Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Puckoon]

Interesting article from FAIR (not Wullie's group).

The idea that the U.S. should be killing children in other countries to prevent children from being killed here is chilling. The opposite argument, that avoiding killing innocent people in other countries will make it less likely that innocents in America will be attacked, is far more plausible: As we should understand by now, people motivated to commit acts of terrorism against the United States often say they are doing so in response to violent acts carried out by the United States.

I do not approve of the drone wars. I don't know how anyone can state the above in good conscience however. American "action" (not to be confused with presence, or influence) was comparitively non existent leading up to 9/11. They weren't manning drones with a Californian Joystick pre 2001 - yet Bin Laden and the lads took out ~ 3,300 (with ~ 1,000 remaining unaccounted for). A number the world has not seen since. Less likely that innocents in the Western world (lets include Madrid and London in this too) will be attacked? Nonsense. Don't tell me the terrorism inclined in the middle east are just itching for peace and harmony with the infidels.

[Puckoon]

A counter balance comment if we are comparing cause and effect from that very comprehensive washington post article -

"Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States recoiled at the idea of targeted killing. The Sept. 11 commission recounted how the Clinton administration had passed on a series of opportunities to target bin Laden in the years before the attacks — before armed drones existed."

[give her dixie]

A counter balance comment if we are comparing cause and effect from that very comprehensive washington post article -

"Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States recoiled at the idea of targeted killing. The Sept. 11 commission recounted how the Clinton administration had passed on a series of opportunities to target bin Laden in the years before the attacks — before armed drones existed."

Before 9/11 Clinton didn't need Drones to commit mass murder. He imposed sanctions on Iraq that directly led to the deaths of over 500,000 children. His Secretary Of State, Madeline Albright, in a TV interview  with Barbara Walters said their deaths were "Worth It"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Wether it is by Drones, sanctions, supplying dictators/Israel etc, etc, the US were responsible of hundreds of thousands of brutal deaths in the Middle East prior to 9/11.

[seafoid]

Interesting article from FAIR (not Wullie's group).

The idea that the U.S. should be killing children in other countries to prevent children from being killed here is chilling. The opposite argument, that avoiding killing innocent people in other countries will make it less likely that innocents in America will be attacked, is far more plausible: As we should understand by now, people motivated to commit acts of terrorism against the United States often say they are doing so in response to violent acts carried out by the United States.

I do not approve of the drone wars. I don't know how anyone can state the above in good conscience however. American "action" (not to be confused with presence, or influence) was comparitively non existent leading up to 9/11. They weren't manning drones with a Californian Joystick pre 2001 - yet Bin Laden and the lads took out ~ 3,300 (with ~ 1,000 remaining unaccounted for). A number the world has not seen since. Less likely that innocents in the Western world (lets include Madrid and London in this too) will be attacked? Nonsense. Don't tell me the terrorism inclined in the middle east are just itching for peace and harmony with the infidels.

I think there's a big difference between the attitude of ground troops (eg Marines) and Drone operators. And war is moving in the direction of drones. Marines are taught not to kill women and children. Drone wallahs don't appear to be.   

[Count 10]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

An asshole

I can see why you resort to these petty insults. Your lightweight intellect prevents you from adding anything of substance to the debate .

Tell me does the sanctimonious shite you spout smell?
You would know more about fish suppers! 

[Puckoon]

A counter balance comment if we are comparing cause and effect from that very comprehensive washington post article -

"Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States recoiled at the idea of targeted killing. The Sept. 11 commission recounted how the Clinton administration had passed on a series of opportunities to target bin Laden in the years before the attacks — before armed drones existed."

Before 9/11 Clinton didn't need Drones to commit mass murder. He imposed sanctions on Iraq that directly led to the deaths of over 500,000 children. His Secretary Of State, Madeline Albright, in a TV interview  with Barbara Walters said their deaths were "Worth It"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Wether it is by Drones, sanctions, supplying dictators/Israel etc, etc, the US were responsible of hundreds of thousands of brutal deaths in the Middle East prior to 9/11.

I am probably going to let you blame Clinton for those deaths as easily as you would let me blame Saddam, who lets not forget was murdering, f**king, stealing, invading, hoarding against his "own people" during that time.

Clinton led and supported those sanctions. What he didn't do was wake up in the morning and say - I'm gonna kill 500,000 kids.

You know that - play honest.

[Count 10]

Puck, guess who armed Saddam.....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'

By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail


US Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.

He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.

The question is: Why has he never said anything about his role in the negotiations?

'Donald Rumsfeld has some explaining to do,' a senior Pentagon official said last night, while Congressional sources said that a Senate Committee was considering opening hearings to investigate exactly what happened.

The documents could hardly have been released at a worse time for Mr Rumsfeld, who is building up troops in the Gulf in preparation for a war with Iraq that is generally expected to start in about a month.

They will also embarrass Tony Blair as he attempts to build international support for military action.

And they will cause a headache for the Foreign Office, because the news will be seen by Islamic countries as a prime example of American hypocrisy over the issue.

For years Middle Eastern countries have accused the US of double-talk over Iraq. They are bitterly critical that the American government helped arm Saddam during the 1980s in a war against Iran, which at that time Washington regarded as its biggest enemy in the region.

America's critics are now disgusted by the way the administration has performed a somersault, and now expects them to agree that Saddam's regime should be treated as a pariah.

This will make it even harder to persuade neighbouring states to offer Western troops bases and landing strips vital for such an onslaught.

But one thing was clear last night - President Bush will not let the embarrassment prevent him from forging ahead with his plans to attack Baghdad, and if that does happen Mr Blair will have no choice but to join him in the attack.

It was in late 1983 that Ronald Reagan made Mr Rumsfeld his envoy as the Iranians gained the upper hand in their war with Iraq.

Terrified that the Iranian Islamic revolution would spread through the Gulf and into Saudi Arabia - threatening US oil supplies - Mr Reagan sent Mr Rumsfeld to prop up Saddam and keep the Iranian militants within their own borders.

The State Department documents show that Mr Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad where he had a 90-minute meeting with Saddam followed by a much longer session with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.

'It was a horrible mistake,' former CIA military analyst Kenneth Pollack said last night.

'We were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department.'

On November 1, 1983, a full month before Mr Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State George Shultz was officially informed that the CIA had discovered Iraqi troops were resorting to 'almost daily use of chemical weapons' against the Iranians.

Nevertheless, Mr Rumsfeld arranged for the Iraqis to receive billions of pounds in loans to buy weapons and CIA Director William Casey used a Chilean front company to supply Iraq with cluster bombs.

According to the Washington Post, a Senate committee investigating the relationship between the US and Iraq discovered that in the mid-1980s - following the Rumsfeld visit - dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq under licence from the Commerce Department.

They included anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme.

The newspaper says: 'The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.'

At the time of his meeting with Saddam, Mr Rumsfeld was working for Searle - a company which dealt only in medicinal pharmaceuticals.

Both he and Searle made all their money from the distribution of a cardiovascular drug.

Under no circumstances did he or Searle have any connection to the production of chemicals which would have been sold to Saddam.

And no one in the US has ever suggested that Mr Rumsfeld had any personal interest at stake in the Iraq meetings.

The Defence Secretary was making no comment last night.



.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz2fMKCVaN1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[haveaharp]

Just look at him. Flailing around, inventing stories about alleged slurs, trying every tactic in the book to divert attention. All those cut'n'pastes over the last 10 years and who was behind it all ? A low grade demagogue who can barely string together two coherent sentences in defence of his vicious creed. Its like when the curtain was pulled back in the wizard of Oz !

Nevertheless, we have made progress. In the midst of all the insults and obfuscation he did finally admit that jews do have some basic rights

The Jews deserve a state.

Jews do have the right to defend themselves.

It's shocking that it took 10 years, 58 pages of cut'n'paste and the determined efforts of some posters to draw him out but we finally have something to work with.

So, now that Seafoid accepts that jews have the right to defend themselves he needs elaborate on what that means in practice. Otherwise his words are just weasel words. If missiles are fired into Israel, and it is entitled to defend itself, what form should that defence take ?

It should be legal and mandated by the UN.

And be proportionate

Yet none of you will say what is proportionate ?

Once again if missiles are launched into Israel from gaza what is a proportionate response ? I will go even further and give you some options ...

a) launching the same number of missiles back into Gaza with the same lack of discrimination shown by those that fired into Israel
b) attempting precision strikes based on intelligence but with the acceptance that there will be civilian casualties
c) a ground offensive into gaza to attempt to apprend those responsible for the strikes
d) None of the above because you think Israel has no right to self defence

any other options ?

Haveaharp...any response ? You said the Israeli response should be proportionate. Perhaps you can elaborate with more detail since the others have ducked the question as usual.

Operation cast lead - about 1200 Palestinians dead v 13 Israeli deaths some of which was friendly fire. I wouldn't call that proportionate.The UN found that the Israelis targeted the people of Gaza as a whole and not those who were firing rockets at them. The use of human shields and white phosphorus was disgraceful.

Right, you have said what is not proportionate. Now tell us what IS proportionate.

I wonder if you have the guts ?

I am sure if I look deep into myself I will find the moral courage to reply anonymously to another anonymous internet entity. Give me a minute just.

What is appropriate is to target operatives of your enemy, not to kill indiscriminately. What would be morally appropriate would be to at some point seek a peaceful solution as to stop acting in the region like a bull in a china shop.
Now you tell me did the operation mentioned go too far in your view ?

[seafoid]

A counter balance comment if we are comparing cause and effect from that very comprehensive washington post article -

"Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States recoiled at the idea of targeted killing. The Sept. 11 commission recounted how the Clinton administration had passed on a series of opportunities to target bin Laden in the years before the attacks — before armed drones existed."

Before 9/11 Clinton didn't need Drones to commit mass murder. He imposed sanctions on Iraq that directly led to the deaths of over 500,000 children. His Secretary Of State, Madeline Albright, in a TV interview  with Barbara Walters said their deaths were "Worth It"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Wether it is by Drones, sanctions, supplying dictators/Israel etc, etc, the US were responsible of hundreds of thousands of brutal deaths in the Middle East prior to 9/11.

I am probably going to let you blame Clinton for those deaths as easily as you would let me blame Saddam, who lets not forget was murdering, f**king, stealing, invading, hoarding against his "own people" during that time.

Clinton led and supported those sanctions. What he didn't do was wake up in the morning and say - I'm gonna kill 500,000 kids.

You know that - play honest.

Puck
Albright said 500 000 dead was a fair price to pay . It was a bit like tom friedman telling iraqis to suck on this for 9/11. Living somewhere like Nasiriyah, a shia town in iraq, in the last 20 years between saddam and the US must have been somewhat like being polish in the 40s between nazism and communism. Mass murder on both sides.

[Itchy]

Israels attack on Gaza was disproportionate, brutal and a number of war crimes were committed such as using illegal weapons and targeting civilians. Its a great shame on the international community that this went unpunished.

[Mike Sheehy]

Just look at him. Flailing around, inventing stories about alleged slurs, trying every tactic in the book to divert attention. All those cut'n'pastes over the last 10 years and who was behind it all ? A low grade demagogue who can barely string together two coherent sentences in defence of his vicious creed. Its like when the curtain was pulled back in the wizard of Oz !

Nevertheless, we have made progress. In the midst of all the insults and obfuscation he did finally admit that jews do have some basic rights

The Jews deserve a state.

Jews do have the right to defend themselves.

It's shocking that it took 10 years, 58 pages of cut'n'paste and the determined efforts of some posters to draw him out but we finally have something to work with.

So, now that Seafoid accepts that jews have the right to defend themselves he needs elaborate on what that means in practice. Otherwise his words are just weasel words. If missiles are fired into Israel, and it is entitled to defend itself, what form should that defence take ?

It should be legal and mandated by the UN.

And be proportionate

Yet none of you will say what is proportionate ?

Once again if missiles are launched into Israel from gaza what is a proportionate response ? I will go even further and give you some options ...

a) launching the same number of missiles back into Gaza with the same lack of discrimination shown by those that fired into Israel
b) attempting precision strikes based on intelligence but with the acceptance that there will be civilian casualties
c) a ground offensive into gaza to attempt to apprend those responsible for the strikes
d) None of the above because you think Israel has no right to self defence

any other options ?

Haveaharp...any response ? You said the Israeli response should be proportionate. Perhaps you can elaborate with more detail since the others have ducked the question as usual.

Operation cast lead - about 1200 Palestinians dead v 13 Israeli deaths some of which was friendly fire. I wouldn't call that proportionate.The UN found that the Israelis targeted the people of Gaza as a whole and not those who were firing rockets at them. The use of human shields and white phosphorus was disgraceful.

Right, you have said what is not proportionate. Now tell us what IS proportionate.

I wonder if you have the guts ?

I am sure if I look deep into myself I will find the moral courage to reply anonymously to another anonymous internet entity. Give me a minute just.

What is appropriate is to target operatives of your enemy, not to kill indiscriminately. What would be morally appropriate would be to at some point seek a peaceful solution as to stop acting in the region like a bull in a china shop.
Now you tell me did the operation mentioned go too far in your view ?

FINALLY, someone with the guts to take a concrete position.

Targetted strikes against Hamas operatives in Gaza that launch missiles would almost definitely result in civilan casualties. On the other hand some kind of ground offensive could cause an even bigger escalation, possibly causing even more causalties.Is there any practical way of doing it and avoiding civilian causalties ?

and yes, operation cast lead went too far. In fact, it was a war crime. As I said earlier I and others on here are not here to dispute Palestinian grievances. If I was Palestinian I would probably be launching missiles into Israel. What we have said from the beginning, and we have been rigorously consistent on this, is that there must be a sense of BALANCE and there must be SPECIFIC's about what is considered reasonable to expect from the Israelis in terms self-defence. It is only when you confront the specifics of what a country SHOULD do (as opposed to simply criticizing what actions they do take without offering realistic alternatives) that you begin to see the quandry. This principle does not just apply to Israel/Paletine. It applies to any conflict. If you are a good faith actor (as opposed to a bad faith actor like seafoid) you must make a reasonable effort to put yourselves in the shoes of BOTH protagonists.

[Mike Sheehy]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

An asshole

I can see why you resort to these petty insults. Your lightweight intellect prevents you from adding anything of substance to the debate .

Tell me does the sanctimonious shite you spout smell?
You would know more about fish suppers! 

The grown ups are making some progress now so you really should f*k off as you add nothing. I don't think you have made a contribution of any substance.

[Mike Sheehy]

With all the recent talk about hypothetical scenarios on who would do what if such and such happened, lets ponder the following facts and ask what has been done in relation to the following figures as compiled by the Palestinian Centre Of Human Rights:

Throughout Palestine in 2012, PCHR documented the killing by Israeli forces and Israeli settlers of a total of 265 Palestinians, including 141 civilians (53%)

The majority of  the victims were killed in the Gaza Strip (129 people or 91%), while 12 civilians were
killed in the West Bank (9%). Of the civilians killed, 44 were children (31% of all civilians killed), including 42 in the Gaza Strip and three in the West Bank.

In 2012, 14 women were killed in Palestine (10% of all civilians killed), all of whom were killed in the Gaza
Strip.

Another 1,207 people were wounded in Palestine, the majority of whom were civilians, including 1,006 in the Gaza Strip (83%) and 201 in the West Bank (7%).

Taking into account the 2012 casualties, the number of people killed since 2000 by Israeli forces and Israeli settlers rose to 6,986, of which 5,314 were civilians, comprising 76% of the victims.

Of the people killed, 3,544 were in the Gaza Strip and 1,770 in the West Bank. The civilian victims included 1,304 children (25%), of whom 958 were in the Gaza Strip and 346 in the West Bank. Among those killed were 300 women (6%),
of whom 231 were in the Gaza Strip and 69 in the West Bank. Tens of thousands were wounded during the Second Intifada, the majority of whom were civilians; hundreds of the wounded were left with permanent disabilities.

Then take into account the apartheid wall, the thousands of homes demolished and land stolen to make way for illegal settlers from across the world, over 5,000 Palestinians in jail, hundreds of whom are children, a brulat siege imposed on Gaza by Israel, the USA and Egypt, and you get a picture of what life is like in Palestine.

Walk a mile in a Palestinian shoes and ask yourself, "What would I do if I lived there"?

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/2013/ANUUAL%20Report%202012.pdf

where have you been for the last few days ? Finally worked up the courage to respond ....

To answer your hypothetical question, If I lived in Palestine  I'd probably be launching missiles into Israel. On the other hand If I was jewish I would be worried about genocidal maniacs trying to perpetrate a second holocaust.

Maybe you should try walking in jewish shoes once in a while GHD. Its the main point that we are trying to make here.

[muppet]

Israels attack on Gaza was disproportionate, brutal and a number of war crimes were committed such as using illegal weapons and targeting civilians. Its a great shame on the international community that this went unpunished.

Good man.

At least you say it as it is.

It should also be mentioned that the idiots in Hamas must bear some responsibility for bringing this horror upon their own people.

Civilians and children die and surely any sane person (Sheehy is excluded obviously) cannot support that.

[Count 10]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

An asshole

I can see why you resort to these petty insults. Your lightweight intellect prevents you from adding anything of substance to the debate .

Tell me does the sanctimonious shite you spout smell?
You would know more about fish suppers! 

The grown ups are making some progress now so you really should f*k off as you add nothing. I don't think you have made a contribution of any substance.

As I said you would know more about fish suppers

Saw this and thought of you Sheehy.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKf3DGv0oc