Re: Israel Thread
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:11 am
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=74
.
Alan Dershowitz, .. , Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel have become three prominent Jewish activists joining with others in a bid to remove a group with a blood-soaked history from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.
.
.
Saddam-Glaspie meeting
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.
.
Carefully choosing his words, Blinken said that Israel views a nuclear Iran as “an existential threat” while the U.S. believes that it would pose “a direct and serious threat” to its own security. But, he added, “Israel has to make its own decisions. We are not in the business of telling our allies and partners what to do when it comes to their own national security.”
.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Azari.AzariLoveIran wrote:.
April Glaspie Transcript
.
Saddam-Glaspie meeting
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.
.
And
Anthony Blinken, National Security Adviser to Vice President Biden and Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Carefully choosing his words, Blinken said that Israel views a nuclear Iran as “an existential threat” while the U.S. believes that it would pose “a direct and serious threat” to its own security. But, he added, “Israel has to make its own decisions. We are not in the business of telling our allies and partners what to do when it comes to their own national security.”
.
Sensing some similarity
Rhubarb .. be careful .. something fishy
but
again
you do, you damn
you don't, you done
a lose lose
.
Quite right.....Rhubarb .. be careful .. something fishy
but
again
you do, you damn
you don't, you done
a lose lose
Lonely Planet: Israeli tourists a nuisance
In new chapter on Chile, popular travel guide says loud Israelis bother locals, other tourists
Itamar Eichner Published: 03.01.12, 15:20 / Israel Travel
The controversy over the Rotem Singer affair, where an Israeli tourist was suspected of starting a wildfire at Chile's Patagonia national park Torres del Paine back in January, refuses to die out.
In the new edition of the Lonely Planet Travel Guide's chapter on Chile, Israeli tourist get 'special treatment.' Alongside the dangers of local earthquakes, volcano eruptions, urban crimes and sand flies, it seems there is a new nuisance in South America – the loud Israeli tourist.
According to the guide, the Israeli hiker shows no respect for local norms and bothers other tourists.
Meanwhile, "Caras," one of Chile's most popular magazines, published an article on Israeli tourists in Patagonia, claiming there is an Israeli conspiracy to take over the region by sending young Israelis, fresh out of the army and suffering from sociological traumas, all the way to Chile.
The article notes their hooligan-like behavior, basing its claims on local testimonies by business owners who said Israelis do not pay for the services they receive, litter and are generally noisy.
In response, Israel's Ambassador to Chile, David Dadon, wrote a scathing letter to the South American magazine, slamming what he believed was "discrimination against Israeli tourists."
In addition, the Israeli embassy in Chile reported that the local Channel 13 television station aired an interview with a former representative of an environmental group who claimed that "young Israelis are sent here as part of a governmental plan after their military service."
The embassy demanded, and was immediately granted, a chance to speak on Channel 13 to counter these allegations. Ambassador Dadon linked such ideas to Neo-Nazism, saying he was sorry such notions were acceptable on such a well-known television station.
Insight: In Israeli military, a growing orthodoxy
...
For Daniel, and for millions of other Israeli citizens, the sign is symbolic of creeping change in an institution long cherished as a bastion of national unity. An increasing number of conscripts are Orthodox Jews - mirroring the growth of the minority in Israeli society at large. Some religious troops view military service through the prism of their own piety - either as the realization of a messianic vision that sees Jews conquering biblical lands or as an institution that should be subordinated to rabbinical writ.
For secular Israelis, already worried about the role of religion in the Jewish state, that threatens not just the military but the country itself.
...
Those changes have real-world ramifications. The army has long used musical bands, including women soldiers as singers, at memorials for dead soldiers. Such events were once a matter of consensus, a badge of egalitarianism for the IDF which conscripts thousands of secular Jewish women. But puritannical rabbis consider women's singing to be a sexual temptation, and requests by religious troops to be excused from the events snowballed into open calls for boycott last year.
Chief of staff Gantz fired back by insisting on compulsory attendance for all. Rabbinical recriminations followed. Rhubarb Ravad, an air force lieutenant-colonel and chaplain in charge of encouraging the ultra-Orthodox to enlist, resigned in protest in January.
The flap coincided with much-publicized Israeli outrage at forcible gender segregation in ultra-Orthodox communities and added to the sense that society was shifting. The military's chief rabbi, Brigadier-General Rafi Peretz, said Ravad had undermined both a core project and a wider national effort to maintain harmony within the armed forces.
...
For infantryman-turned-reporter Daniel, that's a frightening prospect. The military leaders from Israel's nationalist-religious community are excellent, he says. "There won't be any question about them knowing how to fight the Syrian army or Hezbollah. But in Israel, the military has other roles, like evacuations." A military split between the secular and the religious "is destined to fall apart."
.
An outspoken Liberal Democrat peer who declared that Israel would not last for ever has resigned the party whip after rejecting a call from Nick Clegg to apologise.
Lady Tonge told the leadership in a phone call that she could not accept the ultimatum from the deputy prime minister because she stood by her remarks.
Her move, which came as the Board of Deputies of British Jews condemned Tonge's remarks as "sinister and abhorrent", means she no longer takes the Lib Dem whip in the Lords.
Tonge said: "The comments I made have been taken completely out of context. They followed a very ill-tempered meeting in which Zionist campaigners attempted continually to disrupt proceedings. They mouthed obscenities at the panelists, to the extent that university security attempted to remove them from the premises.
"The comments I made were in protest at the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and the treatment of Israeli Arabs.
"I am disappointed the leadership of my party did not consult me before issuing a press release and seems always to abet the request of the pro-Israel lobby. Israel is acting against international law, the Geneva conventions and human rights. They do this with impunity and if our political parties will not take action then individuals must.
"I have been asked to apologise but refuse to do so and resign the whip of my party."
.
.
Wars in the Middle East commonly come as a surprise aimed at catching the enemy napping or, at least, with little preliminary warning. This was true of the Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980, and even NATO’s air assault on Muammar Gaddafi’s tanks as they advanced on Benghazi a year ago. Where the build-up has been slow, as in America’s wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003, it is because the US was certain of victory.
The highly-publicized impending Israeli air strikes on Iran are different from these previous conflicts in several respects: They are extremely unlikely to achieve their declared aim, which is to end permanently Iranian capacity to build a nuclear bomb. A bevy of former Israeli intelligence and army chiefs along with senior serving American officials are at one in saying this cannot be done. An Israeli attack is, if anything, likely to decide Iran to build a nuclear device, a decision which, it is generally admitted on all sides, it has not yet made.
The Israeli assault will not only come as no surprise, but it will be one of the most heavily advertized events in the world in recent years. Promoters of Hollywood blockbusters must look with envy at the pre-publicity for this war. The Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barack makes bloodcurdling threats. The US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta even put a date on the attack, saying to journalists that there is a “strong likelihood” of an Israeli air assault this spring. The New York Times reverently quotes Israeli officials as saying that Israel might attack Iran without informing the US. Well-advertised Israeli air training exercises take place over the Mediterranean. The Hollywood analogy is apt because there is something very stagy about these oft-repeated threats, though the international media happily takes them at face value.
There is a persistent misjudgement that mars much of the commentary on the relations between Israel, Iran and the US. This is to do with the size and the military capacity of the antagonists. Taking its threats at face value, Israel is saying that it will fly its planes to Iran and destroy widely dispersed and heavily protected Iranian nuclear facilities. But this is the same air force that in 1996 and 2006, though supported by artillery and facing no anti-aircraft defenses, failed to defeat a few thousand Hezbollah guerrillas dug into bunkers a few miles from Israel’s northern border. Two years later, the bombardment of tiny undefended Gaza succeeded in killing some 1,300 civilians, but failed to eliminate the Hamas leadership.
Israel is at its more influential when threatening war than when it is actually fighting one. The last time Israel conclusively won a war was forty years ago in 1973, and then only after serious setbacks. Its prolonged incursion into Lebanon brought only humiliation and failure.
.
Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Carbizene.Carbizene wrote:Cabinet Majority Supports Iran Attack
The prime minister yesterday delivered one of the most combative and explicit speeches in the history of the Iran affair. Several cabinet ministers said in private conversations that it sounded like a “speech preparing for war.”
Political sources judge that the prime minister has a majority in the cabinet which favors a military strike against Iran, even without American approval. Yesterday, Netanyahu said he wouldn’t hesitate to attack Iran even without the approval of Pres. Obama…A senior official said Bibi believed it would be best not to wait for the November presidential elections because he didn’t trust the president to deal with the problem after the election.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/brent-126 ... ttack-iran
monster_gardener wrote:.Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Carbizene.Carbizene wrote:.
Cabinet Majority Supports Iran Attack
The prime minister yesterday delivered one of the most combative and explicit speeches in the history of the Iran affair. Several cabinet ministers said in private conversations that it sounded like a “speech preparing for war.”
Political sources judge that the prime minister has a majority in the cabinet which favors a military strike against Iran, even without American approval. Yesterday, Netanyahu said he wouldn’t hesitate to attack Iran even without the approval of Pres. Obama…A senior official said Bibi believed it would be best not to wait for the November presidential elections because he didn’t trust the president to deal with the problem after the election.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/brent-126 ... ttack-iran
.
This is what I have been trying to tell Azari............
The Israelis are much more likely to attack than we/US/uz are.........
Barry wants to get elected and the Israelis don't trust him once he doesn't need Jewish dollars and votes anymore.....
But Azari and his fellow Pomegranates seem to feel indestructible..........
Not interested in peace except on their unacceptable to Israel terms........
Think they can take a few nukes..........
I hope you have a good fallout shelter, friend Carbizene.......
If this goes as sour as I fear it might, maybe Oz, Brazil, New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, Chile and the rest of the Southern Hemisphere will survive in a more or less civilized state though thoughts of Mad Max are running through my head..........
.
.
Imagine being a Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto on the final day ........ But armed with a Cobalt Bomb stolen from Heisenberg big enough to make Europe uninhabitable........ no delivery system but the wind blowing west/south west toward Germany..........
Maybe a Persian Jew would not detonate............... I wouldn't trust myself not to.................
.
Thank you Very Much for your reply, friend Carbizene.Carbizene wrote:it seems the South may be the new North.
I understand the sponge reverts to a squeezable pose but crazy is a bubble that always pops.AzariLoveIran wrote:
so
everybody relaaaax
Natanyahoo .. Holocaust industry .. they just want to blackmail west to squeeze more out of you guys, a specialty of the tribe
.
I do know where my closest bomb shelter is Monster friend, WW2 vintage but better than nothing.monster_gardener wrote:Thank you Very Much for your reply, friend Carbizene.Carbizene wrote:it seems the South may be the new North.
That is a possibility.
Actually one of the less bad outcomes........
Would suggest that the people in the South still get quietly prepared........... One problem Mormons have is that "Gentiles" know that the serious Mormons may have a 3 month to 1 year food supply laid in............
A lot depends on what type of fallout results and how fast it gets South and elsewhere.......... Hopefully slowly enough so that the levels Down Under will be survivable.....
http://www.infowars.com/radiation-fallo ... h-america/
Learning about where to find & how to make shelter and other aspects of preparedness could be a worthwhile investment of time even in Oz........
Hope and pray that I am just being an alarmist but..............
Could not the same thing be said of Vietnam.AzariLoveIran wrote:
because America attacking Iran, Russia said so, is attacking Russia
.
SECONDED.........Carbizene wrote:Could not the same thing be said of Vietnam.AzariLoveIran wrote:
because America attacking Iran, Russia said so, is attacking Russia
.
An element that I find most suggestive of imminent attack is the radio silence of the Israeli security council vote, Zero Hedge is one of few that published it and thus this evolution of force fits the model of how wars usually happen, the stance is formed in silence thus when the talking starts it is too late. WW1 happened purely out of accident as nobody thought anybody would be that stupid.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Carbizene.Carbizene wrote:I do know where my closest bomb shelter is Monster friend, WW2 vintage but better than nothing.monster_gardener wrote:Thank you Very Much for your reply, friend Carbizene.Carbizene wrote:it seems the South may be the new North.
That is a possibility.
Actually one of the less bad outcomes........
Would suggest that the people in the South still get quietly prepared........... One problem Mormons have is that "Gentiles" know that the serious Mormons may have a 3 month to 1 year food supply laid in............
A lot depends on what type of fallout results and how fast it gets South and elsewhere.......... Hopefully slowly enough so that the levels Down Under will be survivable.....
http://www.infowars.com/radiation-fallo ... h-america/
Learning about where to find & how to make shelter and other aspects of preparedness could be a worthwhile investment of time even in Oz........
Hope and pray that I am just being an alarmist but..............