Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Everything you hear about Syria is a lie.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
94 replies to this topic

#31 dank.

dank.

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:32 AM

I find it odd that the mainstream media just conveniently failed to mention the fact that Gaddafi was planning on replacing the Dollar with the Gold Dinar as the only currency that they would trade their oil with. Seems like a very important fact that was left out of the entire picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLJu0X14vmg

Also if you don't know about the US using "Economic Hitmen" to control and enslave countries in massive debts (like they do to us individuals), you should listen to John Perkins explain his role as one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

He goes onto explain how if he failed his role, there was always a Plan B to send in what he calls "Jackals" that were CIA agents that specialized in creating a fake dissent amoungst the public which led to staged and planned coups or assassinations of their leaders.

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=24207

Rebels, Al-Qaeda, MI6, CIA

Here’s a Guardian article from 2002. This information has been available for ten years, but the media didn’t think it was newsworthy:

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.


The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'.


The allegations have emerged in the book Forbidden Truth, published in America by two French intelligence experts who reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998.


According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.


The arrest warrant was issued in connection with the murder in March 1994 of two German anti-terrorism agents, Silvan and Vera Becker, who were in charge of missions in Africa. According to the book, the resistance of Western intelligence agencies to the Libyan concerns can be explained by MI6's involvement with the al-Qaeda coup plot. (Martin Bright, MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden', Guardian, November 10, 2002)


While Gaddafi became the laughing stock of the media when he accused Al-Qaeda of backing the rebellion, on March 28, the Commander of NATO’s European forces confirmed half-heartedly, and without being ridiculed, that the network was manipulating the insurgents:

Since the beginning of the insurrection in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi accused Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He thus claimed several times that the terrorist network manipulated the insurgents. This Tuesday, James Stavridis, the commander of NATO’s forces in Europe, has partly confirmed these claims.


Indeed, during an audit before the U.S. Senate, he explained that some intelligence mentioned signs of an Al-Qaeda, or even of a Lebanese Hezbollah presence among the Libyan opposition. He nevertheless tempered this by underlining that he did not have “enough details” to say whether this presence was “significant or not”. (Libye : l'Otan admet que l'opposition serait infiltrée par Al-Qaïda, (Libya: NATO admits the opposition would be infiltrated by Al-Qaeda) TF1,March 29, 2011)


Therefore, even if Westerners admit the presence of Al-Qaeda among the rebels, they still choose to intervene in their favour.

To add to this Kafkaesque turn of events, the Libyan National Transition Council (LNTC), representing the Libyan opposition and up to now recognized by France and Qatar [1], has appointed a longstanding CIA collaborator to lead its operations:

The Libyan National Council, the Benghazi-based group that speaks for the rebel forces fighting the Gaddafi regime, has appointed a long-time CIA collaborator to head its military operations. The selection of Khalifa Hifter, a former colonel in the Libyan army, was reported by McClatchy Newspapers Thursday […] (Patrick Martin, A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels, World Socialist Web Site, March 28, 2011)


The next day we learned during a press conference who the LNTC spokespersons were: Mahmoud Shammam, former Foreign Policy journalist, “living between Washington and Doha”, and Guma El-Gamaty, “an activist living in London”. (Eric Albert, Les premiers pas politiques hésitants des rebelles libyens, (The Libyan Rebels’ first hesitant political steps), La Tribune, March 29, 2011.)

The Libyan rebels’ representatives are thus Libyans living in the U.S. and the U.K., and their chief of operations is a CIA collaborator. The Libyan rebellion is starting to take on the appearance of a Western regime change.

Two days after the release of the McClatchy article and after the beginning of the intervention, the New York Times “revealed” that the CIA had been on Libyan soil for several weeks. As for the MI6 and the British Special Forces, agents were captured early in March by the rebels who had mistaken them for enemy spies. British intelligence was allegedly on the ground to establish connections with the rebellion, which they were apparently not aware of.

Another important fact has been largely ignored by the media: Benghazi is a chosen hideout for jihadists, according to a 2007 study from the United States Military Academy at West Point:

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah… represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. (Dr. Webster G. Tarpley, The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq, Global Research, March 28, 2011)


All this information reveals a number of facts crucial to the understanding of this conflict, and is available for whomever bothers to do a bit of research. Yet, it seems like the role of the mainstream press is not to deliver facts, but rather propaganda.

Whether this bias is deliberate or not, the result is in any case the same: they are not doing their job correctly. Once again.


Posted Image


#32 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 11 June 2012 - 01:46 PM

Israel can't even be compared to Syria. Israel has done nothing wrong, has to deal with crazies all around them and maintains a positive relationship with the US and President Obama. Syria is run by liars and thugs. How dare you compare the two, HOW dare you.


From all Ive ever read of heard I think its safe to conclude that both sides deserve their fair share of blame for the mess in that part of the world.

And maintaining a positive relationship with the US certainly doesnt mean you are on the righteous side of things. Israel has recently been urging the US to go to war with Iran.

#33 dank.

dank.

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 12 June 2012 - 05:48 AM

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=31320

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is calling for an R2P humanitarian military intervention in Syria to curb the atrocities allegedly ordered by the government of president Bashar Al Assad. In a twisted logic, Clinton recognizes that while "opposition forces" are integrated by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the government rather than the terrorists is held responsible, without a shred of evidence, for the ongoing massacre of civilians.

Amply documented, these sectarian killings and atrocities are being committed by foreign mercenaries and militia which are armed and supported by the Western military alliance.

The killings are carried out quite deliberately as part of a diabolical covert operation. The enemy is then blamed for the resulting atrocities. The objective is to justify a military agenda on humanitarian grounds.

In US military jargon, it's called a "massive casualty producing event", the historical origins of which go back to "Operation Northwoods", an infamous 1962 Pentagon Plan, consisting in killing civilians in the Miami Cuban community, with a view to justifying a war on Cuba. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria, Global Research, May 30, 2012)


"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro." (U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News emphasis added. This Secret Pentagon document was declassified and can be readily consulted, See Operation Northwoods, See also National Security Archive, 30 April 2001)


In the logic of Operation Northwoods, the killings in Syria are carried out to "create a helpful wave of indignation", to drum up public opinion in favor of an R2P US-NATO operation against Syria. "The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won’t”, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


What lies behind this outburst of humanitarian concern by "the international community". Is America coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for America's war on Syria?

This question is addressed in a lead article by James P. Rubin, a Bloomberg executive editor and former State department official under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this month's Foreign Policy Magazine under the clear-cut title: "The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria"

In an unusual twist, "the answer to the question", namely "the real reason" is provided in the article's subtitle: "Cutting Iran's link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk.".

The subtitle should dispel --in the eyes of the reader-- the illusion that US foreign policy has an underlying "humanitarian mandate". Pentagon and US State department documents as well as independent reports confirm that military action against Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more than 20 years.

Targeting Iran, "Protecting Israel"

According to James P. Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of the same US-Israeli military agenda which consists in weakening Iran with a view to "protecting Israel". The latter objective is to be carried out through a pre-emptive attack against Iran: "We're not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran" says James P. Rubin.

According to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies ("a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism"), the humaniitarian concern is not the primary objective but rather as "a means to an end": "If the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why should we Americans expend an ounce of energy? ...[The answer] Because Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic threat facing the U.S. — hands down." (See National Review, May 30, 2012)

The military roadmap to Tehran goes through Damascus. The unspoken objective of the US-NATO-Israeli sponsored insurgency in Syria is to destabilize Syria as a Nation State and undermine Iran's influence in the region (including its support of the Palestinian Liberation movement and Hezbollah). The underlying objective is also to eliminate all forms of resistance to the Zionist State:


"That is where Syria comes in, says James P, Rubin. It is the strategic relationship between the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred -- but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests.
The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime's fall "will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world ... and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." (The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria - By James P. Rubin | Foreign Policy, June 2, 2012, emphasis added)


US-Israeli War Plans directed against Syria

Rubin candidly outlines the contours of US military intervention in Syria, which is to be implemented in close liaison with Israel. A diplomatic solution will not work, nor will economic sanctions: "only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator's stance" says Rubin:


"U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed." (Ibid)


Washington's first step, according to James P. Rubin, should be to work with "its allies", the Arab sheikdoms --Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey-- "to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces."

This "first step" has already been launched. It was implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in March 2012. The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruted and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Sidetracking the UN

Rubin's proposed "second step" is "to secure international support for a coalition air operation." outside the mandate of the United Nations. "Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the U.N. Security Council" says Rubin. The air operation contemplated by Rubin is an all out war scenario, similar to the NATO air raids conducted in Libya.

Rubin is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of the UN. The option of "sidetracking" the UN Security Council has already been endorsed by Washington. The violaiton of international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms, that "the worst and most probable scenario" in Syria might be the option of "acting outside of the UN Security Council's authority".


"In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity... The Council's unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council." Actions outside UN Security Council Likely in Syria - Rice | World | RIA Novosti, May 31, 2012


Rubin also points to "the reluctance of some European states" (without mentioning the countries) to participate in an air operation against Syria: "this [military] operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. Given Syria's extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. U.S. leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads."

The article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA) as well carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used --as in the case of Libya-- to support the FSA foot soldiers integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades:


"Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes' aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. ...
The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes." (Rubin, op cit)


While the participation of Israel in military operations is not mentioned, the thrust of Rubin's article points to active cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would also be carried out in the context of the bilateral military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey.

"Coming to the rescue of the Syrian people" under a fake "humanitarian" R2P mandate is intended to destabilize Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political control and influence over neighboring Arab states including Lebanon and Syria.

A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken the resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would reinforce the Netanyahu government's ambitions to create a "Greater Israel", initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories:


"With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis' rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor, since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime ... make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking." (Rubin, op cit)

War Crimes in the name of human rights: What we really need is "Regime Change" in the United States of America.... and Israel.



Looks like Syria is just the next piece on the board to be taken out, in order to get to their main target, Iran.

Posted Image


#34 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 12 June 2012 - 09:24 AM

Looks like Syria is just the next piece on the board to be taken out, in order to get to their main target, Iran.


Noone is going to invade Iran. It would be like the Iraq war on steroids.

#35 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:02 PM

Noone is going to invade Iran. It would be like the Iraq war on steroids.


Everyone with a brain in every country agrees that it would be a complete disaster, AND that there is no way to destroy Iran's nuclear program without both an invasion, and an occupation. Yet you have right-wing leaders in Iran screaming, "They're coming to get us!" and right-wing leaders in Israel and the US both screaming "They're coming to get us!" It seems at least possible that there will be war, foolish though it would be, if somebody does not back down. I think it will have to be Netanyahu who backs down because I hope, at this point, the rest of the world, and in particular the United States - the good will of which Israel is entirely dependent - will signal to him that he will receive no support if he decides to attack Iran unilaterally.

The US could normalize relations with Iran and diffuse the situation completely, if they wanted to. A good place to start would be to stop funding terrorists in Iran to assassinate scientists and other civilian targets...issue a formal apology for the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s, and for propping up the Shah regime during its existence...apologize for funding Saddam Hussein's war against Iran...denounce Israel for not signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and for owning nuclear weapons, and tell Israel that it will receive zero military aid until it makes good faith attempts to normalize relations with Iran.

These are all things that should happen ANYWAY.

#36 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:25 PM

Everyone with a brain in every country agrees that it would be a complete disaster, AND that there is no way to destroy Iran's nuclear program without both an invasion, and an occupation. Yet you have right-wing leaders in Iran screaming, "They're coming to get us!" and right-wing leaders in Israel and the US both screaming "They're coming to get us!" It seems at least possible that there will be war, foolish though it would be, if somebody does not back down. I think it will have to be Netanyahu who backs down because I hope, at this point, the rest of the world, and in particular the United States - the good will of which Israel is entirely dependent - will signal to him that he will receive no support if he decides to attack Iran unilaterally.

The US could normalize relations with Iran and diffuse the situation completely, if they wanted to. A good place to start would be to stop funding terrorists in Iran to assassinate scientists and other civilian targets...issue a formal apology for the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s, and for propping up the Shah regime during its existence...apologize for funding Saddam Hussein's war against Iran...denounce Israel for not signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and for owning nuclear weapons, and tell Israel that it will receive zero military aid until it makes good faith attempts to normalize relations with Iran.

These are all things that should happen ANYWAY.


You would not need a ground force to stop the nuclear program. Just bomb the crap out of the sites. I sincerely doubt will see that though. Most likely just continued political posturing. A direct attack on Iran of any kind would simply result in Iran lobing rockets towards Israel.

As for your recommendations on what the US should do, the US should do none of those things. Iran shouldn't be invaded but it's still a violent fascist state that denies all political freedomes and executes its own citizens en masse. They shouldn't be rewarded for their actions or appeased in any way. The continued policy of assassination of nuclear scientists, technological attacks, and political and economic isolation is the best way for the US to proceed. The US will never be friends with the current Iranian regime.

A formal apology to the Iranian people for the overthrow of the democratically elected government and support of the Shah would be a positive move. However, showing support in any way for the current Iranian regime should be avoided at all costs. The USA needs to find a way to support the liberal movements in Iran and isolate the Ayatollahs and their chronies.

As for Israel, if you think them not having nuclear weapons would somehow improve their relations with Iran, you're on crack. Iran already funds, trains, and fights alongside Hamas and Hezbollah. They've done so since the Ayatollah came into power and won't stop doing so until Israel ceases to exist. I also don't see what moral grounds the USA has for abandoning Israel over their nuclear policy. The USA has nuclear weapons themselves. The issue with Iran having them, is that they were a member of the NPT, and, therefore, supplied with free nuclear technology. Israel chose not to join from the get go. There's no international law stopping you from doing that. Iran, on the other hand, joined the NPT, got decades worth of nuclear technology from other countries, and then used that technology for military purposes (whether they are still developing weapons is another issue).

#37 dank.

dank.

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:35 PM

Just bomb the crap out of the sites.


I had to stop reading there. You can't be serious.....

Posted Image


#38 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,920 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:23 PM


Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#39 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:38 PM

As for your recommendations on what the US should do, the US should do none of those things. Iran shouldn't be invaded but it's still a violent fascist state that denies all political freedomes and executes its own citizens en masse. They shouldn't be rewarded for their actions or appeased in any way. The continued policy of assassination of nuclear scientists, technological attacks, and political and economic isolation is the best way for the US to proceed. The US will never be friends with the current Iranian regime.


The assassination of unarmed and noncombative scientists, who also happen to be civilians, is absolutely wrong. Doing so takes away all right to throw around the word 'terrorist' at anyone else.

#40 Guest_BuckFoston_*

Guest_BuckFoston_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:51 PM

Well, since everyone is saying ask someone from Syria what is really going on - I did, having studied with a couple of Syrians back in uni days. They said there would be absolutely no reason for the government to have massacres and run around killing civilians when the international spotlight is on them and everyone and their grandma is taping everything on their phone and posting it to youtube. As of now, there are so many small groups vying for power, it is hard to tell who is who, where they are, what they really want. What is clear, is that they are setting up the govt to escalate the tense relationship with the West, so that they will intervene and take down the current power. Then one of the smaller groups will come to light.

So there you go, straight from the horse's mouth.

America has learned nothing though, Egypt and Lybia are both a disaster on the brink of Sharia law. So they must either vote for the awful backwards muslim brotherhood or take a chance on people who are tied to old regimes. Obviously people are torn. Although I'd say anything is better than Sharia law. The Russians don't have the best track record, but don't eff with them for pete's sakes. Hilary is having a cow because they just sent some choppers over there and she better sit her arse down because Putin is not one to be intimidated. All those failed years in Afghanistan and the Russians couldn't change a damn thing. So America and Canada decide they are going to give it a go. Same result. We have enough problems in our own back yard instead of policing the world, rather poorly too I might add.

#41 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:14 PM

The conduct of many posters (The usual suspects) in this thread is disgusting. Children have died and there are obvious manipulations going on, and some of you have the nerve to use ad hominem garbage on the op?

How do you sleep at night?
Posted Image

#42 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:50 AM

I had to stop reading there. You can't be serious.....


It's been done twice in the past at least, on Syria and Iraq. All this stuff about mobile nuclear sites is largely garbage and propaganda. You cannot have a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons grade material on a mobile site. These things are extremely volatile and require huge reactors.

I'm not justifying it, but just pointing out that you would not need a ground force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I doubt Israel/US even goes as far as an air strike though. As I said before, the end result would just be Iran lobbing rockets at Israel. Not because they think it would be a good idea, but because it would be the only way for the Iranian regime to save face.

#43 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:52 AM

The conduct of many posters (The usual suspects) in this thread is disgusting. Children have died and there are obvious manipulations going on, and some of you have the nerve to use ad hominem garbage on the op?

How do you sleep at night?


The OP is clearly exploiting this situation to further his own agenda. He does not give a $@#$ about the children of Syria. Not a single poster here has denied that the rebels are now fighting an armed conflict. However, the idea that the government is not attacking civilians en masse is in total contradiction to statements made by every human rights group on the planet. It also contradicts the wealth of video, picture, first hand testimonial, etc....

#44 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:55 AM

Well, since everyone is saying ask someone from Syria what is really going on - I did, having studied with a couple of Syrians back in uni days. They said there would be absolutely no reason for the government to have massacres and run around killing civilians when the international spotlight is on them and everyone and their grandma is taping everything on their phone and posting it to youtube. As of now, there are so many small groups vying for power, it is hard to tell who is who, where they are, what they really want. What is clear, is that they are setting up the govt to escalate the tense relationship with the West, so that they will intervene and take down the current power. Then one of the smaller groups will come to light.

So there you go, straight from the horse's mouth.

America has learned nothing though, Egypt and Lybia are both a disaster on the brink of Sharia law. So they must either vote for the awful backwards muslim brotherhood or take a chance on people who are tied to old regimes. Obviously people are torn. Although I'd say anything is better than Sharia law. The Russians don't have the best track record, but don't eff with them for pete's sakes. Hilary is having a cow because they just sent some choppers over there and she better sit her arse down because Putin is not one to be intimidated. All those failed years in Afghanistan and the Russians couldn't change a damn thing. So America and Canada decide they are going to give it a go. Same result. We have enough problems in our own back yard instead of policing the world, rather poorly too I might add.


The horse's mouth? Are those people living in Syria now? When did they move out? Because somoene is from a Syrian background that does not make them an expert. Especially when you have so many people actually in Syria saying the exact opposite.

This has nothing to do with the US. The US was also not responsible for what happened in Lybia and Egypt. If anything the US propped up Mubarek. The operation in Lybia was spearheaded by France and the EU. US involvement was minimal.

#45 Guest_BuckFoston_*

Guest_BuckFoston_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:22 AM

The horse's mouth? Are those people living in Syria now? When did they move out? Because somoene is from a Syrian background that does not make them an expert. Especially when you have so many people actually in Syria saying the exact opposite.

This has nothing to do with the US. The US was also not responsible for what happened in Lybia and Egypt. If anything the US propped up Mubarek. The operation in Lybia was spearheaded by France and the EU. US involvement was minimal.


Uh yes... those people are in Syria now, considering they did a semester abroad in Canada about 5 years ago. Once in a while we keep in touch. As far as experts go - I am Russian, I read the papers, watch the news, attend some protests if I am there, most of my family is there, but just because I don't live there 365 days a year doesn't mean I don't know what is going on on a daily basis or have people close to me explaining what's happening in case I don't get the feed 100%.

Also, this has everything to do with the US. If you think otherwise you are uninformed or worse - brainwashed. Read up on American history and see how many dictators they helped topple, then aided in putting new ones in power, then toppling those, then putting new ones in power again. Kissing their arses 3 years ago and sending them Christmas cards, then distancing themselves from "the evil regime" when the people get fed up and revolt. Until a new pawn comes into play. It keeps going in circles and will never stop. Just because troop involvement is minimal on paper doesn't mean they aren't pulling the strings.

Your feeble attempt to discredit fails.

#46 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:45 AM

Uh yes... those people are in Syria now, considering they did a semester abroad in Canada about 5 years ago. Once in a while we keep in touch. As far as experts go - I am Russian, I read the papers, watch the news, attend some protests if I am there, most of my family is there, but just because I don't live there 365 days a year doesn't mean I don't know what is going on on a daily basis or have people close to me explaining what's happening in case I don't get the feed 100%.

Also, this has everything to do with the US. If you think otherwise you are uninformed or worse - brainwashed. Read up on American history and see how many dictators they helped topple, then aided in putting new ones in power, then toppling those, then putting new ones in power again. Kissing their arses 3 years ago and sending them Christmas cards, then distancing themselves from "the evil regime" when the people get fed up and revolt. Until a new pawn comes into play. It keeps going in circles and will never stop. Just because troop involvement is minimal on paper doesn't mean they aren't pulling the strings.

Your feeble attempt to discredit fails.


Fair enough about your comments about friends in Syria. However, I'm guessing that since they had the luxury of going to university abroad, they were part of a class of people that benefited from the Assad regime. So they may be slightly suspect. Syria is an extremely poor nation where the GDP/person is blow $3,000 per capita and you have huge disparties in wealth. The fact your friends were able to afford the $50,000.00 or so per year it takes to study in North America should show you something about their standing in Syria and why they would want to preserve the status quo.

And no, the US is not responsible for what's going on in Syria, nor were they heavily involved in the Egyptian or Lybian ordeals. And yes I do know about the US "toppling" dictators. However, for evey dictator they topple, there's one they help hold onto power. Mubarek was heavily supported by the US. The US did everything to support him until it became totally apparent there was no way for him to stay in power without massacering millions.

The truth is the US and Israel have an interest in keeping Assad in power. Their worst nightmare is a fractured Syria where a group similar to Hamas can take over. Currently the Free Syrian Army is armed almost entirely with weapons taken from the actual Syrian army. There's a distinct lack of US weapons there. The US knows that Russia will never let anyone strike Syria. So the US can cheer from the sidelines and make themselves look like the good guys without actually doing anything.

#47 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:59 AM

I heard Syria is a great country so Yes! everything I have heard about Syria is a lie.

#48 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,920 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:25 PM

The truth is the US and Israel have an interest in keeping Assad in power. Their worst nightmare is a fractured Syria where a group similar to Hamas can take over.


That logic would apply to Mubarak and Egypt wouldnt it?

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#49 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:46 PM

That logic would apply to Mubarak and Egypt wouldnt it?


Yes, which is why the US gave Mubarak about 1.5 billion dollars per year for decades. The US then supported Mubarak until the very end. All those weapons that Mubarak was using on protestors, came directly from the US and the money the US was giving his regime. Those weren't the intended use, but the US knew they weren't supporting an angel. The US also gave Mubarak several outs, even at the end.

#50 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,920 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 14 June 2012 - 03:41 PM

US Military completes planning for Syria

CNN

The U.S. military has completed its own planning for how American troops would conduct a variety of operations against Syria, or to assist neighboring countries in the event action was ordered, officials tell CNN.

In recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed, how many troops, and even the cost of certain potential operations, officials tell CNN.

The planning comes as the U.S. has become increasingly concerned that the violence in Syria is verging on civil war. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the recent series of bombings have heightened the worry.

Dempsey said it reminded him of the escalating violence during the Iraq war.

The violence "gives us all pause that have been in Iraq and seen how these issues become sectarian and then they become civil wars and then they become very difficult to resolve," Dempsey told CNN in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

A senior U.S. official said the developments have been a matter of discussion in the Obama administration.

"There is a sense that if the sectarian violence in Syria grows, it could be worse than what we saw in Iraq," the official said.

The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. Officials say all the scenarios would be difficult to enact and involve large numbers of U.S. troops and extended operations.

The planning, officials insist, is being done protectively and there have been no orders for any action from the White House.

The U.S. Navy is maintaining a presence of three surface combatants and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean to conduct electronic surveillance and reconnaissance on the Syrian regime, a senior Pentagon official said. The official emphasized that the U.S. routinely maintains this type of naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, but acknowledged the current focus is on Syria.

The United States, Britain and France have all been discussing contingency scenarios, potential training and sharing of intelligence about what is happening in Syria with neighboring countries including Jordan, Turkey and Israel. But it is Jordan, so far, that is most seeking the help because of its relatively small military and potential need for outside help if unrest in southern Syria were to impact Jordan's security.

U.S. special forces are training and advising Jordanian troops on a range of specific military tasks they might need to undertake if unrest in Syria spills over into Jordan or poses a threat to that country, three Defense Department officials told CNN. The officials declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the training. Jordanian officials also are refusing to publicly confirm details, but a senior Middle Eastern government official also confirmed details to CNN.

The U.S. has been training in Jordan using mainly special operations forces under a program called Joint Combined Exchange Training, which sends troops overseas to train foreign soldiers and units in specific missions. Jordan's major security concern is that if the Syrian regime were to suddenly collapse, then it would face unrest on its northern border, as well as the possibility of large refugee flows, weapons smuggling into Jordan, and potential disarray in Syria's chemical and biological weapons complex. Jordan also is considering how and where to potentially set up humanitarian assistance bases inside its borders, another matter the U.S. is advising it on.

The Jordanians do not believe regime of Bashir al-Assad would attack them. But they have made it clear to the United States they want the training so they are ready to move quickly if any scenario develops that could destabilize their country, which is already reeling politically from a collapsing economy. While there's no formal agreement, one of the U.S. officials said the U.S. would come to the defense and support of Jordan in the event any of the Syria scenarios pose a challenge.

While there is no current scenario for putting U.S. troops on the ground in Jordan or Syria, the U.S. could wind up providing air support to move Jordanian troops to the border. In addition, American forces could provide a wide range of intelligence and surveillance capabilities to Jordan so they would have up-to-date information on what is happening on the Syrian side of their border region. In one of the most extreme scenarios, a small unit of Jordanian troops could move into Syria to protect a chemical or biological weapons site.

U.S. satellites are monitoring the chemical and biological weapons sites around the clock, and so far "there is no reason to believe they are not secure," one of the U.S. officials said.

The U.S. believes the facilities are guarded by some of the most elite Alawite troops loyal to al-Assad. But the official noted that the opposition forces appear to be gaining strength in some areas, and that the United States, Jordan and the allies are concerned that as the amount of al-Assad controlled territory shrinks, some of those critical facilities could be open to attacks, pilfering or efforts by terrorist groups to buy material.

"This is getting a fair amount of attention," another U.S. official told CNN. Also discussed with Jordanian forces was the possible need for U.S. chemical and biological weapons detecting equipment, the official said.

The overall assessment by the U.S. is that in the event some action had to be taken to secure Syrian chemical, biological or weapons facilities, troops from some country would have to enter Syria in a matter of hours.

This latest training is said to be separate from the recent multinational "Eager Lion 2012" training exercise that took place in Jordan.

During that exercise, U.S. and Jordanian troops also practiced many of the same scenarios, but the JCET training is much more focused, according to the officials.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/14/u-s-military-completes-planning-for-syria/



Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#51 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 14 June 2012 - 04:36 PM

The OP is clearly exploiting this situation to further his own agenda. He does not give a $@#$ about the children of Syria. Not a single poster here has denied that the rebels are now fighting an armed conflict. However, the idea that the government is not attacking civilians en masse is in total contradiction to statements made by every human rights group on the planet. It also contradicts the wealth of video, picture, first hand testimonial, etc....


So, you respond by attacking his character.

Lol. Good job.
Posted Image

#52 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 04:49 PM

So, you respond by attacking his character.


Lol. Good job.


So when somebody is clearly pushing an agenda, I'm not allowed to call them on that? Right.

Edit:
While we're on the topic of attacking character:

The conduct of many posters (The usual suspects) in this thread is disgusting. Children have died and there are obvious manipulations going on, and some of you have the nerve to use ad hominem garbage on the op?

How do you sleep at night?


Gee...that's not an attack in any way. Let's see: "disgusting", the "usual suspects", "ad hominem garbage", "How do you sleep at night?"

By far the worst personal attack in this thread AINEC.

Edited by taxi, 14 June 2012 - 04:54 PM.


#53 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxq00xkMlgw


Well... if some guy Ive never heard of clad in a tank top says it then that changes everything.

#54 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

Well... if some guy Ive never heard of clad in a tank top says it then that changes everything.


HIs name is Adam Kokesh. He's an American:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Adam_Kokesh

This is from his radio show which was cancelled about a year ago. He keeps it going through YouTube, as noone will pick his show up anymore.

#55 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,920 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

HIs name is Adam Kokesh. He's an American:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Adam_Kokesh

This is from his radio show which was cancelled about a year ago. He keeps it going through YouTube, as noone will pick his show up anymore.


Yeah also veteran of the Marine Corps, served in Iraq held the position of Corporal and is a anti-war activist..

back on topic,

I find it very comforting the US has completed its "planning" towards Syria. Don't worry folks we'll be seeing the next invasion shortly.

Edited by key2thecup, 14 June 2012 - 05:31 PM.

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#56 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

So when somebody is clearly pushing an agenda, I'm not allowed to call them on that? Right.

Edit:
While we're on the topic of attacking character:



Gee...that's not an attack in any way. Let's see: "disgusting", the "usual suspects", "ad hominem garbage", "How do you sleep at night?"

By far the worst personal attack in this thread AINEC.


Lmfao I said - The Conduct -

You're on a roll tonight
Posted Image

#57 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:22 PM

Uh yes... those people are in Syria now, considering they did a semester abroad in Canada about 5 years ago. Once in a while we keep in touch. As far as experts go - I am Russian, I read the papers, watch the news, attend some protests if I am there, most of my family is there, but just because I don't live there 365 days a year doesn't mean I don't know what is going on on a daily basis or have people close to me explaining what's happening in case I don't get the feed 100%.

Also, this has everything to do with the US. If you think otherwise you are uninformed or worse - brainwashed. Read up on American history and see how many dictators they helped topple, then aided in putting new ones in power, then toppling those, then putting new ones in power again. Kissing their arses 3 years ago and sending them Christmas cards, then distancing themselves from "the evil regime" when the people get fed up and revolt. Until a new pawn comes into play. It keeps going in circles and will never stop. Just because troop involvement is minimal on paper doesn't mean they aren't pulling the strings.

Your feeble attempt to discredit fails.


Out of curiosity how did these Syrians get the ability to travel to Canada to attend university?
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#58 Guest_BuckFoston_*

Guest_BuckFoston_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:19 AM

Out of curiosity how did these Syrians get the ability to travel to Canada to attend university?


I wasn't aware this was an issue 5 years ago. We had a few female students as well, this was in Ottawa... but at U of T and Concordia I also met a few Syrians. They even had their own little clubs that were part of this whole middle eastern outreach movement where anyone was welcome to join if they wanted to learn about the culture, religion, or make friends. When I was a TA I made friends with a really great girl from Iran. So much so that she has consistently invited me and my family to visit her there. She has been going back and forth no problem even with everything that went on there over the past few years.

#59 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,159 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:08 AM

Israel can't even be compared to Syria. Israel has done nothing wrong, has to deal with crazies all around them and maintains a positive relationship with the US and President Obama. Syria is run by liars and thugs. How dare you compare the two, HOW dare you.



The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism



by John Pilger

The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from this truth. What is different today is that the weak have learned how to attack the strong, and the western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism exposes "us" to retaliation.
The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then guardian of the west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state remains the cause of more regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states combined. Read the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles the equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in occupied Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring bloodbath, let alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist organisation by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west.
In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises Israel for its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact that the continuing Israeli occupation and the associated military occupations have had on the lives of ordinary Palestinians."
Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast quantities of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No matter that Israel has defied more United Nations resolutions than any other state since the founding of the world body. Last October, the UN General Assembly voted by 144 to four to condemn the wall that Israel has cut through the heart of the West Bank, annexing the best agricultural land, including the aquifer system that provides most of the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored the world.
Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The former CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice-president heavily invested in oil."
The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties with the Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups in Washington. In 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) declared: "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi National Council leader Dr Ahmad Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's removal from office..." Chalabi is the CIA-backed stooge and convicted embezzler at present organising the next "democratic" government in Baghdad.
Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence service inside the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special Plans, and was overseen by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of defence, extreme Zionist and opponent of any negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It was the Office of Special Plans that supplied Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; more often than not, the original source was Israel.
Israel can also claim responsibility for the law passed by Congress that imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same fate as Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv. Israel is the guiding hand behind Bush's bellicose campaign against the "nuclear threat" posed by Iran. Today, in occupied Iraq, Israeli special forces are teaching the Americans how to "wall in" a hostile population, in the same way that Israel has walled in the Palestinians in pursuit of the Zionist dream of an apartheid state. The author David Hirst describes the "Israelisation of US foreign policy" as being "now operational as well as ideological."
In understanding Israel's enduring colonial role in the Middle East, it is too simple to see the outrages of Ariel Sharon as an aberrant version of a democracy that lost its way. The myths that abound in middle-class Jewish homes in Britain about Israel's heroic, noble birth have long been reinforced by a "liberal" or "left-wing" Zionism as virulent and essentially destructive as the Likud strain.
In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new historians," who have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention of treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The most courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, has been both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History of Modern Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and Arabs coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he describes the Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in the Israeli Labour Party to corral Palestinians in South African-style bantustans. That they were aided by a desperate Palestinian leadership made the "peace" and its "failure" (blamed on the Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years of negotiation and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly doubled the number of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, intensified the military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per cent of historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had agreed to accept in return for recognising the state of Israel.
Along with the late Edward Said, Ilan Pappe is the most eloquent writer of Palestinian history. He is also one of the most scholarly. This combination has brought him many admirers, but also enemies among Israel's academic liberal mythologists in Britain, one of whom, Stephen Howe, was given the Pappe book to review in the New Statesman of 8 March. Howe often appears in these pages; his style is to damn with faint praise and to set carefully the limits of debate about empire, be it Irish history, the Middle East or the "war on terror." In Pappe's case, what the reader doesn't know is Howe's personal link to the Israeli establishment; and what Howe does not say in his review is that here for the first time is a textbook on Palestine that narrates the real story as it happened: a non-Zionist version of Zionism.
He accuses Pappe of "factual mistakes," but gives no evidence, then denigrates the book by dismissing it as a footnote to another book by the Israeli historian Benny Morris, who has long atoned for his own revisionist work. To its credit, Cambridge University Press has published Pappe's pioneering and highly accessible work as an authoritative history. This means that the "debate" over Israel's origins is ending, regardless of what the empire's apologists say

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#60 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,159 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:17 AM

Israel can't even be compared to Syria. Israel has done nothing wrong, has to deal with crazies all around them and maintains a positive relationship with the US and President Obama. Syria is run by liars and thugs. How dare you compare the two, HOW dare you.


Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism. Three Israeli prime ministers were or are terrorists:
  • Menachim Begin took part in terrorist acts in the 1940s, including the attack on the King David Hotel which killed 91 people.

    Begin ordered ... the destruction of the central British administrative offices in the King David Hotel. — Jewish Virtual Library

    In 1946, Jewish terrorists agitating for their own state in British-occupied Palestine blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91. Two years later, an independent Israel was established. "There were a lot of innocent British women and children killed there," says Hanson. "But in the end, it worked; the British left."Some Dirty Little Secrets About Terrorism

  • Yitzhak Shamir was the operations commander, and later leader, of the Stern Gang, a terrorist group which was responsible for a string of political assassinations.

    Shamir was a member of two militant Jewish underground organizations which ... were active in counter-terrorist acts against Arabs as well as sabotage against the British. — The Department for Jewish Zionist Education (Note the use of the term counter-terrorist to disguise terrorism.)

    In post-war British-mandated Palestine the words Stern Gang equalled "terrorism" — assassinations, bombings, the full works. ... Yitzhak Shamir had been the gang's operations commander. ... By appointing Shamir Foreign Minister, Prime Minister Menachem Begin had selected the organiser of two famous assassinations: the killing of Lord Moyne, the British Minister representative in the Middle East, in 1944, and that of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, in 1948. — Stern Gang: what does 'mekhabbel' mean?

    During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan. ... Yitzhak Shamir reputedly played a role in planning the assassination; however, he was never tried and went on to become Prime Minister of Israel.The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

  • Posted ImageAriel Sharon initiated the Sabra-Shatila massacre in which between 1000 and 3000 people (mostly Palestinians) were murdered, and now leads a terrorist campaign against all Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank.

    As commander of the notorious Unit 101, Sharon led attacks on Palestinian villages in which women and children were killed. The massacre in the West Bank village of Qibya, on October 14, 1953, was perhaps the most notorious. His troops blew up 45 houses and 69 Palestinian civilians — about half of them women and children — were killed. — <a href="http://electronicint...haron.html">The Electronic Intifada

    No one has ever been tried for the massacre, but an official Israeli commission of inquiry found that Israel's defense minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, "bears personal responsibility" as well as "indirect responsibility." It was Sharon, after all, who had ordered the Israel Defense Forces to invade Beirut and surround the camps. ... Like Pinochet and other war criminals, Sharon and his Phalangist underlings should be brought to book; if they can successfully evade justice, then it will give heart to killers everywhere.Marking a Massacre, The Nation

    Sharon's preemptive logic undercuts all form of dialogue and negotiations. Its rule of thumb is violence, and then more violence, whether it manifests itself as a military attack or as an aggressive act of dispossession. So while it may seem that the bloody routine is in some way preordained, it is actually Sharon's preemptive zeal alongside Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's fundamentalism that has clouded the horizon and concealed, as Arendt might have said, the possibility for a better future

this is from the serendipity website


The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.