction - no trading, no refugees - NO
> > > contact. In that time there *will* be peace..... of one sort
> > > or another.
> >
> > The peace of death was not what I had in mind.
>
> Oh, I dunno - they *might* make peace with each other
> short of that - if no one is helping either side.
Well, remove the extremists and the let the moderates get on with it and
you'll usually find that peace will break out.
M.
Bruce Tucker
> People in houses being hunted by soldiers of a foreign power are not
> defined as combatants.
There is nothing in the definition of combatants to suggest that
occupation of a house exempts one from combatant status. Sorry, nice
try. Neither does firing or not firing a weapon at any given instant
effect a momentary change into or out of combatant status, unless it is
indicative of an intent to cease all resistance (as with surrendering
troops) which it plainly was *not* with the suspects in question who
initiated the exchange of fire we are discussing.
Soldiers are not obliged to walk up to their opponents on a battlefield,
tap them on the shoulder, and say 'Excuse me old boy, would you mind
firing your weapon and thus becoming a 'combatant' again so that I might
freely shoot you? Thanks so much."
You can play this all week, you know, and it still won't get you
anywhere. Questioning the legitimacy of the invasion does not affect the
status of participants on either side as combatants or not under
international law. It quite simply doesn't. If you suggest otherwise
you're only showing your own bull-headedness and ignorance.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Bruce Tucker
> Ahhh, you're just a whinger looking for excuses.
The brilliance of your logic scathes me.
I can only imagine your reaction if the American forces *had* pumped a
few gallons of nerve gas into the house, killing most or all of the
occupants. I'm sure it would be the biggest war crimes scandal since
Auschwitz.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Bruce Tucker
> Why do Bushes Saudi "allies" allegedly fund Hamas?
Because no Arab state with the partial exception of Egypt has ever
wanted or indeed tolerated the possibility of a peaceful settlement of
the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, of course. Particularly not the rich
oil monarchies of the gulf - who would work their oil rigs if they
couldn't hire expat Palestinian refugees on the cheap?
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Flame of the West
> Personally I think America being run for the benefit of
> commercial interests to the detriment of the population as a whole
> without much thought for the consequences.
No doubt about that. But it's been true for a long time. It's been
a lot more open since Bill Clinton though. He made clear that both
parties are in the pocket of Big Business. Before Clinton one could
delude oneself that only the Republicans were in business' pocket.
The latest evidence of this is the persistent joblessness we have
suffered. This is directly due to our embrace of the "global economy"
but neither party will say this plainly. The Bush administration made
the shocking gaffe of saying that the offshore flight of jobs was a
good thing (a gaffe which may cost him the election), but no one
expects Kerry to be any different; he's a free-trader from way back.
Our corporations reap big profits while more and more Americans
are unemployed. And neither party will admit what is wrong. I heard
a Kerry commercial which claimed he would "crack down" on the
flight of American jobs. What a laugh! There is no clearer example
of how the US Gov't works for business, not the people.
I for one am disgusted, especially when we are told that European-level
unemployment is now the norm and we should get used to it because
the jobs lost in the last few years "aren't coming back." I am seriously
thinking of voting for Ralph Nader this time around.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Flame of the West
> Let them get the f*** out of Iraq.
We're *trying* already!
Tar-Elenion
jsol...@netscape.net says...
>
> I for one am disgusted, especially when we are told that European-level
> unemployment is now the norm and we should get used to it because
> the jobs lost in the last few years "aren't coming back." I am seriously
> thinking of voting for Ralph Nader this time around.
Is Mr. Buchanan going to run again?
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Flame of the West
> Does any of those threads have anything to do with Dune?
When you lie down with alt.fan.tolkien, you wake up with off-topic posts.
Michael O'Neill
>
> In article <1060jf9...@corp.supernews.com>, tbear...@tyler.net
> says...> > news:406047FE...@indigo.ie...
> > > Ty wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > > > > You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> > > > > Nazis, didn't you?
> > > >
> > > > Uh no.
> > >
> > > Did you know that they laundered money for Nazi industrialist Thyssen and
> > > were paid handsomely for their trouble?
> >
> > Uh no.
> >
> > I know I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes -- got any credible --
> > i.e., non kook -- sources for this information?
>
> http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8054
Good catch.
It is, however, a very apologistic piece towards President Bush, who is a
Bonesman just like his Dad, and IIRC his Grandad and towards ex-President
Bush, who was part of the Reagan admistration during Iran Contra and who
served in the CIA from around 1961, despite his earlier denials for
whatever reason.
President Bushes policies and comments and his administrations actions
are what mark him out as fascist, not his families past association with
the Nazi war machine, but as far as they go they are a damning
indictment.
Thsi first link is the seminal work on George Bushes father. It appears
well researched and meticulously dated. Without access to its sources I
cannot confirm any of the contents, but it is written in a way that only
the best researched works are, concise, no padding and no holds barred.
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm and from
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm - a brief quotation:
================================================
Certain actions taken directly by the Harriman-Bush shipping line in 1932
must be ranked among the gravest acts of treason in this century.
The U.S. embassy in Berlin reported back to Washington that the `` costly
election campaigns '' and `` the cost of maintaining a private army of
300,000 to 400,000 men '' had raised questions as to the Nazis' financial
backers. The constitutional government of the German republic moved to
defend national freedom by ordering the Nazi Party private armies
disbanded. The U.S. embassy reported that the Hamburg-Amerika Line was
purchasing and distributing propaganda attacks against the German
government, for attempting this last-minute crackdown on Hitler's forces.
Thousands of German opponents of Hitlerism were shot or intimidated by
privately armed Nazi Brown Shirts. In this connection we note that the
original `` Merchant of Death, '' Samuel Pryor, was a founding director
of both the Union Banking Corp. and the American Ship and Commerce Corp.
Since Mr. Pryor was executive committee chairman of Remington Arms and a
central figure in the world's private arms traffic, his use to the Hitler
project was enhanced as the Bush family's partner in Nazi Party banking
and trans-Atlantic shipping.
The U.S. Senate arms-traffic investigators probed Remington after it was
joined in a cartel agreement on explosives to the Nazi firm I.G. Farben.
Looking at the period leading up to Hitler's seizure of power, the
Senators found that `` German political associations, like the Nazi and
others, are nearly all armed with American ... guns.... Arms of all kinds
coming from America are transshipped in the Scheldt to river barges
before the vessels arrive in Antwerp. They then can be carried through
Holland without police inspection or interference. The Hitlerists and
Communists are presumed to get arms in this manner. The principal arms
coming from America are Thompson submachine guns and revolvers. The
number is great.
The beginning of the Hitler regime brought some bizarre changes to the
Hamburg-Amerika Line--and more betrayals.
Prescott Bush's American Ship and Commerce Corp. notified Max Warburg of
Hamburg, Germany, on March 7, 1933, that Warburg was to be the
corporation's official, designated representative on the board of
Hamburg-Amerika.@s2@s9
Max Warburg replied on March 27, 1933, assuring his American sponsors
that the Hitler government was good for Germany: `` For the last few
years business was considerably better than we had anticipated, but a
reaction is making itself felt for some months. We are actually suffering
also under the very active propaganda against Germany, caused by some
unpleasant circumstances. These occurrences were the natural consequence
of the very excited election campaign, but were extraordinarily
exaggerated in the foreign press. The Government is firmly resolved to
maintain public peace and order in Germany, and I feel perfectly
convinced in this respect that there is no cause for any alarm
whatsoever. ''@s3@s0
This seal of approval for Hitler, coming from a famous Jew, was just what
Harriman and Bush required, for they anticipated rather serious `` alarm
'' inside the U.S.A. against their Nazi operations.
==============================================
To say that Thyssen broke with Hitler because of his sensitivities about
the Jews is to do a terrible disservice to the Jews. Thyssen armed the
Third Reich. To imply that Prescott Bushes activities for Thyssen and his
outlook on Eugenics made no impression on his young son or grandson is to
be disingenuous to a fault.
A more balanced viewpoint is presented in the following link, which shows
the machinations of Nazi money laundering entered into by Prescott Bush
and Rockefeller. Jewish sentiment doesn't figure strongly in it and the
timing of events precludes any such sentiment being held by Prescott
Bush.
From: http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html
==============================================
"The enormous sums of money deposited into the Union Bank prior to 1942
is the best evidence that Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money
launderer for the Nazis. Remember that Union Banks' books and accounts
were frozen by the U.S. Alien Property Custodian in 1942 and not released
back to the Bush family until 1951. At that time, Union Bank shares
representing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of industrial stocks
and bonds were unblocked for distribution. Did the Bush family really
believe that such enormous sums came from Dutch enterprises? One could
sell tulip bulbs and wooden shoes for centuries and not achieve those
sums. A fortune this size could only have come from the Thyssen profits
made from re-arming the Third Reich, and then hidden, first from the Nazi
tax auditors, and then from the Allies.
"The Bushes knew perfectly well that Brown Brothers was the American
money channel into Nazi Germany, and that Union Bank was the secret
pipeline to bring the Nazi money back to America from Holland. The Bushes
had to have known how the secret money circuit worked because they were
on the board of directors in both directions: Brown Brothers out, Union
Bank in.
"Moreover, the size of their compensation is commensurate with their risk
as Nazi money launderers. In 1951, Prescott Bush and his father in law
each received one share of Union Bank stock, worth $750,000 each. One and
a half million dollars was a lot of money in 1951. But then, from the
Thyssen point of view, buying the Bushes was the best bargain of the
war."
==============================================
The final link, a piece by Robert Lederman is more agenda-driven, but I
have read all the summary statements he makes on other websites and URLs,
some weird and wacky others straight down the line and they all agree.
The only one I hadn't heard before I read this link tonight was the one
where Reagan states that George Herbert Walker Bush was a Rockefeller
puppet. I'll search for corroberation on that one.
From: http://www.konformist.com/2000/chase.htm
==============================================
Chase Bank, it's owners, the Rockefeller family and the family's other
main business - Standard Oil (now known as Exxon) - were an integral part
of Hitler's war effort. Rockefeller, Standard Oil and Chase Bank helped
put Hitler in power, helped him build the world's deadliest army,
supplied him with oil throughout the war and after the war helped the
Nazi elite to smuggle billions of dollars stolen from Holocaust victims
and Nazi-occupied countries out of Germany and into Swiss and Latin
American banks.
The powerhouse of Germany's war industry was I.G. Farben the chemical
company that patented and manufactured Zyklon-B the nerve gas used in
Auschwitz. The relationship of I.G. Farben to Auschwitz went much deeper
than Zyklon-B.
Auschwitz was built by I.G. Farben as a slave labor camp that
manufactured rubber and other materials for the Nazi war effort and
"recycled" gold fillings, human hair and other substances derived from
those worked to death or killed in the gas chambers. At the end of WWII
I.G. Farben was transformed into BASF, Bayer and Hoescht.
Rockefeller/Standard Oil was the largest stockholder in I.G. Farben and
I.G. Farben was-next to Rockefeller-the largest shareholder in Standard
Oil. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman considered Standard Oil's executives
and Rockefeller to be traitors to America.
John D. Rockefeller was also the world's biggest promoter of Eugenics,
the pseudo-science of racial differences, selective breeding and "race
betterment". Among the "scientists" his foundation funded was Auschwitz's
infamous doctor of death Josef Mengele. Eugenics led directly to the
Holocaust. Today, Rockefeller foundations continue to fund Eugenics
programs worldwide under the guise of improving human health, population
control and disease control.
In America Rockefeller/Chase's most influential front may be the
Manhattan Institute, a right wing think tank founded by former CIA
director William Casey after he helped bring thousands of former Nazis to
America following WWII. The Manhattan Institute is the origin of every
racially-biased, constitution-violating policy Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has
instituted in New York City during the past six years.
==============================================
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > Ahhh, you're just a whinger looking for excuses.
>
> The brilliance of your logic scathes me.
>
> I can only imagine your reaction if the American forces *had* pumped a
> few gallons of nerve gas into the house, killing most or all of the
> occupants. I'm sure it would be the biggest war crimes scandal since
> Auschwitz.
I'm sure it would genius, which is why *I* suggested stun grenades and
tear gas.
HTH
M.
Hashemon Urtasman
Flame of the West wrote:
>
> I for one am disgusted, especially when we are told that European-level
> unemployment is now the norm and we should get used to it because
> the jobs lost in the last few years "aren't coming back." I am seriously
> thinking of voting for Ralph Nader this time around.
>
>
I think Ross Perot had sewn up that voting bloc a decade ago.
He was wrong about the giant sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico.
Instead the sucking sounds was all about jobs going to China, which most
people didn't realize because they were so caught up in all the new high
tech jobs around then.
Hasan
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > People in houses being hunted by soldiers of a foreign power are not
> > defined as combatants.
>
They weren't on a battlefield.
They weren't in uniform.
They were not part of an army of a country which had declared war on the
United States.
They weren't targetting the occupying force's troops.
They were not exhorting or commanding others to attack them.
They were not operating any remote control explosive devices, traps or
ambuscades.
Because of this and because of their display of non-violence until the
occupying forces made a forced and illegal entry to the house, they
couldn't have been classed as guerilla fighters.
They weren't even creating a civil disturbance.
By any standards, they were non-combatants.
But no doubt to trigger-happy raw recruits who by then had seen their
colleagues kill not a few journalists, women, children and old men, such
distinctions weren't a consideration.
M.
Tar-Elenion
> Tar-Elenion wrote:
> >
> > In article <1060jf9...@corp.supernews.com>, tbear...@tyler.net
> > says...
> > > "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:406047FE...@indigo.ie...
> > > > Ty wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> > > > > > Nazis, didn't you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh no.
> > > >
> > > > Did you know that they laundered money for Nazi industrialist Thyssen and
> > > > were paid handsomely for their trouble?
> > >
> > > Uh no.
> > >
> > > I know I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes -- got any credible --
> > > i.e., non kook -- sources for this information?
> >
> > http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8054
>
> Good catch.
>
> It is, however, a very apologistic piece towards President Bush,
[gag, cough, snort] You just caused me to lose the last of the bottle of
Bushmills I was drinking. Joe Conasson may be a lot of things, but a
Bush apologist is not one of them.
> who is a
> Bonesman just like his Dad, and IIRC his Grandad and towards ex-President
> Bush, who was part of the Reagan admistration during Iran Contra and who
> served in the CIA from around 1961, despite his earlier denials for
> whatever reason.
>
> President Bushes policies and comments and his administrations actions
> are what mark him out as fascist, not his families past association with
> the Nazi war machine, but as far as they go they are a damning
> indictment.
>
I got as far as "fascist" and decided to stop. I may (or may not) at
some point read your entire post, when I have more time.
<snip>
Flame of the West
> > I for one am disgusted, especially when we are told that European-level
> > unemployment is now the norm and we should get used to it because
> > the jobs lost in the last few years "aren't coming back." I am seriously
> > thinking of voting for Ralph Nader this time around.
>
> Is Mr. Buchanan going to run again?
I don't think so. If he did, he'd get my vote in a New York minute.
Flame of the West
> > Never heard that. Got a *credible* source for that info?
>
> Got a credible source for denial?
Rumor has it that your mother was a space alien, O'Neill. Got a
credible source for denial? If not, we'll have to take it as fact.
Didn't the Christian Brothers teach you anything about logic?
Tar-Elenion
jsol...@netscape.net says...
> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>
> > > I for one am disgusted, especially when we are told that European-level
> > > unemployment is now the norm and we should get used to it because
> > > the jobs lost in the last few years "aren't coming back." I am seriously
> > > thinking of voting for Ralph Nader this time around.
> >
> > Is Mr. Buchanan going to run again?
>
> I don't think so. If he did, he'd get my vote in a New York minute.
>
>
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> You do know that Kerry is a Bonesman as well, don't you? Well, probably not.
> You never were one for all the facts, especially when they don't help you
> Bush-bash
I do, which is one reason why you don't see me touting for Kerry in this
newsgroup. I've made several comments concerning the equally corrupt
Democratic party and the non-existence of socialism in the United States
[which is the only counter to capitalism].
> >Thsi first link is the seminal work on George Bushes father. It appears
> >well researched and meticulously dated. Without access to its sources I
> >cannot confirm any of the contents, but it is written in a way that only
> >the best researched works are, concise, no padding and no holds barred.
> >
> >http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm and from
> >http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm - a brief quotation:
>
> So without any co-<SLAP!>
The below seizures of property under the Trading with the Enemy Act are a
matter of public record, so they qualify as facts. Most uncomfortably,
they also define the Bush family as people who would rather commit
treason than stop doing business with an enemy.
I find it difficult to believe anything Bush says about who was behind
9-11, given his family's past treasons in time of war, his personal
behaviour and his complete disregard for innocent lives in his pursuit of
wealth for his corporate friends. Like his father before him, he is a
puppet dancing to the tune of powerful corporate sponsors for whom the
integrity of a country and the safety of its people are just counters on
a board.
M.
===========================================
Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy
From: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was
preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush
was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son
George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a
naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of
Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being
conducted by Prescott Bush.
Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union
Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien
Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of
which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three
Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1
The order seizing the bank `` vests '' (seizes) `` all of the capital
stock of Union Banking Corporation, a New York corporation, '' and names
the holders of its shares as:
`` E. Roland Harriman--3991 shares ''
[chairman and director of Union Banking Corp. (UBC); this is `` Bunny ''
Harriman, described by Prescott Bush as a place holder who didn't get
much into banking affairs; Prescott managed his personal investments]
` Cornelis Lievense--4 shares ''
[president and director of UBC; New York resident banking functionary for
the Nazis]
`` Harold D. Pennington--1 share ''
[treasurer and director of UBC; an office manager employed by Bush at
Brown Brothers Harriman]
`` Ray Morris--1 share ''
[director of UBC; partner of Bush and the Harrimans]
`` Prescott S. Bush--1 share ''
[director of UBC, which was co-founded and sponsored by his father-in-law
George Walker; senior managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell
Harriman]
`` H.J. Kouwenhoven--1 share ''
[director of UBC; organized UBC as the emissary of Fritz Thyssen in
negotiations with George Walker and Averell Harriman; managing director
of UBC's Netherlands affiliate under Nazi occupation; industrial
executive in Nazi Germany; director and chief foreign financial executive
of the German Steel Trust]
`` Johann G. Groeninger--1 share ''
[director of UBC and of its Netherlands affiliate; industrial executive
in Nazi Germany]
`` all of which shares are held for the benefit of ... members of the
Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals ... of a designated enemy
country.... ''
By Oct. 26, 1942, U.S. troops were under way for North Africa. On Oct.
28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run
by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American Trading Corporation and
the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.@s2
U.S. forces landed under fire near Algiers on Nov. 8, 1942; heavy combat
raged throughout November. Nazi interests in the Silesian-American
Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George
Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov.
17, 1942. In this action, the government announced that it was seizing
only the Nazi interests, leaving the Nazis' U.S. partners to carry on the
business.@s3
Michael O'Neill
>
> In article <406225FF...@indigo.ie>, o...@indigo.ie says...
> > Tar-Elenion wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <1060jf9...@corp.supernews.com>, tbear...@tyler.net
> > > says...
> > > > "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > > news:406047FE...@indigo.ie...
> > > > > Ty wrote:
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > > You did know the Bush family was involved in money laundering for the
> > > > > > > Nazis, didn't you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uh no.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you know that they laundered money for Nazi industrialist Thyssen and
> > > > > were paid handsomely for their trouble?
> > > >
> > > > Uh no.
> > > >
> > > > I know I'm going to regret asking this, but here goes -- got any credible --
> > > > i.e., non kook -- sources for this information?
> > >
> > > http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8054
> >
> > Good catch.
> >
> > It is, however, a very apologistic piece towards President Bush,
>
> [gag, cough, snort] You just caused me to lose the last of the bottle of
> Bushmills I was drinking. Joe Conasson may be a lot of things, but a
> Bush apologist is not one of them.
There are several techniques used in the piece to distance Bush Jnr. from
the indoctrination of his father and grandfather. Allow me to explain:
==============================================
Liberal invective against George W. Bush has not yet descended to the
depths plumbed by conservatives in their crusade against the Clintons,
but that isn’t because nobody’s trying. Mr. Bush’s most zealous opponents
apparently believe that his faults, and those of his cronies and his
administration, will be insufficient to unseat him next year.
That may be why some Bush critics have been circulating a story about the
financial connections between his paternal grandfather, Prescott Bush
Sr., and a Nazi industrial magnate named Fritz Thyssen.
==============================================
So the whole Nazi connection has nothing to do with George.
Then he goes from this:
=============================================
While Prescott Sr. held only a single share of Union Banking stock, he
also served as one of seven corporate directors whose apparent purpose
was to help Thyssen conceal the bank’s real ownership.
=============================================
to this
=============================================
The involvement of Prescott Sr. and other members of the American
business aristocracy with Nazi-era industry was shameful, and in some
instances illegal—and they knew it.
=============================================
and then, unaccountably, to this
=============================================
Henry Ford was a Nazi collaborator. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi
sympathizer. Unless additional information emerges to indict him,
Prescott Bush Sr. was neither. To misuse such terms for political
advantage against his grandson is to trivialize very grave offenses.
============================================
Hello? Prescott Bush was the executive director in the firm that
laundered Nazi profits for a Nazi industrialist, Fritz Thyssen. The fact
that he had only one share is irrelevant. The fact that he is dead is
irrelevant. That fact that he was later elected a senator while his
crimes were kept out of the public domain is irrelevant.
And finally, damningly in the light of the 9-11 atrocity and the
subsequent illegal invasion of Iraq, to this
============================================
There are many unflattering terms that can and should be used to describe
George W. Bush. He is, among other things, a truly bad President. But
neither his offenses, nor the Republican Party’s politics of personal
destruction, can justify using such tactics against him. Imputing Nazi
sympathies to the President or his family ought to be beneath his
adversaries.
============================================
On the contrary, Bush is demonstrably a fascist and the review of his
family's dealings with the Nazis, particularly Thyssen, to whom they were
beholden for three quarters of a million dollars in the 1950's, is mere
background.
You move on from there to see what these influences have produced, but
you recognize where they came from.
Far more interesting is the other shareholder in the Bush laundering
operation, the Chase Manhattan bank.
The avowed Rockefeller interest in Eugenics [a favourite Nazi and
Manhattan Institute pastime] was mirrored in the previous Bush-influenced
Administrations subvention for third world sterilization of women,
population control of inferior races being a Nazi aim.
Rockefeller it was who recently declared that a New World Order had
arisen. I'm only waiting to see the national socialist the world over
come out of the woodwork. Already we're seeing the swing to the right in
Europe to prepare the way. I wonder who's funding that?
America, again?
But the real fascist power principle is the alignment of business and
politics and that is manifest throughout the composition of the Bush
Administration. Instead of governing for the benefit of the people as a
whole, from whom his power is devolved, the President is clearly intent
on benefiting his own cronies in the business world, a selection of
senescent boardroom warriors who do not understand war or the
consequences of war.
No other President has given tax cuts in time of war, while at the same
time massively increasing military spending. The lie that has assuaged
those in the know who disagreed with such policies in the past was that
this money will feed back into the economy and create jobs and keep
America strong.
The current jobs figures prove this to be the lie it always was.
The Euro is gaining in influence.
If it even shares space with the dollar as a World Reserve Currency it
will prompt the bursting of the current derivatives and property bubbles
in the US.
If it replaces the Petrodollar those bubbles will burst precipitously, to
the great detriment of the quality of life for ordinary people partaking
in the American Experiment.
The current massive war expenditure has been a last desperate gamble by a
misguided few to impose American hegemony on the world.
Japan, a source of dollar holdings is seeing its population suffer the
twin depredations of "hermit-recluses" in young males and "home
parasites" in young women, resulting in few babies overall being
conceived and 50% of those that are conceived being aborted.
An entire new generation of Japanese are remembered only in prayer by
their non-mothers before small wooden idols of babies to prevent evil
spirits from the aborted children assailing the mothers.
That's not counting the attrition in the current generation due to
suicide.
One fifth of Japan's population will soon be over 60. Innovation and new
business start ups are predominantly in the 20-35 age group. Japan, from
being an economic superpower in the 70's and 80's has gone from full
forward into reverse.
So that's Japan on a downward spiral, and America racking up debts for
its children to pay.
I'll give America ten years at the rate its going. Then it'll either have
to take over the rest of the world properly, or it will implode.
And unless we see other centers of growth to buoy up the World Economy,
we'll all go down with it.
Is that why so much inward investment is occurring in China? I believe it
is. But like all capitalist mechanisms, it is not regulated, has no means
of slowing itself and will burn out too quickly. Dampers must be placed
on Capitalism or it will consume the world too quickly to allow
sustainable strategies to be put in place.
<snip>
> I got as far as "fascist" and decided to stop. I may (or may not) at
> some point read your entire post, when I have more time.
> <snip>
Take all the time you want, Tar.
You're the one sharing real estate with him, not me.
"Manhattan". That name keeps cropping up. Wasn't that the name of the
project using defecting Nazi scientists that resulted in the dropping of
the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/manhattanproject.cfm
Why so it was. Another "name coincidence". Like "Zapata". And "Caribe".
All have Bush connections.
No surprises.
M.
Robert J. Kolker
"J Swanson" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94B57EC501...@195.67.237.53...
>
> Saddam Hussein is alive, waiting to be tried in a legitimate court. Of
> course that is the only acceptable way for a civilized nation to treat
> criminals that it, as an occupying power, find in the territory it
> controls.
Ahem yourself. When Saddam, that imitation Stalin, was caught, the coalition
troops were in control of the country (more or less). The same is not true
of Gaza. The Israelis, under great pressure from the United States, have
conceded Gaza to the Palestinians, so it is now a terrorist cesspool. Israel
is NOT an occupying power in Gaza, thanks to the U.S.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3p9un$26l$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> And now that Yassim is gone, they will of course stop all
> such activities, right? What a strange little world you live in...
>
> FYI, Yassin represented the *moderate* side of Hamas
> leadership. His death leaves room for the real hardliners
> to take over.
Then, the Israelis will have to kill them too.
Like it says in the Talmud, - If he comes to murder you, rise up early and
slay him first-.
The Israelis are dealing with latter day Amalekites (read the Bible) and are
doing what is necessary. Remember Amalek, what he did to you in the
wilderness. He slew elders and children and did not fear the Lord.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Ty" <tbear...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:1060jur...@corp.supernews.com...
> It's real simple -- terrorists are at war with civilization itself. There
is
> no middle ground in this fight.
>
> Indulgent feckless Western lefties who delude themselves into thinking
that
> they can reason with such lunatics are simply whistling through the
> graveyard. You cannot reasonably expect to befriend a rabid dog, no matter
> how much you appease him. <shrug>
Think of what Kyle told Sarah Connors about the true nature of The
Terminator. You can't reason with it, you can't pleasd with it. It has one
function, to kill you. Think of the Black Knight in -Monty Python and the
Holy Grail-. It won't stop until it is killed. Even hacking off the limbs
won't stop it from trying to bite.
The "liberals" think anyone who has anger and a murderous impulse must be
acting from a reasonable grievance. If only we would be nice the the
Palistians and treat the with respect, they would stop their murdering.
Not!!!!. These people are motivated by a primordial Moslem Urge to make the
whole world part of the Dar al Islam. And they will start by killing the
Jews first. See what the Q'ran has to say about Jews. On the Day of Wrath
and Judgement, even the rocks won't hide Jews. I tell you these Moslems have
been driven crazy by their religion. They are incapable of tolerating
dissent and contrary ideas.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Personally, I think that you freaked out when you realized that my
> prediction may prove true and that Europe might face terrible consequences
> for their coddling of Islamist fanatics. <blink> Did you honestly think
that
> being nice to Islamist lunatics would keep them from slaughtering you if
> they get the chance?
Unfortunately the French operate in strange modes. Defcon 4 is Panic mode.
Defcon 3 is Hide mode. Defcon 2 is Surrender mode. And Defcon 1 is
Collaborate mode. Just like during the second world war. The only French
fighting the Nazis were communists and Jews. And the commnists fought the
Nazis only after Stalin gave them permission.
If you hate the French raise your right arm. If you -are- French, raise both
arms.
Unfortunately the manhood of France was bled and drained during the
Napoleanic Wars. What was left were and are the dregs.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:c3stt3$8uh$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
You recall what happen to Anwar al Sadat who found a modus vivendi with
Israel? He was assassinated by the Moslem Extremists in Egypt, the same ones
who are in cahoots with UBL and the Wahabites. You really don't want to
invite these people over for Sunday dinner.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:40603372...@indigo.ie...
>
> And of course, having visited the Palestinian enclaves I know what the
> effects of repression on a subject populace can be like.
If these people would learn how to behave themselves they would not be
repressed by the Israelis. The minute the Palestinians renounce the violence
there will be a total transformation of the region. The Palestinians do not
have to learn to love Jews, they only have to learn not to blow up Jews.
Once that is accomplished Palestinians and Jews will do business together
and learn to tolerate each other's existence. It will be a great benefit to
the Palestinians and a great relief to the Jews.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> passers-by or fellow worshippers. This sort of "collateral damage" in a
> community with which Israel is supposedly engaged in peaceful
> negotiations is unacceptable regardless of the perceived need, and is
> going to cause severe repercussions worldwide.
In WW2 (a just war) the Allies killed 500,000 civillians in bombing raids.
That did not stop Germans and the Allies from getting along after the war. I
am sure there were hard feelings, but the Germans swallowed them and got on
with living their lives and behaving themselves. Collateral damage is one of
the infellicities of modern war. And instead of blaming the Israelis who are
defending themselves against murdering terrorists you should ask why
murdering terrorists live among the general population and not isolated
caves like UBL. When UBL is captured or killed ony bad guys will die.
The terrorists in the Bakkah Valley of Lebannon lives among women and
children. When the Israelis attack their training camps and marshalling
areas women and children are killed. Who is to blame? If the terrorists ever
thought that Israelis would hesitate about firing on children, they would
tie children to the front of their cars and trucks when they attack. It is
the terrorists and murdering thugs that bring death to their own children.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> No, I think *you* do.
>
> You speak of "summary executions" and "due process" as if Uday and Qusay
> were judicially murdered on someone's orders. They were not. Terms like
> "summary execution" and "due process" have no meaning in a firefight. A
> death in mutual combat can by no stretch of the imagination be
> considered a "summary execution", and defending oneself in battle is
> hardly a denial of one's enemies' "due process". It's absurd to claim
> that it is. Equally absurd is your comparison of such a death,
> particularly where the battle was initiated by the deceased, to an
> assassination-by-Hellfire missile.
Absolutely. If those murdering perverts Uday and Qusay gave themselves up
they would live to stand trial for their totally outrageous crimes. Is
suspect that murderous pair knew they were doomed so they were determined to
take those who were trying to capture them with them.
Bob Kolker