If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The War on Iraq - Conceived in Israel
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
How many more wars will America fight for the Jews? Some say this is a war against terror yet the people who have been pushing this war were advocating it long before anyone ever heard of Osama bin Laden or 9/11. Some people say this is a war for oil, but where is the oil in Syria who seems to be next target of Anglo-American-Zionist aggression? How many more people have to die because bloodthirsty Zionist Jews like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle today and Morgenthau and Kissinger of yesterday, have an axe to grind with the enemies of Israel? As the bodies of American and British soldiers come home in coffins, may they rest in peace, keep in mind they died for Ariel Sharon.
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
0
Comments
It was not the Jews totally that have called for the invasion of Iraq as i know jewish people that have opposed this war. It is like saying that all Muslims celebrated 9-11 which is totally unture.
Clearly he missed the opening sentence of the thread which didn't draw a link to the Zionist movement but to Jews in general.
Despite our long running disagreements, Id expect you to have the capacity to understand that much.
You're right to hate America. You wouldn't fit in here. We are opposed to everything for which you stand and have fought for over 200 years against people like you.
I'm proud of that.:cool:
The question involved here is whether influential racially conscious Jews with heavy influence upon American foreign policy - acting out of individually perceived Jewish ethnic interests - are behind the war on Iraq. That question does not involve any question of racial superiority/inferiority whatsoever. It is a sociological question. I maintain that is the case.
Which is entirely irrelevent to whether or not individual Jews identify with other Jews as a group and act in what they individually perceive to be Jewish group interests.
Which is irrelevent to whether or not specific individual Jews, who are ethnically conscious, have distorted American foreign policy in order to serve what they perceive a Jewish group interest.
Not all whites are racists but that is entirely irrelevent to whether or not individual racist whites act in what they individually perceive to be in the racial interests of white europeans.
That is not my argument at all. There are few collective groups anywhere in the world that agree in every respect. That is of course, once again, irrelevent to whether or not individual Americans for example identify with Americans as a group and act in what they perceive to be "American" interests.
You are absolutely right. I do hate America and I do not fit in with Yankees.
Another grand display of total and complete ignorance of American history. ROFL as if slave owners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and James Madison all of whom believed in the inferiority of the black race and the imperative of deporting them to Africa have anything in common with a cosmopolitan Fox News charlatan like yourself. The only reason there is even a country today called "United States of America" is because people like me are historically the norm and people like you are a historical anamoly - a rogue generation who have squandered away a country built upon centuries of toil. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have been appalled at philo-semitic warmongering Middle East imperialists like yourself. Andrew Jackson believed in the annihilation of the Indian - something he himself thought of as progress. The only reason there is even a State of California today is because Polk was willing to annihilate the Mexicans to take it - justifying it with the theory the Mexicans were an inferior race of men. Throughout the vast majority of American history - indeed - all the way up until the 1960s, in fact people like yourself were an EXTREME minority.
You're still a nutcase.
One of my personal favourites. Theodore Roosevelt on the tartuffery of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." Roosevelt was also a racist who signed the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan.
You ever heard of the historian's concept of judging people and events within the concept of their time?
You're still a nutcase. And not worth the effort it would take to point out the inconsistencies in your claims (they are there, I'm just not going to waste my time).
Blacks, Indians, and Mexicans all existed within the context of their times just like they do today. We confront the very same problem of diversity that Theodore Roosevelt commented on - the one sure way in his opinion to ruin the United States. On all of these issues people like pnjsuferpoet and yourself are a EXTREME historical minority. The same is true of issues of foreign policy. pnjsuferpoet hardly has room to talk about what America stood for over the course of 200 years - pretty much the opposite of everything people like himself stand for today.
I don't believe in multiculturalism, diversity, or fighting the wars of Israel - all of which are ludicrous.
That's exactly what I thought.
You are more than welcome to dispute any of the facts I have laid out above.
Until then I will be waiting.
Just a thought, if it is Israel's war, how come they weren't involved physically and were told not to interfere? Surely America would have demanded some proper help, if this war was thought exclusively for the gains of the Israelis...
Btw, your "beliefs" should definitely have their own medical description. Wouldn't amaze me if there already was something fitting you.
It is much easier to have other nations fight your wars for you than to expend your own blood and treasure in the process. Such has always been the way of Shylocks like Paul Wolfowitz - American ambassador to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
The overwhelming causation of the war is Israel - the elephant in the room. The Jews really have the Yankees by the balls, not the other way around. Israel cannot "help" in this war because that would be by far to destabilizing to the puppet regimes in Jordan and Egypt which are paid billions by the Yanks to keep quiet on Israel's imperialism in the Middle East. It would promote "anti-Semitism" and thus be counter productive.
I do not believe in political correctness. I am willing to break the biggest taboo of them all - criticizing the Jews.
Public relations, ever heard of them?
Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing, Clandestine, but the boundaries between them become very blurred at times. Its the same with any religious extremity, the nutcases start running Bedlam.
Many Jews are not Zionists- if they were, Bush wouldnt have stopped them voting in Florida- by most Zionists are Jews, and Zionists have a "chosen people" complex. People like Kissinger, Morgenthau, Wolfowitz and so on have a great deal of power in the US government, and they do believe in ridding the "promised land" of Arabs and other "gentiles"- it was the Zionist movement which created thsi problem after WWII, and who continue to cause problems by bombing the shit out of the Palestinians.
It is not Israel's war per se, but those interested in the continuation of Israel as a nation, and the elimination of Arabs from the area, are operating and championing this war, and Israel stand to gain from the effects of the war- more so if Syria falls too.
Please Jacq, do not follow Heydrichs lead and allow him to claim that all Jews are Zionist scum- but do not believe that because they are jewish they are right. Many of Heydrichs comments are accurate, but with an unfortunate anti-Semitic connotation. heydrich is right about Wolfowitz et al, but his racism is not.
Fighting by proxy when youve got a PR powerhouse like the US to give it the legitimacy and pretext required for plausible deniability is the best it gets. A close second would be when Washington itself fights wars by proxy as it did by backing the Taliban against the Soviets and in Nicaragua and Honduras and El Salvador.
Nevertheless there is still a need to avoid generalising on the basis of religion since this isnt about religious beliefs so much as the politicisation of a set of notions born out of one strain of that religon. I have numerous Jewish colleagues who share many of my own views on how the two governments have been in close collusion for so long that honest brokering by the US is too greatly compromised. This admin can cajole, bribe or threaten but it has already demonstrated how little concern it has for America's diplomatic integrity.
Israel as a state isnt even the issue as far as Im concerned, merely the agenda according to which it is being run. If Labour had won for instance, I doubt we'd be contending with a consistent a barrage of assault of the occupied territories nor continous expansion of settlements, and might well have been at the negotiation table already with EU or UN brokers. Mere conjecture though for sake of illustrating the proper focus of my personal criticism with regard to zionists.
You are not criticizing, you are downright racist. There's a difference. And you know that.
Don't have time to go into that right now, but you know that your above statement is a distortion.
I have not at any timed denied that this war, if it turned out as planned, would be in the interest of Israel. Just stating, that Israel have not had any direct say to this.
Had Israel really wished to, I think they' launched a war (with help of course) themselves. They are perfectly capeable to handle the military intelligence, and special units.
Israel hasn't had major gains from Avoda. On the other hand the longest lasting peace Israel had, and the most efficient was the one they had with Egypt, created by Begin (Likud) and Egypt's Sadaat.
Which is my point- what heydrich is saying about the Zionists is perfectly accurate, but he then generalises about an entire faith from that set of right-wing nutcases.
Jacq: You know as well as I do that the Israeli state has as much right to occupy Palestinian territory as saddam hussein did in Kuwait in 1991. It is against about 30 years' worth of UN resolutions, so there is no distortion in what I said. Israel bombs Palestinian innocents using F-16 jets- its no different to what hamas do in retaliation, its just the weaponry that changes.
Dig up the old threads, and see the difference. Not capeable to discuss it further.
First off Begin's own political position was every bit as right wing (if not more so) as Sharon's. He in fact brought Likud to power with the promise that Israel would extend its control over Eretz Israel and that in no way would it ever return to pre-1967 boundaries. His was a vision of Israeli manifest destiny that Likud has never abandoned.
His peace deal with Sadat in 1979 was only made possible because of two overriding considerations. Firstly, Sadat was a rare Arab leader who was only interested in achieving what was (as he saw it) in the best interest of Egypt, namely the return of the Sinai. Secondly, Begin acted against the overriding Likud position in handing back the Sinai only upon the proviso of Egyptian concessions in the Golan Heights and West Bank and the enhanced strategic positioning it would give them in a three pronged US-Egyptian-Israeli zone of military control in the broader region.
There was never any interest by either Sadat nor (especially) Begin in considering the Palestinian question in these negotiations and thus the matter had no bearing on the outcome of the 1979 treaty.
However, as laudable and historic as that achievement was, the context in which it was achieved does not bear on the context of the present conflict and Likud's intransigence against making any concessions in the occupied territories that would leave more than a few splintered fragments for a Palestinian state. Not even with a new PM involved will the Palestinians ever consider such a piecemeal offering to be anything but a disingenuous affront to a viable and lasting peace.
We've all just had how much authority UN resolutions have illustrated very, very clearly. NONE. Nada. Zilch. They are resolutions, not laws.
Israel has as much right to occupy the "Occupied Territories" as Britain does to Northern Ireland, to Wales, or to Gibralter. As much right as the Poles have to Prussia. Or as most Americans or Canadians (or any other nationality) have to the land they live on.
Every nation is built on land conquered. If the UN passes resolutions telling the United Kingdom to leave Northern Ireland, will you do it? How about if they tell the English to leave the British Isles?
Regarding Iraq, the UN resolutions sound nice, but the reality is that Iraq has been in a state of war with the United States since March 28, 1991....when they broke the Cease-fire they agreed to.
The UN resolutions didn't make or break the decision of the coalition to eliminate Hussein's regime. They did make it obvious that the UN is toothless.
And if you can find me any evidence of Kuwait attacking Iraq, then you will have something that resembles a manner in which to compare the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank to Kuwait.
Another totally preposterous argument. As if I am anyway whatsoever the biggest fan of Yankees - the vast majority of whom are of white European descent. There is no population in the entire world that is more ethnically and racially conscious than the Jews. We are talking about a people here who were dispersed across the entire world for centuries yet managed to reconstruct their homeland in Israel almost two thousand years later! Virtually any other population in the world so scattered would have been absorbed and lost into history. This was not the case of the Jews and that is precisely because of the high degree of ethnic identification Jews have with other Jews. It is this sort of group mentality - this powerful historically constructed sociological group evolutionary strategy - that is at work in the causation of the current war on Iraq. Individual Jews, whom possess a very high degree of ethnic consciousness, individual acting in what they perceive to be the interests of Jewry.
The Zionist movement actually made a deal with Hitler himself in 1933 - that is how bad they wanted Palestine!
And that is precisely what is motivating many highly racially conscious Jews in the Bush Administration like Paul Wolfowitz and influential Jews in neoconservative think tanks who are the loudest of all the warmongers.
ROFL actually. . .
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak17.html
Which would only have provoked enormous anti-semitism throughout the world, something which due to their legendary paranoia, the Jews spend an enormous amount of time and resources attacking.
The reason the Jews are so hysterical now in pressuring the yanks to attack their neighbors is overwhelming due to what they call the “demographic problem.” Within 25 years the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are going to outnumber them 2 to 1. Within 50 years it will be 4 to 1. Within 80 years the Arabs in Israel proper will be a majority. Within 25 years Israel’s immediate neighbors will add 65 million people to Israel’s slowly growing Jewish population. Iran will add 30 million people and Iraq’s population will double in size. By that time the U.S. will most likely be racked with its own internal demographic problem and the Europeans will be enormously preoccupied with their own changing population. Within 25 years it is likely the Arabs one way are going to get a nuclear bomb and be able to make peace with Israel on their terms.
Hmmm...let's see...
Yankees' roster
Acevedo, Juan
Anderson, John
Clemens, Roger
Contreras
Hammond, Chris
Hitchcock, Stirling
Mussina, Mike
Osuna
Pettitte, Andy
Weaver, Jeff
Wells, David
Flaherty
Posada, Jorge
Almonte
Giambi, Jason
Johnson
Soriano, Alfonso
Ventura, Robin
Wilson, Enrique
Zeile
Latham, Chris
Jeter, Derek
Matsui
Mondesi, Raul
Trammell, Bubba
Williams, Bernie
Rivera, Juan
Rivera, Mariano
Stanton
(sorry, couldn't remember everyone's first name)
Looks pretty diverse to me...
ROFL now where do you fall in there Greenhat?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
. . . About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent. . . .
. . . Despite the threat of war in Iraq and the daily reports of suicide bombers in Israel, less than 15 percent of the young U.S. citizens could locate either country. . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html
. . . .Thirty-four percent of the young Americans knew that the island used on last season's "Survivor" show was located in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent could locate the state of New Jersey on a map. The "Survivor" show's location was the Marquesas Islands in the eastern South Pacific. . . .
. . . .When asked to find 10 specific states on a map of the United States, only California and Texas could be located by a large majority of those surveyed. Both states were correctly located by 89 percent of the participants. Only 51 percent could find New York, the nation's third most populous state. . . .
Drop any bombs by chance?
Maybe you should do a little research and figure out what my Avatar and signature refer to.