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

No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 7th 04, 07:31 PM
Ewe n0 who
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil

Also read the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map
of 'greater Israel' at the left by scrolling down to it at
http://www.nowarforisrael.com

NO US SOLDIERS SHOULD HAVE TO DIE IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL TO GET OIL:

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Subj: [Fwd: Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish]

"Obviously, the very fact that one cannot speak the obvious truth about Jews,
without facing serious intimidation, helps to underscore the magnitude of
Jewish power. And it shows why virtually no one in a mainstream position dares
to deal openly with the neocon role in the Iraq war and Israel’s connection
to the war. " -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Canadian Condemned
for Writing Neocons are Jewish
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:41:58 -0400
From: "Stephen Sniegoski"
To: "Sniegoski, Stephen"
Friends, Canadian Condemned for Writing Neocons are Jewish A left-wing Canadian
journalist, Kalle Lasn, wrote the obvious, and all hell has broken loose. Lasn,
the editor of the Canadian journal _Adbusters_, had the audacity to state, in
the March/April issue, that the neocons are Jewish! and proceeded to list 50
neocons, finding that 26 were Jewish. Moreover, he stated that the neocons have
a "special affinity" for Israel! and that their influence helps to tilt US
foreign policy toward Israel! Now Lasn was very careful to say that neocons
only represented a segment of the American population. Lasn writes: "Drawing
attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so
can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is
not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have
a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat
and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s
aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special
affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently
American foreign policy in the Middle East." In "free thinking" Canada such
language can lead to more than the usual smears by influential Jewish groups
(and concomitant loss of job, blacklisting, etc), as is the case in the US, but
can include actual criminal penalties as well. As the article that I have
included from the Canadian Jewish News points out: "Canadian Jewish Congress,
Pacific region, director Erwin Nest said CJC ‘will be considering action’
against Adbusters, but declined to elaborate." Yes, to point out the Doug
Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz are Jewish should certainly be regarded as
a serious crime! But what do neocons themselves say? Neocon Joshua Muravchik,
in an article entitled "The Neoconservative Cabal," published in the September
2003 issue of _Commentary Magazine__, writes: "The neoconservatives, it turns
out, are also in large proportion Jewish--and this, to their detractors,
constitutes evidence of the ulterior motives that lurk behind the policies they
espouse." [http://www.aei.org/include/news_print.asp?newsID=19107] _Commentary_
has been the flagship of neoconservatism and is published by the American
Jewish Committee. And Muravchik’s piece is actually a defense of the
neoconservatives. So I guess it’s OK for Jewish neocons to admit their
Jewishness but it is criminal "anti-Semitism" for gentile critics to say the
very same thing. Obviously, the very fact that one cannot speak the obvious
truth about Jews, without facing serious intimidation, helps to underscore the
magnitude of Jewish power. And it shows why virtually no one in a mainstream
position dares to deal openly with the neocon role in the Iraq war and
Israel’s connection to the war. But now let’s move into a taboo implication
of the prohibition of discussing the Jewish/Israel connection to the Iraq war.
And this involves the origins of the September 11 terrorism. As I have pointed
out in other messages, it seems that Israel was aware of the September 11
terrorists. We know that some Mossad agents lived on the same street in Florida
as Mohammed Atta, and that other Mossad agents filmed the burning Trade Towers
from across the Hudson River. These occurrences would definitely seem to be
other than pure coincidence.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ch...3/0803CIA.html
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm No mainstream journalist, much
less Congress, dares to investigate this issue. Let us ask the hypothetical: If
Israel were somehow involved in the events of 9/11, could it get away with it?
If it’s dangerous to even state the obvious fact that neocons are largely
Jews who have an affinity for Israel, it would be a veritable actual death
sentence to plumb the depths of a murky conspiracy to try to implicate the
Israelis in 9/11. Everyone realizes this. Thus, the established media has
managed to ignore the whole Israeli spy issue —beyond some early brief
references. Now, here is a simple question. Would Sharon’s government do
anything that might harm the United States or American citizens if it thought
such an action were vital for Israeli security and that it could get completely
away with it? We know that this war was seen as important for Israel, to the
extent that it produced some of the phony WMD lies. Now would Israel do
anything to harm the US? Let’s check the past record. Israel was certainly
willing to take American lives when it attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. The
government of Yitzhak Shamir is reported to have sold the Soviet Union valuable
U.S. documents stolen by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard — information which,
once in Soviet hands, led to the death of American agents. Moreover, in recent
years Israel has resold to China sophisticated American weaponry that could
easily be turned against the United States. Finally, according to a study
released right before September 11, 2001 by the Army's School of Advanced
Military Studies, the Israeli Mossad was sufficiently ruthless to target
American forces and place the blame on Arab terrorists. About the Mossad, the
study stated: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S.
forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
http://www.public-action.com/911/sam...lker.com/ditch
/towers_6.htm It might also be added that Ariel Sharon is about the boldest and
most ruthless Israeli politician ever to hold office. In short, the fact that
the discussion of any Israeli connection to war on Iraq is totally taboo serves
to make it more likely that Israel would dare to be connected to the September
11 terrorism. This doesn’t mean that there’s definite proof that Israel was
involved in September 11 terrorism. Only that if Israel were involved, no
mainstream organization or individual would ever dare to investigate the
situation to come up with proof. And knowing this, it would seem plausible that
Sharon would try to pull something off, if he thought it would significantly
benefit Israel. In fact, a more reasonable question would be: why would Sharon
refrain from such an endeavor? ______________________________________
http://www.jewishottawa.org/content_...ticleID=106174 Jewish
‘Neocons’ Tilt U.S. Policy Toward Israel, Magazine Says By Ron Csillag
Canadian Jewish News The editor of a left-wing Vancouver-based magazine is
defending his own recent article that singles out prominent American
neo-conservative Jews for, he says, tilting the Mideast policies of President
George W. Bush toward Israel. The March/April issue of Adbusters checked off
the names of 26 Jews on a list of 50 hawkish "neocons" said to have cozy
relations with the war-minded U.S. Defence Department. The Jewish names include
writers Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol; Deputy U.S. Defence Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz; former arms negotiators Richard Perle; and academic Daniel Pipes.
They appear alongside U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President
Dick Cheney and former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. But the religions of
those people are not identified. "A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the
pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and the fact that a disproportionate
percentage of them are Jewish," states the article, titled "Why won’t anyone
say they are Jewish?" "Some commentators are worried that these individuals --
labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right-wing Likud party --
do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests," it goes on.
"For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?"
Adbusters, an alternative bi-monthly known for its biting anti-consumerist,
anti-globalization stance, says it decided "to tackle the issue head on." What
those on the list share "is the view that the U.S. is a benevolent hyper power
that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally
superior image. And half of them are Jewish." Kalle Lasn, the article’s
author and the magazine’s editor, told The CJN he felt compelled to write the
piece because "the mainstream and alternative media are somehow scared of
talking about the Jewishness of the neocons and the Zionism there… and the
influence this has on American foreign policy in the Middle East." Other media
outlets "just don’t have the guts because they’re afraid of this kind of
vociferous backlash that I have experienced over the past few weeks." Lasn said
he’s received much abusive mail and even personal threats. "I really do
understand what it feels like to be targeted by people who hate you." He said
the negative responses show a "kneejerk political correctness. It’s almost as
if… many of them are Jews themselves. They’re in some sort of denial. They
really think that somehow it is wrong to have a debate about the Jewishness of
the neocons who are, after all, the most powerful political/intellectual group
in the world today. "They [neocons] literally have the power to start wars and
stop wars and they are the driving force behind the Bush administration’s
foreign policy, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world.
They’re the people who make it possible for the American administration to
give $3 billion a year to Israel, and many of them are connected to the Likud
party. "It’s almost as though we have become so politically correct that we
don’t even want to discuss the obvious anymore." Lasn said he has "an
incredible amount of respect" for Jews, who, owing to the Holocaust’s "deep
imprint" on them, have developed a keen ability to spot dictators such as
Saddam Hussein. "In that way, Jewish influence is wonderful." However, "if 50
percent of the neo-cons were Arabs or Palestinian, then this war [in Iraq]
would not have started." Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region, director
Erwin Nest said CJC "will be considering action" against Adbusters, but
declined to elaborate.
__________________________________________________ __________
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52...es/jewish.html Kalle Lasn From the
March/April 2004 issue of Adbusters magazine. Why won't anyone say they are
Jewish? Friends help each other out. That’s why the US sends billions of
dollars every year to Israel. In return, Israel advances US strategic interests
in the Middle East. But despite this mutual back scratching, Israeli-American
relations are enduring a rough patch. Last December, a senior State Department
official blasted Israel for having "done too little for far too long" to
resolve the conflict with its Palestinian neighbors. Indeed, President Bush
himself had scolded Israel a month earlier with his demand that "Israel should
freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily
humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with
the building of walls and fences." Harsh words, but is it all just
window-dressing? This was not the first time Bush criticized Israel and he has
made numerous calls for a "viable" Palestinian state during his presidency.
Nevertheless, he has never concretely punished Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon for ignoring US directives and shrugging off his commitment to the peace
process. It’s also worth noting that diplomatic admonitions are the
responsibility of the State Department which has been on the losing end of the
policy wars in Bush’s White House. One wonders what Israeli-American
relations, and indeed what American relations with the rest of the world would
look like if the neocon hawks who control Rumsfeld’s Defense Department were
also in charge at State. A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the
pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate
percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these
individuals – labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right
wing Likud party – do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli
interests. For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war
in Iraq? Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game.
Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite.
But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American
population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly
vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies
and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to
have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and
consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East. Here at Adbusters, we
decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched
list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the US (see above).
Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the
term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House,
while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists,
academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the
US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest
of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish.

Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War

http://www.rense.com/general37/behind.htm

Behind The Scenes
Of The Iraq War
Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War
Pravda.ru
4-17-3


The plan for the Iraq war, which has erupted in the face of opposition from the
entire world, was drawn up at least decades ago, by Israeli strategists In its
attempt to realize its strategy of destabilizing or dividing the Middle Eastern
Arab states, Israel has Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia on its list of
subsequent targets. As these lines are being written, the United States of
America has begun striking at Iraq. Despite the fact that most countries of the
world, and even the majority of the USA's allies, opposed it, the US
administration was determined for the strike to go ahead. When we look behind
the scenes of this insistence, it seems that Israel and its powerful lobby in
the US, have the greatest share in the make-up. In fact, Israel's policy aimed
at the fragmentation of Iraq has lengthy historical roots- The Age-Old Israeli
Plan to Divide Iraq An ambitious report entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim
in February 1982 disclosed a strategy aimed at making the whole of the Middle
East a kind of "living space" for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon,
an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel,
set out the scenario of the "division of Iraq" in these terms: Iraq, rich in
oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a
candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us
than that of Syria- Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its
neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni.
Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite
of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in
the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army
and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of
Lebanon in the past- In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious
lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states
will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite
areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. 1) This was
not the only announcement of the Israeli plan to atomize Middle East, including
Iraq. As Israel Shahak, the notable Israeli scholar known for his dedication to
a peaceful solution in the Middle East, explained that Yinon was just echoing
the views of Israeli hawks: The idea that all the Arab states should be broken
down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic
thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz
(and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the
"best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq
into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part"
(Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old. 2) Thus,
the plan was a serious one and this has been confirmed by the age-old Israeli
support to non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim Arab states. The
rebellious Kurds of northern Iraq was one of these strategic allies of Israel.
During their revolt against the Baghdad regime, 1961-75, they have been
financially and militarily supported by Israel. Israelis would love to see them
carve up the northern part of Iraq, no matter how bloody and devastating such a
civil war would be. However, the revolt failed in 1975, after loosing the
support of its major patron, the Shah. Fifteen years later, a new opportunity
arose for Israel, an opportunity from the ambitions of the Iraqi dictator,
Saddam Hussein. Israel's Role in the Gulf War Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein,
after his bloody war against Iran in the 80's, invaded Kuwait in a sudden
attack on August 1, 1990, giving rise to an international crisis. Israel headed
the list of those forces that encouraged that crisis. Israel was the fiercest
supporter of the attitude adopted by the United States in the wake of the
invasion of Kuwait. The Israelis even regarded the United States as moderate,
and wanted a harsher policy. To such an extent in fact that the President of
Israel Chaim Herzog recommended that the American use nuclear weapons. On the
other hand, the Israeli lobby in the United States was working to bring about a
wide-ranging attack on Iraq. This whole situation encouraged the idea in the
United States that the attack against Iraq under consideration was actually
planned in Israel's interests. Pat Buchanan summarized this idea in the words
"There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle
East - the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
Israelis had also initiated a serious propaganda campaign on the issue. Since
this campaign was largely waged in secret, Mossad also entered the equation.
Rogue Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky provides important information on this
subject. According to Ostrovsky, Israel had wanted to wage war with the United
States against Saddam long before the Gulf crisis. So much so in fact, that
Israel began to implement the plan immediately after the Iran-Iraq war.
Ostrovsky reports that Mossad's Psychological Warfare department (LAP - LohAma
Psychologist) set about an effective pro-war campaign using misinformation
techniques. 3) A Mossad Agent Describes the Gulf War Ostrovsky describes how
Mossad used agents or sympathizers in various parts of the world in this
campaign. Among the tools employed in the campaign were the horrible massacres
done by missiles launched against civilian targets in Iran during the Iran-Iraq
war. As Ostrovsky makes clear, Mossad's later use of these missiles as a
propaganda tool was quite peculiar, since those missiles had actually been
directed towards their targets by Mossad, with the help of information from US
satellites. Having supported Saddam throughout his war with Iran, Israel was
now disclosing his crimes. Ostrovsky writes: The Mossad leaders know that if
they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply,
of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and
its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures
that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if
they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he
went nuclear. 4) The Israelis were so determined on this matter, and with
regard to the United States, that on August 4, 1990, Israeli Foreign Minister
David Levy issued a diplomatically worded threat to William Brown, the American
ambassador to Israel, stating that Israel "expects the U.S. will fulfill all of
the goals it set for itself at the beginning of the gulf crisis," in other
words that it attack Iraq. According to Levy, if the United States failed to do
so, Israel would act unilaterally. 5) It would be of enormous benefit to Israel
to have the United States engage in the war and for Israel to remain entirely
uninvolved: and that is indeed what happened. Israel Forces the USA to War
However, the Israelis were actively involved in the United States' war plans.
Some US staff officers involved in planning Operation Desert Storm received
fine tactical advice from the Israelis that "the best way of wounding Saddam
was to strike at his family." The Mossad-inspired propaganda campaign reported
by Ostrovsky set up the necessary public backing for the Gulf War. It was again
Mossad local assistants who lit the touchpaper for the war. The Hill and
Knowlton lobbying firm, run by Tom Lantos of the Israeli lobby, prepared a
dramatic scenario to convince members of Congress on the subject of war against
Saddam. Turan Yavuz, a noted Turkish journalist, describes the incident:
October 9, 1990. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm organizes a sitting in
Congress on the subject of "Iraq's Barbarities." A number of "eye witnesses"
brought to the session by the lobbying firm maintain that Iraqi troops killed
new-born babies in the hospital wards. One "eye witness" describes the savagery
in enormous detail, saying that Iraqi soldiers killed 300 new-born babies in
one hospital alone. This information deeply disturbs the members of Congress.
This works to President Bush's advantage. However, it later emerges that the
eye witness brought by Hill and Knowlton to Congress is in fact the daughter of
the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. Nevertheless, the daughter's account is
sufficient for members of Congress to give Saddam the nickname "Hitler". 6)
This leads to just one conclusion: that Israel played an important role in the
United States' to wage its first war on Iraq. The second one is not much
different. The Pretext of "War Against Terrorism" Contrary to popular belief,
the plan to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime by force was
prepared and placed on Washington's agenda long before the genesis of the "war
against terrorism," which emerged in the wake of September 11. The first
indication of this plan emerged in 1997. A group of pro-Israeli hawkish
strategists in Washington D.C. began to put forward the scenario of the
invasion of Iraq by manipulating the "neo-con" think-tank, called PNAC (Project
for The New American Century). The most notable names in the PNAC were those of
Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who as defense secretary and vice-president
would be the most influential figures in the George W. Bush administration. An
article titled "Invading Iraq Not a New Idea for Bush Clique: 4 Years Before
9/11 Plan Was Set" written by William Brunch and published in the Philadelphia
Daily News, sets out the following facts: But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice
President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun
making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 - nearly four
years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took
office. An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for
the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged
then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998. 7) Is Oil the Real
Objective? Why were the PNAC members so determined to attack Iraq? The same
article continues: While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on
Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. [Ian] Lustick, [a University of
Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert,] while a
critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily
as a way to pay for the costly military operation. "I'm from Texas, and every
oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt.
"The oil market doesn't need disruption." Lustick believes that a more powerful
hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that
a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace
plan on terms favorable to Israel- 8) This, therefore, is the principal
motivation behind the plan to attack Iraq: to serve Israel's Middle East
strategy. This fact has also been identified by other Middle East experts.
Cengiz ?andar, a Turkish Middle East expert, for instance, describes the real
power behind the plan to attack Iraq thus: ... Who is directing the attack on
Iraq? Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security
Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are the "senior level" backers of the attack.
Yet the rest of the iceberg is even richer and more interesting. There are a
number of "lobbies." Heading these lobbies are the Jewish Institute for
Security Affairs team, pro-Likud and Israeli-right and known for their close
relations with US arms manufacturers. These have close relations with the "arms
lobby," Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics and Israeli military industries
.... JINSA's fundamental principle is this: America's and Israel's security are
inseparable. In other words, they are the same thing. JINSA's objective is not
solely the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq: it also supports the
overthrow of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian regimes with a
logic of "total war," and the subsequent importation of "democracy." ... In
other words, a number of American Jews on the same wavelength as the most
extreme factions in Israel at the moment comprise the hawks in Washington. 9)
The Israeli Strategy for The Muslim Middle East In short, there are those in
Washington who are encouraging a war aimed first at Iraq and then at Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The most distinguishing feature of these is that
they are lined up alongside, and even equivalent to, the "Israeli lobby." No
matter how much they speak of "American interests," these people are actually
supporting Israeli interests. A strategy of waging war against the whole of the
Middle East and turning all the peoples of the region against it cannot be to
the United States' advantage. The adoption of such a strategy can only be
possible if the United States is bound to Israel, by means of the Israeli
lobby, which is profoundly influential in this country's foreign policy. It is
for these reasons that behind the strategy which began to be set in motion
after September 11 and is aimed at re-arranging the entire Islamic world, lies
Israel's strategy for dominating the Middle East. Ever since its foundation,
Israel has aimed at restructuring the Middle East, making it manageable and
secure to itself. The search for security is of course a legitimate one, but
the way that Israel chose to achieve this end is wrong: From the beginning,
Israel decided to establish security behind an "iron wall" that would separate
itself from the Arabs, and most important of all, protect the lands that Israel
occupied through methods of invasion, colonization and depopulation. This
strategy of reaping the wind had its consequence as a century of constant clash
between Israelis and Arabs. Had Israel chosen a peaceful path to secure its
existence, by building good relations with its Arab neighbors and refraining
from aggression, Jews and Muslims could peacefully co-exist in the Middle East,
as they have done before for centuries. However, the radical Zionist ideology
still denies any chance to peace and relentlessly tries to transform the whole
Middle East to create a "living space" for Israel. It has been using its
influence in the United States for that purpose in recent years, and to a large
extent directs Washington's Middle East policy. The post-September 11 climate
gave Israel the opportunity it had been seeking. Pro-Israeli ideologues who for
years had been propounding the falsehood that Islam itself - not some militant
radicals who use Islam as a shelter - posed a threat to the West and the United
States, and who encouraged the mistaken concept
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil
 




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
~ ANOTHER US SOLDIER BITES IT IN BUSH'S OIL WAR ~ Matt Wiser Military Aviation 1 April 27th 04 03:04 PM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Military Aviation 1 April 9th 04 11:25 PM
=> Nat. Guard Soldier Charges with Desertion - Why Not Bu$h ?? <= Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 March 28th 04 04:50 PM
"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al Stop SPAM Military Aviation 148 February 23rd 04 12:01 AM
Jihadis kill a US soldier near Pakistan border Crazy Fool Military Aviation 0 November 15th 03 10:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM.


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