[Al_U_Card]

Based on past history (Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, WMD etc.) convenient activities (look at this Iranian situation with the "provocative" naval action....lol) are always presented to further what the administration wants to get done, no matter the legality nor the ethics.

You have been inveigled by the fervent and misguided zeal of a number of individuals that consider themselves above the constitutional law (there are unfortunately a lot of precedents) and they took a situation and turned it into a bloodbath.

Anyone forget the Middle east before Israel? When, after the war, statehood was proposed, most arabs were for the arrival of educated and skilled people to the region with the money that they would bring and generate. (Don't forget that the Turks had left quite the vacuum.) It took years of antagonism and infighting to get the various parties to tear at each others throats using.....US arms.

Wake up!

[blackshoe]

Quote

It took years of antagonism and infighting to get the various parties to tear at each others throats using.....US arms.

While I agree with the main point of this, people who want to buy arms will buy them wherever they can most easily get them. I don't hold with the US policy of arming whoever happens to be the current ally of the week, but if the US [b]didn't[/] do that, it wouldn't stop belligerents from getting arms somewhere.

[Al_U_Card]

Unfortunately, very true. The issue is more about fomenting enmity and encouraging belligerence to permit the arms industry to reap profits from the suffering of innocents. As I said, the middle east was ready to welcome Israel and the jews back to their homeland....now all we hear is Death to Israel and Death to America.

[ArtK78]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 12 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

Unfortunately, very true. The issue is more about fomenting enmity and encouraging belligerence to permit the arms industry to reap profits from the suffering of innocents. As I said, the middle east was ready to welcome Israel and the jews back to their homeland....now all we hear is Death to Israel and Death to America.

Where did this revisionist history come from?

The "Middle East" has never been willing to welcome the Jews and Israel back. There was fighting under the British mandate in Palestine and a war the moment that mandate ended and the State of Israel created. There have been repeated wars since then. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with Nazi Germany.

This is not the thrust of this thread. But don't change history to fit your argument of the moment.

[Winstonm]

Quote

What?

It is exactly on point

Mike, you may have a different point-of-view, but I believe you questions were unfair for these reasons:

Quote

"Just look at the lives lost to "terror" versus anything else.
1) Are you saying we need to lose more lives

My reading comprehension suggests the writer is stating that regardless of number of lives lost to "terror", when compared to other causes of death it is not a large number.

Your question implies that the writer believes that more deaths are required to make the issue of more importance, when you seem to be the one actually making that assertion by the framing of your question.

Quote

"or that we are doing good things to keep the number down? In other words whatever Bush is doing seems to be keeping the number down.

Again, you are forcing the writer to make choices of your assertions and not his assertions - the logic you use is that either the number of lives lost to terror is too small or that this small number means that Bush must be doing a good job.

You are asking him to answer a yes/no question based upon a faulty premise - that is there is a correlation between the relatively low number of deaths caused by terrorism and the changes implemented by the Bush administration.

If you believe there is a correlation, you should so state it - but to manipulate your beliefs into a question by a faulty logical assertion is a disinginuous method of formulating your beliefs - IMHO.

[mike777]

I think if he is saying there is no correlation he should say and what is keeping the numbers down if not Bush. He raised the issue, I only ask and make no judgements one way or the other, not an issue I raised. I made no such premise, in fact I clearly stated I make no premise. Just read what I did ask and not statements or premises I do not.

If you are confused let me repeat, I make no such premise.

I do not even assume a low number have been killed.

Back to the title issue, I note the guy I first voted for McGovern has called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. McGovern is a true American hero.

Let's see if the Democratic Congress does anything.

I am surprised on how few perp walks up to Congress, besides baseball players, there have been.

[Al_U_Card]

ArtK78, on Jan 12 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 12 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

Unfortunately, very true.  The issue is more about fomenting enmity and encouraging belligerence to permit the arms industry to reap profits from the suffering of innocents.  As I said, the middle east was ready to welcome Israel and the jews back to their homeland....now all we hear is Death to Israel and Death to America.

Where did this revisionist history come from?

The "Middle East" has never been willing to welcome the Jews and Israel back. There was fighting under the British mandate in Palestine and a war the moment that mandate ended and the State of Israel created. There have been repeated wars since then. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with Nazi Germany.

This is not the thrust of this thread. But don't change history to fit your argument of the moment.

Hi Art

There are many different sources, most of which that don't tow the "official" line that has been drummed into us and them for half a century. the winners write the history books (that we get to read) but there is still lots of alternate info out there. Here is a commentary on one such book.

Alternative views of the Arab-Israeli conflict are rare. We are taught to believe that Jews and Arabs hate each other, and no other view of the conflict is given. Blame for the conflict is usually fixed on one side or the other – based on a “moral claim” that one side is not acting nicely toward the other.

It is in this context that a book first published in 1938 is critical to our understanding of why the Middle East conflict was created, and to dispute the notion that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East have always hated each other.

Although little is known about the author, William Ziff’s book, The Rape of Palestine, (Argus Books, US) is the first attempt to offer an alternative view of the origins of the conflict. The book documents the difference between the overall pro-Jewish sentiments of the British political elite, who saw a strong Jewish presence in Palestine as being good for the empire, and the group of high level anti-Jewish British officials who believed that the Jews would become so powerful (if Britain let them) that they would no longer have to accede to British demands.

The latter group was entirely right. A strong Jewish presence in Palestine meant Jewish national independence, which wouldn’t serve the British masters the way the Arab puppets did. Arab tribal leaders were corruptible, and this was how those running Britain’s colonial policies could control them. They realized that controlling the Jews was not going to be so easy.

Ziff’s book documents how the British created the opposition to Zionism, and proves that until these so-called “radical Arab leaders” came into the picture, most Arab residents of Palestine wanted nothing more than to live in peace and prosperity with the Jews.

“The Moslem religious leader, the Mufti, was openly friendly. Throughout Arabia, the chiefs were for the most part distinctly pro-Zionist: and in Palestine the peasantry was delighted at every prospect of Jewish settlement near their villages. Commercial intercourse between Arab and Jew was constant and steady.”

“The Arab National Movement was hated by the huge Levantine population, who continued to regard themselves simply as Ottoman subjects, and looked to the strong, influential Zionist Organization for sympathy and assistance.”

“Hussein of the Hejaz looked to the Zionists for the financial and scientific experience which the projected Arab state would badly need. In May 1918, Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Hussein of the Hejaz met in Cairo, where the latter spoke of mutual cooperation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In early 19l9 a Treaty of Friendship was signed to provide for “the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab state and the coming Jewish Commonwealth of Palestine.” On March 3, 19l9, another Arab leader, Feisal, son of Sherif, wrote: “We wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.”

Ziff writes:

“With conscious design, the Administration fostered hostility between Arabs and Jews. It directly advised the amazed Arabs of Palestine and Egypt to abstain from any concessions to the Jews. It formed the Moslem-Christian Association, and used it as a weapon against the Zionists. It instructed astonished Arab young-bloods in the technique and tenets of modern nationalism, in order to resist Jewish ‘pretenses.’ And in London it contacted reliable anti-Jewish elements to form a liaison that has endured to this day. The Arabs were not only instigated and advised, but supplied with funds and their arguments ghost-written by Englishmen in high places.”

[Al_U_Card]

Mike and Winston:

It's like Pearl Harbor. They (the US government) wanted into the fight (for good and bad reasons) but public sentiment was definitely against. It took a "sneak" attack...on a mothballed fleet, by an armada whose position was known all the way from Japan, on a force that had had their eyes (radar) and arms (standing orders) dislocated by official order of the pentagon as well as air patrols that were grounded or re-routed so as not to "discover" the incoming attack.......

Were 3,000 innocents sacrificed for the government's ulterior motives? Past history says it is possible. Current activity says that it is likely. Only the future will reveal the truth. The fact that the FBI had been intimately involved in the previous WTC bombing and had even supplied the arming devices when the principles got cold feet......

It can take quite a while before the US public loses its outrage and comes back to its senses....hopefully not too long.

[Winstonm]

Al,

All I've ever wanted to do was raise interest and awareness to the point where others would take the time to do their own investigation - and hopefully that way increase the numbers asking for a new and total investigation.

The psychology of the approach is critical to avoid being brushed aside as a crackpot, conspiracy whacko, or lunatic. Thus, basic immutable points are required.

1) There is a history for the U.S. and other countries to engage in false flag events to sway public opion.
2) The twin towers along with building 7 fell at free-fall speed. The NIST now admits that it cannot explain why the buildings fell.
3) Scientific evidence of the building's residue is consistent with residue caused by demolitions.

I would think if nothing else the fact that the NIST cannot explain why the buildings fell should be enough to call for another complete investigation.

[ArtK78]

Al:

Even if what Ziff says is true, and he is the only one saying it, 1919 is not 1948. By the time of WWII and the aftermath, the Arabs were violently opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.

[Al_U_Card]

np Art

It is reasonable for people who give up something or are displaced, that they be compensated fairly. The enmity started when the "conditions" of statehood for Israel were seen to promote disenfranchisement of local residents etc. Understandably, it would not be long before most would resent and react unfavorably to such treatment. When you are then further egged on and provided with the means to conduct a resistance.....well, you know the rest.

Right, Winston

Apathy tends to rule in our TV laden, party-line towing, fear-driven society. Remember the airplane hi-jacking "craze" of the 70's? Were draconian measures enacted to "protect" the public? Not hardly! Getting people used to living in fear and lining up to be searched and being subject to loyalty oaths and serruptitious surveillance sounds very totalitarian to me. Seems to me that we are heading in that direction without hardly a whimper. The WTC atrocity requires only a brief overview and analysis to understand that there is a lot more there than meets the blinkered eye. Start googling, people, and tomorrow might still end up being a better day.

[Winstonm]

Quote

In Canada, the United States has joined a notorious group of countries -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan and China, among others -- as a place where foreigners risk torture and abuse, according to a training manual for Canadian diplomats that was accidentally given this week to Amnesty International lawyers

Does this mean Canada is now part of Bush's Axis of Evil?

[Al_U_Card]

The day that any of us ascend will be the day that we are different from the citizens and representatives of those and other countries.