What Goes Around Comes Around
JM
daily on-line edition, as e.g. this one . . .
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157844.html
One BUTTFACE calling himself "American Citizen" had this to say . . .
"General Petraeus already told Israel that its attacks on its
neighbors endangers American troops in the region and are not in our
national interest. If Israel attacks Iran, we`ll get blamed and our
troops in Iraq would be sitting ducks. AIPAC and its supporters in
Congress won`t dare challenge the opinion of the Joint Chiefs."
--
By way of reply, I thought it proper to put Mr. US BUTTFACE Citizen
straight . . .
General Petraeus doesn't "tell" Israel ANYTHING. Israel is telling YOU
to get your nose out of the defense business of another nation where
it does not belong. The security of American soldiers in the field is
US business and NONE of Bibi's. Bibi has security concerns of his own
for his own. Get that straight, Mr. so-called "US Citizen".
Bibi's concern is that madman, Ahmadinutjob getting his grungy finger
on the nuke button, which he is clearly crazy enough to push, if he's
crazy enough to deny the realities of the Shoah and 9/11. He's a
suicide bomber with a nuclear weapon strapped to himself and to the
belly of all Iran.
And you, buddy, are just as crazy as he is if you can actually suppose
the security of American forces in the field holds a greater value in
this world than the security of Israel and it's people. Think again!
America has turned its back on Israel in every war she has ever
fought--bar none. What goes around comes around. -- JM
On Mar 21, 4:26 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just Me wrote:
>
> > Bibi's concern is that madman, Ahmadinutjob getting his grungy finger
> > on the nuke button, which he is clearly crazy enough to push, if he's
> > crazy enough to deny the realities of the Shoah and 9/11. He's a
> > suicide bomber with a nuclear weapon strapped to himself and to the
> > belly of all Iran.
>
> Fair enough. You could start writing the confused one's name as
> 'Ahmakinutjob' or even 'Ahmaknutjob', if you wish; it seem more fitting
> to me, if not as similar phonetically. :)
>
> > And you, buddy, are just as crazy as he is if you can actually suppose
> > the security of American forces in the field holds a greater value in
> > this world than the security of Israel and it's people.
>
> You are right about the "in this world" part, but since when have
> American officials (and the military) been caring about the world ? It
> seems to me that the unwritten policy is that the national interest and
> national security (including the security of the military in the field)
> trump any and all other considerations. Security of Israel is only a
> secondary tactical consideration, for just as long as it ensures the
> national interest and security of the USA.
Well stated. Totally a case of myopia.
Here's another discussion from Haaretz, David of Haifa speaking . . .
"not only do we have the ability to hit iran but we will... however we
would prefer not to use a jericho 4 or 5 missle which would kill
thousands... You are living in occupied california, yes? when does
that go back to mexico... you did steal it in 1848 right?"
--
I was moved to say, "Right On, David of Haifa . . .
Occupied California, occupied Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii, Guam
and occupied Puerto Rico--why not go all the back to occupied
Manhattan? And think of the deal we got on that from the Mohicans for
20 bucks! Compare to the usurious prices Rothschild was shelling out
to those Shylocks of absentee Syrian landlords in order to build Tel
Aviv. David is so right. Let no Texan or Californian living on land
robbed at gunpoint from Mexico talk about the sins of "Occupation".
The only difference is that Israel's possessions came by pure
necessity of defense; America's by aggression, purely for sake of
expansionist greed and nothing else, not even so much as an ancient
claim.
--
JM