|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 01:30 AM by khunmoon
|
Mondegreen, go to the folowing thread Quote Reference for inserting the
tags.
Then edit your post so it becomes clear.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 04:53 AM by Regensturm
|
Originally posted by khunmoon
First time we heard about German involvement on the intel front around Iraq, was earlier this year when the new German Foreign Secraritary Frank
Walter Steinmeir, as former head of their intelligence service, had to answer for Germany's involvement allegedly sharing intel informations with the
Americans up to the invasion of Iraq. I mean, Germany kept their hands clean, they didn't mindlessly join the willing.
What do they do in the Middle East?
Excellent links khunmoon, it provides the case further.
Concerning the German Intelligence Service and the Middle East, of course there's always German financial interests to be found, and don't forget
German troops are in Afghanistan.
The Germans also want to compete with the British Intelligence (whose reputation has taken a hit thanks to Blair's spin machine) and French
Intelligence to be the role model for what might be the EU Intelligence Agency (If it does not exist already, and if it can overcome national
territorial borders).
The Germans had a strong foundation for a intelligence service with the West German Intelligence and East German Intelligence uniting. They overcame
suspicions and may yet become a forerunner in the world.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 04:57 AM by Regensturm
|
Originally posted by mondegreen
I did not know that the kurds had a government that could be a go between to build a airport? What else can be there possibly Israeli military bases.
I believe that if Kurdistan was created as one nation that all the kurds could come to just like they did in israel, then neighbouring countries would
regard this as a hostile act and it would destabilize the region. But, why is Israel pushing this too happen, is it to get the oil, or something
else?
Oil, and to create a thorn in Syria, Iran and Iraq's side.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 07:42 AM by khunmoon
|
Glad you had it fixed, mondegreen. Didn't mean to be rude, only get it up, so we could read it... and thanx for that antiwar.com link. Justin
Raimondo's article, The Stab in the Back is just outstanding. I mean what an abundance of reference-links.
Only had time to open a few. One that hit bingo was this The Ostrovsky Files at www.wrmea.com....
It's dynamite!
Allow me to quote:
Mossad supported South Africa’s apartheid regime when no one else would, and provided arms and training for such murderous leaders as Idi Amin
of Uganda, Papa (and Baby) Doc of Haiti, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Nicolai Ceaucescu
of Rumania, and the vicious Communist Dergue regime in Ethiopia.
In fact, because of such Mossad activities and its casual attitude toward the export of high tech weaponry, Israel sometimes finds itself on both
sides of the same conflict. This has been the case in Sri Lanka, Cyprus and Bosnia. Such also has been the case with the Turks and the Kurds. This is
further complicated by the fact that the divided Kurds themselves are sometimes on more than one side of an equation.
The long-standing alliance between Israel and Turkey is only slightly older than the close ties between Israel and some Kurdish factions. On Aug. 29,
1958, a secret agreement was reached between Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes calling for
Israeli-Turkish collaboration against Middle East radicalism and “Soviet influence.” After the Turkish military coup of 1960, which resulted in
Menderes’s execution, relations between the two countries grew more distant.
Turkey is a central player. Ever read John Pilger's "The New Rulers of the World"? It tells about the no-fly zone established over N. Iraq after
Operation Desert Storm. The Nato-forces patrolling was ordered to return to base as soon as Turkish fighters showed up. They were allowed over Iraqi
territory at any time to bomb targets at their own choice and will, i.e. Kurdish targets.
One thing this article establishes is how and when it all started. Much earlier than anyone thought, I think.
August 1965, the first training course run by Israeli instructors for Kurdish officers was held in the mountains of Kurdistan. Israeli meetings
with Kurdish political leaders were held in Tehran. One result, according to some reports, was that the Kurds mounted an offensive against the Iraqis
at the time of the June 1967 war, keeping Iraq from offering aid to other Arab armies. After the 1967 war, the Kurds were supplied with Soviet
equipment captured by Israel from Egypt and Syria.
Israel also provided the Kurds with some $500,000 a month, and Iraqi Kurdish leader Mulla Mustafa Barzani visited Israel in 1967 and again in 1973.
Also in 1973 the Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq was expanded from a purely Israeli-Iranian project to include support from the U.S. Several CIA
liaison officers were stationed in Barzani’s headquarters.
In 1975, however, all aid was cut off when Iran reached an agreement with Iraq, mediated by then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger... This ended the
Kurdish rebellion in Iraq, mainly because all Israeli aid to the Kurds had to pass through Iranian territory.
For Regensturm, thanx for reminding me about the plausible in a German connection to the scene. Come to think about it I remember learning in school
how the German Kaiser prior to WW1 established an alliance with the Ottoman Empire and wanted to build a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad. Politics
faint, but bonds remain.
One thing hard to comprehend is that the W. German Bundesamt should have cooperated with E. German Stasi (or whatever other branch for the exterior).
But I take your word. I'm too old to really be surprised.
If you have more on German intelligence ties, please tell. What about cooperations with Mossad?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 10:36 AM by Nygdan
|
Originally posted by Regensturm
I'm glad you find the potential catastrophe arising from this amusing.
What catastrophe? War in the middle east?? Heaven forbid even the thought that there might be war in the middle east.  With this agreement, that
war will end quicker, and preserve vast strectches of northern iraq. If you'd rather see it destroyed than have the kurds and jews work together,
well thats a pretty odd opinion.
And so if sanctions are placed on Syria and Iran for supporting Hezbollah, to keep the balance of fairness,
Screw fairness. This is international power politics, the people that tried to play fair are corpses. Lets not all become corpses now.
Actually, Kurds follow many religions, Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Christianity, Judaism among others.
The bulk of kurds are muslims. Just as the bulk of israelis are jews. I would think that it would be a mistake to consider this an agreement between
two groups of christians, or neo-pagans, or anything else.
This is a predominantly Nationalist movement.[/quiote]
Nationalism implies the support of the nation and the state, some groups in iraq fight for that, many others, such as those supported by iran, fight
for islamic rule, which is NOT nationalist, its a theocratic position.
'Panadora's Box' or 'Opening The Gates Of Hell' are others to describe the invasion of Iraq.
They're others, but they're poor descriptors. If anyone opened the gates of hell, it was al qaida when it bombed the WTC and Pentagon.
The Kurds shall be the sacrifical lamb for creating a new front for Israel's enemies.
And out of their payment in blood their will get their nation and their protection from their own murderous enemies. Clearly its up to the kurds to
decide what is in their bests interests. They've opted to work with the yehudis, rather than the iranians.
Originally posted by Nygdan
My, my, my, what a rose tinted view you have of anglo-yehudi training and equipping of armed groups! I would laugh if it was not so tragic!
A well armed and powerful kurdish army will mean that its enemies will be less likely to attack it. THis is precisely the logic that the iranians are
using in their foreign policy, by becoming powerful militarily, it gives their enemies pause in deciding whether to attack them.
But what is Kurds killing Arabs and Iranians and Turks at the end of the day. Small fry. Their War. Let's care not a jot, right?
And now we're supposed ot be concerned about foreign powers fighting one another and commiiting atrocities against one another?
Glad to see that you support so ardently and passionately the basic premise and logic of President Bush's Global War on Terror, and more specifically
that you are a strong supporter of the Iraq War.
Nevermind they were given the training and told where to point their guns.
The kurds will point their own guns at their own enemies. If someone, like hte iranians, have made both the kurds and the yehudis their enemy, then
that was their own decision.
Just don't shout and cry when it all comes down on the Kurds like a ton of bricks.
I won't have to, because the kurds will have yehudi and probably american equipment, weapons, and support, to fight back that genocide.
The possibility of the massacre of the Kurds when Kurdistan tries to take shape is from the Kurds being within Iranian, Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi
borders when they start to proclaim their state.
So, the villians aret the people seceeding from Iraq and creating their own state, not the turks, syrians, and iranians, for mass murdering the kurds
in their own borders??
If the kurds of iraq want their own state, thats entirely up to them. The US and other nations should push them to not do this, as it will
destabilize the region even further, but ultimately, its up to them. If their neighbhors decide to wipe out their internal kurds out of a fear over
them starting their own seccesionist movement, then at least now the state of kurdistan will be well equipped enough to come to their rescue, because
we know well enough that no one else is going to want to 'get involved'.
You have sectarian violence when you have Kurds in 4 different countries saying they want a Kurdistan.
That is up to the kurds of turkey, iraq, etc.
So it's okay for the Israelis to capitalise on this, and use the Kurds for a new front, and aggravate things further?
What you call aggrivation, they call an active defense. Indeed, you call it an aggrivation because the best interests of the israeli state don't
coincide with your own best interests. Such is the way of nation-states, they are interested in their own people's needs.
Three years on from invasion, and Iraq is hardly under control.
They're not invading arabia, building WMD, or opposing the US on the international front, or engaging in acts of internal genocide anywhere near the
scale of hussein's government, so who cares if its not under iron-fisted control.
If you think this is a good basis for invading Iran.....think again, do think again and learn.
If the iranians want to react to being defeated by the US by throwing their country into iraq like chaos, let them.
It's playing pawn with people's lives. If you don't see that as immoral and dangerous and stupid, I despair.
If you don't see that as a necessary factor in international politics, then I despair.
The Kurds are only important to the Israelis as far as creating a new front for Israel's enemies.
Indeed, an alignment of self-interests. People can be convinced and cajoled into working against their individual interests for some 'larger
purpose', but those kinds of alliances are short lived, and usually cave to the more vital of the self-interests. If the yehudis and kurds are bound
together by an allignment of self-interests, then you have a heck of a lot more stable relationship than some UN mediated comprimise or external
hegemony.
Yes it is, but perhaps the Israeli's are whispering in their ears "Do it, do it, declare your independence, start your fight." and the Kurds
started seeing and hearing visions of grandeur.
That is up to the kurds. If they go for nationhood, its not going to be anyone's responsibility other than theirs.
Either way, the Kurds will come in for hardship.
You think this is a new state of existence for them or something?
Who is more valuable to NATO in the present climate, [...]You decide.
Turkey wouldn't even let the US use its roads to send troops into iraq, and last I checked, the bulk of policing in afghanistan was done by americans
and anglos, not turk contributions.
So no, Turkey ain't all that much of a benefit to NATO these days. Indeed, the Turks worked with NATO because they were the traditional enemies of
the Russians, and NATO was an anti-soviet bloc, there was an alignement of self-interests. IF the kurds are a bulwark against a regionwide islamic
caliphate, then there is again an alignment of self interests.
Indeed, which IS more important, a bloc against modern russia, or a block against the spread of islamic republics in the middle east? |
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 05:27 PM by ThePieMaN
|
Why would the Israelis help a people who want a state within a state if they can't even handle their own countries problems of a side-by-side state
of Palestine. It seems to me this country should be working on its own problems instead of worrying about other peoples problems and involving
themselves in Arab politics.
Pie
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 06:55 PM by 23432
|
Hello Everyone
Turks are perhaps the only ones who can infiltrate mossad and go undetected .
Turks & Hebrews , historically have been friends and there is an ongoing defence pact between the 2 countries .
If one of them gets attacked , the other will help defend .
In short , any one who wants to fight a jew , will also fight a muslim army . 
Weird , eh ?
As for the Kurds , Turkish Foreign Minister recently declared that in terms of a possible war situation , Turkey would protect the Kurds .
Just like how they did it in the First Gulf War .
my 2 cents
23432
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 07:29 PM by khunmoon
|
Posted by 23432:
As for the Kurds , Turkish Foreign Minister recently declared that in terms of a possible war situation , Turkey would protect the Kurds .
Could you please post a link to verify that?
I find it hard to believe. Kurds make up at least 15 percent of the population of Turkey and has allways been seen as enemies of the State. The
Kurdish national movement dates back at least to 1925, when Atatürk ruthlessly suppressed a revolt against the new Turkish republic. Keep in mind the
Armenian genocide carried 1915-17 by the Turks.
Quote from John Pilger article, Turkey, which has killed 30,000 Kurds, has now invaded northern
Iraq, dated May 2000:
The other day, Turkey invaded northern Iraq. Not a word. The guardian of Nato's southern flank, the Turkish state has dispossessed three million
Turkish Kurds and slaughtered more than 30,000.
[edit on 24/9/06 by khunmoon]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 08:37 PM by 23432
|
Originally posted by khunmoon
Posted by 23432:
As for the Kurds , Turkish Foreign Minister recently declared that in terms of a possible war situation , Turkey would protect the Kurds .
Could you please post a link to verify that?
I find it hard to believe. Kurds make up 20 to 30 percent of the population of Turkey and has allways been seen as enemies of the State. Keep in mind
the Armenian genocide carried 1916-18 by the Turks.
Hello khunmoon
Turkey does have about 12 million Kurds and most of them support the government . ( currently , out of 500 members of parlement , at least 140 are of
Kurdish origin and I believe some ministers are of Kurdish origin .
Turkey does not accept that there was an Armenian genocide but calls it a massacre instead .
There is an interesting site from USA which tells the Turkish side of the alleged genocide ; it can be found here if you are interested .
www.tallarmeniantale.com...
here is the link :
Gul: Iraq Division Causes Civil War
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
zaman.com
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said that the Middle East region would be unable to bear the problems the division of Iraq might cause.
Urging that if Iraq was divided, a civil war would erupt, Gul also noted that Turkey would protect the Kurds once again in the case of turmoil in the
region, he said in an address at the meeting organized by the American-Turkish Association in New York.
Suggesting that U.S. troops might gradually withdraw from Iraq soon after they ensure border security and internal peace, Gul asserted that the
division of the country might lead to problems, much more severe than expected.
Gul, who warned of a civil war in the case of division, added: “If developments in Iraq lead to its partition, the presence of coalition forces in
the region would be questioned; and a dark period would begin in the country.”
Pointing to the prominent problems in the Middle East, including Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, Gul also noted that any new problems the division might
create would simply be unbearable.
Underlining that the territorial integrity and political integration of the country was important to the region as well as to neighboring countries,
Gul reiterated that the PKK terrorist organization was a threat not only for Turkey but also for Northern Iraq.
Reminding that over 500,000 people took refuge in Turkey during the Halabja massacres, Gul said, “If trouble emerges in the region right now, Turkey
would again protect the Kurds.”
www.zaman.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 09:09 PM by khunmoon
|
Posted by Nygdan:
So it's okay for the Israelis to capitalise on this, and use the Kurds for a new front, and aggravate things further?
They're not invading arabia, building WMD, or opposing the US on the international front, or engaging in acts of internal genocide anywhere
near the scale of hussein's government, so who cares if its not under iron-fisted control.
Common Nygdan! You know about the bogus of The
Niger Papers...
and anywhere near... No, but they might soon get close.
23432, thank you for providing the information, I didn't know. But I do think it's only the rethorics of politic. And yes, in a state of war it
would be in the interest of Turkey, to protect its territory and eventualy grab chance of expanding it.
I know the Armenian genocide is not regonized as such by the major powers. Again I blame it on policy. Never the less, 1 million or 1½ million is to
me.
[edit=after I read your link on the "alleged" genocide]
All right, I admit not being as well informed as you are, but the admited number of slaughters, according to Wikipedia 600000 recognized by the Turks
themselves, is still an awfull lot of people to me. Let it be as a posible conspiracy. You,ve sown the seed of doubt in me, but also due to the fact,
that I by this research have become aware the atrocities took place under the Ottoman reign. I always had thought it to have taken place under
Atatürk. Foregive my ignorance.
[edit on 24/9/06 by khunmoon]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-9-2006 @ 09:36 PM by 23432
|
Originally posted by khunmoon
23432, thank you for providing the information, I didn't know. But I do think it's only the rethorics of politic. And yes, in a state of war it
would be in the interest of Turkey, to protect its territory and eventualy grab chance of expanding it.
No problem . But I believe it is more then a rtehorics because out of all the countries which Kurds live , Turkey is the only one ever to have had a
Kurdish president .
If Iraq's borders are in question , then all bets are off for all players in the area .
Btw , Mosul & Kerkuk i.e biggest oil fields in northern Iraq , are actually the property of last Ottoman Sultan , with deeds and everything if you
believe it .
As for the Armenian issue , well , l hope one day both Turks & Armenians can be friends again but I am not holding my breath because on this issue
humanity seems to be polarised beyond belief .
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-9-2006 @ 04:38 AM by Regensturm
|
Originally posted by Nygdan
What catastrophe? War in the middle east?? Heaven forbid even the thought that there might be war in the middle east. With this agreement, that
war will end quicker, and preserve vast strectches of northern iraq. If you'd rather see it destroyed than have the kurds and jews work together,
well thats a pretty odd opinion.
End the war quicker? Are you having a laugh? Seriously, are you?
A War In The Middle East that begins a War In The Middle East within a war in the middle east because of another nation's game of pawn?
You're wrong my friend, a new front will open up in a war of multiple fronta, and the war will last longer, and expand.
Originally posted by Nygdan
And now we're supposed ot be concerned about foreign powers fighting one another and commiiting atrocities against one another?
Glad to see that you support so ardently and passionately the basic premise and logic of President Bush's Global War on Terror, and more specifically
that you are a strong supporter of the Iraq War.
Well, that could not have been the basic premise of the logic of Bush's WoT or War Of Error, seeing as Iraq had not invaded anyone since 1991,
were clearly no danger to their neighbours, their WMD destroyed by the UN in the early 90's, and that the UN has said that torture has increased in
Iraq since Saddam's fall and the invasion, only it's less centralised now.
Originally posted by Nygdan
They're not invading arabia, building WMD, or opposing the US on the international front, or engaging in acts of internal genocide anywhere near the
scale of hussein's government, so who cares if its not under iron-fisted control.
Iraq had not invaded anyone since 1991. They had not built WMD since the Iran-Iraq War, their stockpile destroyed by the UN after The Gulf War, and as
for internal genocide....you seen the death tolls in Iraq lately.....how can you say that they are not near the scale of Saddam? The UN says torture
is now higher! I tell who cares the murder and torture is not under iron-fisted control, the Iraqis!
You may grow bored after a while with the enterprise idea of invading Iraq, but the Iraqis have to live with Bush's actions day by day, never
ending.
If Bush cared so compassionately about foreign powers slaughtering others, perhaps he would not have invaded Iraq. Perhaps he would have cared about
Sudan's Darfur region.
Perhaps he could have stood up to Israel's Guernica style bombing of Lebanon.
If you think I support the WoT just because I feel it's sick and disgusting that a foreign power massacres another, I suggest you seriously,
seriously look at the actions Bush took.....Afghanistan, coveniant oil pipes there now....in keeping with PNAC's seeking to control central asia.
Next country on the list.....ah, where are we..... Iraq.....so much oil.....no threat, easy to take down, right?
The War On Terror is a war of Geopolitical positioning, land grab and material resources seizure, a classic imperial war. Clearly, with your clear
support of Israelis backing the Kurds, you support such a premise of conquest and pawn games that will see the Kurds used and abused.
And by Israel's sacrifical lamb being the Kurds I do mean sacrifice, blood spilt. The Kurds may not make it out alive for Israel's willingness to
create a new front for it's enemies.
But clearly, you love sitting back and watching these fun and games....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-9-2006 @ 04:44 AM by Regensturm
|
Originally posted by 23432
Urging that if Iraq was divided, a civil war would erupt, Gul also noted that Turkey would protect the Kurds once again in the case of turmoil in the
region, he said in an address at the meeting organized by the American-Turkish Association in New York.
I'm sure the Kurdish people will be all warm inside to hear the Turkish say this....not.
During the widespread Turkish oppression of Kurds that continues to this day in areas of Turkey, no condemnation was put on Turkey, who persecuted the
Kurds on side while the Iraqis (widely condemned) did on the other.
Double standards, NATO friends....
Excellent links Khunmoon, and well done on the points you have made.
I should read John Pilger's books sometime.
I personally recommend Martin Bell's 'Through The Gates Of Fire'
Nygdan, I would add one more thing. The Pandora's Box and Gates Of Hell were opened by the US invading Iraq.
September 11th 2001's attacks were no reason for opening them. It was a terrorist attack, but not the first terrorist attack to ever happen.
[edit on 25-9-2006 by Regensturm]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-10-2006 @ 10:39 PM by ADVISOR
|
Regensturm
Originally posted by Regensturm
Originally posted by ADVISOR
If this is true then it is the same people who have been contacting me to help teach their instructors.
If you can, can you post more? Do they match the company names mentioned in the Newsnight investigation?
I accidently deleted last weeks email...
Otherwise I would have posted my reply to a question much sooner. They should match because they are the ligit shiznit. I figured out why my search
attempts failed, and did a refined search just a bit ago.
The email I recieved this time was short compared to all the other info they sent me, at least two pages worth each time.
I was going to reveil a "sanitised" copy of my email from these people, in RATS but figured might as well post the full version, less questions to
anwser.
From: Timen
To: info@kapapacademy.com
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:26:34 -0400
This message is not encrypted, and is not digitally signed by .
Download Attachment(1).html (3,102 bytes)
Download image001.jpg (120,654 bytes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ttp://www.isiusa.us/html/KAPAP%20LEVEL%20ONE.htm> Course Information I
ttp://www.isiusa.us/html/Registration.doc> Registration I
ttp://www.isiusa.us/html/Host.html> hosting options
ttp://www.kapapacademy.com/> www.kapapacademy.com
After a nw search I found the following;
KAPAP - Elite Israeli Combat
... protection, close protection, VIP protection, police training, military training, SWAT training, SWAT, IKMF, Imi Sde-Or, Lichtenfeld, self-defense
instructor, Combat Survival ,KAPAP, Al...
www.isiusa.us/html/KAPAP.html
Link
Pretty decent in my opinion, their video footage is top notch, and shows dynamic entries and other highspeed stuff.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-10-2006 @ 12:01 PM by Nygdan
|
Originally posted by khunmoon
Common Nygdan! You know about the bogus of The
Niger Papers...
and anywhere near... No, but they might soon get close.
Husseins regime was trying to build WMD, everything that has happened after the war has confirmed that. THey didn't have them, their programmes were
extremely poor, but they still had programmes and were simply waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so that they'd be able to put new life
into those programmes. And, before the calls for war started, people in the international community were talking about lifting or weakening the
sanctions on Iraq. Iraq was simply in opposition to the US and a threat to it. Now, it is not. Now, iraq is chaotic, but isn't going to be building
nukes, invading arabia, or anything along those lines anytime soon.
As far as what happened in Armenia, call it genocide, call it a massacre, either way, it was a pathetic and disgusting atrocity.
regensturm
You're wrong my friend, a new front will open up in a war of multiple fronta, and the war will last longer, and expand.
If there is a generalized war in the middle east, where things really go to hell, and its far from it right now, then there will be more safety for
the kurds if they are trained and equipped by the israelis. If the kurds are strong, then they won't be overcome by outsiders. That is all I am
saying. If not, then when things really go to hell, there won't be any decisive victorys, and you'll have something like what we have in the
southern part of iraq, ineffectual gangs and militias with none able to get the upper hand.
Well, that could not have been the basic premise of the logic of Bush's WoT or War Of Error, seeing as Iraq had not invaded anyone since 1991,
were clearly no danger to their neighbours,
The exact same people that invaded the arabian penninsula in 1991 were still in charge of iraq. Its simply wrong to say that because they hadn't
invaded anyone in a few years, that they weren't a threat.
their WMD destroyed by the UN in the early 90's
The major weapons were destroyed, there were still stockpiles of chemical munitions found throughout iraq after the war, AND there were secret, hidden
weapons programmes that were only non-functional because there were crippling sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions weren't going to last forever.
as for internal genocide....you seen the death tolls in Iraq lately.....how can you say that they are not near the scale of Saddam?
Hussein gassed entire kurdish villages. He brutally uprooted the marsh arabs by draining their swamps. These were the actions carried
out by the directives of a single man. Now iraq is in anarchy, and it is dangerous. Thats nothing like mass genocide. When saddam was
around, the only way to stop it was to get rid of saddam. Now it can be stopped by peace, before, peace enabled it.
but the Iraqis have to live with Bush's actions day by day, never ending.
And all they need to do is stand up for the central government and stop supporting murderous militias. THe US only needs for hussein to be out
of power and for a regime like the baathists to not be supporting terrorist and threatening the US. IF the iraqis want peace, then all they have to
do is stop making war.
If Bush cared so compassionately about foreign powers slaughtering others,
He doesn't and probably shouldn't. Anyone that does, has no choice but to accept that brutal regimes like hussein's need to be destroyed.
Perhaps he would have cared about Sudan's Darfur region
And what, pray tell, happens when the US invades darfur, and then has to deal with a militant islamist insurgency???
Perhaps he could have stood up to Israel's Guernica style bombing of Lebanon.
If lebanon didn't want to get bombed, it shouldn't've attacked israel.
The War On Terror is a war of Geopolitical positioning, land grab and material resources seizure, a classic imperial war
And yet it does nothing to increase the oil riches of america, clearly this is not an imperial war and america does NOT operate an empire, certainly
not in anything approaching the classical sense. The WOT is an expense for the US, not a profit.
The Kurds may not make it out alive for Israel's willingness to create a new front for it's enemies.
THe kurds will be annihlated if they are too weak to defend themselves. Its up to the kurds to decide if they are better off taking training and
equipment from the yehudis or deal with the turks and iranians on their own. And its nonsense to suggest that the kurds are so stupid as to be
utterly manipulated by the israels to attack someone that isn't a threat to them.
no condemnation was put on Turkey, who persecuted the Kurds on side while the Iraqis (widely condemned) did on the other.
Show me where the turks started gassing the kurds and the public said 'its all good'??? Hussein was engaging in genocidal tactics. If there were
resistors in a population, he'd annihlate that population. Turkey treated the kurds like crap, but they didn't round up entire cities and gas
them.
Double standards, NATO friends....
Who's practicing doudle standards? The people being realistic, or the people condeming intervention in iraq while at the same time demanding
intervention in sudan? No wonder the kurds decide to work with the yehudis for their own security.
Nygdan, I would add one more thing. The Pandora's Box and Gates Of Hell were opened by the US invading Iraq.
September 11th 2001's attacks were no reason for opening them. It was a terrorist attack, but not the first terrorist attack to ever happen.
And what do we care about that? THe US was attacked, its up to the US to respond. As far as the gates of hell being opened, better to rule in hell
than serve in heaven. Let the rest of the world sit by and negotiate when they are attacked, its their right, but the US will respond, out of all
proportion, and destroy numerous countries across the globe in response. Maybe in a few generations the rest of the globe will learn that its better
to not attack the US.
[edit on 9-10-2006 by Nygdan]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2006 @ 11:30 AM by ADVISOR
|
Nygdan
Well said, if only I could applaud you but I can still give you this.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
<< 1 2 >>
|
|
|
