Gulf War II and Jewish Influence
Posted 06 April 2003 - 05:24 PM
Divisions deep over claims of Jewish influence
By James Rosen - Bee Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- On paper, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice run U.S. foreign policy and are responsible for the war in Iraq.
But in some circles Bush and his senior aides - stand accused of having been duped into attacking Saddam Hussein by a group of Jewish advisers whose ultimate loyalties are said to lie with Israel instead of the United States.
The claim that an influential Jewish cabal is behind the war, made in recent weeks by some mainstream politicians and columnists, has prompted countercharges of anti-Semitism by prominent Jewish organizations.
Rep. James Moran of Virginia lost his Democratic leadership post last month after telling supporters that "the Jewish community" was responsible for the war. Former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, who is mulling a presidential run, outraged many Jews by raising the specter of divided loyalties.
At the center of the controversy are a handful of Jewish men: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser.
Most of the controversial Bush aides are strong supporters of Israel's conservative Likud Party, now headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and several have past ties either to Likud or to Israeli companies.
Perle, in fact, resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board last week -- though he remained a member -- after published claims by New Yorker magazine reporter Seymour Hersch, himself a Jew, that a venture capital firm in which Perle is managing partner might profit from the war.
Posted 06 April 2003 - 06:35 PM
I have here a very good link that reveals the minset of the zionists collaborators who have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.
Here is an excerpt:
Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
Posted 09 April 2003 - 10:17 AM
And maybe they should wear armbands with the Star of David on it - just so you know who they are. We wouldn't want any Jews in disguise as Germans or Swiss while they're ruling the world!
You people are obsessed with "Jews". Maybe you should start to intermarry with some Jews to acquire some of their "smart" genes. After all, according to you, they are ruling the world!
Posted 09 April 2003 - 10:28 AM
I'm 47, and when I was young, these things used to happen and I never really knew why. Well, I thought I did!...lol
But now, I know at least one thing: never to trust your government, or anyone else's. Especially during times of war. You will get half-truths at best.
Posted 09 April 2003 - 02:37 PM
"It should have been clear to many people that Iraq was never a threat to the US but was a threat to Israel. The US had a power vacuum in foreign policy as usual and this group jumped right in and took over. "
I think, Iraq was a threat it's own people first than to everybody else, including Israel. Anybody who sponsors terrorism is a threat to international security and it's own people. And while I agree that there were other reasons (oil, weapons of mass destruction, 'liberation' of Iraqis, etc), this was done to set an example to others who openly sponsor and encourage this kind of behavior. US sent a powerful message to those governments: you will be retaliated against if you choose to openly encourage terrorism!
Posted 09 April 2003 - 03:06 PM
I suggest that you research on the topic before making conclusions. Here is a little quote for you (if you care, you can read the rest here
The general sense," said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, "is of profound ambivalence. There is no wild enthusiasm for military action in the Jewish community, and certainly not in my movement."
And here is another one
"Some 69 percent of conservative Christians favor military action against Baghdad; 10 percentage points more than the U.S. adult population as a whole. "
Just like the rest of the world, Jews are devided on the issues of this war. I might add that some Jews that I personally know are against the war, and some are pro war. So no need for finger pointing and time to look for another scapegoat. The old one won't do.
Posted 09 April 2003 - 03:08 PM
Apparently Israel is accorded a key role in US plans for occupying and policing the region.
According to the leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan is to forcibly 'transfer' the two million Palestinians living in the occupied territories to neighbouring Jordan-a move opinion polls indicate has the support of 44 per cent of Israelis. No doubt this would spark a response from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (popular sentiment in those regions would irresistibly force the hands of the regimes), but that would merely provide an occasion for Israel to employ once more its overwhelming (American-built and American-funded) military might on them and crush their armies:
'Mr Sharon would have to wait for a suitable opportunity - such as an American offensive against Iraq... An uprising in Jordan, followed by the collapse of King Abdullah's regime, would also present such an opportunity-as would a spectacular act of terrorism inside Israel that killed hundreds.
'Should such circumstances arise, then Israel would mobilise with lightning speed-even now, much of its male population is on standby. First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government. A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armoured, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas.
'The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pin***** in comparison.
'Any outside intervention would be held off by the Israeli air force. In 1982, the last time it engaged in large-scale operations, it destroyed 19 Syrian anti-aircraft batteries and shot down 100 Syrian aircraft against the loss of one. Its advantage is much greater now than it was then and would present an awesome threat to any Syrian armoured attack on the Golan Heights. As for the Egyptians, they are separated from Israel by 150 miles or so of open desert. Judging by what happened in 1967, should they try to cross it they would be destroyed.
'The Jordanian and Lebanese armed forces are too small to count and Iraq is in no position to intervene, given that it has not recovered its pre-1991 strength and is being held down by the Americans.... Some believe that the international community will not permit such an ethnic cleansing. I would not count on it. If Mr Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States. The US, however, regards itself as being at war with parts of the Muslim world that have supported Osama bin Laden. America will not necessarily object to that world being taught a lesson-particularly if it could be as swift and brutal as the 1967 campaign; and also particularly if it does not disrupt the flow of oil for too long.
'Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed.' ('Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan', Daily Telegraph, 28/4/02)
The Daily Telegraph is a right-wing conservative newspaper. Its editor's wife, Barbara Amiel, is a gung-ho Zionist in the Sharon mould, and frequently hijacks an op-ed to abuse the Palestinians. All the more interesting that this appears in it, then - u/b
Posted 09 April 2003 - 03:19 PM
Posted 09 April 2003 - 03:21 PM
Posted 09 April 2003 - 03:45 PM
Have you read anything I said above? Yes, there are influential Jews in the office but there are obviously some other influential people (gentile) who also voted for the war. Are you suggesting that those Jews were able to persuade the president and the vice-president alone with Powell and Rumsfeld and a huge portion of the rest of the office? I'll tell you what, if that's the case, if those people really have that kind of power over the oval office, then they are leaders enough to make the policy of the US!
Posted 09 April 2003 - 04:04 PM
I do not suggest that the principal objective of US policy in the region is to make Israel the dominant power there, but it seems to be going that way, hand in hand with the real(economic)reasons. For my part I do not give much of a damn about any of it,except that it is not good for anyone to have the dispossessed and brutalised Palestinian population as a focus for Islamic radicalism.And I do not like what are effectively dual-nationality Israelis shaping my foreign policy. This article comes from the Jerusalem Post, not the Nazis:
Posted 09 April 2003 - 04:41 PM
But if you started this topic, Palestinians are used as a shield in the Middle eastern conflict. If they are so poor and other Arab contries are so eager to resove this issue why don't they stop financing and supporting the suicide bombings? Why don't they offer a financial assistance to palestininans in a different form, for education and health-related issues instead of to families of suicide bombers?
As to your article, I totally agree witht the statements made by the US officials (no-jewish, I might add!). "I think that any time people are doing suicide bombings and blowing up your people at bus stops and in restaurants, you certainly cannot sit there and tolerate that." I would like to see what you would say if those suicide bombings were carried out in your home town? Would you say: "The bibble teaches to give my other cheek for you to slap!" Right? I don't think so. I think you'd be furious and would be inclined to retaliate. Or is it not so?
Posted 09 April 2003 - 04:43 PM
Yeah right...operation disarm Saddam has morphed into operation Iraqi freedom.
Keen observers, keep your eye on the ball. Any 'positive effects' that result from this savage invasion of Iraq are mere surface manisfistations.
Deeply emeshed in chicanery, these neocons, who are actually accomplised actors, may weep and plead and decry with contempt and distain, asserting their honesty and their sincerity, to such a degree that even the most critical observer may be unable to detect the slightest falsehood, and yet a deep and exhaustive inspection of motivations and goals reveals a snakepit of lies and insincerities, of pretenses and unrealities calculated to wreak the most harm on others, and secure the greatest safety for themselves.
IN a nutshell, these zionist supremacists are using the language of highest honor to serve the most dispicable ends...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users