Funny.

It turns out what GWB said is really true: "All we have to do is get Syria to stop this sh*t."

Now if only he were willing to ask.

Isn't Syria one of those countries we haven't bombed yet? So who cares what they say?

Where's the Friday cat blog?

Ambassador Peter Galbraith is saying that W didn't even know there were Shia and Sunni branches of Islam before the Iraq war!

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

Keep those tell all memoirs coming folks.

Can a peace be brokered without the U.S.? We can start a war without the help of many of the EU nations; can they start a peace without ours?

No, we can't talk to those we disgree with, otherwise we may come to agreement with them. What would we do then? Seriously though, is this administration so weak-minded that they think direct talks with Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc., would contaminate them? Perhaps it's an offshoot of their fear of their kids being converted by homosexuals. Just another example of the simple minds of this administration.

bllmom on the coming war.

And it is being sold, ferociously. A number of wealthy pro-Israel donors, including Ronald Lauder, the perfume heir, have given millions to something called the Israel Project -- a "public education" cum PR cum grassroots lobbying machine -- to fund a program specificially aimed at building support for a military strike on Iran. You can't turn on Fox News these days without finding James Woolsey or Newt Gingrich or Bill Kristol or some other pro-Israel mouthpiece demanding war with Syria and/or Iran, and painting it as the only way to stop the rockets falling on Haifa.

Look, it's not like we ever negotiated with our enemies the North Koreans, the Soviets, the Chinese under Mao, or North Vietna....oh, wait. Never mind.

Recommended related reading:

The American Raj Requires Instability
By John R. MacArthur
The Providence Journal
31 July 2006

Excerpt:

The summer of [1990] was the time of "coalition building" before the first Gulf War, when George Bush the First was rounding up local military support for the impending effort to drive Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. This was entirely unnecessary from a tactical standpoint, but for P.R. purposes, the George H.W. Bush administration thought it would be useful to send Arabs into battle against other Arabs and thus diminish the suspicion that ousting Saddam was just another spat over oil.

How noble it sounded at the time: a grand alliance worthy of World War II, all in the name of freeing what that President Bush pretended was a tiny beacon of liberty, snuffed out by the evil Hitler impersonator to the north.

Well, it was hard enough to argue that Kuwait was authentically free or democratic, but Bush and his sales manager, Secretary of State James Baker, were also trying to peddle an even more absurd proposition: that Syria, then run by the ruthless killer Hafez Assad -- a tyrant in nearly every respect the equal of his rival Ba'athist Saddam -- made a suitable partner in this magnificent enterprise of liberation and human rights.

To acquire Assad's support, John Kelly, U.S. assistant secretary of state and former ambassador to Lebanon, was dispatched to Damascus, where he met with the Syrian president, on Aug. 13. Kelly told me last week that he "was pushing on an open door," since Assad detested Saddam and had "already probably told the Saudis he would send troops," in exchange for "generous compensation" (a sum in the billions of dollars, according to U.S. News and World Report).

On Aug. 21, 1990, in a statement redolent of irony, Syria announced it was contributing soldiers to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion, because "the Gulf region should not be left to the foreigners." Then, on Oct. 13, Assad's army-already occupying large parts of Lebanon since 1976-attacked areas in and around Beirut to overthrow the nominal president of Lebanon, the anti-Syrian Christian Gen. Michel Aoun.

For the United States, the quid pro quo was understood. On Oct. 16, Nora Boustany reported in The Washington Post that the Bush administration had tacitly agreed to the Syrian coup de grace that had removed Aoun and installed a more complaisant Christian, Elias Hrawi, as the new, also nominal, Lebanese president.

An aide to Hrawi, wrote Boustany, said that the United States had essentially told Hrawi and the Syrians: "We will not give you a green light, but you are a legitimate government we recognize, and we understand any step you may have to take. If you succeed, we will congratulate you. If the battle is prolonged, we will have to express our regret over the continued violence in Lebanon. If you fail, we will not condemn the action but call on the Lebanese to resort to dialogue to sort out their differences."

And what about Israel, then occupying the southern edge of Lebanon? "Israel will not interfere as long as Syria does not approach south Lebanon or threaten Israel's security interests."

I cite these passages because they are such crystalline illustrations of realpolitik: the true language of American "diplomacy."

Well, it was hard enough to argue that Kuwait was authentically free or democratic, but Bush and his sales manager, Secretary of State James Baker, were also trying to peddle an even more absurd proposition: that Syria, then run by the ruthless killer Hafez Assad -- a tyrant in nearly every respect the equal of his rival Ba'athist Saddam -- made a suitable partner in this magnificent enterprise of liberation and human rights.

You know, silly as it sounds but I've always thought that what saved Assad from being targeted the same way Hussein was was that Assad stayed slim and favored well-tailored Italian suits, whereas Hussein, with his paunch and his ludicrous military costumes, just looked more like a cartoonish evil dictator. It was simply harder to demonize someone who resembled nothing so much as the well-coiffed head of a minor investment bank.

Once we talk with Syria, the propaganda about them ordering Hezbollah around would fall apart. Same with this meme that Iran is the 'terrorist's' kingpin.

Stefan wrote: Look, it's not like we ever negotiated with our enemies the North Koreans, the Soviets, the Chinese under Mao, or North Vietna....oh, wait. Never mind.

As the article I excerpted above shows, it's not like "we" never negotiated with Syria before ... when it suited the interests of the Bush-military-industrial-petroleum complex to do so.

Aiyeee! Terror-loving, freedom-hating, blogofascists doing the Enemy's work and undermining the Commander-in-Chief in the War on Terror!

Don't you know that if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here? Whose side are you on? America's or the Terrorists'?

We're gonna call NSA and find out exactly who's been posting this kind of seditious, traitorous filth, and when we do, we'll ... oh wait, you signed it ... well, uhhh, then ... we're gonna give Michelle Malkin your name and she'll publish your address, and then you'll get what's coming to you for daring to express your so-called "opinion"!

Don't you know we're at war?

Isn't Syria the country we ran out of Lebanon a few months ago?

So is there a plan in place.....Clean Break...or just chaos to give GOP a bump in November...sad

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/8/4/122950/8147

"Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected event" predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war."

The Bushies have been demanding a regime change in Syria for years, and now Syria is supposed to do them a big favor ?

Please.

The world should demand a regime change in America. The Bushies have transformed us into a dangerous rouge nation.
.

Last night Larry King asked Rice whether we were talking with Syria. She dodged the question by mentioning the existence of some low level person in our embassy in Damascus. She looked quite perky and rested for someone who has been shuttling back and forth between the Israelis and the White House.

Direct talks bad, unilateral cowboyism. Multilateral talks, bad because we refuse direct talks.

Maybe they're also afraid of (if only it could happen) of having a Vision on the Road To Damascus?
Nah....

Talk to Syria??? Can't be done because it makes too much sense.

more evidence that this is the most inept administration since those halcyon days of franklin pierce and james buchannon.

what saved Assad from being targeted the same way Hussein was was that Assad stayed slim and favored well-tailored Italian suits

That's as logical as any other aspect of this administration, frankly.

Until days before the invasion of Iraq George Bush didn't understand the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites and, evidently, wasn't aware that the term Muslims meant people who believed in Islam,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

Sorry, should looked before I leaped.

Still a good link is worth repeating,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html

Talk, talk, talk Is the democrats answer to every thing to talk about it? Why would Syria want to disarm hezbollah when they helped arm it?

Makes about as much sense as the US disarming Israel.

Okay, so Syria is suddenly willing to negotiate on behalf of Hezbollah? Is this a concession that there is some sort of connection between the two? If the invasion is so bad for Israel, what is Hezbollah's motivation for a cease fire? Isn't it still their goal to destroy the Israeli state?

For that matter, why would Israel agree to such a negotiation now? Wouldn't the same deal be available after they reach the river which is their goal? After all, Israel is dealing with mortal enemies, aren't they?

It's not enough just to throw insults at people, there's got to be more incentive for both sides to act in search of peace.

What's the evidence that Hizbollah would not accept a ceasefire without Syrian involvement?

From what I've seen, it appears that Hizbollah has no objection to an immediate ceasefire. Hizbollah suspended rocket attacks for 48 hrs in response to the partial halt to Israeli bombing of Lebanon so what's the point of Syrian involvement. What exactly would we be asking Syria to pressure Hizbollah to do?

I don't see it happening.
Syria would not turn it's back on Hezbullah, period.
They may rein in their attack dog, tell it to sit, and be good boy or no biscuit, but disarm them?
Pfft!

Yes, we should talk to Syria. We should say, "If you provide one more bit of help to Hezbollah or to Iraqi insurrectionists, we'll blow you back to the stone age." And, we should have a similar discussion with Iran.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and rocket technology. There will never be a better time for civilized countries to defeat them militarily.

To futher this thought, I think it would also play into Bush's hand if Syria jumped into the fray as well.
Of course, this begs the question of which army our erstwhile boyking would fight with since ours is thinned out quite a bit over the past 3 years.

we'll blow you back to the stone age."

And there it is. There should be a Godwin's law equivalent for this statement.

Craigie,
You should come up with one, call it Craigie's Law: Using the term "we'll blow you back to the stone age," effectively ends the conversation due to the user being a complete and total drone for the Republican party, and thus rendering what could've been an intelligent conversation to idiocy.

OK, craigie, I take it back. What I meant was that we should threaten to overthrow Iran's Mullah's militarily and substitute a government of our choosing. Since our military might is greater than the rest of the world put together, we can do it.

Consider two futures:

1. Iran is permitted to develop mukes. The Mullahs and crazy Ahmidniajad (sp) destroy Israel and use their nukes to control the entire middle east. We eventually go to war with them, and defeat them, but only after they have nuked
several major European cities. The loss of Iran's oil causes a world wide depression.

OR

2. We defeat Iran's mad Mullahs and substitute a friendly government. Deprived of Iranian support, the terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon are defeated, allowing those countries to become peaceful democracies. Democracy spreads throughout the middle east. Oil continues to flow, and worldwide prosperity follows.

I prefer #2 to #1.

"Land for peace deal"? What frickin' land are you talking about? The land Israel will end up occupying after this current war? :P

Israel already gave all of Lebanon's land back (except some puny farm), and we sure didn't see much peace for that...

Talk, talk, talk Is the democrats answer to every thing to talk about it?

You Are Right!
Fuck this Talk Bullshit

Lets send in the Republican National Guard!
We defeat Iran's mad Mullahs and
substitute a friendly government and w
orldwide prosperity follows.
Just like Iraq.

The Republican National Guard.

Yeah the RNG, we'll defer them to death.

Jane's Weekly today said that Iran is now planning to send advanced ground-to-air missiles to Hezbollah along with a resupply of ground-to-ground missiles. These will presumably be transported on trucks through Syria. Is there any reason why Israel should not destroy the trucks, roads, rails and so on running from Iran to Syria?

Jeez, it's hard to get some answers past all the humor and insults. I'll try again:

Okay, so Syria is suddenly willing to negotiate on behalf of Hezbollah? Is this a concession that there is some sort of connection between the two?

If the invasion is so bad for Israel, what is Hezbollah's motivation for a cease fire? Isn't it still their goal to destroy the Israeli state? I thought pundits were saying that the only beneficiaries of the Israeli invasion was Hezbollah?

For that matter, why would Israel agree to such a negotiation now? Wouldn't the same deal be available after they reach the river which is their goal? After all, Israel is dealing with mortal enemies, aren't they?

dbl, we can presume that the Israeli bombing of all the roads and bridges was intended to isolate the battlefield? It's doubtful any trucks are going to get through from Syria.

And, gee, this approach is really working out well for Israel, isn't it?

Shag,

You're almost right. In 200, Israel evacuated 100% of Lebanese territory. The UN certified that it did so. Israel did not evacuate any Syrian territory because it is still in a state of war with Syria, dating from 1967. The Syrian territory it is occupying includes the Shebaa Farms (sic) area, which I believe borders the Golan Hights and was captured from Syrian forces in the Six Day War.

Since 2000, Hezbollah has been using Israel's continued occupation of Shebaa as a pretext for warring against Israel notwithstanding Israel's complete and voluntary evacuation from Lebanon. This was just a transparently phony excuse for war, there's no legal or historical basis for the claim.

"To futher this thought, I think it would also play into Bush's hand if Syria jumped into the fray as well.
Of course, this begs the question of which army our erstwhile boyking would fight with since ours is thinned out quite a bit over the past 3 years."

We could fight with the army that we have next door to them in Iraq. Another good reason not to pull out of Iraq. Right now we're stratigically positioned to invade both Iran and Syria.

Well, Kenji, I'd say that Israel is fighting a lousy war, mainly because it's ignoring its real enemies, Syria and Iran. It's kind of like fighting North Vietnam while ignoring the fact that China was supplying it. That didn't work out too well for the US, either.

>"There will never be a better time for civilized countries to defeat them militarily."

You mean Scandinavia, Iceland, Switzerland and New Zealand are going to attack Iran?

>"Land for peace deal"? What frickin' land are you talking about?"

Er... the land the Israelis recently took from the occupants at gunpoint.

Root of the problem. The people who's land was stolen haven't given up on someday regaining possession... doubt they ever will. I know I wouldn't.

Howdya feel if your home was taken at gunpoint by a group of people invading from another continent?

Would you fight to regain it?
Oh wait, that's different.

Is this a concession that there is some sort of connection between the two?

I don't think there is any doubt there is connection between the two.

After all they are allies in the war against the crusaders and zionists blah, blah, blah.

But the assertion that the Hezbollians take orders from Damascus or Tehran is neither proven nor likely.

Since our military might is greater than the rest of the world put together, we can do it.

You're conflating "might" with "strength".

While I have no doubt that with about a dozen guys in a bunker in Montana, we could probably reduce most of europe's cities to smouldering rubble in the space of a lazy Friday afternoon, with America's Military Might -
You also have to accept the cold-hard-reality that we don't even have enough spare troops on hand to PACIFY AND SECURE Iraq.

We're really good at blowing shit up.
We really SUCK at "conquering".

If Rummy had listened to me in 1998, back when he was cooking up this Iraq invasion scheme, we would have 750k troops in Iraq, and it would be peaceful, and prosperous. But Rummy blocked my messages to his AOL IM account, and see what happened? Stubborn, stupid, bastard jackass.

Thanks for the post. Myself and a discussant on another blog were really desperate for someone to say there might be a "road map"

AND, yeh, where are the damb cats? I want cats!

Pierre wrote:

"I don't think there is any doubt there is connection between the two." [Meaning Syria and Hezbollah.]

Well, let's explore the nature of the relationship. Why would Hezbollah listen to Syria at this point? Isn't the Israeli invasion a net gain for Hezbollah?

As powerful as we are, the current administration seems to have forgotten that we are not all-powerful. If the US as a county could get away with dropping a few nukes on Iran, N. Korea and Syria, it would have been done. Not only do internal and external political considerations weigh against such actions, the international community would not tolerate it. While no one seriously has advocated nuclear strikes- I think the idea demonstrates the failure of using military force to accomplish diplomatic goals. The question that this administration has refused to acknowledge, much less answer, is what do we do now? Well... we talk.

How hard is that?

Howdya feel if your home was taken at gunpoint by a group of people invading from another continent?
Would you fight to regain it?
Oh wait, that's different.
Posted by: Buford on August 4, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I can honestly say that I would do everything the terrorists are doing, and worse.

The rightwingers out there won't admit it. But they would too. You know it.

There will never be a better time for civilized countries to defeat them militarily.

Now if we could only find a civilized country...

we should threaten to overthrow Iran's Mullah's militarily and substitute a government of our choosing

Because its worked so well before...

Talk to their ambassador? I'm tired of this objectively pro Assad appeasement from Washington Monthly.

Out on Bond, well, it certainly demonstrates that there are limits to using military force.

But we have to understand what it is we are talking about, otherwise it is to no purpose and the fighting will continue. Why would either Hezbollah or Israel be interested in a cease fire at this time?

Moustapha has been called the "loneliest ambassador in Washington": he's there in case the administration ever decides to talk; so far, U.S. officials remain under strict orders not to speak with him.

Actually, I have it on good authority that the loneliest ambassador in D.C. is the Paraguayan ambassador, a sad and mournful man whose children never call and whose wife has left him to carry on a flagrant affair with the Brazilian military attache.....

Where is Condi? Her marginalization and ineffectiveness is an embarrassment.

She should resign.

2. We defeat Iran's mad Mullahs and substitute a friendly government. Deprived of Iranian support, the terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon are defeated, allowing those countries to become peaceful democracies. Democracy spreads throughout the middle east. Oil continues to flow, and worldwide prosperity follows.

Brilliant. Nobody has done this before. Nobody has even thought of thsi before.

Well, Kenji, I'd say that Israel is fighting a lousy war, mainly because it's ignoring its real enemies, Syria and Iran. It's kind of like fighting North Vietnam while ignoring the fact that China was supplying it. That didn't work out too well for the US, either.

Yes, we would have been far better off engaging in a massive land war with a nuclear-armed China during the 1960s. Would have spiced up an otherwise boring decade....

OK, craigie, I take it back. What I meant was that we should threaten to overthrow Iran's Mullah's militarily and substitute a government of our choosing.

Let's not just threaten -- le't also bluster! And perhaps even swagger!

Since our military might is greater than the rest of the world put together, we can do it.

Er, no we can't. Our military spending is greater than the rest of the world put together. Our military might, not so much. (see, e.g., Iraq, rebellion in).

But I suppose ex-liberal isn't the first Republican to confuse wealth with potency....

Her marginalization and ineffectiveness is an embarrassment

Her marginalization might be an embarrassment
But
Mr Prezzident finds her backrubs indispensable

"OK, craigie, I take it back. What I meant was that we should threaten to overthrow Iran's Mullah's militarily and substitute a government of our choosing."

We did that once, when the Shah was installed. That worked out well for a while - although the Shah was a feckless, bloodthirsty thug; he was our feckless, bloodthirsty thug.

Talk to Syria? We can't do that until they destroy all the WMD Iraq gave them...

Yes, we should talk to Syria. We should say, "If you provide one more bit of help to Hezbollah or to Iraqi insurrectionists, we'll blow you back to the stone age." And, we should have a similar discussion with Iran.

Don't bother with those conversations, as I already know their answer: "Interesting. You and what army?"

o_b_f:

Without a doubt, I would fight for my home until the last breath left my body or the last invader left my soil, whichever came first. There is no fucking way I would tolerate any kind of invasion, or martial law for that matter.

"Right now we need a hero more than we need a building." Evie, at the end of V for Vendetta right before she throws the handle and sent the explosives-laden tube train toward the parlaiment.

ex-liberal: Yes, we should talk to Syria. We should say, "If you provide one more bit of help to Hezbollah or to Iraqi insurrectionists, we'll blow you back to the stone age." And, we should have a similar discussion with Iran.

Sorta like the talk Al Queda had with the US: you supply one more bit of help to vicious Middle East dictators like Saddam Hussein and the Saudi Monarchy or to human rights abusers and land thieves like Israel and we will attack you just as viciously.

DBL: Well, Kenji, I'd say that Israel is fighting a lousy war, mainly because it's ignoring its real enemies, Syria and Iran. It's kind of like fighting North Vietnam while ignoring the fact that China was supplying it. That didn't work out too well for the US, either.

Yep, fighting nearly a billion Chinese would have been the smart thing to do.

This is why conservative foreign policy is failing, why Bush is mired at 40% or worse approval, and why the GOP is hysterical over the prospect of losing its majorities in both houses this fall.

DBL: Is there any reason why Israel should not destroy the trucks, roads, rails and so on running from Iran to Syria?

They can't beat Iran and Syria militarily any more without nukes and the US has no resources to assist them, because Bush bogged us down in a useless invasion of Iraq.

Israel uses nukes and you can kiss Israel goodbye courtesy of Pakistan.

ex-liberal: We defeat Iran's mad Mullahs and substitute a friendly government.

You mean like when conservatives substituted vicious and supposedly friendly dictators like the Shah, Saddam, Noriega, etc, etc, etc.

Trashhauler:
I think that Israel and Hezbollah (sp?) should agree to an immediate cease-fire because innocent people on both sides are dying. Maybe the cease-fire and negotiations will fail, but until it is tried, the answer to that question is not known. It is a fact that innocent people will continue to die as long as the fighting continues.

"I would fight for my home until the last breath left my body..."

Easy enough to say. Anybody here seen bodies in piles? Driven along a road in a place where dead have been left in the ditch?

The trouble with invaders is that they don't see a hero when they run into armed resistance. They just kill you as efficiently as possible. That tends to give pause to a lot of would be resistance leaders, especially if the invaders promise to respect family and belongings.

Out on Bond wrote:

"I think that Israel and Hezbollah (sp?) should agree to an immediate cease-fire because innocent people on both sides are dying. Maybe the cease-fire and negotiations will fail, but until it is tried, the answer to that question is not known. It is a fact that innocent people will continue to die as long as the fighting continues."

That's good, Out, and something most here would agree on. But we're talking about two sides who already know innocents are dying and they are willing for it to continue happening if it means they can protect their own people better. Both sides think they will be killed if they refuse to fight.

So, what do we offer them to make them change their minds?

Trashhauler:

I think that we offer them nothing until they stop shooting. No aid to Lebanon or Israel. Once they stop shooting- I think that we can start handing out goody bags: economic aids- infrastructure support. I also think that if we take such a step of blatant conditional non-involvement that Iran and Syria should be advised that we would look very unfavorably against any interference on their part. (but, we would have to talk to them to tell them that), oh well.

Easy enough to say. Anybody here seen bodies in piles? Driven along a road in a place where dead have been left in the ditch?

I've seen it on the news. In Iraq. In Lebannon. I've seen pictures from Abu Ghraib. I've seen pictures of Haditha. And if it were my countrymen, my neighbors, my family members - what good would such promises to "respect family and belongings" mean?

Yeah - if invaders acted civilized, didn't take my home, didn't bomb my place of work, didn't rape my daughters, didn't turn the US over to religious zealots and death squads, - I suppose there'd be little courage driving those words.

But if I imagine what's going on Iraq, actually happening here? No, seeing stacks of bodies would not frighten me. It would drive me to fight.

Actually, Trashhauler, I never make a statement lightly, unless I'm being a blatant smartass. And I regularly deal with the after-effects of combat when I pull shifts at the VA hospital. I have done multiple medical missions into war-torn areas. I've seen what happens when man shows his inhumanity towards his fellow man for whatever specious reasons.

Out on Bond,

Yep, now we begin to see the difficulty with the situation. Neither side is going to quit shooting until they either get what they want or it becomes clear they are losing. Maybe at that point, we have a chance to hand out goodies. But who does the handing out and to whom? And what if they don't want goodies, not thinking of themselves as children?

And I've never figured out why anyone would be deterred because somebody looked "very unfavorably at interference." It only takes a minute or so to say that. What if they call our bluff?

Osama, nothing you've ever seen on TV prepares you for the reality.

Global, yeah, I know. I just wondered if there was anyone here even knew what they were talking about. The first place I saw real evil was called Jonestown. My squadron had the chore of flying the bodies back to San Fransisco. And that wasn't even war.

The thing is, when two sides engage in battle, they aren't thinking "Oh, the inhumanity!" What they are thinking is, "How can we kill those bastards over there?"

Trashhauler:

If Israel thinks that our support is in jeopardy, they will stop shooting. If Hezbollah does not reciprocate(sp?) immediately, they risk their popular support. I do not think that they would do it. They would stop and declare themselves victorious.

If Iran or Syria called our bluff, I think that we would hold the moral highground and could get away with doing some serious damage to their infrastructure. One could argue that our army is tied down, but I do not think that the same argument can be made about our airforce.

However, I am not sure that military action on our part is the key to that particular lock. I think that it is possible that we could do more "damage" to those societies with demonstrating the benefits of democracy and free market principals by executing a "soft invasion." [Don't ask me what that means, it is a concept that I am still working on]

As for who hands out the goodies- we do. To who? the good little boys and girls. Or, countries.

Since the number of Jews who have addressed the questions raised by this article is few, and the number of Jews who have considered it seriously, is zero, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is almost all, and it is so relevant to what is going on in Gaza and Lebanon, I feel it needs to be posted again:

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA PUBLISH THIS? I wonder indeed.

Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/wmid26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them. One wonders if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and Guardian, tell use that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been less than three feet away from those killed (there is no spare room in a tank).

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. It also appears, that they got amazingly lucky running through the no-mans land minefield. And why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug? Perhaps, they wanted to prove the total incompetence of the Israeli soldier.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

The Jew press then claims that the Popular Resistance Committees, the armed wing of Hamas and the (previously unknown) Army of Islam were jointly responsible for the kidnapping of Shilat.

Why three groups you may ask?

The reason for three groups, is so that each of them might believe that the other has the "kidnapped" soldier, when, in fact, none of them have him. He is sipping coffee in Tel Aviv.

And why did a "previously unknown" group put up its hand?

Well, just in case one of the groups had doubts that the other group had the "kidnapped" soldier, they certainly couldn't be sure the "previously unknown" group didn't have him,... because after all, they don't have any idea who is leading, or anyone in, this unknown group.

So the reason for the weird "I did it arrangement," is so that the Jew press can claim that the Arabs claimed responsibility, when all they have done, is to NOT deny they did it.

Oh yeah, the "previously unknown" group is a Jew invention. It doesn't exist, except in the Jew newspapers.

Of course, shortly, the Army of Islam will need to be created (by the Jews) in order to negotiate the "release" of Shilat.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

Osama, nothing you've ever seen on TV prepares you for the reality.

That's my point.

You're saying that I would be cowed by the REALITY of seeing bodies of my friend, neighbors, and family, stacked in ditches.

I'm saying that if I were to see such a thing, in reality, then I would fight.

And no tactics would be off-limits.

Think of the thousands of Americans that ran out to sign up and fight immediately after 9/11. Some of them (probably many more than you or I would like to admit) did so with the intent of killing those Iraqi civillians they saw dancing in the streets on FoxNews that day.

Oh thank you.

What day would be complete without the racist rantings of slim/watcher/Mel?

Jew killers fill mass-graves with Lebanese dead:

I don't mind Slim posting the issue once, but enough already.

Ya know, many people commenting here seem to have such a cavalier and arrogant attitude toward Arab/Muslim states. I was raised very pro-Israel, but as an adult having watched the situation unfold over a period of decades, I come to one overriding conclusion: there is a huge elephant in the room that must be dealt with and that elephant is the fact that Israel thinks it’s entitled to keep land that rest of the world says it is not entitled to keep.

The United States has consistently said so. The United Nations, the mechanism by which Israel was created in the first place, says so. All the European powers have always said so. But Israel will not give it up and has not been forced to do so. We can list specific “Arab” wrongdoings forever, we can do the same for Israel, but there will be no peace until there is a Palestinian state with reasonable boarders and Israel has withdrawn from the occupied territories.

To be cavalierly talking about how easily the United States and Israel can destroy the infrastructure of various countries with our high tech weapons is irresponsible, foolish, and insulting to the entire Arab/Muslim world.

The unpleasant reality is that this is not a problem that can be solved through diplomacy. Like it or not, there are vast numbers of people in the Middle East who will not stop using violence until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth and who have no fear of dying.

Regardless of what agreements we might broker with the Syrian or Iranian government, these people are not going to stop attacking Israel or hatching terrorist plots against the West.

There are simply too many Islamic radicals with access to too many weapons to make a peaceful resolution anything but a pipe dream.

The sooner that the western powers realize this, the better.

Like it or not, we are in a battle for the future of the world against the followers of radical Islam, and the only way this issue might be resolved peacefully is if moderate Muslims stand up and join the fight on our side.

with the intent of killing those Iraqi civillians they saw dancing in the streets on FoxNews that day.

As I recall, it was Palestinians that were dancing in the streets not Iraqis. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - not even the celebrations by radical anti-American Muslims.

"Is there any reason why Israel should not destroy the trucks, roads, rails and so on running from Iran to Syria?"

My God, will you look at a map before spouting this nonsense? The reason Israel ought not to be bombing the roads from Iran to Syria is that they run through US-occupied Iraq.

Is there any reason why Israel should not destroy the trucks, roads, rails and so on running from Iran to Syria?

The ones in US-occupied Iraq, or the ones in NATO-member Turkey?

I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't bomb them, in fact, it would probably be the best way to deal with one fundamental problem in the region—the unquestioning support of Israel by both major parties in the US government.

Out on Bond wrote:

"If Israel thinks that our support is in jeopardy, they will stop shooting. If Hezbollah does not reciprocate(sp?) immediately, they risk their popular support. I do not think that they would do it. They would stop and declare themselves victorious.

If Iran or Syria called our bluff, I think that we would hold the moral highground and could get away with doing some serious damage to their infrastructure. One could argue that our army is tied down, but I do not think that the same argument can be made about our airforce."

Out, I agree that if Israel thought it would jeopardize our support, they'd listen to us. They might not stop fighting, however. They'd reckon (and who would disagree) that they could patch things up with us later. And they certainly have enough stockpiles to fight such a limited campaign for quite a while. (They have to stay prepared to take on multiple countries).

I'm sure that Hezbollah would stop fighting for the time being, if Israel stopped. Getting bombed is no fun. And they'd be right to claim a victory, since their whole purpose is their own existence and the death of Jews. Plenty of time to do that later.

I doubt very much that we'd ever consider bombing Syria or Iran for interfering or resupplying Hezbollah. It's true we have a very capable Air Force. But we spent ten years telling Saddam Hussein to knock it off, backed up with bombs, and he never did. He knew we weren't going to kill a bunch of people for so little reason. Until one day, somebody decided he was in the way.

With some folks, the moral high ground disappears with the first errant bomb. So, in the end, we haven't much of a threat behind our bluster in this situation. The only party we can (maybe) stop is the one we have the most ties with.

Secretary Rice has a tough job, right now.

Like it or not, we are in a battle for the future of the world against the followers of radical Islam, and the only way this issue might be resolved peacefully is if moderate Muslims stand up and join the fight on our side.

Boy, thank goodness for the second part of that sentence, because the first part is nothing but a foolish and self fulfilling prophecy. There are absolutely not enough radical Muslims to threaten world peace any more than there are sufficient numbers of radical Jews or radical Protestants.

The problem is specific, you have a large group of people who are, and have been for several decades, treated very poorly. Moderate Muslims will stand up and have stood up. Remember the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt? Remember the peace treaty with Israel and Jordan? That’s what it takes. The mistreatment of the Palestinians emboldens and strengthens the radicals even in those two countries and things could go backwards there. And the illegal possession of Arab land by Israel is a 24/7 source of friction.

We need world leaders who are willing to put pressure on all the parties involved to reach peace accords. And we need to elect those kinds of leaders.

You want to fight forever? Just place people in a position where there is little hope of controlling their own destiny or improving themselves.

As I recall, it was Palestinians that were dancing in the streets not Iraqis. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

That's right. It was Iraq, however, that made the stock market crash in 2000. And 1987. And 1929. Damn them! Damn them to hell!

As I recall, it was Palestinians that were dancing in the streets not Iraqis. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - not even the celebrations by radical anti-American Muslims.
Posted by: ckelly on August 4, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Actually - that's why I used the "FoxNews" qualifications. The footage displayed was claimed to be Palestinians. Then Iraqis. Then it turned out to be old footage from a wedding celebration in Yemen. Completely unrelated to 9/11. Rightwing pundits, however, continued to refer to "Muslims dancing in the streets when the towers fell."

Osama wrote (about his willingness to fight):

"I'm saying that if I were to see such a thing, in reality, then I would fight.

And no tactics would be off-limits.

Think of the thousands of Americans that ran out to sign up and fight immediately after 9/11. Some of them (probably many more than you or I would like to admit) did so with the intent of killing those Iraqi civillians they saw dancing in the streets on FoxNews that day."

I didn't say you wouldn't fight, Osama. Most men will fight if they think they have a chance. Most won't if they think there is no chance to survive. That's why most attacks in Iraq are now against unarmed civilians - they know we can't protect everybody, but attacking our troops is a quick way to die, even if you get a few.

Those troops who joined after 9/11 quickly learned that the military doesn't run on revenge. If they can't handle the ROE, they are punished. Lack of discipline is deadly - as much to us as to innocents.

"The Iranians this week began a double game in Lebanon best summed up by President Ahmadinejad's message to Muslim nations yesterday in Malaysia: "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented."

"We have tried to work with the Americans. We have tried to talk to them. Our help isn't good enough for them." He leaned back in his chair. "If they want to speak now, they will have to come to us."

It's a mystery why their help just doesn't bring peace.

this issue might be resolved peacefully is if moderate Muslims stand up and join the fight on our side.

Certain things make it very dificult for moderate muslims to "join the fight on our side"
- Backing Israel, no matter what dumbass, criminal thing they're up to now.
- invading sovereign, muslim nations because we've decided to turn that country over to our coporate buddies.

.

little old jim wrote:

"Israel thinks it’s entitled to keep land that rest of the world says it is not entitled to keep."

They've certainly given back most of it, jim. They gave the Sinai back to Egypt. They left Lebanon finally, and will again. They gave away the Gaza Strip and are in the process of returning most of the West Bank. They kept the Shebaa Farms (a strip two miles wide) because they captured it from Syria, with whom they are still technically at war. How far do they need to take such revanchism? And here's a good question - if they give it all back, will they be left alone? That wall didn't seem to keep out Hamas.

Think of the thousands of Americans that ran out to sign up and fight immediately after 9/11. Some of them (probably many more than you or I would like to admit) did so with the intent of killing those Iraqi civillians they saw dancing in the streets on FoxNews that day.

Imagine their suprise when they found out that it was the Palestinians, and not the Iraqis, who had been shown celebrating on TV. Well, at least now they might get their chance to invade the Gaza Strip.....

"We have tried to work with the Americans. We have tried to talk to them. Our help isn't good enough for them." He leaned back in his chair. "If they want to speak now, they will have to come to us."

Now that sounds like a man who's frightened to death of the US, doesn't it? I guess that whole "let's invade Iraq and everyone will be so frightened of us they'll do whatever we say from now on" plan worked brilliantly, didn't it?

craigie: That's right. It was Iraq, however, that made the stock market crash in 2000. And 1987. And 1929. Damn them! Damn them to hell!

Nonsense. It was Bill Clinton.

The Stock Market crash?

It was all the lefty bloggers on this site.
Not a good idea amonst the lot of 'em.

It's interesting that Kevin isn't pointing people to Billmon's take on all this.

What do you call a bunch of people who destroy a whole nation on the basis of two soldiers being taken captive.

What do you call a bunch of people who murder civilians in their hundreds, going on thousands, in a preplanned attack.

You call them EVIL NAZI JEWS.

Rebecca,
Good to see your great reporting! I remember you when you were a senior at Georgetown University campaigning against Westy Byrd. Keep up the good work.

Hey Slim

Go Fuck Yourself

ferd:

Happily, you are wrong!

Kevin referred to Billmon in an Update to the post below this one by Rebecca Sinderbrand, long before you posted your accusation of Billmon-avoidance.

I have noticed Kevin really squeezing to get an independent perspective on this Lebanon crisis/time bomb. My respect for him has taken an upward motion after several downward ticks a few months ago for thoughtless mainstreamism.

slim: Whispered aside: it is forbidden to compare Israelis to Nazis. forbidden! For me to even communicate with you (sshhh...) may get me accused as holocaust denier or anti-semetic, though I am neither. Dont tell anyone, ok, especially if you are in one of those categories. shshsh...

it is forbidden to compare Israelis to Nazis

Its not about comparing anybody to anything.
Because frankly, there's many in the Israeli govt & military for whom the shoe fits.

Its that stupid Gaza story over & over.
And the rest of the BS.

What's that you say - The Pope is jewish?
Omigod, the Israeli govt made up some shit!
What next?
There were no WMD in Iraq? Oh no?!

Isn't Syria a part of Israel?

Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates--

YS RA EL where (AMEN)RA is GOD

Neal:

Please point out where Clinton ever met directly with Syria or Iran? On NPR yesterday, they were pushing the terrorists' point of view -- that's probably the best you are going to get to official recognition.

脱磁器 - 脱磁器, 拓展训练 - 拓展训练, 拓展训练 - 拓展训练, 挖掘机 - 挖掘机, 挖掘机 - 挖掘机, 微循环检查仪 - 微循环检查仪, 卫星电视 - 卫星电视, 卫星电视 - 卫星电视, 温度记录仪 - 温度记录仪, 温度自记仪 - 温度自记仪, 温湿度记录仪/温度传感器/温度变送器/温湿度仪 - 温湿度记录仪/温度传感器/温度变送器/温湿度仪, 文件柜 - 文件柜, 无纺布 - 无纺布, 无线点菜 - 无线点菜, 武夷山 - 武夷山, 武夷山酒店 - 武夷山酒店, 武夷山旅游 - 武夷山旅游, 武夷岩茶 - 武夷岩茶, 西装 - 西装, 西装 - 西装, 鲜花 - 鲜花, 线棒 - 线棒, 线号机/打号机 - 线号机/打号机, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 小游戏 - 小游戏, 鞋垫 - 鞋垫, 写字楼 - 写字楼, 巡检 - 巡检, 压力计/数字压力表 - 压力计/数字压力表, 压力开关 - 压力开关, 压力校验仪 - 压力校验仪, 压滤机 - 压滤机, 压路机 - 压路机, 烟囱/除尘器 - 烟囱/除尘器, 阳澄湖大闸蟹 - 阳澄湖大闸蟹, 阳澄湖大闸蟹 - 阳澄湖大闸蟹, 液位变送器 - 液位变送器, 一滴血检查仪 - 一滴血检查仪, 移动硬盘 - 移动硬盘, 以太网测试仪 - 以太网测试仪, 营销策划 - 营销策划, 影像工作站 - 影像工作站, 油泵 - 油泵, 余世维 - 余世维, 余世维 - 余世维, 月饼 - 月饼, 曾道人 - 曾道人, 曾仕强 - 曾仕强, 曾仕强 - 曾仕强, 浙江企业名录 - 浙江企业名录, 真空泵 - 真空泵, 真空泵 - 真空泵, 整容/整形美容 - 整容/整形美容, 整形 - 整形, 制冷设备 - 制冷设备, 质量流量计 - 质量流量计, 质量流量控制器 - 质量流量控制器, 中彩网 - 中彩网, 中彩网 - 中彩网, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 轴承 - 轴承, 轴承 - 轴承, 轴承 - 轴承, 珠宝首饰 - 珠宝首饰, 注册公司 - 注册公司, 注册公司 - 注册公司, 注册公司 - 注册公司, 注册公司 - 注册公司, 注册商标 - 注册商标, 专卖店装饰设计 - 专卖店装饰设计, 装修除味 - 装修除味, 装修污染 - 装修污染, 自动门 - 自动门, 自动洗地机 - 自动洗地机, 自吸泵 - 自吸泵, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租房 - 租房, 钻头刃磨机 - 钻头刃磨机,

I'm with dd above.