US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ

Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 4

Topic:	Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User:	"AK"
Date:	14 Jul 2004 03:38:01 AM
Object:	US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article823183.ece
Norway protests child abuse in Iraq
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on
German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons
in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and
Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release
of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.

In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall
by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started
ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.
In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water
before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air
last winter. He then was covered with mud.
"These types of attacks are absolutely unacceptable," said a spokesman for
Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. "They violate international law
and are morally indefensible."
Odd Jostein Sæter of the prime minister's office told Norwegian Broadcasting
(NRK) Tuesday that Norwegian officials will react "both politically and
diplomatically" to their US counterparts.
Neither the imprisonment nor abuse of children "can be tolerated," Sæter said.
"We will take this up in a very sharp and direct way and make concrete demands,"
he said on national radio, adding that such practices "damage the struggle for
democracy and human rights in Iraq."
Norwegian authorities plan to review other reports of the abuse by both Amnesty
International and Red Cross in detail.
The head of Amnesty International in Norway said Tuesday that Norway should not
continue its military cooperation with the US after the reports of child
"torture" were revealed.
Most of the more than 100 minors still believed to be held in
American-controlled prisons in Iraq were taken into custody after US forces
raided their homes.
.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	18 Jul 2004 05:36:39 AM

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:

At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was

ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look the
other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).

In other words, the US doesn't give a ***** about Kurds, Iraqis, or

Iranians.

They only use human rights (like the gassing of Kurds) to justify their

own

policies. They didn't care about Halabja in 1988. Now they do to justify

the

war. "Human rights" is a joke to US to promote their own policies. The war

had

nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Sadam being a brutal dictator,

and

nothing to do with Iraqi links to 9/11. It was an imperial war. That's

what we

have been saying all along.

I disagree. They had the right under a UN resolution (as Jean keeps
reminding us) to finish the job of the first Gulf War.

Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.
Speaking about violating UN resolutions (if that justified the invasion), why
Israel has not been invaded for violating numerous (not just one) UNSC
resolution? Such as UNSC 452
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1979/scres79.htm
"Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis,
the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
That was 1979. Israel has been violating that resolution for 24 years, but yet
nothing has been done about that by United Snakes. Why?
----------- begin quote ------------------
UNSC 452, July 20, 1979
United Nations Security Council Resolution 452 (1979)
20 July 1979
The Security Council,
[...]
Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the
occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of
the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War of 12 August 1949,
Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing
that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and
the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property
seized,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming pertinent
Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the need to
protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy
Places in that city,
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is
bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the
establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since
1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the
Commission;
3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis,
the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
----------------- end quote ---------------
.

User: "Jane"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	18 Jul 2004 08:31:15 AM

"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:46kkf0pf0sek3mrllmnfe9i57tojtcg4cq@4ax.com...

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:

At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam

was

ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look

the

other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).

In other words, the US doesn't give a ***** about Kurds, Iraqis, or

Iranians.

They only use human rights (like the gassing of Kurds) to justify their

own

policies. They didn't care about Halabja in 1988. Now they do to

justify

the

war. "Human rights" is a joke to US to promote their own policies. The

war

had

nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Sadam being a brutal

dictator,

and

nothing to do with Iraqi links to 9/11. It was an imperial war. That's

what we

have been saying all along.

I disagree. They had the right under a UN resolution (as Jean keeps
reminding us) to finish the job of the first Gulf War.

Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the

war.

Speaking about violating UN resolutions (if that justified the invasion),

why

Israel has not been invaded for violating numerous (not just one) UNSC
resolution? Such as UNSC 452

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1979/scres79.htm
"Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent

basis,

the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;"

That was 1979. Israel has been violating that resolution for 24 years, but

yet

nothing has been done about that by United Snakes. Why?

The UN is extremely biased against Israel. The US should ignore those
resolutions. Remember the so-called anti-racism summit in Durban? Turned
out to be an anti-Israel joke! Our Canadian rep. should have walked out
with the Israelis and Americans; it was a disgrace.
Jane

----------- begin quote ------------------
UNSC 452, July 20, 1979
United Nations Security Council Resolution 452 (1979)

20 July 1979

The Security Council,

[...]

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the
occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a

violation of

the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in

Time of War of 12 August 1949,

Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in

implementing

that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including

Jerusalem,

and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements

and

the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of

property

seized,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming

pertinent

Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the

need to

protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the

Holy

Places in that city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy

bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle

East,

1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the
establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied

since

1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of

the

Commission;

3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent

basis,

the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

----------------- end quote ---------------

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 02:27:52 AM

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:31:15 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:

The Durban conference was not Security Council. None of the five permanent
members of Security Council are Arab or Muslim. Jean uses UNSC (erroneously) to
justify the war. You mentioned Jean. If you are using the UNSC to justify the
war against Iraq, then the same logic applies to invading Israel. Unless, of
course, you are a hypocrite, and choose whatever suits your agenda. You are
intellectually dishonest.
As for Durban conference, of course Israel is a racist state. No Palestinian
(even if born in what now in Israel) is allowed to return, but any Jew can get a
citizenship in Israel. What's that if not racism? Can Palestinians (not Israeli
Arabs) vote in Israeli elections? No. Can Jewish settlers (living illegally on
the occupied territories) vote in Israeli election? Yes. What is that if not
racism? Why should Palestinians live under the government that they can't even
vote for or have no control on? Why shouldn't Palestinian retaliate by fighting
back, if necessary? Don't skip my questions. Try to answer them.
.

User: "Mike Russell"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 03:56:09 AM

AK wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:31:15 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The UN is extremely biased against Israel. The US should ignore
those resolutions. Remember the so-called anti-racism summit in
Durban? Turned
out to be an anti-Israel joke! Our Canadian rep. should have walked
out with the Israelis and Americans; it was a disgrace.

The logic is valid, unless Israel were an ally instead of a sworn enemy.
Makes total sense, unless Israel had signed an agreement to allow weapons
inspections, and then played games for ten years. And none of that would
matter, unless we knew how to act in our own self interest, which means
knowing the difference between a friend and an ally, and the difference
between an enemy who honors the terms of a cease fire, versus an enemy who
does not.

Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite,
and choose whatever suits your agenda. You are intellectually
dishonest.

Surely there is another explanation than mere hypocrisy. Logical
consistency should never result in invading an enemy unnecessarily - these
were the seeds of World War I. How much less should logic dictate that we
attack a friend.

As for Durban conference, of course Israel is a racist state. No
Palestinian (even if born in what now in Israel) is allowed to
return, but any Jew can get a citizenship in Israel. What's that if
not racism?

Terminology. There are plenty of Muslim Israeli Arabs with full rights of
citizenship. Can you show me a single Palestinian jew with full rights of
citizenship in Palestine, or any Arab country for that matter? For example,
an Arab jew with a prominent business in an Arab country, or a position in
the Arab government? Not possible, because none of the Arab countries are
democracies.

Can Palestinians (not Israeli Arabs) vote in Israeli elections? No.

Barring symantics, the existence of Israeli Arab Muslims is sufficient
answer to your question. Yes.

Can Jewish settlers (living illegally on the occupied
territories) vote in Israeli election? Yes. What is that if not
racism?
Why should Palestinians live under the government that they
can't even vote for or have no control on?

Indeed, does any Arab, with perhaps the exception of Iraqis, live under a
government with meaningful elections?

Why shouldn't Palestinian retaliate by fighting back, if necessary?

For one reason only, because they are losing.
50 years ago and more, Palestinians gave the use of their land freely to aid
an all out Arab invasion, the day after Israel declared its existence, and
in subsequent attacks on Israel. They continue, today, to offer their own
bodies, one at a time, to continue to kill jews.
Palestinians deserve more than to be a mere bio weapon of Arab against jew,
and that is the single compelling reason for them to stop fighting.

Don't skip my questions. Try to answer them.

Yet you call those who would respond to you hypocrites.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 08:28:02 AM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:56:09 GMT, "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net>
wrote:

The logic is valid, unless Israel were an ally instead of a sworn enemy.
Makes total sense, unless Israel had signed an agreement to allow weapons
inspections, and then played games for ten years.

You missed the point. I wasn't referring to Israeli WMD. Israel, Pakistan and
India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. I know that. I was
referring to Israeli violation of UNSC resolutions regarding settlements. The
resolution clearly states that Israeli settlements are a violation of 4th Geneva
Convention and must be dismantled. Israel as a UN member state is bound legally
to abide by the 4th Geneva Convention.
By the way, Syria has never signed Chemical Weapons Convention. It's not illegal
for Syria to make chemical weapons.
Anyway, I was referring to UNSC 452. Israel has violated 4th Geneva Convention
for the past 30+ years.

The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary.

There are plenty of Muslim Israeli Arabs with full rights of
citizenship. Can you show me a single Palestinian jew with full rights of
citizenship in Palestine, or any Arab country for that matter?

A "Palestinian Jew with full rights"? All Jews in Israel and the occupied
territories have more rights than Palestinians. What are you talking about?
Israel is the occupying power of the West Bank and Gaza.
As for Arab countries, not many Jews are left in Arab counties. One of the
reason (other than Arab revenge against their own Jews after 1948) was that
Israel encouraged Jews in Arab countries to move to Israel. In some cases,
Israel bombed them. For example, in Iraq, Zionist agents planted a series of
bombs targeting the Iraqi Jewish community. As a result, all but a few thousand
left for Israel, believing that the bombs were the result of anti-Jewish
sentiment. The facts were first revealed in 1966 when Yehuda Tagar, an official
in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, revealed his part. The Black Panther, a
magazine for Oriental Jews, tells much of the story in its November issue of
1972. Yehuda Tagar's testimony was first printed in Ha'Olam Hazeh (29 May 1966).
As for how Jews were treated in Arab countries before 1948, yes it would be bad
compared to modern Western standards (though not always, Jews flourished in
Spain under Arab rule). But still, Jews were better off in Arab countries than
they were in Christian Europe. It's only recently that Europe started tolerating
Jews and other minorities.

Can Palestinians (not Israeli Arabs) vote in Israeli elections? No.

Barring symantics, the existence of Israeli Arab Muslims is sufficient
answer to your question. Yes.

You are being either silly or you are ignorant. Israeli Arabs (formally known as
Palestinians) were a huge majority in what now is called Israel. Millions of
them were either forced out or they left as refugees during the 1948 war. Most
of them are living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza (1.2 million
crammed into 140 square mile) and the West Bank. They have never been allowed
to return to their homes, nor have they been compensated. A small minority (now
20% of population in Israel) that remained are called "Israeli Arabs" by Israel.
Millions of Afghan refugees moved to Pakistan and Iran during the war. Remember?
Imagine if the new government in Afghanistan makes it illegal for them to return
to their homes. Wouldn't that be unjust and stupid? Any Jews, no matter where he
was born, can go to Israel and become a citizen. However, no Palestinian refugee
can go back to his home.
You don't see any injustice there? How stupid can you be?

Indeed, does any Arab, with perhaps the exception of Iraqis, live under a
government with meaningful elections?

Nonsense. Iraqi puppet regime was chosen by a few thugs that were chosen by US.
You call that an exception? Lebanese government was elected. You could have
called that an exception. Iranians (though not Arabs) have different parties and
they have elections (a flawed system but still they have elections).
As for other Arab countries, at least the government (even if not elected) is
not foreign. Palestinian are ruled by a foreign government that they have no
control on. Jewish settlers can vote but Palestinians can't. The settlers have
swimming pools but Palestinian don't have enough water to drink. All this is
well known. Go look it up.

50 years ago and more, Palestinians gave the use of their land freely to aid
an all out Arab invasion, the day after Israel declared its existence, and
in subsequent attacks on Israel. They continue, today, to offer their own
bodies, one at a time, to continue to kill jews.

Research this topic a little more and you will see that this simplistic
propaganda you have been told is not entirely true. Go read even some objective
Israeli historians. I would recommend Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, and Avi Shlaim.
All of them are Israeli historians. Go to a library or amazon.com.
The simplistic propaganda that you wrote above is not the whole picture at all.
.

User: "Mike Russell"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 04:16:41 PM

AK wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:56:09 GMT, "Mike Russell"
<REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote:

The logic is valid, unless Israel were an ally instead of a sworn
enemy.
Makes total sense, unless Israel had signed an agreement to allow
weapons inspections, and then played games for ten years.

You missed the point. I wasn't referring to Israeli WMD. Israel,
Pakistan and India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Exactly. And none of the three is a declared enemy of the United States.

I know that. I was referring to Israeli violation of UNSC resolutions
regarding settlements. The resolution clearly states that Israeli
settlements are a violation of 4th Geneva Convention and must be
dismantled. Israel as a UN member state is bound legally to abide by
the 4th Geneva Convention.

America is not bound to enforce any UN resolution, last time I checked.
However America may justifiably use such resolutions to justify its own
decision to attack enemies. I'm not saying, mind you, that Bush did
anything other than make a hash out of the Iraq invasion.

By the way, Syria has never signed Chemical Weapons Convention. It's
not illegal for Syria to make chemical weapons.

And they have lots.

Anyway, I was referring to UNSC 452. Israel has violated 4th Geneva
Convention for the past 30+ years.

Have Arabs accepted 452? Last I checked the answer was simply no, with the
possible exception of Egypt.

Surely there is another explanation than mere hypocrisy. Logical
consistency should never result in invading an enemy unnecessarily -
these were the seeds of World War I. How much less should logic
dictate that we attack a friend.

The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary.

I tend to agree with you, and certainly agree that the political
justification for the invasion was botched in a horrible manner, probably
with more revelations and distortions to come.

There are plenty of Muslim Israeli Arabs with full rights of
citizenship. Can you show me a single Palestinian jew with full
rights of citizenship in Palestine, or any Arab country for that
matter?

Israel has been invaded from those territories repeatedly, and would be
again the instant they ceased to occupy them.

As for Arab countries, not many Jews are left in Arab counties. One
of the reason (other than Arab revenge against their own Jews after
1948) was that Israel encouraged Jews in Arab countries to move to
Israel. In some cases, Israel bombed them. For example, in Iraq,
Zionist agents planted a series of bombs targeting the Iraqi Jewish
community. As a result, all but a few thousand left for Israel,
believing that the bombs were the result of anti-Jewish sentiment.
The facts were first revealed in 1966 when Yehuda Tagar, an official
in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, revealed his part. The Black
Panther, a magazine for Oriental Jews, tells much of the story in its
November issue of 1972. Yehuda Tagar's testimony was first printed in
Ha'Olam Hazeh (29 May 1966).

Could be true, but I have a hard time believeing that jews bombed other jews
to justify their leaving arab countries, sorry. I've seen way too many
documented cases of Arabs simply bombing jews.

As for how Jews were treated in Arab countries before 1948, yes it
would be bad compared to modern Western standards (though not always,
Jews flourished in Spain under Arab rule). But still, Jews were
better off in Arab countries than they were in Christian Europe. It's
only recently that Europe started tolerating Jews and other
minorities.

yes, the further back in time you go, the better the Arabs look. Go back
six hundred years, and I'm ready to move to an Islamic region, for much the
same reasons I prefer to live in the west in the 21st century.

Can Palestinians (not Israeli Arabs) vote in Israeli elections? No.

Barring symantics, the existence of Israeli Arab Muslims is
sufficient
answer to your question. Yes.

You are being either silly or you are ignorant.

You're winning me over a mile a minute. Why should I continue to read your
responses when you find it necessary to insult me? If anyone else is
reading this, perhaps they can continue responding to your points.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net

Israeli Arabs
(formally known as Palestinians) were a huge majority in what now is
called Israel. Millions of them were either forced out or they left
as refugees during the 1948 war. Most of them are living in refugee
camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza (1.2 million crammed into 140 square
mile) and the West Bank. They have never been allowed to return to
their homes, nor have they been compensated. A small minority (now
20% of population in Israel) that remained are called "Israeli Arabs"
by Israel.

Millions of Afghan refugees moved to Pakistan and Iran during the
war. Remember? Imagine if the new government in Afghanistan makes it
illegal for them to return to their homes. Wouldn't that be unjust
and stupid? Any Jews, no matter where he was born, can go to Israel
and become a citizen. However, no Palestinian refugee can go back to
his home.

You don't see any injustice there? How stupid can you be?

Indeed, does any Arab, with perhaps the exception of Iraqis, live
under a government with meaningful elections?

Nonsense. Iraqi puppet regime was chosen by a few thugs that were
chosen by US. You call that an exception? Lebanese government was
elected. You could have called that an exception. Iranians (though
not Arabs) have different parties and they have elections (a flawed
system but still they have elections).

As for other Arab countries, at least the government (even if not
elected) is not foreign. Palestinian are ruled by a foreign
government that they have no control on. Jewish settlers can vote but
Palestinians can't. The settlers have swimming pools but Palestinian
don't have enough water to drink. All this is well known. Go look it
up.

50 years ago and more, Palestinians gave the use of their land
freely to aid an all out Arab invasion, the day after Israel
declared its existence, and
in subsequent attacks on Israel. They continue, today, to offer
their own bodies, one at a time, to continue to kill jews.

Research this topic a little more and you will see that this
simplistic propaganda you have been told is not entirely true. Go
read even some objective Israeli historians. I would recommend Benny
Morris, Ilan Pappe, and Avi Shlaim. All of them are Israeli
historians. Go to a library or amazon.com.

The simplistic propaganda that you wrote above is not the whole
picture at all.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 08:53:38 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:16:41 GMT, "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net>
wrote:

Could be true, but I have a hard time believeing that jews bombed other jews
to justify their leaving arab countries, sorry. I've seen way too many
documented cases of Arabs simply bombing jews.

They would do anything to force Jews to move to Israel. Only way Israel can
survive as a Jewish state is by encouraging (even forcing if necessary) other
Jews to migrate to Israel. The birthrate of Palestinians is much higher. That's
why Israel doesn't want to annex the entire West Bank and Gaza and give
Palestinians citizen rights. Israeli Arabs are almost 20%. If you add the West
Bank and Gaza, Jews would be a minority in a few years.
Israeli policy is to annex as much land as possible by building settlements, and
to restrict Palestinians in isolated bantustans (like South Africa) and give
them some sort of autonomy. Israel doesn't want peace; they want the land.
It's not going to work though. It will fail in 10, 20, or 30 years, just like
apartheid in South Africa collapsed. I am pretty sure of that. They either need
to dismantle all the settlements and give Palestinians full sovereignty
(including control of borders and water) or annex the West Bank and Gaza and
give them same rights as Jews. Any other solution would fail.
Another solution proposed by rightwing Zionist nuts is ethnic cleansing
(euphemistically called "Transfer"). This will never happen without a war with
Jordan. How else are you going to "transfer" millions of Palestinians to Jordan
without a war and occupation of Jordan? (even then it's hard to believe the
world will sit and watch the ethnic cleaning and do nothing).
Not all Israelis are rightwing nuts, but many are. Read the following article by
a rightwing nut.
--------------------------------------------------------
Amos Oz (published in the Israeli daily Davar, 17 Dec. 1982
(emphases added)
"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. Just note
that I don't hate Arabs. On the contrary. Personally, I am much more at ease
with them, and especially with the Bedouin, than with Jews. Those Arabs we
haven't yet spoilt are proud people, they are irrational, cruel and generous.
It's the Yids that are all twisted. In order to straighten them out you have to
first bend them sharply the other way. That, in brief, is my whole ideology.
"Call Israel by any name you like, call it a Judeo-Nazi state as does Leibowitz.
Why not? Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint. I don't care whether I am
like Ghadafi. I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their
love. I don't need to be loved by Jews like you either. I have to live, and I
intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the
blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I
will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy
him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if
he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't
kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law.
"Even if you'll prove to me by mathematical means that the present war in
Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. Moreover, even if you will prove
to me that we have not achieved and will not achieve any of our aims in Lebanon,
that we will neither create a friendly regime in Lebanon nor destroy the Syrians
or even the PLO, even then I don't care. It was still worth it. Even if Galilee
is shelled again by Katyushas in a year's time, I don't really care. We shall
start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had
enough. And do you know why it is all worth it? Because it seems that this war
has made us more unpopular among the so-called civilised world.
"We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral
lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged
from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn
Hilwe (and it's a pity we did not wipe out that hornet's nest completely!), the
healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a
massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate
hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed
the ***** talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations.
No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance.
"I personally don't want to be any better than Khomeini or Brezhnev or Ghadafi
or Assad or Mrs. Thatcher, or even Harry Truman who killed half a million
Japanese with two fine bombs. I only want to be smarter than they are, quicker
and more efficient, not better or more beautiful than they are. Tell me, do the
baddies of this world have a bad time? If anyone tries to touch them, the evil
men cut his hands and legs off. They hunt and catch whatever they feel like
eating. They don't suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I
want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear
me instead of feeling sorry for me. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear my
madness instead of admiring my nobility. Thank god for that. Let them tremble,
let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country,
dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our
children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil
fields in the Middle East! If anything would happen to your child, god forbid,
you would talk like I do. Let them be aware in Washington, Moscow, Damascus and
China that if one of our ambassadors is shot, or even a consul or the most
junior embassy official, we might start World War Three just like that !"
.......We are talking while sitting on the balcony of the pretty country house
belonging to C. which is situated in a prosperous Moshav. To the west we see a
burning sunset and there is a scent of fruit trees in the air. We are being
served iced coffee in tall glasses. C. is about fifty years old. He is a man
well known for his (military) actions. He is a strong, heavy figure wearing
shorts but no shirt. His body is tanned a metallic bronze shade, the colour of a
blond man living in the sun. He puts his hairy legs on the table and his hands
on the chair. There is a scar on his neck. His eyes wander over his plantations.
He spells out his ideology in a voice made hoarse by too much smoking:
"Let me tell me [sic] what is the most important thing, the sweetest fruit of
the war in Lebanon: It is that now they don't just hate Israel. Thanks to us,
they now also hate all those Feinschmecker Jews in Paris, London, New York,
Frankfurt and Montreal, in all their holes. At last they hate all these nice
Yids, who say they are different from us, that they are not Israeli thugs, that
they are different Jews, clean and decent. Just like the assimilated Jew in
Vienna and Berlin begged the anti-Semite not to confuse him with the screaming,
stinking Ostjude, who had smuggled himself into that cultural environment out of
the dirty ghettos of Ukraine and Poland. It won't help them, those clean Yids,
just as it did not help them in Vienna and Berlin. Let them shout that they
condemn Israel, that they are all right, that they did not want and don't want
to hurt a fly, that they always prefer being slaughtered to fighting, that they
have taken it upon themselves to teach the gentiles how to be good Christians by
always turning the other cheek. It won't do them any good. Now they are getting
it there because of us, and I am telling you, it is a pleasure to watch.
"They are the same Yids who persuaded the gentiles to capitulate to the bastards
in Vietnam, to give it in to Khomeini, to Brezhnev, to feel sorry for Sheikh
Yamani because of his tough childhood, to make love not war. Or rather, to do
neither, and instead write a thesis on love and war. We are through with all
that. The Yid has been rejected, not only did he crucify Jesus, but he also
crucified Arafat in Sabra and Shatila. They are being identified with us and
that's a good thing! Their cemeteries are being desecrated, their synagogues are
set on fire, all their old nicknames are being revived, they are being expelled
from the best clubs, people shoot into their ethnic restaurants murdering small
children, forcing them to remove any sign showing them to be Jews, forcing them
to move and change their profession.
"Soon their palaces will be smeared with the slogan: Yids, go to Palestine! And
you know what? They will go to Palestine because they will have no other choice!
All this is a bonus we received from the Lebanese war. Tell me, wasn't it worth
it? Soon we will hit on good times. The Jews will start arriving, the Israelis
will stop emigrating and those who already emigrated will return. Those who had
chosen assimilation will finally understand that it won't help them to try and
be the conscience of the world. The 'conscience of the world' will have to
understand through its arse what it could not get into its head. The gentiles
have always felt sick of the Yids and their conscience, and now the Yids will
have only one option: to come home, all of them, fast, to install thick steel
doors, to build a strong fence, to have submachine guns positioned at every
corner of their fence here and to fight like devils against anyone who dares to
make a sound in this region. And if anyone even raises his hand against us we'll
take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use
nuclear arms. We'll go on until he no longer feels like it...
"...You probably want to know whether I am not afraid of the masses of Yids
coming here to escape anti-semitism smearing us with their olive oil until we go
all soft like them. Listen, history is funny in that way, there is a dialectic
here, irony. Who was it who expanded the state of Israel almost up the
boundaries of the kingdom of King David? Who expanded the state until it covered
the area from Mount Hermon to Raz Muhammad? Levi Eshkol. Of all people, it was
that follower of Gordon, that softie, that old woman. Who, on the other hand, is
about to push us back into the walls of the ghetto? Who gave up all of Sinai in
order to retain a civilised image? Beitar's governor in Poland, that proud man
Menahem Begin. So you can never tell. I only know one thing for sure: as long as
you are fighting for your life all is permitted, even to drive out all the Arabs
from the West Bank, everything.
"Leibowitz is right, we are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? Listen, a people that gave
itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children
and lamp shades from the skin of its women is a worse criminal than its
murderers. Worse than the Nazis...If your nice civilised parents had come here
in time instead of writing books about the love for humanity and singing Hear O
Israel on the way to the gas chambers, now don't be shocked, if they instead had
killed six million Arabs here or even one million, what would have happened?
Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, we
would have been called all sorts of names, but we could be here today as a
people of 25 million!
"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill
as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have
everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews,
so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one
or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the
job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life.
Hand me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish
conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are
large and healthy. What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of
Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in
1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness
in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don't grasp
things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see
that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out
in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids.
Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets
really dark. So I am an anti-Semite ? Fine. So don't quote me, quote Lilienblum
instead [an early Russian Zionist - ed.]. There is no need to quote an
anti-Semite. Quote Lilienblum, and he is definitely not an anti-Semite, there is
even a street in Tel Aviv named after him. (C. quotes from a small notebook that
was lying on his table when I arrived:) 'Is all that is happening not a clear
sign that our forefathers and ourselves...wanted and still want to be disgraced?
That we enjoy living like gypsies.' That's Lilienblum. Not me. Believe me. I
went through the Zionist literature, I can prove what I say.
"And you can write that I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the
contrary. Let's make a deal: I will do all I can to expel the Arabs from here, I
will do all I can to increase anti-semitism, and you will write poems and essays
about the misery of the Arabs and be prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to
flee to this country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles. How about
it ?"
It was there that I stopped C.'s monologue for a moment and expressed the
thought passing through my mind, perhaps more for myself than for my host. Was
it possible that Hitler had not only hurt the Jews but also poisoned their
minds? Had that poison sunk in and was still active? But not even that idea
could cause C. to protest or raise his voice. After all, he is said to have
never shouted under stress, even during the famous operations his name is
associated with..."
END
.

User: "Mike Russell"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	20 Jul 2004 12:00:53 AM

AK wrote:
....

Israeli policy is to annex as much land as possible by building
settlements,

Israel forced Arab countries to invade them so they could occupy some of the
land from which the invasion was staged. What bullies.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	20 Jul 2004 03:26:32 AM

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:00:53 GMT, "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net>
wrote:

Israeli policy is to annex as much land as possible by building
settlements,

Israel forced Arab countries to invade them so they could occupy some of the
land from which the invasion was staged. What bull

What are you are talking about? Be specific. I am talking about the West Bank,
Gaza and Golan Heights. Israel occupied them in 1967. What Arab country invaded
Israel in 1967? I don't know any. Maybe you can enlighten us with some new facts
we never heard before you came up!
After the 1967 war, Israel claimed it invaded Arab land because of imminent Arab
attack. The claim appears particularly ludicrous because a third of Egypt's army
was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war in 1967.
here are some quotes about 1967 for you:
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June
1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only
bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March
1972).
Israeli General Peled was even more frank: "To pretend that the Egyptian forces
massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel
constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of
analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli
army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).
In 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war (although official
Zionist propaganda in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact).
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National
Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations
in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us.
We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20
August 1982).
.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 08:02:45 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:16:41 GMT, "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net>
wrote:

Have Arabs accepted 452? Last I checked the answer was simply no, with the
possible exception of Egypt.

Do you even know what UNSC 452 says? What has Arabs not accepted in it (quoted
below):
----------- begin quote ------------------
UNSC 452, July 20, 1979
United Nations Security Council Resolution 452 (1979)
20 July 1979
The Security Council,
[...]
Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the
occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of
the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War of 12 August 1949,
Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing
that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and
the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property
seized,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming pertinent
Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the need to
protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy
Places in that city,
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is
bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the
establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since
1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the
Commission;
3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis,
the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
----------------- end quote ---------------
.

User: "Mike Russell"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 11:54:56 PM

AK wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:16:41 GMT, "Mike Russell"
<REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote:

Have Arabs accepted 452? Last I checked the answer was simply no,
with the possible exception of Egypt.

Do you even know what UNSC 452 says? What has Arabs not accepted in
it (quoted below):

My bad. Got my numbers mixed up. I meant does any Arab country accept the
UN resolution that defined the borders of the nation of Israel? AFAIK, the
answer is no, with the possible exception of Egypt.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	20 Jul 2004 03:12:39 AM

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 04:54:56 GMT, "Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net>
wrote:

Do you even know what UNSC 452 says? What has Arabs not accepted in
it (quoted below):

Jordan, Mauritania
Tunisia, Morocco, Oman had (or used to have before al-Aqsa Intifada) trade
offices in Israel (if not full embassies).
You are not that good with these "possible exceptions," are you? (considering
you called Iraq "a possible exception" when talking about democracy).
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	18 Jul 2004 12:23:38 PM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010407000400060009030404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
AK a écrit:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:

At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was

ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look the
other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).

In other words, the US doesn't give a ***** about Kurds, Iraqis, or

Iranians.

They only use human rights (like the gassing of Kurds) to justify their

own

policies. They didn't care about Halabja in 1988. Now they do to justify

the

war. "Human rights" is a joke to US to promote their own policies. The war

had

nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Sadam being a brutal dictator,

and

nothing to do with Iraqi links to 9/11. It was an imperial war. That's

what we

have been saying all along.

I disagree. They had the right under a UN resolution (as Jean keeps
reminding us) to finish the job of the first Gulf War.

Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.

Liar. Of course you have no clue that Jean and Jane are two different
people, you have no clue about anything anyway.
But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious consequences
many times repeated, which is authorization the use of force of
resolution 678, conditionally lifted if he complies to Resolution 687e,
for the allies of Kuwait, which is the coalition.
This is a fact, a last chance resolution doesn't require another one.
Now about your anti-Semitism, there is no resolution, never were there
any, that authorized the use of force against Israel. Against Iraq, yes.
Against Israel, never. Just one that authorize Israel to defend itself.
Now you can wallow in your anti-Semite fartitude and support terrorists,
the only force they will be able to use is against the one who supported
them if ISrael let them wallow in their own fartitude and retire from Gaza.
They will wish that Israel had remained, but they are the ones who made
their own bed, their own hell.
J.
--------------010407000400060009030404
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
 
 
AK a écrit: 
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid46kkf0pf0sek3mrllmnfe9i57tojtcg4cq@4ax.com">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pushlinque@hotmail.com"><pushlinque@hotmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">an
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look the
other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">In other words, the US doesn't give a ***** about Kurds, Iraqis, or
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Iranians.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">They only use human rights (like the gassing of Kurds) to justify their
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">own
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">policies. They didn't care about Halabja in 1988. Now they do to justify
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">war. "Human rights" is a joke to US to promote their own policies. The war
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">had
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Sadam being a brutal dictator,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">nothing to do with Iraqi links to 9/11. It was an imperial war. That's
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">what we
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">have been saying all along.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I disagree. They had the right under a UN resolution (as Jean keeps
reminding us) to finish the job of the first Gulf War.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.</pre>
</blockquote>
Liar. Of course you have no clue that Jean and Jane are two different
people, you have no clue about anything anyway. 
 
But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious consequences
many times repeated, which is authorization the use of force of
resolution 678, conditionally lifted if he complies to Resolution 687e,
for the allies of Kuwait, which is the coalition. 
 
This is a fact, a last chance resolution doesn't require another one. 
 
Now about your anti-Semitism, there is no resolution, never were there
any, that authorized the use of force against Israel. Against Iraq,
yes. Against Israel, never. Just one that authorize Israel to defend
itself. 
 
Now you can wallow in your anti-Semite fartitude and support
terrorists, the only force they will be able to use is against the one
who supported them if ISrael let them wallow in their own fartitude and
retire from Gaza. 
 
They will wish that Israel had remained, but they are the ones who made
their own bed, their own hell. 
 
J. 
</body>
</html>
--------------010407000400060009030404--
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	18 Jul 2004 12:40:08 PM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070506040400010107070803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
AK a écrit:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:

At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was

ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look the
other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).

In other words, the US doesn't give a ***** about Kurds, Iraqis, or

Iranians.

They only use human rights (like the gassing of Kurds) to justify their

own

policies. They didn't care about Halabja in 1988. Now they do to justify

the

war. "Human rights" is a joke to US to promote their own policies. The war

had

nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Sadam being a brutal dictator,

and

nothing to do with Iraqi links to 9/11. It was an imperial war. That's

what we

have been saying all along.

I disagree. They had the right under a UN resolution (as Jean keeps
reminding us) to finish the job of the first Gulf War.

Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.

Liar. But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious
consequences many times repeated, which is authorization the use of
force of resolution 678, conditionally lifted if he complies to
Resolution 687e, for the allies of Kuwait, which is the coalition.
This is a fact, a last chance resolution doesn't require another one.
Now about your anti-Semitism, there is no resolution, never were there
any, that authorized the use of force against Israel. Against Iraq, yes.
Against Israel, never. Just one that authorize Israel to defend itself.
Now you can wallow in your anti-Semite fartitude and support terrorists,
the only force they will be able to use is against the one who supported
them if ISrael let them wallow in their own fartitude and retire from Gaza.
They will wish that Israel had remained, but they are the ones who made
their own bed, their own hell.
J.
--------------070506040400010107070803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
 
 
AK a écrit: 
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid46kkf0pf0sek3mrllmnfe9i57tojtcg4cq@4ax.com">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pushlinque@hotmail.com"><pushlinque@hotmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">an
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look the
other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">In other words, the US doesn't give a ***** about Kurds, Iraqis, or
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Iranians.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">They only use human rights (like the gassing of Kurds) to justify their
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">own
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">policies. They didn't care about Halabja in 1988. Now they do to justify
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">war. "Human rights" is a joke to US to promote their own policies. The war
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">had
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Sadam being a brutal dictator,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">nothing to do with Iraqi links to 9/11. It was an imperial war. That's
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">what we
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">have been saying all along.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I disagree. They had the right under a UN resolution (as Jean keeps
reminding us) to finish the job of the first Gulf War.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.</pre>
</blockquote>
Liar. But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious
consequences
many times repeated, which is authorization the use of force of
resolution 678, conditionally lifted if he complies to Resolution 687e,
for the allies of Kuwait, which is the coalition. 
 
This is a fact, a last chance resolution doesn't require another one. 
 
Now about your anti-Semitism, there is no resolution, never were there
any, that authorized the use of force against Israel. Against Iraq,
yes. Against Israel, never. Just one that authorize Israel to defend
itself. 
 
Now you can wallow in your anti-Semite fartitude and support
terrorists, the only force they will be able to use is against the one
who supported them if ISrael let them wallow in their own fartitude and
retire from Gaza. 
 
They will wish that Israel had remained, but they are the ones who made
their own bed, their own hell. 
 
J. 
</body>
</html>
--------------070506040400010107070803--
.

User: "amigocabal"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	18 Jul 2004 07:09:18 PM

Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.

Liar. But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious
consequences many times repeated,

And since when "serious consequeces" mean war?
which is authorization the use of

force of resolution 678, conditionally lifted if he complies to
Resolution 687e, for the allies of Kuwait, which is the coalition.

Not really there had to be a resolution to go to war, or to use force.
In fact even the enforcement of the "no fly zone" was illegal, since
it also was not approved by UN!

This is a fact, a last chance resolution doesn't require another one.

To approve war there has to be a resolution. Even in US only Congress
can declare war. Bush lied he had no authorization to go to war!

Now about your anti-Semitism, there is no resolution, never were there
any, that authorized the use of force against Israel.

Yrue! because the Israeli servant, USA, simply vetoes anything that
does not suit Israel. That does not mean that Israeli invasion is not
justified.
Against Iraq, yes.

Against Israel, never. Just one that authorize Israel to defend itself.

"Defend itself", against whom? THe rightfull owners of the land it
occupies. Both geneva Conventions authorise resistance against the
occupation forces anywhere!

Now you can wallow in your anti-Semite fartitude and support terrorists,

You call anyone who is against the slaughter israel is engaged "an
anti semite" completely ignoring the fact that the only semites in
Middle East are Arabs!

the only force they will be able to use is against the one who supported
them if ISrael let them wallow in their own fartitude and retire from Gaza.

They will wish that Israel had remained, but they are the ones who made
their own bed, their own hell.

ISRAEL WILL DIE OF ITS OWN DISEASE, VERY SOON!
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: UN WEASELS ABUSES ABOUT IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 05:36:48 PM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040407040801010203030506
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
amigocabal a écrit:

Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.

Liar. But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious
consequences many times repeated,

And since when "serious consequeces" mean war?

No. I said serious "consequences".
When it is in the UN resolution.
There is no other "serious consequences i.e. The SC has "repeatedly
warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations" (see
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm for the resolution), for 12
years in fact it has warned iraq that the lifting of the ceasefire was
conditional to its obligations stated in resolution 687e, which were the
condition for postponing the continuation of the use of force authorized
with 678 by the allies of Kuwait against Iraq, and every time he
breached it, until that LAST CHANCE resolution.
The serious consequences are those of the lifting of the cease fire
between the allies of Kuwait and Iraq which was declared CONDITIONALLY
("Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the
secretary-general and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the
above provisions, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and
Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with
resolution 678 (1990); " i.e. all the 32 of them.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm for the 32 clauses of the
resolution).
I read you the last clause of 1441 which is the conclusion, but the
introduction of 1441 contained in the first two clauses of the action of
1441 are those:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991),
in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations
inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under
paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by
this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly
decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing
to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by
resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
He had to abide by all of 687e to meet the conditions (the others that
are relevant do not count here, all of 687e is mentioned and he breached
three distinct clauses of his obligation with Kuwait, first by not
giving them back their POWs, second by not giving them back their
national archives (they wanted to control them again) and third by
threatening to re-annex them (read the resolutions, you have the links,
like the weasels should have done before they signed it BTW, OR AFTER at
least, fucking idiots).
This is the letter of the law with that only resolution authorizing force.
Now, they also sponsored terrorists assholes (excuse my language), by
giving them exclusively $25000 for each who would go and commit serial
killings in Israel. This was in breach of clause 32.
Now there is the matter of the breach of the clauses concerning WMD,
these are special because if he had breached the resolution only there,
it would have required the inspectors to give their opinion as to the
severity of the breach, NOT IN ANY OTHER CASES. So the US were justified
with all those other breaches, even if there had been one, for the UN to
keep relevant. But even in this case, he had the UN go around all the
time, and the inspectors were reporting back about that that he was in
breach, I'll take the example of anthrax, since it was the most pressing
after 9-11; until one day before the war he kept silent about it, that
is not cooperation, but Blix (who I suspect was on the Germans' payroll)
never said anything else than well, we could still find them, hell they
can't find anything without a damn defector, and they couldn't get
defectors, today we can't get defectors to know where are the WMD he
hid, anyway, I'll come back on that, and so, one day before the war he
opened his mouth to say that he had destroyed them when no one was
looking. Yeah right. Remember that we are talking about inventoried
WMDs. Like he had for the rest, two types of which showed up in Iraq
lately, which prove that he destroyed nothing. Anyone in his right mind
knows that if Saddam hadn't shipped them to a friendly state (like the
satellites images the Israelis gathered showed i.e. suspect convoys
going into Syria around that moment), and/or buried the rest in the
sand, knowing especially after the experience he had had, that the
inspectors wouldn't find anything without a defector. And how can there
be any defector now the coalition is there since Iraq was to be, and has
been, given its fill sovereignty? They insist to judge the culprit
themselves with their system of justice, the US cannot offer any deal of
amnesty and money and relocation, or whatever it would take. If they
shut up, they are free, if they open their mouth, they are screwed.
Anyway. this is the only relevant part of your post,. the rest is total
***** from an anti-Semite loser;
At least you know what you are and you know why war was signed and
sealed by the UN. So you can go screw yourself for the rest. The only
other resolution that authorize force besides this one and the one
against AlQaeda, is that Israel has the right to defend itself. The
rest, the resolution 242, it states that a state who attack the other
has to give back the territories. It doesn't say that one that is
attacked cannot keep them or AT LEAST retain a security buffer zone, the
very spirit of the resolution dictates that if they were to apply the
same principle to the attackers, they would keep attacking knowing they
have nothing to lose. Only a brain dead moron, and the world court
buffoons can't understand that.
And what do they do anyway, the Palies, they call serial killers
martyrs, pay for homicide bombers kindergarten, etc., and look where it
gets them. the killers get force, they want authority, wants only more
power, not support any power that is not them. Israel is pulling back
giving them all they want, given that there is no way to have
cooperation to get the assassins who don't, want peace, better protect
themselves until t here is some more intelligent leadership, and what
happens? The terrorists that Arafat didn't want to confront as the first
step of the road map required, the very first step was never even tried
by the Palies while the Israelis have done a lot, Arafat even took back
the power to implement this first step from his previous prime minister,
who resigned, these terrorists that are criminals, the Hamas, the Al
Aqsa brigades, etc. branded as such even on the FBI site, these are
turning against him. Duh! He made his place an asylum, and the patients
now want to rule. Especially if the only ones to keep them from their
psychopath behaviors are gone and only remain the one who state
supported the terrorism. All the killers want his job now that israel is
leaving them to organize themselves. What did he expect from serial
killers? Maybe gratitude and civility? LOL What an idiot.
Just like you, in retrospect.
But I snipped your offensive *****. So those who will read this will have
to take my word for it.
J.
--------------040407040801010203030506
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
 
 
amigocabal a écrit: 
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid19be5381.0407181609.1d933791@posting.google.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jean is an idiot. They have no such right. The UN never authorized the war.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Liar. But to the point, resolution 1441 authorized the serious
consequences many times repeated,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">And since when "serious consequeces" mean war?</pre>
</blockquote>
 
No. I said serious "consequences". 
 
When it is in the UN resolution. 
 
There is no other "serious consequences i.e. The SC has "repeatedly warned
Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations" (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm">http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm</a> for the resolution), for
12 years in fact it has warned iraq that the lifting of the ceasefire
was conditional to its obligations stated in resolution 687e, which
were the condition for postponing the continuation of the use of force
authorized with 678 by the allies of Kuwait against Iraq, and every
time he breached it, until that LAST CHANCE resolution. 
 
The serious consequences are those of the lifting of the cease fire
between the allies of Kuwait and Iraq which was declared CONDITIONALLY
("Declares
that,
upon official notification by Iraq to the secretary-general
and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the above provisions,
a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq
and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait
in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
" i.e. all the 32 of them. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm">http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm</a>
for the 32 clauses of the resolution). 
 
I read you the last clause of 1441 which is the conclusion, but the
introduction of 1441 contained in the first two clauses of the action
of 1441 are those: 
 
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687
(1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United
Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required
under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 
 
2.  Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by
this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly
decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of
bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process
established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the
Council; 
 
He had to abide by all of 687e to meet the conditions (the others that
are relevant do not count here, all of 687e is mentioned and he
breached three distinct clauses of his obligation with Kuwait, first by
not giving them back their POWs, second by not giving them back their
national archives (they wanted to control them again) and third by
threatening to re-annex them (read the resolutions, you have the links,
like the weasels should have done before they signed it BTW, OR AFTER
at least, fucking idiots). 
 
This is the letter of the law with that only resolution authorizing
force. 
 
Now, they also sponsored terrorists assholes (excuse my language), by
giving them exclusively $25000 for each who would go and commit serial
killings in Israel. This was in breach of clause 32. 
 
Now there is the matter of the breach of the clauses concerning WMD,
these are special because if he had breached the resolution only there,
it would have required the inspectors to give their opinion as to the
severity of the breach, NOT IN ANY OTHER CASES. So the US were
justified with all those other breaches, even if there had been one,
for the UN to keep relevant. But even in this case, he had the UN go
around all the time, and the inspectors were reporting back about that
that he was in breach, I'll take the example of anthrax, since it was
the most pressing after 9-11; until one day before the war he kept
silent about it, that is not cooperation, but Blix (who I suspect was
on the Germans' payroll) never said anything else than well, we could
still find them, hell they can't find anything without a damn defector,
and they couldn't get defectors, today we can't get defectors to know
where are the WMD he hid, anyway, I'll come back on that, and so, one
day before the war he opened his mouth to say that he had destroyed
them when no one was looking. Yeah right. Remember that we are talking
about inventoried WMDs. Like he had for the rest, two types of which
showed up in Iraq lately, which prove that he destroyed nothing. Anyone
in his right mind knows that if Saddam hadn't shipped them to a
friendly state (like the satellites images the Israelis gathered showed
i.e. suspect convoys going into Syria around that moment), and/or
buried the rest in the sand, knowing especially after the experience he
had had, that the inspectors wouldn't find anything without a defector.
And how can there be any defector now the coalition is there since Iraq
was to be, and has been, given its fill sovereignty? They insist to
judge the culprit themselves with their system of justice, the US
cannot offer any deal of amnesty and money and relocation, or whatever
it would take. If they shut up, they are free, if they open their
mouth, they are screwed. 
 
Anyway. this is the only relevant part of your post,. the rest is total
***** from an anti-Semite loser; 
 
At least you know what you are and you know why war was signed and
sealed by the UN. So you can go screw yourself for the rest. The only
other resolution that authorize force besides this one and the one
against AlQaeda, is that Israel has the right to defend itself. The
rest, the resolution 242, it states that a state who attack the other
has to give back the territories. It doesn't say that one that is
attacked cannot keep them or AT LEAST retain a security buffer zone,
the very spirit of the resolution dictates that if they were to apply
the same principle to the attackers, they would keep attacking knowing
they have nothing to lose. Only a brain dead moron, and the world court
buffoons can't understand that. 
 
And what do they do anyway, the Palies, they call serial killers
martyrs, pay for homicide bombers kindergarten, etc., and look where it
gets them. the killers get force, they want authority, wants only more
power, not support any power that is not them. Israel is pulling back
giving them all they want, given that there is no way to have
cooperation to get the assassins who don't, want peace, better protect
themselves until t here is some more intelligent leadership, and what
happens? The terrorists that Arafat didn't want to confront as the
first step of the road map required, the very first step was never even
tried by the Palies while the Israelis have done a lot, Arafat even
took back the power to implement this first step from his previous
prime minister, who resigned, these terrorists that are criminals, the
Hamas, the Al Aqsa brigades, etc. branded as such even on the FBI site,
these are turning against him. Duh! He made his  place an asylum, and
the patients now want to rule. Especially if the only ones to keep them
from their psychopath behaviors are gone and only remain the one who
state supported the terrorism. All the killers want his job now that
israel is leaving them to organize themselves. What did he expect from
serial killers? Maybe gratitude and civility? LOL What an idiot. 
 
Just like you, in retrospect. 
 
But I snipped your offensive *****. So those who will read this will
have to take my word for it. 
 
J. 
 
 
 
 
 
</body>
</html>
--------------040407040801010203030506--
.

User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	15 Jul 2004 02:11:05 PM

AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message news:<uorcf0p0ug6tru4tsjjmietvnuq6gmecsu@4ax.com>...
*The pertinent issues here is your history:
"As I said,10 to 20 briefcase nukes are needed to solve Amerciunt
neo-Nazi dream of ruling the world."
"Who told you only Islamic people hate neo-Nazi United ***** of
Americunts? Who told you I am Muslim? You are not going to do ***** anyway, *****.
The final solution still makes sense to me: 10 to 20 briefcase nukes.
You are not going to do ***** after that."
"Sita would wear a ***** and assfuck Rama. This was the first *****
ever used in history. This is same as shiva's lorda == shiva Lingam.
"Americunts are the uncivilized pigs."
"Sita a pig fucking filthy ***** and ram a ***** sucking *****"
"Now we are on the right track. I guess all Americunts aren't dumb,"
"Long live Iraqi insurgents!"
"I openly admit I am on the side of Iraqis"
"Jesus Christ is my dog.
Jesus Christ is my *****
Biblical god Yahweh is my *****
Holy Ghost is the ***** that comes out of my ***** called Jesus "
"Jesus Christ is my *****
Biblical god Yahweh is my *****
Holy Ghost is the ***** that comes out of my ***** called Jesus
That makes it the holy Trinity
Jesus was born when Mary took a *****
The Holy Ghost has opened his mouth so I can ***** in it
pissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss in Holy Ghost mouth
Thank you very much ..."
.

User: "Dave Bird"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	25 Jul 2004 02:45:45 PM

In article<dd3256f0.0407151111.5dc7d3c6@posting.google.com>, Michael
Johnathan McDonald <abookoflife@yahoo.com> writes:

He's joking, yes? Suitcase nukes are quite low yield. I would think
the ***** they did after that would full size 450 KT warheads, in busses
of sixteen, raining down on the suspected source of the suitcase nukes.
--
***** THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
.

User: "AK"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	15 Jul 2004 10:37:36 PM

On 15 Jul 2004 12:11:05 -0700,

(Michael Johnathan
McDonald) wrote:

*The pertinent issues here is your history:

And? How does that refute anything I posted?
.

User: "J. R. Ford"
Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ	19 Jul 2004 02:55:49 PM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:37:36 -0500, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com>
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 12:11:05 -0700,

(Michael Johnathan
McDonald) wrote:

*The pertinent issues here is your history:

And? How does that refute anything I posted?

It proves you are a nut bag and cannot be believed for any comment
other than you need to use the rest room but, by then you will have
already ***** your pants.
************************************************************
"I am thinking rather of the fact that those who are helped by dianetics will necessarily be kept at a low level of intellectual and emotional maturity by the nonsense they have absorbed in order to be helped."
S.I. HAYAKAWA
.