What's the game, Mr. President?

[pelastration]

As kat suggested this can better be a separate thread.

I am very concerned about what's Bush up to. It seems there is a hidden red line ... . I really hope there is none.

I start with a quite neutral view.

Interesting on BBC news website:
(1) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his country has no plans to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3217581.stm

This is IMO a good point for Sharon: He confirms that he will not kill the chosen President of Palestine. Whaw, that really seems a gift.

But also: Israel's treatment of Palestinians is causing a humanitarian crisis, the country's chief of staff General Yaalon has said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228843.stm) causing a fury in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office.

and:
(2) Hamas leader talks strategies . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3224989.stm.

Insights about the logic used by Hamas. Is this that 'right of revolution'? (thread: can a normal person become a terrorist?)

We see that from both sides a lot of emotions are involved, and both claim injustice.
Both go for 'an-eye-for-an-eye'.
What can stop this spiral of violence?
What is the hidden agenda of each? Does Likud really goes in long term for a Great Israel (then Syria is also a target to occupy in the future)? Does Hamas want to destroy Israel completely? -

Now what is the long term goal of the Likud party (Sharon's): Check this map.
http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/eretz/future.asp .
Does it includes Iraq? I think so.

Now look what one of Bush religious fathers Pat Roberson states:
http://www.patrobertson.com/teaching/TeachingonIsraelTerritory.asp
"Every place on which the sole of your foot treads, I have given it to you, just as I spoke to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory."
...
Pat Roberson: And why is America in favor of Israel? Because we have a great history of biblical belief -- Judeo-Christian -- and we believe God gave the land to the descendents of Israel.
It was not given to Palestine, it wasn't given to so-called Palestinians. It wasn't given to Saudis or the Syrians.

It was given to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Joshua. God said, You step on it and conquer it and I will give it to you. We are looking at a time dating back 3,000 years. This has been the land of Israel. And it belongs to them. And God is not going to let anybody take it away from them."

Is this what pushes Bush? Does he risks young American lives to make the dream of Zionist fundamentalists come through or to realize some prophecies of the Bible? http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3025
So ... what's the real game Mr. President?

 

[megashawn]

and that certainly is a good question. I still hold the position that any person who upholds a belief system that ends in total annihalation of life on Earth should not be in charge of the (one of the) greatest military on it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
Interesting on BBC news website:
(1) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his country has no plans to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3217581.stm

This is IMO a good point for Sharon: He confirms that he will not kill the chosen President of Palestine. Whaw, that really seems a gift.

Setting aside for now that there has never been a country called "Palestine" for anyone to be president of, Arafat lost an election and lost the leadership role of the PA. That he has refused to cede his position is evidence of his true nature - not interested in peace or democratic processes, only his own power.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Setting aside for now that there has never been a country called "Palestine" for anyone to be president of, Arafat lost an election and lost the leadership role of the PA. That he has refused to cede his position is evidence of his true nature - not interested in peace or democratic processes, only his own power.

Indeed, this is not the issue here:
But:
(1) There were elections. Yes or no? Jim Carter was a controller.
(2) Did Arafat loose? I remember he won. Please correct me.
(3) I seems to me that Arafat is accepted in his 'country' or 'territory' (if you prefer) as the leader. He appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers.
De jure and de facto he is the leader if Sharon don't accept it or not.
IMO Sharon has no legitimacy to decide who is the leader of the Palestines.

You mean that Sharon's true nature is to be interested in peace or democratic processes, not in his own power? I think he proved to handle and feed a conflict model, not a consensus model. When did the intifade started?

I believe that if Rabin still would live the whole region would be much more peaceful then today.
Of course we will never know. But a lot of my Jewish friends believe that too.

 

[pelastration]

wanttoknow.info site

The wanttoknow.info site provides for free rare news information. (normally you pay for such info).

Here the link to an article on: The Secret War; Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its 'black world' of covert operations - The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; Oct 27, 2002; William M. Arkin;

Check: http://www.wanttoknow.info/021027latimes .

The LA Times (quote):

...
Rumsfeld's influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified "outbrief" -- a briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies -- that the global war on terrorism "requires new strategies, postures and organization."

The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.

Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk," the briefing paper declares.
...

(end of quote).

Other interesting page: Was 9/11 Allowed to Happen?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up

 

[HAVOC451]

Just for grins...
The next time you pass a used book store, go in an see if you can find an atlas published before 1948. Have a look at the chunk of land between Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
Just for grins.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
Just for grins...
The next time you pass a used book store, go in an see if you can find an atlas published before 1948. Have a look at the chunk of land between Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
Just for grins.

Thanks HAVOC451. Always open for information. Since I almost never pass a used bookstore can you give some more insights or details?

 

[HAVOC451]

I have two old maps that call that place "Palestine." Now, that may or may not mean that "Palestine" was a country, but it does suggest that those people didn't invent themselves.
I feel I should add that I do not in any way support the notion that strapping a bomb to ones person and boarding a crowded bus is an acceptable means of making the point that Palestine existed.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by pelastration


Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk," the briefing paper declares.
...

This sounds like a conspiracy theory designed to take over the world by causing terrorism...which is actually what some neocons, Like PNAC supporters and members Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. Back in 1997, they and other neocons decided that the best thing for America to do was to remain the world's lone superpower by any means necesary. Taking over Iraq's oil fields is just a start.

 

[pelastration]

For those who want know more about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict here is a link to a UN-site (with maps!): http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
On one of the pages: The Council has set forth the basic principles for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, known as the "land for peace" formula, by its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Since then, the Security Council_ has, inter alia, on numerous occasions expressed concern about the situation on the ground,_ declared null and void the measures taken by the Israeli government to change the status of Jerusalem, called for the cessation of Israeli settlement activity, which it determined to have no legal validity, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem and_ called for the return of Palestinian deportees. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/security_council.htm

Thank you Havoc451 for pointing on the importance of maps. After googling some seconds I found these:
A map of Palestina (1898): http://www.rubylane.com/ni/shops/curioshop/iteml/col5193 , and a lot of old maps of the region can be found on: http://www.geographicus.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=PME

Originally posted by Zero
This sounds like a conspiracy theory designed to take over the world by causing terrorism...which is actually what some neocons, Like PNAC supporters and members Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. Back in 1997, they and other neocons decided that the best thing for America to do was to remain the world's lone superpower by any means necesary. Taking over Iraq's oil fields is just a start.

If so a scary development!

Originally posted by HAVOC451
I feel I should add that I do not in any way support the notion that strapping a bomb to ones person and boarding a crowded bus is an acceptable means of making the point that Palestine existed.

Of course ... I am sure nobody on PF supports such actions. But I am also sure that these bomb-people don't do it for fun and are probably motivated by experiences that we will not find in a MCDonalds in LA or looking to comic movie in a ranch in Texas.

Originally posted by pelastration
I am very concerned about what's Bush up to. It seems there is a hidden red line ... . I really hope there is none.
...
Now what is the long term goal of the Likud party (Sharon's): Check this map.
http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/eretz/future.asp .
Does it includes Iraq? I think so.

Now look what one of Bush religious fathers Pat Roberson states:
http://www.patrobertson.com/teaching/TeachingonIsraelTerritory.asp
"Pat Roberson: And why is America in favor of Israel? Because we have a great history of biblical belief -- Judeo-Christian -- and we believe God gave the land to the descendents of Israel.
It was not given to Palestine, it wasn't given to so-called Palestinians. It wasn't given to Saudis or the Syrians.

It was given to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Joshua. God said, You step on it and conquer it and I will give it to you. We are looking at a time dating back 3,000 years. This has been the land of Israel. And it belongs to them. And God is not going to let anybody take it away from them."

Is this what pushes Bush? Does he risks young American lives to make the dream of Zionist fundamentalists come through or to realize some prophecies of the Bible? http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3025
So ... what's the real game Mr. President?

The strange thing is that Pat Roberson refers to the 'Old Testament' instead of the 'New Testament' which brings a God of Love through his son Jesus. In Christianity the NT is much more important than the OT. The NT shows compassion, love for your neighbor, peace, ... . Probably Pat Roberson prefers the OT God of Fear. Is that the reason why Bush divides the world in 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' in his speeches?
IMHO it are (still) humans who have written the OT and NT texts (including the phrases about that promised land) for "their own people".

Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.

Oh my God! This is going the un-christian way. Jesus! Light please on this All Saints day.

 

[kat]

I think you need to do more then just pick and choose your maps to support your theories. The word "Palestine" had a use equal to that of The Levant. That aside, if you really want to even begin to grasp the area then you should delve into Syria, and why the ottoman empire considered that portion to be Southern Syria. How that effects the area and what Syria's own intentions are considering that they do, did and probably will continue to consider this area "theirs".

 

[HAVOC451]

It's not a matter of picking and choosing a map to support one side or the other. The maps tell a story. A story of a place called Israel that was once called Palestine, and if you go back far enough you find that the same land was once before called Israel. (If there were any Cananites around today we might have three side fighting here.) So both sides have claim to the land and neither side is willing to accept the others claim.
The terrible thing is that inspite of all the killing, neither side has reached a point where the horror of it makes the people in power stop and re-think. Hamas would kill every Israeli if it could. Sharon would gleefully bulldose every man, woman, and child in the Gaza strip into the Mediteranian sea if he could. Tit for tat, eye for eye.
No matter what the rest of the world does, there can be no solution to this nightmare until the killing stops. The killing won't stop until one side has had enough and can convince the other that they have had enough as well.

So, where does Bush's game come to play in this?
Is Bush's support for Israel evidence that U.S. foreign policy is fronting for the Zionist dream of a greater Israel?
With folks like Perle involved, I can see why some people think it is.
Pat Robertson's interest is nothing less than armageddon to hasten his bizarre take on the second coming of christ.
Actually U.S foreign policy in the region has been been consistant if not single minded for fifty years. It's all about the oil. Who lives and who dies, who rules and who suffers, has little to do with it.
I don't think U.S foreign policy in this area is geared toward the benifit of humanity.
But, that's just my opinion.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by HAVOC451
It's not a matter of picking and choosing a map to support one side or the other. The maps tell a story.

I agree completely.
But Likud hard-liners goes for the Biblical Israel, like the radical murder of former Israel's Prime Minister Rabin.
For some US political and religious people in US these are the 'good' guys, all backed by misrepresented Christian values, from which "Permission to kill" (like James Bond) became a highly appreciated Christian value ... in political and TV-entertainment sense, and mixed with family values, treasured relationships with the Almighty, hard work brings success, everybody's worth, etc.

Originally posted by HAVOC451
The terrible thing is that inspite of all the killing, neither side has reached a point where the horror of it makes the people in power stop and re-think. Hamas would kill every Israeli if it could. Sharon would gleefully bulldose every man, woman, and child in the Gaza strip into the Mediteranian sea if he could. Tit for tat, eye for eye.

There was a point in time where each party was on speaking terms. Camp David and further. Arafat and Rabin ... . I know there were still problems but there was good WILL ... and pressure from US(!).
If we would put such 'good will' on a balance I believe Arafat would be the winner. Not because he is good man but because he has nothing to loose anymore, he can only win something. His motives may be "staying-in-power", proud, ... whatever ... but I believe his real power is that he sees himself like a founding father that want to take care of his people, a symbolic duty. He accepted "Land for Peace".
Sharon on the other side became in power by creating - during a demonstrative walk to that mosque - the intifada. That was intentional. A 'good' chess move. By creating insecurity for his 'own' people he won the elections. Sharon doesn't showed good will, he thinks in terms of power like Machiavelli. Sharon's motto: Land for Nothing (because it's ours for already 3,000 years ... and nothing will stop 'ME').
Be sure: In Sharon's mind 'HE' rules USA, and Bush is only HIS puppet. Pure Machiavelli. A very intelligent guy!

Originally posted by HAVOC451
No matter what the rest of the world does, there can be no solution to this nightmare until the killing stops. The killing won't stop until one side has had enough and can convince the other that they have had enough as well.

.
No, I believe USA has a key role and has also a 'Christian' responsibility to really push peace. I mean US really has the KEY. In global politics USA loses every day more face, and US is not seen as a global police man but as a out-law cow-boy. But US can regain respect if it acts with 'grandeure'.

Originally posted by HAVOC451
So, where does Bush's game come to play in this?
Is Bush's support for Israel evidence that U.S. foreign policy is fronting for the Zionist dream of a greater Israel?
With folks like Perle involved, I can see why some people think it is.
Pat Robertson's interest is nothing less than armageddon to hasten his bizarre take on the second coming of christ.
Actually U.S foreign policy in the region has been been consistant if not single minded for fifty years. It's all about the oil. Who lives and who dies, who rules and who suffers, has little to do with it.
I don't think U.S foreign policy in this area is geared toward the benifit of humanity.
But, that's just my opinion.

That's my opinion too.
Thanks.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I think you need to do more then just pick and choose your maps to support your theories. The word "Palestine" had a use equal to that of The Levant. That aside, if you really want to even begin to grasp the area then you should delve into Syria, and why the ottoman empire considered that portion to be Southern Syria. How that effects the area and what Syria's own intentions are considering that they do, did and probably will continue to consider this area "theirs".

The point, I think, is not the political borders, but the fact that people who have lived on that land for centuries were removed from their homes in order to create a fake country for the Jews to call home. The religious idea is secondary to the idea that people can be forcibly removed from their land by declaration of nations half a world away.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
The point, I think, is not the political borders, but the fact that people who have lived on that land for centuries were removed from their homes in order to create a fake country for the Jews to call home. The religious idea is secondary to the idea that people can be forcibly removed from their land by declaration of nations half a world away.

Well, perhaps the point should be then, (if you were really interested in the truth of the area and the politics both religious and national) would be that there were 22 "fake" countries created in the area during the same time period and that plenty of jews were also removed from their homes in those other "fake" countries. In the cases that religion is secondary, it is secondary to the declaration "All of Arab land must be only and always Arab". The point is also your "political" borders go far deeper then the "politics" you would like to attribute them to, in fact Syria has been very passionate about them..to the point where they are responsible for more deaths and a far more oppresive imprisonment of palestinians then the Israeli's ever have been. So, if it's "truth" you're in search of then one would suppose you would also be interested in the WHOLE picture and not the limited one so far portrayed here in this bungled mess of conspiracy theories.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Well, perhaps the point should be then, (if you were really interested in the truth of the area and the politics both religious and national) would be that there were 22 "fake" countries created in the area during the same time period and that plenty of jews were also removed from their homes in those other "fake" countries. In the cases that religion is secondary, it is secondary to the declaration "All of Arab land must be only and always Arab". The point is also your "political" borders go far deeper then the "politics" you would like to attribute them to, in fact Syria has been very passionate about them..to the point where they are responsible for more deaths and a far more oppresive imprisonment of palestinians then the Israeli's ever have been. So, if it's "truth" you're in search of then one would suppose you would also be interested in the WHOLE picture and not the limited one so far portrayed here in this bungled mess of conspiracy theories.

Why don't you calm down, kat? Or is that Israeli flag you have tattooed on your arm talking to you now? I noted the same sort of thing when discussing the future of Iraq, which was cobbled together by outsiders as well. The main difference for me, is that my tax dollars go to fund Israeli brutalities. I was too young to pay taxes in the 80s, when America funded Iraqi brutality, sent the CIA to train Afghan terrorists, etc.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by kat
So, if it's "truth" you're in search of then one would suppose you would also be interested in the WHOLE picture and not the limited one so far portrayed here in this bungled mess of conspiracy theories.

Kat, I am interested in that whole picture and that 'truth'. Please start.
I will appreciate to understand what you consider as 'that mess of conspiracy theories'. Can you be specific point by point? Thanks.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Why don't you calm down, kat? Or is that Israeli flag you have tattooed on your arm talking to you now? I noted the same sort of thing when discussing the future of Iraq, which was cobbled together by outsiders as well. The main difference for me, is that my tax dollars go to fund Israeli brutalities. I was too young to pay taxes in the 80s, when America funded Iraqi brutality, sent the CIA to train Afghan terrorists, etc.

Stop accusing me of being upset and irrational when I present an argument you don't like. Dialogue takes a response to comments made. Your habit of going off on a personal tangent are not condusive of that.

is that Israeli flag you have tattooed on your arm talking to you now?

tasteless

 

[kat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Kat, I am interested in that whole picture and that 'truth'. Please start.
I will appreciate to understand what you consider as 'that mess of conspiracy theories'. Can you be specific point by point? Thanks.

I'll post in depth explanation tomorrow when I have more time and haven't spent 6 hours watching football playoffs in the cold wet New England weather. We were creamed by kids that looked like neanderthals...but my daughter was pronounced the top cheerleader in her all stars team. Odd considering I've always been somewhat an anti-cheerleader type of person...

 

[pelastration]

Kat,

about conspiracy: are these people also involved in creating conspiracy theories just like those 100,000 Israeli remembering Rabin on the Rabin Square?

http://www.phr.org.il/Phr/Pages/PhrArticles_index.asp?Cat=143

Interesting website of "Physicians for Human Rights - Israel". This organization was established in 1988 in Israel as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, dedicated to promoting and protecting the right to health.
Quote:
The situation in the Occupied Territories is of great concern. Israel denies the application of human rights conventions, despite having effective control of the territory, and moreover contests the applicability of the Fourth Geneva convention, which contains the specific provisions of protection of civilians in an occupied territory. These claims are unacceptable, and the vast majority of the international legal community, including prominent Israeli experts on international law, all agree that Israeli actions must conform to these provisions, and Israel cannot evade the obligations it has signed on to undertake.

Human Rights are violated regularly within Israel too. Migrant workers, refugees, women, prisoners, and members of minority groups, are not afforded the protection and treatment expected according to international human rights standards. Even children are not immune from violations – Israel employs different criteria when defining who is a child, depending on the nationality of the individual. Thus, an Israeli is a child until the age of 18 and Palestinian childhood ends at the age of 16. The children of migrants were only considered children until the age of 14, in regards to receiving free gas masks. These discriminatory definitions are in contrast to international law, and have severe adverse effects on the lives of the children. "

That webpage also contains links to all international laws and conventions.

About those 100,000 people and this motivated organization: I deeply respect them. They have ethics.

 

[pelastration]

Was James Miller involved in a type of conspiracy against ... someone?

Quest for truth over Gaza death
By John Sweeney - BBC, London : James Miller was a cameraman on the side of the underdog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3235155.stm

 

[kat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Kat,

about conspiracy: are these people also involved in creating conspiracy theories just like those 100,000 Israeli remembering Rabin on the Rabin Square?

about conspiracy...this is probably the best place to start...tomorrow..

Originally posted by pelastration
Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.

 

[pelastration]

Kat,

I am a pacifist not by weakness or fear but because I believe in human dignity. I have a cosmological believe that we are all connected and each of us must respect and help each other. Do I find a similar attitude, even half of it , even half of an half, even 10% of it in what is going on? Who is that God that Bush is talking to?

Originally posted by kat
about conspiracy...this is probably the best place to start...tomorrow..

As I said there were rumors (I refer to a radio interview with an war analyst) talking about US-soldiers with Jewish name getting other names, and the possibility that also Israeli 'special' troops were active in Iraq. Of course if such thing would happen it would classified. Here you have a link with a 'between the lines'. The other links will - maybe - surprise you. You will not find regularly such info on normal news lines. Finally I can assure you that I am not interested in a WWIV.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1013575p-7114237c.html

Quote: For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israeli military has developed a software program to teach junior commanders 11 "codes of conduct" when operating among civilians - fight only those fighting you, respect the dignity of the local population, don't pillage, and so forth.
...
The American interest in the software - which a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Tel Aviv confirmed but would not elaborate on - is a rare public acknowledgment that the U.S. is contemplating even Israeli assistance. While analysts speculate that Israel may be providing intelligence or other kinds of military support , officials refuse to comment on the matter. "It's a closed door," says one Israeli Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.

Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip for more than 36 years, experience that might benefit U.S. troops in Iraq, where their presence is increasingly seen as occupation rather than liberation. The problem is that overt help from Israel, despite the potential benefits of Israeli expertise, might complicate America's role in a Middle East already upset about the war in Iraq and the dismal state of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

The image of U.S. soldiers taking Israeli advice on how to occupy Arabs may not help the American hearts-and-minds campaign. One of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's clearest legacies is a robust antipathy for Israel.

"I'm sure the Americans as well as the Israelis understand that if there is any cooperation it should be very low profile in order not to burden the Americans," says Efraim Inbar, who teaches political science at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv.

But Inbar says the United States needs help: better intelligence, a greater civilian presence to handle occupation duties, better means of distinguishing between hostile and friendly Iraqis. "The Americans have much room for improvement in dealing with the situation," he says. (end of quote)

----
http://specials.ft.com/attackonterrorism/FT34LBD99XC.html
Spreading alarm among friends: By Quentin Peel - Published: February 3 2002
quote:
But talk of an "axis of evil" sounds very much like the revival of the old Republican "rogue states" agenda, used long before September 11 to justify building a ballistic missile defence shield.

Mr Bush bracketed Iran and Iraq, two implacable foes in the Middle East, in the same conspiracy. By then throwing in Hamas, Hizbollah and the Islamic Jihad, all anti-Israeli organisations, as three of his four named members of a "terrorist underworld", the president caused alarm bells to ring in all the Arab states of the region. His speech reads like a blueprint for US policy designed by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister.. End of quote.

This article is from the Financial Time.
------
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe102103b.html
New Cheney Adviser Sets Syria In His Sights : by Jim Lobe - October 21, 2003

A neo-conservative strategist who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to "roll back" the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

David Wurmser, who had been working for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, joined Cheney's staff under its powerful national security director, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in mid-September, according to Cheney's office.

The move is significant, not only because Cheney is seen increasingly as the dominant foreign-policy influence on President George W. Bush, but also because it adds to the notion that neo-conservatives remain a formidable force under Bush despite the sharp plunge in public confidence in Bush's handling of post-war Iraq resulting from the faulty assumptions propagated by the "neo-cons" before the war.

Given the recent intensification of tensions between Washington and Damascus – touched off by this month's U.S. veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution deploring an Israeli air attack on an alleged Palestinian camp outside Damascus – Wurmser's rise takes on added significance.
...
The move also follows House of Representatives' approval of a bill that would impose new economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria.

Wurmser's status as a favoured protege of arch-hawk and former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) also speaks loudly to Middle East specialists, who note Perle's long-time close association with Cheney, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's chief deputy Paul Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz was the first senior administration official to suggest that Washington might take action against Syria amid reports last April that Damascus was sheltering senior Iraqi leaders and weapons of mass destruction in the wake of the U.S. invasion.

"There's got to be a change in Syria," Wolfowitz said, accusing the government of President Bashar Assad of "extreme ruthlessness." Rumsfeld subsequently accused Syria of permitting Islamic "jihadis" to infiltrate Iraq to fight U.S. troops.

Perle, who last week was in Israel to receive a special award from the "Jerusalem Summit," an international group of right wing Jews and Christian Zionists who describe themselves as defenders of "civilisation" against "Islamic fundamentalism," has made no secret of his own desire to confront Damascus.

In a series of interviews, Perle applauded Israel's attack on Syrian territory – the first since the 1967 war – in alleged retaliation for a Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel. "I am happy to see the message was delivered to Syria by the Israeli Air Force, and I hope it is the first of many such messages," he said.
...
Damascus has been in Wurmser's sights at least since he began working with Perle at AEI in the mid-1990s.

For the latter part of the decade, he wrote frequently to support a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to undermine then-President Hafez Assad in hopes of destroying Baathist rule and hastening the creation of a new order in the Levant to be dominated by "tribal, familial and clan unions under limited governments."

"Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," he wrote in one 1996 paper for the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).
...
It featured a series of recommendations designed to end the process of Israel trading "land for peace" by transforming the "balance of power" in the Middle East in favour of an axis consisting of Israel, Turkey and Jordan.
...
In the book's (Tyranny's Ally) acknowledgments, Wurmser praised those who most influenced his work, a veritable "who's who" of those neo-cons most closely tied to Israel's far right, including Perle himself, another AEI scholar, Michael Ledeen and Undersecretary of Defence for Policy and the man in charge of post-Iraq war planning, Douglas Feith.

He listed former CIA director James Woolsey, who has called the conflict in Syria the early stages of "World War IV," Harold Rhode, a Feith aide who has also called himself Wolfowitz's "Islamic Affairs adviser" and INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.

Wurmser also gave thanks to Irving Moskowitz, a major casino operator and long-time funder of Israel's settlement movement, whom he described as a "gentle man whose generous support of AEI allows me to be here." (end of quote)

Kat, I hope you have the guts to go to next link. What do you see? Good Will? Pride? Peace? Just normal politics? Respect for human rights? Respect of the own US soldiers?
Is this for Honor or horror? Do we have to start a War against Political Horror?
Here is your link: http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/US-empire.htm

d

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Stop accusing me of being upset and irrational when I present an argument you don't like. Dialogue takes a response to comments made. Your habit of going off on a personal tangent are not condusive of that.
tasteless

Calm down again! LOL Silly chica.

 

[Zero]

The accusations about America's support of Israel, even in spite of UN resolutions against Israel, are not conspiracy theories. Neither is the idea that some Zionists have the removal of all Arabs from the area as a 'final solution'. These are facts. They are not happy facts, and they are not indicative of every Israeli's viewpoint, but they are certainly important facets of the overall picture.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Kat,

I am a pacifist not by weakness or fear but because I believe in human dignity. I have a cosmological believe that we are all connected and each of us must respect and help each other.

To bad that doesn't extend to the protection of the middle eastern population from their own leadership.

As I said there were rumors (I refer to a radio interview with an war analyst)

ah, rumors...what radio, what war analyst? Is there a transcript? I'm sure you realize without answers to these questions..this amounts to little more then meaningless talk for talks sake.

talking about US-soldiers with Jewish name getting other names

Why would US-soldiers with Jewish names get other names? ...could it be to protect them from being singled out by jew hating enemies?

and the possibility that also Israeli 'special' troops were active in Iraq.

SOURCE??

Of course if such thing would happen it would classified. Here you have a link with a 'between the lines'.

"The art of reading between the lines is as old as manipulated information".--Serge Schmemann, On distortion of news.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1013575p-7114237c.html

Two things that grasp my attention with this article.
1. It has no mention of your conspiracy: "in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). ' *cough*
2. It does support what some of us have been saying for a long time. "Uriel Masad, spokesman in Israel for the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss-based organization that promotes respect for the laws of war, has seen the software. "We were impressed by the presentation and viewed it very positively," he says."


"The Israeli military has developed a software program to teach junior commanders 11 "codes of conduct" when operating among civilians - fight only those fighting you, respect the dignity of the local population, don't pillage, and so forth." I'd like to view the software myself. Interesting that this is coming from the Evil World Dominating and Oppressive Israeli's

Kat, I hope you have the guts to go to next link. What do you see? Good Will? Pride? Peace? Just normal politics? Respect for human rights? Respect of the own US soldiers?
Is this for Honor or horror? Do we have to start a War against Political Horror?
Here is your link: http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/US-empire.htm

d

I looked at your link and it didn't take any "guts". What I see is an absolute criminal negligence to recognize or cover how Arab leaders oppress their own people. A criminal negligence to recognize Syrian occupation of Lebanon, A criminal negligence to recognize that the Arab leadership is responsible for far more death and oppression of their own people including the "Palestinians" then Israel has ever been INCLUDING present day in the case of Syrian imprisonment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser ' Finally. Someone needs to roll back oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress their people, who retain leadership by eliminating opposition.
You see that's the problem with so called "pacificist" when it's Arab leaders killing and oppressing it's Arab population their too busy sucking on their "anti-american empirism" pacifier to notice.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat

*snip*
What I see is an absolute criminal negligence to recognize or cover how Arab leaders oppress their own people. A criminal negligence to recognize Syrian occupation of Lebanon, A criminal negligence to recognize that the Arab leadership is responsible for far more death and oppression of their own people including the "Palestinians" then Israel has ever been INCLUDING present day in the case of Syrian imprisonment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser ' Finally. Someone needs to roll back oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress their people, who retain leadership by eliminating opposition.
You see that's the problem with so called "pacificist" when it's Arab leaders killing and oppressing it's Arab population their too busy sucking on their "anti-american empirism" pacifier to notice. [/B]

Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other? How the atrocities of other countries somehow absolves Israel of responsiblity for its own horrible actions? Do we allow some criminals to go free because they aren't as bad as some other criminals? "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good', kat.

 

[pelastration]

I agree with Zero: "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good'.

Originally posted by kat
To bad that doesn't extend to the protection of the middle eastern population from their own leadership.

For that we have a number of International Organizations and Conventions. Let them do the JOB.
We don't need Christian Zionist fundamentalists replacing other fundamentalists. Why didn't you comment the Wurmser Case? Is it his intention to give protection of the middle eastern population from their own leadership? No create a Jordan, Israel, Turkey axe. Occupy Syria. Put the New Order of the Levant. If Wurmser is put on that place as Advisor then his ideas will be 'bush'ed.

ah, rumors...what radio, what war analyst? Is there a transcript? I'm sure you realize without answers to these questions..this amounts to little more then meaningless talk for talks sake.

I said 'rumors', remember. That was what the guy (a military expert of a military academy) said too: there are rumors ...
I repeat what I wrote:
"1. Now I see that in the future an extreme delicate situation is going to come up in Iraq when Arabs in general are going to say that - due the "why is America in favor of Israel-syndrome and the fundamentalist US-President always backing Sharon - in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). ". I said what you can read. Read it. ... when Arabs in general are going to say that in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel). In every war and 'occupation' there is the perception ... and iff the Iraqies believe that Iraq is sold by the Americans to Israel then you will have a real massacre. Every Iraqi will attack soldiers. Now then I wrote: "If the rumors are correct that there are Israel secret troops with US passports in Iraq then we have a worse case.", meaning if that rumor of that analyst would become 'reality or disclosed' then you have a very serious problem.

Two things that grasp my attention with this article. 1. It has no mention of "in fact Iraq is almost ruled directly by Sharon (Israel).

I think you know exactly what this is all about. There is evidence that US and Israel are very close. The whole group around Bush is pro-Israel and guys like DeLay. So why try to hide this kat, it's reality. If the international community (UN) wants a condemnation of Israel on some issues or repeats that Israel needs to apply some previous resolutions ... you always have a veto from US. Why did Arafat was acceptable for US during Camp David and signing the 1993 Olso Agreement but since Sharon is in power ... US confirms that Arafat is a non-acceptable negotiator.
How far goes that feeling of superiority of the Bush Group? This attitude is not only to the outer world, but also inside US, i.e. his group dropped the normal communications channels in intelligence ie. the 'balanced' analysis's of the own CIA in relation to the nuclear weapons of Iraq. We see the same in the treatment of the reservists.

Quote: For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces.

Indeed kat ... Israeli soldiers are an example of humanity, politeness and dignity, and you can see that those "codes of conduct" are really applied when you watch European TV. A number of images will not be shown in US Channels. I remember seeing myself on BBC a reportage of a peace march to the encircled Arafat HQ to bring food ... where Israeli soldiers were beating with their guns a number of women till bleeding. Then I went to CNN ... and the only thing that was shown where people marching and singing, and then (just) stopped by soldiers. These soldiers have also a profound interest in journalists. Some are no longer with us. Yes that must be fun software!

So no comment on Wurmser. Not interested in World War IV?

I looked at your link. What I see is an absolute criminal negligence to recognize how Arab leaders oppress their own people. A criminal negligence to recognize Syrian occupation of Lebanon, A criminal negligence to recognize that the Arab leadership is responsible for far more death and oppression of their own people including the "Palestinians" then Israel has ever been INCLUDING present day in the case of Syrian imprisonment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "who has long called for the United States and Israel to work together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria has been quietly appointed as a Middle East adviser ' Finally. Someone needs to roll back oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress their people, who retain leadership by eliminating opposition.

Kat that link was of course telling a part of the story, but it shows that the US is not playing a sweet and ethic game. There is more hidden and there are long term goals we don't see at first sight. Of course oppressive dictatorships who rob and oppress their people like Pinochet did in Chile, Sadam in Iraq, Norriega (Panama), etc. must be possible. But even then you will notice that 'some' of these dictators where put in power by *...*.
So it's not the job of the US ... it's the international community that must react.
And BTW why doesn't US recognize the International Court of Justice? Do US fears something? Because US is above International law?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
Indeed, this is not the issue here:
But:
(1) There were elections. Yes or no? Jim Carter was a controller.
(2) Did Arafat loose? I remember he won. Please correct me.
(3) I seems to me that Arafat is accepted in his 'country' or 'territory' (if you prefer) as the leader. He appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers.
De jure and de facto he is the leader if Sharon don't accept it or not.
IMO Sharon has no legitimacy to decide who is the leader of the Palestines.

1. There were elections in April.
2. Yes, Arafat lost. Mahmoud Abbas won. He has since resigned because Arafat refused to relinquish power. His successor then resigned for the same reason.
3. Arafat was rejected in this election.

Abbas (and his successor - I'm not sure who is in now) were Prime Minsiter of the somewhat nebulous "Palestinian People" which is a group of people who call themselves "Palestinians" and not a country. If the Palestinians would accept peace, they would be given a country and then whoever is prime minister would be leader of that country (likely pending new elections).

Sharon has nothing to do with this and he had no part in selecting Abbas.

It's not a matter of picking and choosing a map to support one side or the other. The maps tell a story. A story of a place called Israel that was once called Palestine

That simply isn't true. The vast majority of the land that was to become "Palestine" including the now occupied territories belonged to Syria and Jordan. Palestine did not become a country because they (and Egypt) wouldn't allow it.

Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other?

It doesn't reflect on Israel's actions at all. It simply exposes the double standard.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It doesn't reflect on Israel's actions at all. It simply exposes the double standard.

Where's the double standard? I don't see us giving Iran a billion dollars, do you? Or Syria? America has sent tens of billions of tax dollars to Israel, so I think we have a bigger responsibility to point out their crimes. Plus, no one ever said that Iran, Iraq, or Syria have good, freedom-loving governments. We don't have to make every other country perfect before we dare criticize Israel.

If the Palestinians would accept peace, they would be given a country and then whoever is prime minister would be leader of that country (likely pending new elections).

This is a pretty nice view you have...wrong, of course, but nice and rosy. The truth is, the Palestinians have been offered table scraps in exchange for peace. They've never been offered anything that could be considered a country. What they have been offered is similar to South Africa-style apartheid.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by russ_watters
1. There were elections in April.
2. Yes, Arafat lost. Mahmoud Abbas won. He has since resigned because Arafat refused to relinquish power. His successor then resigned for the same reason.
3. Arafat was rejected in this election.

Sharon has nothing to do with this and he had no part in selecting Abbas. That simply isn't true. The vast majority of the land that was to become "Palestine" including the now occupied territories belonged to Syria and Jordan. Palestine did not become a country because they (and Egypt) wouldn't allow it.

Thanks Russ. But your first remarks are not correct. Arafat was not rejected. Arafat did not refuse to relinquish power, that was not questioned even.
Please check: http://www.nad-plo.org/speeches/abumazen5.html .
Quote:
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to the PLC
April 29, 2003

"In the name of Allah the most Merciful, the Compassionate

(And He says:_ Do._ For Allah will see the results of your work and so will his Prophet and believers)

Brother and life-long comrade, President Yasser Arafat, President of the State of Palestine , Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, President of the National Authority ... "(end of quote).

The elections system is similar to France not like in USA. The President stays (like a king) during the elections for the Parliament. Only the Parliament is replaced, not the President. The President appoints the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a relative independency but finally the President must approve and co-sign.

Your second remarks. Indeed Sharon had nothing to do with the election of Abbas ... but Sharon refuses to recognize Arafat as a valid decision maker, although all previous Israeli Prime Ministers recognized and spoke directly (?) with Arafat. (I am not sure about Netaniyu) Who did signed the Oslo Agreements of 1993 ? Who did everything to destroy that peace agreement. You can not deny it: Sharon. He is not a peace maker. Sharon sees the United Nations as a hostile body, skewed in favor of the Palestinians.
Why is he now in Moscow? ( http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUSSIA_ISRAEL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME ). Officially (UN resolution, situation in Iraq, nuclear help of Russia to Iran) and unofficially? My speculation: talks about if Russia will react neutral on an attack on Syria (cfr. Wurmser's doctrine and the public comments of DeLay: Israel Air Force delivered the message in Damascus). We will see want it brings.

About the land Palestine we can discuss for hours and hours.
If you want to see the growth of the settlements check: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-10/11/article01.shtml (below that page: Zionist's Settlements Growth, and interesting below that: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal.

Israel can not accepts nukes in Iran but has their own, but that's very normal isn't it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thanks Russ. But your first remarks are not correct. Arafat was not rejected. Arafat did not refuse to relinquish power, that was not questioned even.
Please check: http://www.nad-plo.org/speeches/abumazen5.html .
Quote:
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to the PLC
April 29, 2003

That speech was made long before Abbas resigned. I'm sure you've read about it, but if you really want, I'll find you some articles on why he resigned.

Where's the double standard? I don't see us giving Iran a billion dollars, do you? Or Syria? ...We don't have to make every other country perfect before we dare criticize Israel.

Quite right, Zero - the US is consistent with regard to the issue - and we DO criticize and even exert control over Israel. Israel's restraint in both Gulf Wars for example wasn't a coincidence. No double standard there.

The double standard is from those on the other side of the issue of course. People protesting Israeli treatment of Arab citizens of Israel while terrorists are blowing up busses and Arab countries are oppressing their people. Its like a fire department ignoring a burning apartment to get a cat out of a tree.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


The double standard is from those on the other side of the issue of course. People protesting Israeli treatment of Arab citizens of Israel while terrorists are blowing up busses and Arab countries are oppressing their people. Its like a fire department ignoring a burning apartment to get a cat out of a tree.

I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Care to explain how any of this reflects on Israel, one way or the other? How the atrocities of other countries somehow absolves Israel of responsiblity for its own horrible actions? Do we allow some criminals to go free because they aren't as bad as some other criminals? "Less atrocious' is not the same as 'good', kat.

My comment was in regards to the site he linked and the comments I quoted. Comments and link... which you will find...directly above...my comments...So I would care to explain that it reflects...on that...one way or the other..and not Israel. Although, I probably would have been better to instruct him to stop creating omelets..anwering the 20 different directions he goes into in the course of one thread is a bit..wearying..at best. I can see how you were confused.

As to absolution for atrocities..I'm not looking for any absolution, I'd just like a little recognition and effort to end the worst of it, preferably starting with the worst of it. However, given that this is unlikely (or we'd be far more focused on other areas of the world) it would be nice to see the outrage correspond in direct correlation to the level of atrocities. When I see that they are consistently not, and consistently ignored or discarded..and consistently and overwhelmingly voiced in a manner that is so incredibly inbalanced that it quite literally blows the mind...one can only assume ignorance or bigotry. You take your pick.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll be honest with you, Russ...I wish that people paid more attention to EVERY lousy rotten situation on Earth. Israel's horrible behavior is easily matched and surpassed by other nations...but[rant] I'M NOT PAYING FOR THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES TO DO IT! [/rant] At least, not as far as I know...

Well, yes you do pay for it...in many ways..what immediately comes to mind would be the money we give to egypt and the money we give to the U.N. and how that is disbursed to nations..including the PA (which helped fund Arafats "retirement" nest /sarc) But, really..Israel didn't receive much of anything from us until after they'd been repeatedly attacked by surrounding countries. With the money we give to Egypt..you'd think the least they could do would be to secure their borders and prevent tunneling and arms movement into gaza. We won't even get into their human rights record, vitriolic, hate filled media...