A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IRAQ DISASTER WARNING - An Attack on Iran by Christmas?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 12th 06, 06:24 AM posted to soc.veterans,alt.military.retired,alt.military,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default IRAQ DISASTER WARNING - An Attack on Iran by Christmas?

The second Lind article included below was by Michael Lind who is a
former neocon:

Iraq disaster warning

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15568.htm


By WILLIAM S. LIND
UPI Outside View Commentator

11/10/06 -- - WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 (UPI) -- The third and final act in
the U.S. national tragedy that is the Bush administration may soon
play itself out.

Sources indicate increasing indications of "something big" happening
between the Nov. 7 congressional election and Christmas. That could
be the long-planned attack on Iran.

An attack on Iran will not be an invasion with ground troops. We
don't have enough of those left to invade Ruritania. It will be
a "package" of air and missile strikes, by U.S. forces or Israel.

That this would constitute folly piled on top of folly is no
deterrent to the Bush administration. Like the French Bourbons, it
forgets nothing and it learns nothing. It takes pride in not
adapting. Or did you somehow miss President George W. Bush's
declaration of Presidential Infallibility? It followed shortly after
his May 1, 2003 visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln
with the "Mission Accomplished" sign.

The Democrats taking either or both Houses of Congress, if it
happens, will not make any difference. They would rather have the
Republicans start and lose another war than prevent a national
disaster. Politics comes first and the country second.

Many of the consequences of a war with Iran are easy to imagine. Oil
would soar to at least $200 per barrel if we could get it. Gas
shortages would bring back the gas lines of 1973 and 1979. Our
European alliances would be stretched to the breaking point if not
beyond it. Most people outside the Bush bubble can see all this
coming.

What I fear no one forsees is a substantial danger that we could
lose the American army now deployed in Iraq. I have mentioned this
in previous columns, but I want to go into it here in more detail
because the scenario may soon go live.

Well before the second Iraq war started, I warned in a piece in The
American Conservative that the structure of our position in Iraq
could lead to that greatest of military disasters, encirclement.
That is precisely the danger if we go to war with Iran.

The danger arises because almost all of the vast quantities of
supplies American armies need come into Iraq from one direction, up
from Kuwait and other Gulf ports in the south. If that supply line
is cut, our forces may not have enough stuff, especially fuel, to
get out of Iraq. American armies are incredibly fuel-thirsty, and
though Iraq has vast oil reserves, it is short of refined oil
products. Unlike German World War Gen. Heinz Guderian's army on its
way to the Channel coast in 1940, we could not just fuel up at local
gas stations.

There are two ways our supply lines from the south could be cut if
we attack Iran. The first is by Shiite militias including the Mahdi
Army and the Badr Brigades, possibly supported by a general Shiite
uprising and, of course, Iran's Revolutionary Guards -- The same
guys who trained Hezbollah so well.

The second danger is that regular Iranian Army divisions will roll
into Iraq, cut our supply lines and attempt to pocket us in and
around Baghdad. Washington relies on American air power to prevent
this, but bad weather can shut most of that air power down.

Unfortunately, no one in Washington and few people in the U.S.
military will even consider this possibility. Why? Because we have
fallen victim to our own propaganda. Over and over the U.S. military
tells itself, "We're the greatest! We're number one! No one can
defeat us. No one can even fight us. We're the greatest military in
all of history!"

It's wrong. The U.S. armed forces are technically well-trained,
lavishly resourced Second Generation militaries. They are being
fought and defeated by Fourth Generation opponents in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. They can also be defeated by Third Generation enemies
who can observe, orient, decide and act more quickly than can
America's vast, process-ridden, Powerpoint-enslaved military
headquarters. They can be defeated by strategy, by stratagem, by
surprise and by preemption. Unbeatable militaries are like
unsinkable ships. They are unsinkable until someone or something
sinks them.

If the United States were to lose the army it has in Iraq, to Iraqi
militias, Iranian regular forces, or a combination of both (the most
likely event), the world would change. It would be our Adrianople,
our Rocroi, our Stalingrad. American power and prestige would never
recover.

One of the few people who does see this danger is the doyenne of
American foreign policy columnists, Georgie Anne Geyer. In her
column of Oct. 28 in The Washington Times, she wrote, "The worst has
not, by any means, yet happened. When I think of abandoning a
battleground, I think of (the 1840s), when thousands of Brits were
trying to leave Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass and all were
killed by tribesmen except one man, left to tell the story."

Our men and women in Iraq are in isolated compounds, not easy even
to retreat from, were that decision made. Time is truly running out.


Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=56761


AIPAC and the Neocon (War for Israel) agenda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rf16XjbOUs

ISRAELI SPY RING PROBE WIDENS :


http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/187362.php


How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington - and Launched a War
by Michael Lind


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

April 10, 2003
America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the
United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying
to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American
capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors
will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with
its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports
the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil
men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life,
would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads
in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech
companies, had they been Californians.
Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European
civilizations are evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert
Kagan, the neoconservative propagandist, that Americans are martial and
Europeans pacifist, is complete nonsense. A majority of Americans voted
for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in 2000. Were it not for the
overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing states in both the
presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White House and the
Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and values,
on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of
western Europeans.
Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory
are reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign
policy is the result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly
world. The truth is more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and
unforeseeable contingencies - such as the selection rather than
election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 - the foreign policy of the
world's only global power is being made by a small clique that is
unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream
foreign policy establishment.
The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense
intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them
started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the
far right.) Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals
include Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the
defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an
elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only
because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas
Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz
protégé who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a
right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in
check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East
policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James
Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both
9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard
Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense
department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these
"experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now
the civilian defense secretary's office, where these Republican
political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely
Republican career soldiers.
Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the
left, not the right. They are products of the influential
Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and
1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s
and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right
with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their
admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive
warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is
mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They
call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President
Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent
revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine
American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as
the Palestinians.
The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the
actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the
Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks,
foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers"
when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money
comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative
foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down
the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does
not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are
ideologues, not opportunists.
The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel
lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish
defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the
retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of
occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began:
"We ... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel
Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of
lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian
Authority."
The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings.
Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel
lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush
administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of
America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in
the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy
paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo
peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's
government.
Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for
Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican
electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right
believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist
congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the
occupied territories.
The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several
right-wing media empires, with roots - odd as it seems - in the
British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates
propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly
Standard - edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of
Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) - acts as a mouthpiece for
defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as
well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was
executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns
the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.
Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times
- owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun
Myung Moon - which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John
O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an
editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!"
style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance,
have contaminated the US conservative movement.
The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the
1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by
Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique
pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a
series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and
other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for
the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns
against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another
favorite). During Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored
by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they
are frantically being studied.
How did the neocon defense intellectuals - a small group at odds with
most of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic
- manage to capture the Bush administration? Few supported Bush
during the presidential primaries. They feared that the second Bush
would be like the first - a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in
the first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace
process - and that his administration, again like his father's, would
be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James
Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John
McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.
Then they had a stroke of luck - Cheney was put in charge of the
presidential transition (the period between the election in November
and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity
to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of
becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had
expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's
right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and
Libby.
The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike
his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to
China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly
educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming
the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's
lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a
northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas,
absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo,
anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class
Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a
midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for
macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to
liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern
culture.
The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz
("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had
lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad's footsteps.
There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the
crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration,
including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly
against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the
U.N.
It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that
Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe
that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's
"weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in
public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project
for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the
Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links
between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz
and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb
Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and
Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims
that the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the
Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious
anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their
weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor target
Israel rather than the U.S. The neocons urge war with Iran next, though
by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for
the U.S., a far greater problem.
So that is the bizarre story of how neoconservatives took over
Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to
any plausible threat to the U.S. and opposed by the public of every
country in the world except Israel. The frightening thing is the role
of happenstance and personality. After the al-Qaida attacks, any U.S.
president would likely have gone to war to topple bin Laden's Taliban
protectors in Afghanistan. But everything that the U.S. has done since
then would have been different had America's 18th century electoral
rules not given Bush the presidency and had Cheney not used the
transition period to turn the foreign policy executive into a PNAC
reunion.
For a British equivalent, one would have to imagine a Tory government,
with Downing Street and Whitehall controlled by followers of the Rev.
Ian Paisley, extreme Euroskeptics, empire loyalists and Blimpish
military types - all determined, for a variety of strategic or
religious reasons, to invade Egypt. Their aim would be to regain the
Suez Canal as the first step in a campaign to restore the British
empire. Yes, it really is that weird.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chalmers Johnson (author of 'Blowback' and 'The Sorrows and Empire')
was recently interviewed by Ian Masters as well (see
www.ianmasters.org) as the interview with Michael Lind will be added
there to archive in the futu


Dr. Chalmers Johnson on the rise of a militaristic Japanese leadership,
supported by American neocons, and what he views as a crisis of
American democracy with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of
2006. Dr. Chalmers is an author and professor emeritus of the
University of California, San Diego. He is also president and
co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization
promoting public education about Japan and Asia. He has written
numerous books including, most recently, two essential examinations of
the consequences of American empire, Blowback: the costs and
consequences of American empire and The Sorrows of Empi militarism,
secrecy and the end of the republic. Blowback won an American Book
Award in 2001, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows
of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from
Blowback for the post-9/11 environment. Johnson was centrally featured
in the Eugene Jarecki-directed film Why We Fight, which won the 2005
Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. His forthcoming book is
"Nemesis: the last days of the American Republic."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY IN US UNDER ATTACK:

http://www.upi.com/InternationalInte...?StoryID=20060

Intl. Intelligence

WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have
published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's
pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role
in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of
action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they
doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The
Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of
Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The
Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in
academic life.

They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and
operates against American interests, that it has organized the
funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a
stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large
campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic
administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle
East dominates the policy debate.

And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of
its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the
wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.

"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by
suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of
open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.

"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these
important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic
deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to
challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by
intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word
article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.

The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives"
within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the
war on Iraq.

"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of
neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt
argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their
obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it
isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was
designed to further Israeli interests."

"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before
Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing
two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power.
The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like
JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP
(Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot
Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis,
Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble
persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of
ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that
objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading
Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help
to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the
events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become
strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.

The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic
and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the
Lobby.

"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel," the article says.

"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related
effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab
and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of
much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American
political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own
security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the
interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.

"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from
domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'.
Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but
no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national
interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that
U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel --
are essentially identical," they add.

They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States,
Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a
loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in
the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist
threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism
problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not
the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only
source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it
makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question
that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by
Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.
Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to
rally popular support and to attract recruits."

They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only
democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli
democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where
people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race,
religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state
and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this,
it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as
second-class citizens."

The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel
Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto
agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an
important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.

The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim
the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from
"halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and
advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the
war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was
not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003,
but it was critical."

"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler
of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit
in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that
"Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less
powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"

Letters - The Israel Lobby - From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt.

We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject
that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB,
23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we
are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our
characters or misrepresent our arguments. .... Must Read !!!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761

Additional at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=49800



US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the
World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590


Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=57581

The following article is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break'
agenda as 'A Clean Break' was written for Netanyahu who is apparently
going to replace Olmert:

Honor First?; the liberation of Lebanon :



http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14620.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon:
Their Facts and Ours
by James Petras
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 29, 2006


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm

Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=55993



AIPAC, JINSA and similar have prevented Israel's treacherous attack on
the USS Liberty from ever being investigated fully (with the survivors
testifying before Congress) because traitorous AIPAC hacks like John
McCain have helped to keep the USS Liberty cover-up perpetuated in
service of a foreign government:

http://www.ussliberty.org

http://rense.com/Datapages/usslib.htm

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran [email protected] Naval Aviation 11 January 5th 06 10:38 AM
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 11:46 PM
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 10:45 PM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Naval Aviation 0 April 7th 04 07:31 PM
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 December 13th 03 12:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.