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: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
14 Jul 2004 05:17:41 PM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:4tr9f0l1ufaq4lmgi2d59lds4tfbcet7jh@4ax.com...
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.
*****.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trenchrat" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 04:57:54 AM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9iiJc.21774$TB3.770985@news20.bellglobal.com...
*****.
Jane
Hey Capitalist scum sucking maggot,
I was handcuffed and beat repeatedly and tortured in other ways when I
was a child.
I was also kidnapped by George Bush drugged interogated and had a
microchip stuck in my back.
I also was hit with a baseball bat by a cop while my 18 month old child
was on a bicycle with me and I had to leave my child laying in the
middle of the street. At the courthouse in front of a federal judges
courtroom my child was assaulted by the same cops that did not find the
baseball bat. I was told by the cops they planted a microchip in my
child.
A couple of days ago a christian jew cop almost hit me with an ax. The
cops regularily break into my property sometimes pointing guns and large
knives at my head.
Most if not all of these capitalist tax sucking maggots were trained by
the military.
I have done nothing wrong. There has never been any warrant and no one
has ever or will ever go to jail for these horrendous violations of my
civil liberties.
Death to the christian military.
Unseat Florida Congressmaggot E. Clay Shaw for turning the USA into a
police state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 09:04:19 AM |
|
|
"Trenchrat" <freedom@world.new> wrote in message
news:cd5kev02jp@enews2.newsguy.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9iiJc.21774$TB3.770985@news20.bellglobal.com...
*****.
Jane
Hey Capitalist scum sucking maggot,
I was handcuffed and beat repeatedly and tortured in other ways when I
was a child.
I was also kidnapped by George Bush drugged interogated and had a
microchip stuck in my back.
I also was hit with a baseball bat by a cop while my 18 month old child
was on a bicycle with me and I had to leave my child laying in the
middle of the street. At the courthouse in front of a federal judges
courtroom my child was assaulted by the same cops that did not find the
baseball bat. I was told by the cops they planted a microchip in my
child.
A couple of days ago a christian jew cop almost hit me with an ax. The
cops regularily break into my property sometimes pointing guns and large
knives at my head.
Most if not all of these capitalist tax sucking maggots were trained by
the military.
I have done nothing wrong. There has never been any warrant and no one
has ever or will ever go to jail for these horrendous violations of my
civil liberties.
Death to the christian military.
Unseat Florida Congressmaggot E. Clay Shaw for turning the USA into a
police state.
Well, none of that has happened to most people, so you must have attracted
attention somehow (not that I am buying your story).
Jane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 05:47:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:17:41 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
*****.
What exactly is *****? Here is the link to Norway newspaper:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article823183.ece
Did Norway officials said any of this or not? Here is ANOTHER (different) link:
http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
What is ***** there?
A little search and I was able to find the German video clip of child abuse
story mentioned in the above articles:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynochildren.rm
Watching the video, you will see that the allegation of child abuse are made by
a US sergeant (sergant Samuel Provance). So even the US soldier is bullshiting?
(if anyone speaks Germans, I would like to see a translation).
If the US media ignores the story, that doesn't make it *****.
How about Amnesty International?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng
"Thousands of men, women and CHILDREN are still held without charge or trial in
detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, after the official end of
the occupation on 28 June 2004."
Do you see the word children there? What are children doing in Abu Ghraib
without trail?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Walters" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
18 Jul 2004 07:01:58 PM |
|
|
"Do you see the word children there? What are children doing in Abu
Ghraib
without trail?"
Although macabre and in violation of international law, U.S. domestic
law and U.S. Army doctrine the imprisonment of the families of wanted
inviduals is, apparently, common practice in George Bush's American
armed forces. The intent is to place the family members, innocent
family members at that, in harms way so as to play on the
sentimentalities of the wanted man. This has been regularly reported
BY THE U.S. PRINT MEDIA in both theaters of action in the Middle East,
Afghanistan and Iraq. Regrettably, it seems to raise little ire on
the part of the U.S. public who seldom read those accounts.
But if someone successfully sneaks a few pics and then has them
published in the news-hungry U.S. media it finally sinks in to the
thick skull of even an Appalachian granny, or so one must hope.
Like so many small children engrossed in their comic books and
pervasive religious fantasies they seldom put forth the effort to
become sincerely aware of the actions of their government's foreign
policies. More to the point, even if they are aware of the
government's policies they both 1) don't forecast the damage these
actions will undoubtedly do to the U.S. and 2) they consider the
victims of these policies, the foreigners, so unworthy of human
compassion that they could care less. Indeed, like some on this board
they make a little game of gallows humor out of the suffering of
entire peoples.
Most Americans seem satisfied with the relative wealth that the
World's Hegemon provides them. They scarcely notice and care even
less when it becomes evident that the wealth is conveyed to them by
illegal and sometimes inhuman means. We are perfect parasites on the
rest of the world quite in contrast to the self-blinding mythology of
American benevolence abroad.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY (the rest of the world) HATE US!
LONGFISHER
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 06:07:21 AM |
|
|
Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> smirked:
Did Norway officials said any of this or not? Here is ANOTHER (different) link:
http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
What is ***** there?
Well, IN that story, there's this...
:-It is completely atrocious and contravening international law, if this is true,
A little search and I was able to find the German video clip of child abuse
story mentioned in the above articles:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynochildren.rm
Exactly WHERE in that report did you SEE any child abuse?
Watching the video, you will see that the allegation of child abuse are made by
a US sergeant (sergant Samuel Provance). So even the US soldier is bullshiting?
Wouldn't be the first time.
Do you REALLY think that only ONE U.S. soldier would come forward and report
on such abuse, IF it were really happening?
If the US media ignores the story, that doesn't make it *****.
If U.S. media finds it UNcredible, and ignores it, that DOES make it *****.
If they find it credible, they WON'T ignore it.
How about Amnesty International?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng
"Thousands of men, women and CHILDREN are still held without charge or trial in
detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, after the official end of
the occupation on 28 June 2004."
Not a SINGLE word there about abuse.
And there have been PLENTY of children who have attacked U.S. troops,
with guns, RPGs, and even bombs. They do NOT get a free pass because
they're 10 years old.,
--
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
.
|
|
|
| User: "p_j" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 10:46:46 AM |
|
|
Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
Do you REALLY think that only ONE U.S. soldier would come forward and report
on such abuse, IF it were really happening?
What makes you think that more haven't? I've heard it discussed on TV
and read references to it.
What would you say if it were true and a paper or magazine reported it.
The f@#king American Taliban screamed and cried because the rape rooms
and torture at abu Ghraib was reported.
How about Amnesty International?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng
"Thousands of men, women and CHILDREN are still held without charge or
trial in detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, after the
official end of the occupation on 28 June 2004."
Not a SINGLE word there about abuse.
And?
And there have been PLENTY of children who have attacked U.S. troops,
with guns, RPGs, and even bombs. They do NOT get a free pass because
they're 10 years old.,
What makes you think that people get thrown into prison for good cause?
The coalition estimates were that 70 percent were completely innocent.
And don't forget the use of hostages. Illegal, but lots of fun.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 07:40:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:07:21 GMT, Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net>
wrote:
Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> smirked:
Did Norway officials said any of this or not? Here is ANOTHER (different) link:
http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
What is ***** there?
Well, IN that story, there's this...
:-It is completely atrocious and contravening international law, if this is true,
And? How does that prove there is anything ***** there?
A little search and I was able to find the German video clip of child abuse
story mentioned in the above articles:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynochildren.rm
Exactly WHERE in that report did you SEE any child abuse?
Right here: http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
"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."
That came from this German documentary:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynochildren.rm
Unless you know German and can translate it otherwise, I would take Norway
newspaper words on the documentary.
Watching the video, you will see that the allegation of child abuse are made by
a US sergeant (sergant Samuel Provance). So even the US soldier is bullshiting?
Wouldn't be the first time.
It wouldn't be the first time that US soldiers abused children. Or are you
claiming that no US soldier ever abused children in history?
It's probably more common than all the known cases.
Do you REALLY think that only ONE U.S. soldier would come forward and report
on such abuse, IF it were really happening?
The abuse of Abu Ghraib came to light because ONE soldier reported it. Remember?
Why didn't the others report it?
If the US media ignores the story, that doesn't make it *****.
If U.S. media finds it UNcredible, and ignores it, that DOES make it *****.
It doesn't. German newspapers ignored Nazi atrocities during WII because they
"found" it uncredible. Does that makes all Nazi atrocities, reported elsewhere
outside Germany, *****?
How about Amnesty International?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng
"Thousands of men, women and CHILDREN are still held without charge or trial in
detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, after the official end of
the occupation on 28 June 2004."
Not a SINGLE word there about abuse.
Is it not abuse to imprison children without a trial? Get a life. Let me
imprison your children and then tell me if that's abuse or not.
And there have been PLENTY of children who have attacked U.S. troops,
with guns, RPGs, and even bombs. They do NOT get a free pass because
they're 10 years old.,
How do you know the children in prisons used RPGs and bombs when there is no
trial? Where is the evidence that all these children had bombs and RPGs?
Not that there is anything wrong with using RPGs and bombs against illegal
foreign invaders, but where is the proof that all of these children were
involved when there is no trial and lawyers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 09:09:31 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:uorcf0p0ug6tru4tsjjmietvnuq6gmecsu@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:07:21 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
<newskat@katxyzkave.net>
wrote:
Fresh from an Iraqi prisoner interrogation AK
<someoneNasty@hotmails.com> smirked:
Did Norway officials said any of this or not? Here is ANOTHER
(different) link:
http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
What is ***** there?
Well, IN that story, there's this...
:-It is completely atrocious and contravening international law, if this
is true,
And? How does that prove there is anything ***** there?
A little search and I was able to find the German video clip of child
abuse
story mentioned in the above articles:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynochildren.rm
Exactly WHERE in that report did you SEE any child abuse?
Right here:
http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=1&cluster_id=25740
"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."
That came from this German documentary:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynochildren.rm
Unless you know German and can translate it otherwise, I would take Norway
newspaper words on the documentary.
Watching the video, you will see that the allegation of child abuse are
made by
a US sergeant (sergant Samuel Provance). So even the US soldier is
bullshiting?
Wouldn't be the first time.
It wouldn't be the first time that US soldiers abused children. Or are you
claiming that no US soldier ever abused children in history?
It's probably more common than all the known cases.
Do you REALLY think that only ONE U.S. soldier would come forward and
report
on such abuse, IF it were really happening?
The abuse of Abu Ghraib came to light because ONE soldier reported it.
Remember?
Why didn't the others report it?
If the US media ignores the story, that doesn't make it *****.
If U.S. media finds it UNcredible, and ignores it, that DOES make it
*****.
It doesn't. German newspapers ignored Nazi atrocities during WII because
they
"found" it uncredible. Does that makes all Nazi atrocities, reported
elsewhere
outside Germany, *****?
How about Amnesty International?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng
"Thousands of men, women and CHILDREN are still held without charge or
trial in
detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, after the official
end of
the occupation on 28 June 2004."
Not a SINGLE word there about abuse.
Is it not abuse to imprison children without a trial? Get a life. Let me
imprison your children and then tell me if that's abuse or not.
And there have been PLENTY of children who have attacked U.S. troops,
with guns, RPGs, and even bombs. They do NOT get a free pass because
they're 10 years old.,
How do you know the children in prisons used RPGs and bombs when there is
no
trial? Where is the evidence that all these children had bombs and RPGs?
Not that there is anything wrong with using RPGs and bombs against illegal
foreign invaders, but where is the proof that all of these children were
involved when there is no trial and lawyers?
If they attack the US forces, then of course they will go to jail...in war,
there is not always the opportunity for such rights of peacetime as trials.
(How many of Saddam's prisoners were afforded trials?)
The "*****" is your contention that the US is intentionally abusing
children. Our CBC would be chomping at the bit to report that story, were
it true (or even half-baked). I don't buy it for one second.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 01:37:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:09:31 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
If they attack the US forces, then of course they will go to jail...in war,
there is not always the opportunity for such rights of peacetime as trials.
The US forces are illegal invaders. They should be attacked.
However, where is the proof that everyone in jails attacked US invaders?
According to Red Cross, "70% to 90% of Iraqi detainee are innocent."
(How many of Saddam's prisoners were afforded trials?)
So you agree there is no difference between the US and Sadam. Why did the US
invade Iraq then? No WMD. No links to 9/11, and no difference in torturing men,
women, and children, without trials.
The "*****" is your contention that the US is intentionally abusing
children.
What exactly was ***** in the orginal story reported by the Norway newspaper?
You haven't yet shown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 05:19:47 PM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:dtidf091mr8pvpadjksrmgsduq4esjbq4r@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:09:31 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
If they attack the US forces, then of course they will go to jail...in
war,
there is not always the opportunity for such rights of peacetime as
trials.
The US forces are illegal invaders. They should be attacked.
However, where is the proof that everyone in jails attacked US invaders?
According to Red Cross, "70% to 90% of Iraqi detainee are innocent."
In a war, or even martial law, situation, some innocents will unfortunately
be arrested. They will eventually be freed.
(How many of Saddam's prisoners were afforded trials?)
So you agree there is no difference between the US and Sadam.
Nope! This is a war situation! You can call them "illegal occupiers", but
they are still running the show. The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
Why did the US
invade Iraq then? No WMD. No links to 9/11, and no difference in torturing
men,
women, and children, without trials.
The "*****" is your contention that the US is intentionally abusing
children.
What exactly was ***** in the orginal story reported by the Norway
newspaper?
You haven't yet shown.
Never anonymous Bud already spelled that out. I don't want to be redundant.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
15 Jul 2004 10:58:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:19:47 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
So you agree there is no difference between the US and Sadam.
Nope! This is a war situation! You can call them "illegal occupiers", but
they are still running the show.
When Sadam gassed Kurds in 1988, it was a war situation (Iran-Iraq war). When
Sadam suppressed Shiite after the first Gulf War, it was a "war situation."
Iraq was continuously bombed since 1991, that makes all Sadam atrocities
excusable because it was a "war situation" (according to your logic).
Nice excuse but it won't work.
The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
The US is the only aggressor that does that? That's just a flat out lie.
What exactly was ***** in the orginal story reported by the Norway
newspaper?
You haven't yet shown.
Never anonymous Bud already spelled that out. I don't want to be redundant.
He refuted nothing. All he has done is claim that since there are no video tapes
of abuse, all the evidence is "hearsay" (including eyewitness US soldier who
confirmed it on German TV). You call that a refutation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
16 Jul 2004 06:53:15 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:60kef0lmejo83mjl0uboaeg2hd4drdpj7f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:19:47 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
So you agree there is no difference between the US and Sadam.
Nope! This is a war situation! You can call them "illegal occupiers",
but
they are still running the show.
When Sadam gassed Kurds in 1988, it was a war situation (Iran-Iraq war).
When
Sadam suppressed Shiite after the first Gulf War, it was a "war
situation."
Iraq was continuously bombed since 1991, that makes all Sadam atrocities
excusable because it was a "war situation" (according to your logic).
Nice excuse but it won't work.
Sorry...HUGE difference between gassing people or other atrocities and
holding them in jail. I never said that all is excusable in a war.
The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
The US is the only aggressor that does that? That's just a flat out lie.
Notice the qualifier: "about". Who else, please? (I already know about
Israel, but thought it would be a little inflammatory to mention).
What exactly was ***** in the orginal story reported by the Norway
newspaper?
You haven't yet shown.
Never anonymous Bud already spelled that out. I don't want to be
redundant.
He refuted nothing. All he has done is claim that since there are no video
tapes
of abuse, all the evidence is "hearsay" (including eyewitness US soldier
who
confirmed it on German TV). You call that a refutation?
It is hearsay. As I said, our anti-American CBC would happily air the
story, were it true. haven't seen anything.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
16 Jul 2004 09:36:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 07:53:15 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
When Sadam gassed Kurds in 1988, it was a war situation (Iran-Iraq war).
When
Sadam suppressed Shiite after the first Gulf War, it was a "war
situation."
Iraq was continuously bombed since 1991, that makes all Sadam atrocities
excusable because it was a "war situation" (according to your logic).
Nice excuse but it won't work.
Sorry...HUGE difference between gassing people or other atrocities and
holding them in jail. I never said that all is excusable in a war.
If you knew anything about Halabja, you would have known that that occurred
during the Iran-Iraq war. It has never been proven beyond doubt that Iraq (not
Iran) was involved in the gassing. In fact, in 1988 the US blamed Iran for the
gassing and continued arming Iraq after Halabja. Why did the US do that? Explain
that.
Is there a difference between "gassing and other atrocities" during war? How
about the US nukes on two cities during WWII? And the US fights the "cleanest"
wars, according to you? Ha ha ha.
The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
The US is the only aggressor that does that? That's just a flat out lie.
Notice the qualifier: "about". Who else, please? (I already know about
Israel, but thought it would be a little inflammatory to mention).
Israel? ha ha. I bet you never heard Israeli policy of "collective punishment."
Look it up. Use google. I will help you:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=collective+punishment+Israel&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=
I am sure several dozen countries (several hundred throughout history) have
better record than US and Israel.
What exactly was ***** in the orginal story reported by the Norway
newspaper?
You haven't yet shown.
Never anonymous Bud already spelled that out. I don't want to be
redundant.
He refuted nothing. All he has done is claim that since there are no video
tapes
of abuse, all the evidence is "hearsay" (including eyewitness US soldier
who
confirmed it on German TV). You call that a refutation?
It is hearsay. As I said, our anti-American CBC would happily air the
story, were it true. haven't seen anything.
It's not hearsay. It's eyewitness account, including a US soldier who witnessed
it. That's not "hearsay." CBC didn't report it? So what? That could also mean
they never got a chance to interview the same eyewitnesses. Are all news reports
not reported by CBC "*****"? You need to take a class in basic logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
16 Jul 2004 12:14:21 PM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:dtnff095ae74mkpdjrg57rovfdokks2d2n@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 07:53:15 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
When Sadam gassed Kurds in 1988, it was a war situation (Iran-Iraq
war).
When
Sadam suppressed Shiite after the first Gulf War, it was a "war
situation."
Iraq was continuously bombed since 1991, that makes all Sadam
atrocities
excusable because it was a "war situation" (according to your logic).
Nice excuse but it won't work.
Sorry...HUGE difference between gassing people or other atrocities and
holding them in jail. I never said that all is excusable in a war.
If you knew anything about Halabja, you would have known that that
occurred
during the Iran-Iraq war. It has never been proven beyond doubt that Iraq
(not
Iran) was involved in the gassing. In fact, in 1988 the US blamed Iran for
the
gassing and continued arming Iraq after Halabja. Why did the US do that?
Explain
that.
At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was an
ally at that time. Circumstances change. Sometimes you have to look the
other way (doesn't make it "right", just necessary).
Is there a difference between "gassing and other atrocities" during war?
How
about the US nukes on two cities during WWII? And the US fights the
"cleanest"
wars, according to you? Ha ha ha.
The US nukes likely saved untold thousands of lives in WWII. The Japanese
were refusing to surrender and the nukes convinced them.
The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
The US is the only aggressor that does that? That's just a flat out
lie.
Notice the qualifier: "about". Who else, please? (I already know about
Israel, but thought it would be a little inflammatory to mention).
Israel? ha ha. I bet you never heard Israeli policy of "collective
punishment."
Look it up. Use google. I will help you:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=collective+punishment+Israel&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp
-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=
Completely different. The Palestinians brought it on themselves. Israel
has the right to defend itself against suicide bombs any way it can. Fairly
benign, in fact; they could massacre them.
I am sure several dozen countries (several hundred throughout history)
have
better record than US and Israel.
Name them, please.
What exactly was ***** in the orginal story reported by the
Norway
newspaper?
You haven't yet shown.
Never anonymous Bud already spelled that out. I don't want to be
redundant.
He refuted nothing. All he has done is claim that since there are no
video
tapes
of abuse, all the evidence is "hearsay" (including eyewitness US
soldier
who
confirmed it on German TV). You call that a refutation?
It is hearsay. As I said, our anti-American CBC would happily air the
story, were it true. haven't seen anything.
It's not hearsay. It's eyewitness account, including a US soldier who
witnessed
it. That's not "hearsay." CBC didn't report it? So what? That could also
mean
they never got a chance to interview the same eyewitnesses. Are all news
reports
not reported by CBC "*****"? You need to take a class in basic logic.
Not at all. I just know that, were the story verifiable, it would have been
picked up by many agencies, including the CBC. Personally, I hate the CBC
and would abolish it...but it would be all over a story such as this like
flies on ***** were it proven. Anything to make the Americans look bad.
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
17 Jul 2004 06:01:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:14:21 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you knew anything about Halabja, you would have known that that
occurred
during the Iran-Iraq war. It has never been proven beyond doubt that Iraq
(not
Iran) was involved in the gassing. In fact, in 1988 the US blamed Iran for
the
gassing and continued arming Iraq after Halabja. Why did the US do that?
Explain
that.
At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was an
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.
Is there a difference between "gassing and other atrocities" during war?
How
about the US nukes on two cities during WWII? And the US fights the
"cleanest"
wars, according to you? Ha ha ha.
The US nukes likely saved untold thousands of lives in WWII. The Japanese
were refusing to surrender and the nukes convinced them.
And the guy who gassed Halabja claims he did it to convince the Kurds to end the
war and to save lives. What are you whining about then?
The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
The US is the only aggressor that does that? That's just a flat out
lie.
Notice the qualifier: "about". Who else, please? (I already know about
Israel, but thought it would be a little inflammatory to mention).
Israel? ha ha. I bet you never heard Israeli policy of "collective
punishment."
Look it up. Use google. I will help you:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=collective+punishment+Israel&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp
-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=
Completely different. The Palestinians brought it on themselves. Israel
has the right to defend itself against suicide bombs any way it can. Fairly
benign, in fact; they could massacre them.
Israel is responsible. Israel is occupying their land and building illegal
settlements on the occupied territories (violations of Geneva Convention).
Israel could massacre them in theory but in practice they can't because of
political consequences. Though they do everything else (like use Collective
Punishment -- another violation of international law).
I am sure several dozen countries (several hundred throughout history)
have
better record than US and Israel.
Name them, please.
How about many British colonial wars like in India? Did they go on killing
civilians indiscriminately? How about French wars in North Africa? How were they
worse than most American wars? How about the 1965 India-Pakistan war? Did they
bomb each other cities to kill civilians indiscriminately? I don't think so. Go
back a thousand year. How about Saladin reconquest of Jerusalem from the
Crusaders? Did he massacre civilians? How about the Arab conquest of Spain? Did
they massacre civilians randomly? I bet there are hundreds of wars better than
most American wars, like Vietnam, where they did kill a million civilians.
It's not hearsay. It's eyewitness account, including a US soldier who
witnessed
it. That's not "hearsay." CBC didn't report it? So what? That could also
mean
they never got a chance to interview the same eyewitnesses. Are all news
reports
not reported by CBC "*****"? You need to take a class in basic logic.
Not at all. I just know that, were the story verifiable, it would have been
picked up by many agencies, including the CBC. Personally, I hate the CBC
and would abolish it...but it would be all over a story such as this like
flies on ***** were it proven. Anything to make the Americans look bad.
That's not a logical argument. If you knew anything about logic, you would know
that the argument "all anti-American news stories not reported by CBC are false"
is an illogical argument.
Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
17 Jul 2004 06:57:02 PM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:5iuhf0topjuonp5l54ughu8hj76t6hbt6o@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:14:21 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you knew anything about Halabja, you would have known that that
occurred
during the Iran-Iraq war. It has never been proven beyond doubt that
Iraq
(not
Iran) was involved in the gassing. In fact, in 1988 the US blamed Iran
for
the
gassing and continued arming Iraq after Halabja. Why did the US do
that?
Explain
that.
At that time, Iraq was a lesser danger to the US than Iran. Saddam was
an
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.
Is there a difference between "gassing and other atrocities" during
war?
How
about the US nukes on two cities during WWII? And the US fights the
"cleanest"
wars, according to you? Ha ha ha.
The US nukes likely saved untold thousands of lives in WWII. The
Japanese
were refusing to surrender and the nukes convinced them.
And the guy who gassed Halabja claims he did it to convince the Kurds to
end the
war and to save lives.
Cite?
What are you whining about then?
The US is about the only aggressor that
goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as much as
possible.
The US is the only aggressor that does that? That's just a flat out
lie.
Notice the qualifier: "about". Who else, please? (I already know
about
Israel, but thought it would be a little inflammatory to mention).
Israel? ha ha. I bet you never heard Israeli policy of "collective
punishment."
Look it up. Use google. I will help you:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=collective+punishment+Israel&ei=UTF-8&fr=f
p
-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=
Completely different. The Palestinians brought it on themselves. Israel
has the right to defend itself against suicide bombs any way it can.
Fairly
benign, in fact; they could massacre them.
Israel is responsible. Israel is occupying their land and building illegal
settlements on the occupied territories (violations of Geneva Convention).
Israel is only occupying their land because the arabs attacked first. They
have already returned the Sinai to Egypt, because Sadat was willing to be
reasonable. Look what he got for it.
Israel could massacre them in theory but in practice they can't because of
political consequences. Though they do everything else (like use
Collective
Punishment -- another violation of international law).
The Israelis were happy to share the land with the Palestinians. They
refused because they refuse to willingly allow Israel to exist.
I am sure several dozen countries (several hundred throughout history)
have
better record than US and Israel.
Name them, please.
How about many British colonial wars like in India? Did they go on killing
civilians indiscriminately? How about French wars in North Africa? How
were they
worse than most American wars? How about the 1965 India-Pakistan war? Did
they
bomb each other cities to kill civilians indiscriminately? I don't think
so. Go
back a thousand year. How about Saladin reconquest of Jerusalem from the
Crusaders? Did he massacre civilians? How about the Arab conquest of
Spain? Did
they massacre civilians randomly? I bet there are hundreds of wars better
than
most American wars, like Vietnam, where they did kill a million civilians.
I will have to check on those. I suspect they were not as clean as you are
saying. Of course, if a people surrender quickly, a conquest can happen
without much bloodshed. There have been relatively few civilian deaths in
Iraq, compared to, say, the 10 year war with Iran.
Mind you, wars have traditionally entailed a great number of civilian
casualties, unfortunately.
It's not hearsay. It's eyewitness account, including a US soldier who
witnessed
it. That's not "hearsay." CBC didn't report it? So what? That could
also
mean
they never got a chance to interview the same eyewitnesses. Are all
news
reports
not reported by CBC "*****"? You need to take a class in basic
logic.
Not at all. I just know that, were the story verifiable, it would have
been
picked up by many agencies, including the CBC. Personally, I hate the
CBC
and would abolish it...but it would be all over a story such as this like
flies on ***** were it proven. Anything to make the Americans look bad.
That's not a logical argument. If you knew anything about logic, you would
know
that the argument "all anti-American news stories not reported by CBC are
false"
is an illogical argument.
Try again.
That is not what I was saying and you know it! My point is that it was
reported by an obscure source with no proof whatsoever. If there is a film,
lets see it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
18 Jul 2004 05:57:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
Israel is only occupying their land because the arabs attacked first.
That's not true. A chapter from a book published by Jews for Justice in
the Middle East
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
**********************************
The 1967 War and the
Israeli Occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a
hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on
Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist
according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had
the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would
not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave
the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians
were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the
Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the
farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the
land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do
anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would
start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance
further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it
was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The
New York Times, May 11, 1997
The history of Israeli expansionism
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one
does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in
the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the
concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."
David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Expansionism - continued
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to
other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of
territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this
aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli
policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the
restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli
professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000
Years."
Expansionism - continued
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt
from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see
the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale
high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must -
invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of
provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the
Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our
space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."
But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's security?
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee
Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if
necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN
Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet
Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into
compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force.
Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would
be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal,
however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,'
writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to
act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American
Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]
What happened after the 1967 war ended?
"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of
the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or
for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military
government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this
period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various
periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against
Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.
World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.
"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even
by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's
occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was
defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN]
General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as
a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to
international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A
Challenge to Justice."
Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation
"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating
Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families
frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to
report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West
Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'
"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than
five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While
Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the
lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot
August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the
unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.
Israeli occupation - continued
"You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more have
experienced - some many, many times - the [Israeli] army breaking into the home,
beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had bones
broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and
neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of]
security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does not.
In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma tend to
be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political beliefs." Dr
Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health
Programme, quoted in "The Journal of Palestine Studies," Summer 1996, p.84
Israeli occupation - continued
"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old
[Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel
in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one
day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had
been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done - the
land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next day by
an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license.
Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied
them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians.
This is apartheid." Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.
All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct
violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order
as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that
it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its
own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the
convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or
transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'"
John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada
"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:
1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers
frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to
troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not
directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen
Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'
1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted
as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had
surrendered, or after they had been subdued...
1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published 'detailed
credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in
prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley, "Deliberate
Deceptions."
Jerusalem - Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?
"Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out that
the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility for
drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze'evi. The line he
drew 'took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem - but
also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of
which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part of
Israel's eternal and indivisible capital.'" Allan Brownfield in The Washington
Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
18 Jul 2004 08:42:26 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:7blkf05ph9gnrda39luql0m6sni0r85k8f@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
Israel is only occupying their land because the arabs attacked first.
That's not true. A chapter from a book published by Jews for Justice in
the Middle East
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
**********************************
The 1967 War and the
Israeli Occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally
claimed?
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as
a
hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack
on
Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could
'exist
according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem
Begin had
the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai
would
not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we
knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967,
gave
the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the
Syrians
were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who
pressed the
Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the
farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for
the
land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible
to do
anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians
would
start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance
further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's
how it
was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to
us.'" The
New York Times, May 11, 1997
The history of Israeli expansionism
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan;
one
does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a
state in
the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are
the
concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit
them."
David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Expansionism - continued
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own
people, to
other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of
territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from
this
aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that
Israeli
policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on
the
restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state."
Israeli
professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of
3000
Years."
Expansionism - continued
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an
excerpt
from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must
see
the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its
morale
high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it
must -
invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of
provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with
the
Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire
our
space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."
But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's
security?
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should
guarantee
Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if
necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN
Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the
Soviet
Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into
compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the
Gaza
Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force.
Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest
would
be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The
proposal,
however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted
Fulbright,'
writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing
to
act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the
American
Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]
What happened after the 1967 war ended?
"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent
of
the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military
use or
for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military
government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this
period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for
various
periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising
Against
Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.
World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and
Gaza.
"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war,
even
by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to
Israel's
occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's
action was
defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The
[UN]
General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza as
a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat
to
international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel:
A
Challenge to Justice."
Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation
"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating
Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families
frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes
further to
report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the
West
Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'
"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert
less than
five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While
Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates,
the
lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in
the hot
August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to
the
unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.
Israeli occupation - continued
"You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more
have
experienced - some many, many times - the [Israeli] army breaking into the
home,
beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had
bones
broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and
neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of]
security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does
not.
In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma
tend to
be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political
beliefs." Dr
Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health
Programme, quoted in "The Journal of Palestine Studies," Summer 1996, p.84
Israeli occupation - continued
"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a
35-year-old
[Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in
Israel
in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be
shocked one
day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it
had
been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done -
the
land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next
day by
an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a
license.
Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always
denied
them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never
Palestinians.
This is apartheid." Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.
All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a
direct
violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing
order
as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is
that
it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring
its
own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the
convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not
deport or
transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies.'"
John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada
"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country
Reports on
Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:
1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli
soldiers
frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger
to
troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who
were not
directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen
Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'
1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel
acted
as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after
they had
surrendered, or after they had been subdued...
1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published
'detailed
credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian
detainees in
prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley,
"Deliberate
Deceptions."
Jerusalem - Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?
"Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out
that
the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility
for
drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze'evi. The line
he
drew 'took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem -
but
also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most
of
which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became
part of
Israel's eternal and indivisible capital.'" Allan Brownfield in The
Washington
Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.
Spare me Noam Chomsky! I did read the whole thing, but I do tend to "glaze
over" when I see his name!
Jane
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
19 Jul 2004 05:36:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:42:26 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as
a
hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack
on
Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could
'exist
according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem
Begin had
the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Spare me Noam Chomsky! I did read the whole thing, but I do tend to "glaze
over" when I see his name!
Delete the irrelevant part when you resond. It's a waste of bandwidth. What? Are
you a newbie to USENET?
The quote was from Chomsky book, yes, but Chomsky was quoting Menahem
Begin. You can trace the orginal quote using websearch.
(not that there is anything wrong with quoting Chomsky)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: US ABUSES CHILDREN IN IRAQ |
18 Jul 2004 08:33:00 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:7blkf05ph9gnrda39luql0m6sni0r85k8f@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:57:02 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
Israel is only occupying their land because the arabs attacked first.
That's not true. A chapter from a book published by Jews for Justice in
the Middle East
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
Hmmm, interesting source...not biased at all...
**********************************
The 1967 War and the
Israeli Occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally
claimed?
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as
a
hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack
on
Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could
'exist
according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem
Begin had
the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai
would
not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we
knew it."
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights
"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967,
gave
the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the
Syrians
were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who
pressed the
Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the
farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for
the
land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible
to do
anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians
would
start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance
further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's
how it
was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to
us.'" The
New York Times, May 11, 1997
The history of Israeli expansionism
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan;
one
does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a
state in
the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are
the
concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit
them."
David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Expansionism - continued
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own
people, to
other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of
territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from
this
aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that
Israeli
policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on
the
restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state."
Israeli
professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of
3000
Years."
Expansionism - continued
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an
excerpt
from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must
see
the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its
morale
high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it
must -
invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of
provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with
the
Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire
our
space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."
But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's
security?
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should
guarantee
Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if
necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN
Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the
Soviet
Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into
compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the
Gaza
Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force.
Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest
would
be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The
proposal,
however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted
Fulbright,'
writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing
to
act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the
American
Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]
What happened after the 1967 war ended?
"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent
of
the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military
use or
for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military
government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this
period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for
various
periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising
Against
Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.
World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and
Gaza.
"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war,
even
by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to
Israel's
occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's
action was
defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The
[UN]
General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza as
a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat
to
international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel:
A
Challenge to Justice."
Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation
"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating
Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families
frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes
further to
report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the
West
Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'
"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert
less than
five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While
Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates,
the
lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in
the hot
August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to
the
unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.
Israeli occupation - continued
"You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more
have
experienced - some many, many times - the [Israeli] army breaking into the
home,
beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had
bones
broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and
neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of]
security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does
not.
In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma
tend to
be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political
beliefs." Dr
Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health
Programme, quoted in "The Journal of Palestine Studies," Summer 1996, p.84
Israeli occupation - continued
"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a
35-year-old
[Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in
Israel
in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be
shocked one
day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it
had
been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done -
the
land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next
day by
an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a
license.
Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always
denied
them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never
Palestinians.
This is apartheid." Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
