| 573 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
7/26/06 4:13:50 PM#541
Im surprised how many people that blindly support Israel and accept that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. Why would any U.S. citizen take the word of Israel over our own governement and soldiers. Im happy to see that war crimes have been filed by the survivors of the USS Liberty against Israel. Ussliberty.org "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous " -- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty." -- CIA Director Richard Helms "I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship." -- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable" -- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson "The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error." -- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31) "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]." -- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. "Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers. -- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor "The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American." -- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency -- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident -- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate -- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings "It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity." -- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997 "To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument." -- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14 |
|
|
7/26/06 4:28:58 PM#542
I don't have a problem with it because I am an evil warmongering ****. From a nation of evil warmongering ****s. I understand that my way of life comes at an unholy price, and when I see others paying that same price I sympathise with their plight. I don't relate to the victim, I relate to the killer. That's where my sympathies lie. This is who I am. I absolutely agree I would be feeling very different if that was happening to my family, but it is not. Is it happening to yours? Does this somehow reflect on your own personal experience? The job the IDF are doing well is invading and prosecuting a retailiatory strike against Hesbollah in unfavourable terrain against a difficult enemy. They are showing excellent dicipline and soldiering skills, and despite what you think you know, are doing so with restraint and a minmum in loss of innocent life and collaterol damage. If you think your own armed forces or the armed forces of any other nation in the world could do a better job, you are very much mistaken. Whether or not you agree with this war, the prosecution of it by both sides demonstrate a very impressive degree of military acumen. But all you see are the victims. I see them too, but I see something else than that. I don't just see the misery and injustice of war, I see the beauty. I see the highest honor and peak of human civilisation. The willingness of man to give up his own selfish life to protect the lives of his loved ones. It'a communal spirit that is the pinnacle of all that mankind can be. Hideous and beautiful in the same stroke. The greatest good and the darkest evil all at once and it fascinates me. |
|
|
7/26/06 4:31:05 PM#543
The missiles can hit a jeep moving in high speed from far, far away. They just don't miss like this. Funny to see these bombs being promoted as the most accurate thing on this planet. But when civillians die in Iraq, Gaza and so on they aren't that accurate anymore. At ten thousand feet, one military bunker looks much the same as another. And if those bombs were so precise how come the first 14 strikes missed? The bunker was attacked by planes, tanks and some news reports even say ground troups. There where more than enough shots fired at that building. I think there where alot of shots fired at that building. But the damage was done by that guided/bomb missile. And that was a perfect clean hit. The tv images show it travel clean into one of the windows of the UN building. The tv images also show the UN building as a bigger building surrounded by a small amount of small buildings. |
|
|
7/26/06 4:50:46 PM#544
They were backed and supported by fellow Republicans, the U.S. and they don't have strong support amongst the Irish People. The IRA gained indepnedance for Ireland from Great Britian in the 1920's as a popular revolutionary movement. However not all of Ireland wanted to be independant and the country seperated into Northern (those who wanted to stay) and Southern (those who chose indepenadnce). At this point the IRA splintered. In Northern Ireland the population was not behind the IRA and the Southern Irish for whom the war was over, disowned them. Without significant public support the IRA were sidelined in Northern Ireland and their dream of a completely unified republic was never to be. In order to raise their concerns they resorted to terrorism, a series of high profile bombings and murders that would raise their political agenda back on to the negotiating table. This campaign went on pretty much for 80 years at various tempos and levels of success until Georgel Bush cut off their financial support after 9/11. When I used to work in and around London I would see the results of these bombings weekly and be caught up in their aftermaths. During those 70 years the British government also commited atrocities and all the rest in pursuit of the IRA. The exact nature and circumstance of these are much disputed. Currently the IRA is still active and with out it's American backing has raises it's money by daring bank heists. With world opinon and specifically American opinion disposed to terrorism as it currently is the IRA have been keeping pretty quiet of late. |
|
|
7/26/06 4:57:18 PM#545
Cool I shall watch the pictures later on and see if that revises my opinion. It is my expectation that the bomb is launched from the air at a target called by the ground forces and that the pilot is firing at a different bunker to that which the ground troops are asking him to. Although I also think it is a reasonable scenario for the ground crew to have mistaken it for an enemy position and called it in to the pilot who is accurately engaging what has been described to him as an enemy target. Of I see anything on those pictures that makes me re-evaluate this belief I will of course retrun to this thread and rant about it. |
|
|
7/26/06 7:17:56 PM#546
I doubt it was a ground crew mistake. The UN mission tend to mark their post quite brightly and obviously with white and blue, UN markings and UN flags. I think it is far more likely to be a pilot error in the heat/fog of battle. buildings are far harder to separate from each other viewn from above.
Here a link to the relevant Unifil News Report. (Warning, .pdf) I do agree however that the IDF should not examine this alone. Armies have a tendency to protect their own, even if at fault. |
|
|
7/26/06 7:31:56 PM#547
You know me, I don't even think it's worth examining, it won't bring anyone back. And they are still going to blow up some more civilian cars tomorrow. It's just going to be lipservice to the media. I don't really think it's necessary to fight a Hearts and Minds campaign unless you intend an occupation. I don't believe Israel does. I think as soon as the katuyshas are destroyed/out of ammo they will go home as fast as they can run. Even if they don't get the launchers and I think with those new bombs they will, they have the place pretty much locked down. No one can resupply them. No cars on the roads, no planes, no ships. When they are done they are done. Unless they have a REALLY long tunnel from Beka to Syria. That would be a turn up. Ty for the article. It seems the U.N. are taking hits from both sides, they really need to withdraw and pronto. That's no place for a non combatant. There is nothing more there they can do to help. |
|
|
7/26/06 8:38:14 PM#548
Well, the UN has a mandate to stay there. Until that mandate is revoked, they should, even if only as observers. Being watched might just keep both sides from going overboard. Also they are already organising relief efforts and prisonner/casualty exchanges, so they have a job to do too.
Donkeys on mountain paths. You'd be surprised how well that works and how much tey can carry. It surprised the Germans in Yugoslavia and Greece dring WWII, ditto the Soviets in Afghanistan. As for hearts and minds, the Israeli have lost those. According to a Beirut radio station poll, about 87% of all Lebanese now support Hezbollah. Which means that now even a good part of the Lebanese Christians support that radical-islamist group. |
|
|
7/26/06 9:17:28 PM#549
Here is an interesting movie about Israel, not about the attack on Lebanon but about the Palestinian problem... An intersting critical movie about Israel and the problems of palestinians, many views and pictures you dont see often in the medias, wether some points are well known already. The movie is from Bathsheba Ratskoff, member of the "American Media Education Foundation"and is jewish like many of their interview partner in the film. The movie might be one sided and reflects more the problems of the palestinians but is still interesting to watch and reveals shocking facts. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+propaganda FBI - Fake Terror Plots ? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all |
|
|
7/27/06 2:21:15 AM#550
Very good movie. Thanks for the link. |
|
|
7/27/06 2:39:05 AM#551
Aye, excellent movie. Thank you very much for that link, spizz. That movie has a lot of facts laced with some opinions (as any work produced by a human being has bias). But that movie really does illustrate the bias in American media. Even if you don't accept a lot of what documentary says, at least accept its viewpoint in giving a greater perspective on Palestinians. This is how Palestinians and a large part (if not the majority) of the world view the conflict. Anyone worth their salt knows there's always at least two sides to any story. At least try to understand the other side that is mostly not shown in America or understood by most Americans. Get some perspective outside of American media. We hear enough about Israel's stance and viewpoint everyday in the major media networks in America (in both "liberal" and "conservative" media). Now let's try to hear the Palestinian's viewpoint. Another interesting link to check out is the wikipedia entry on the King David Hotel bombing. As with any wikipedia entry, you can click on links throughout the entry to keep learning more. I found it was interesting to learn that the 1977-82 prime minister of Israel was head of the Jewish terrorist group Irgun, that killed 91 civilians in the King David Hotel bombing. And just this month, Israel had an official state celebration at the site to commerate the event, despite British objections. Just goes to show how one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. |
|
|
7/27/06 3:33:24 AM#552
I just had a look at the T.V. footage of that U.N. outpost. You can see why they are calling it deliberate. It's not exactly hard to spot and there didn't seem to be anyother buildings on the same hill. I'm still not willing ot call it however. |
|
|
7/27/06 1:27:09 PM#553
According to BBC, the UN asked Israel "up to 10 times" to stop bombarding the zone in which the observers were................... BBC says the UN says that Israel said they would stop it........... Now Israel says it was a mistake and UN says it does not believe it............ Freedom of interpretation |
|
|
7/27/06 1:45:44 PM#554
Turn that entire region into a sheet of glass and we will finally have peace, barring that let Israel get the job done and stop trying to hamstring them. If the U.N. wants their people to be safe then stop putting them in harms way and quit bitching about it.
|
|
|
7/27/06 2:51:06 PM#555
believe me guys, this will not stop until the judgement day starts.
|
|
|
7/27/06 10:18:58 PM#556
|
|
|
7/28/06 2:54:20 AM#557
Glass the entire region including Israel would be nice. It would save the U.S. tax payers billions of dollars. |
|
|
7/28/06 7:13:23 AM#558
Wolfang, the lvl 50 Guardian of Splitpaw - EQ2. |
|
|
7/28/06 8:18:37 AM#559
Proportionality of response is the issue. Here's a good article on that: The New York Times, July 24, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn't By DANIEL GILBERT LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother's lap and my brother and I had what we called "the wayback" all to ourselves. In the wayback, we'd lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we'd fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. "But he hit me first," one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, "But he hit me harder." It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, "He hit me first" provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral - unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine. After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words - like "retaliation" and "retribution" and "revenge" - whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first. That's why participants in every one of the globe's intractable conflicts - from Ireland to the Middle East - offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation. The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people's actions as the causes of what came later. In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them. The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner's statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner's statements. What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people's actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves - but that the opposite will be true of other people's reasons and other people's punches. Examples aren't hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it's hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side's identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation. If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel's right to respond, but rather, its "disproportionate use of force." It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard. Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer's fingers. The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer's finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer's finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer's finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other's fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied. The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other's touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind. Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received. Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs. None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others - and to start trusting others themselves - there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of "Stumbling on Happiness." |
|
|
7/28/06 10:09:33 AM#560
Normally, I'd bash Bush and what he has done. But I think I am starting to realize these terrorists will never stop untill we wipe them out. There shoud be no negotiation between the world and terrorists. If we compromise with them now, they'll demand even more next time. All of the fanatical retards like Iran, Syria, North Korea and so on need to be put away. They don't want peace and never will. They want to detroy everyone but themselves.
I'm also getting an uneasy feeling with Putin. This guy looks evil to me. I can't stand how he is just sitting back watching it all, with that sly grin. I get the feeling he's part of it in some way. He always looks so guilty to me. |
|
