| Author | Message | | Guest | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Eyes wide shut |
| | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | But seemingly keeping your eyes shut, but good, when it comes to any mention the Israeli attack on the HMS Crane, or the Egyptian attack on the American oil company plane, etc., etc.
How so selective. |
The "Egyptian" attack on the U.S. oil co. plane was about as Egyptian as kreplach, and gefilte fish. It was exposed as a Jew attack by one of the Israelis, er "Egyptians". It is why no mention of it in the (Jew-dominated media). |
Thank you for demonstrating what a foolish post looks like. "It was exposed"? Right ....
New York Times: "U.A.R. Said to Down U.S. Civil Aircraft", 20 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "Downing of Plane Verified By Cairo", 21 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Protests to Cairo Likely on Downing of Plane", 22 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Disputes U.A.R. on Plane's Downing", 23 Dec. 1964;
Gee, the N.Y. Times...it's gotta be right. After all they were wrong about , I mean right about Wen Lee, the Chinese "spy", wrong, I mean right about the Lavon affair (they blamed THAT on Egypt, too, schmuck)
The N.Y. Times is a lying Jew rag, with truly decrepit writing. It's only the "paper of record" for Jews, and the suckers who believe their bullshit.
New York Times: "U.S. Plane Protest Spurned by Cairo", 25 Dec. 1964.
Now, go play in your sandbox. | | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:51 pm Post subject: Re: Eyes wide shut |
| | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | But seemingly keeping your eyes shut, but good, when it comes to any mention the Israeli attack on the HMS Crane, or the Egyptian attack on the American oil company plane, etc., etc.
How so selective. |
The "Egyptian" attack on the U.S. oil co. plane was about as Egyptian as kreplach, and gefilte fish. It was exposed as a Jew attack by one of the Israelis, er "Egyptians". It is why no mention of it in the (Jew-dominated media). |
Thank you for demonstrating what a foolish post looks like. "It was exposed"? Right ....
New York Times: "U.A.R. Said to Down U.S. Civil Aircraft", 20 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "Downing of Plane Verified By Cairo", 21 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Protests to Cairo Likely on Downing of Plane", 22 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Disputes U.A.R. on Plane's Downing", 23 Dec. 1964;
Gee, the N.Y. Times...it's gotta be right. After all they were wrong about , I mean right about Wen Lee, the Chinese "spy", wrong, I mean right about the Lavon affair (they blamed THAT on Egypt, too, schmuck)
The N.Y. Times is a lying Jew rag, with truly decrepit writing. It's only the "paper of record" for Jews, and the suckers who believe their bullshit.
New York Times: "U.S. Plane Protest Spurned by Cairo", 25 Dec. 1964.
Now, go play in your sandbox. | |
New York Times: "Wen Lee likely Chinese Spy, August 11, 2000
Now go fuck your Uncle Hesh | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Eyes wide shut |
| | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | But seemingly keeping your eyes shut, but good, when it comes to any mention the Israeli attack on the HMS Crane, or the Egyptian attack on the American oil company plane, etc., etc.
How so selective. |
The "Egyptian" attack on the U.S. oil co. plane was about as Egyptian as kreplach, and gefilte fish. It was exposed as a Jew attack by one of the Israelis, er "Egyptians". It is why no mention of it in the (Jew-dominated media). |
Thank you for demonstrating what a foolish post looks like. "It was exposed"? Right ....
New York Times: "U.A.R. Said to Down U.S. Civil Aircraft", 20 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "Downing of Plane Verified By Cairo", 21 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Protests to Cairo Likely on Downing of Plane", 22 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Disputes U.A.R. on Plane's Downing", 23 Dec. 1964;
Gee, the N.Y. Times...it's gotta be right. After all they were wrong about , I mean right about Wen Lee, the Chinese "spy", wrong, I mean right about the Lavon affair (they blamed THAT on Egypt, too, schmuck)
The N.Y. Times is a lying Jew rag, with truly decrepit writing. It's only the "paper of record" for Jews, and the suckers who believe their bullshit.
New York Times: "U.S. Plane Protest Spurned by Cairo", 25 Dec. 1964.
Now, go play in your sandbox. | |
New York Times: "Wen Lee likely Chinese Spy, August 11, 2000
Now go fuck your Uncle Hesh |
It's understood you're not playing with a full deck, especially attempting to compare two totally unrelated subjects and the contexts thereof, but just to nail the coffin completely shut:
| Quote: | FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1964-1968,
Volume XVIII Arab-Israeli Dispute,
1964-67
Department of State
Washington, DC
Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964-1967
115. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
Washington, December 23, 1964.
/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL UAR- US. Secret. Drafted by Davies on December 28 and approved in M on December 31.
SUBJECT
U.S.-U.A.R. Relations
PARTICIPANTS
The Secretary
M--Governor Harriman
AF--Governor Williams
NEA--Mr. Phillips Talbot
AA/NESA--Ambassador William Macomber
AA/AFR--Mr. Edmond Hutchinson
AFN--Mr. David Newsom
NE--Mr. Rodger Davies
Mr. Talbot said at the same time we must recognize that Nasser's policies and such recent incidents as the library burning, attack against the Mecom plane,/4/ and the Port Said speech would raise tremendous pressure domestically for termination of aid. If we decide to continue economic assistance, it will perhaps be necessary for a full and frank briefing of the Foreign Relations Committee and key members of Congress.
/4/Reference is to an airplane owned by U.S. citizen John W. Mecom, which was shot down while overflying Egyptian territory on December 19. Related documentation is in the National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL 31-1 UAR-US. |
or just go to
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xviii/l.html
to read all of document #115.
Or in your case, just continue to play in the sandbox, as it's about all you're qualified to do. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 4:17 am Post subject: Re: Eyes wide shut |
| | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | But seemingly keeping your eyes shut, but good, when it comes to any mention the Israeli attack on the HMS Crane, or the Egyptian attack on the American oil company plane, etc., etc.
How so selective. |
The "Egyptian" attack on the U.S. oil co. plane was about as Egyptian as kreplach, and gefilte fish. It was exposed as a Jew attack by one of the Israelis, er "Egyptians". It is why no mention of it in the (Jew-dominated media). |
Thank you for demonstrating what a foolish post looks like. "It was exposed"? Right ....
New York Times: "U.A.R. Said to Down U.S. Civil Aircraft", 20 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "Downing of Plane Verified By Cairo", 21 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Protests to Cairo Likely on Downing of Plane", 22 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Disputes U.A.R. on Plane's Downing", 23 Dec. 1964;
Gee, the N.Y. Times...it's gotta be right. After all they were wrong about , I mean right about Wen Lee, the Chinese "spy", wrong, I mean right about the Lavon affair (they blamed THAT on Egypt, too, schmuck)
The N.Y. Times is a lying Jew rag, with truly decrepit writing. It's only the "paper of record" for Jews, and the suckers who believe their bullshit.
New York Times: "U.S. Plane Protest Spurned by Cairo", 25 Dec. 1964.
Now, go play in your sandbox. | |
New York Times: "Wen Lee likely Chinese Spy, August 11, 2000
Now go fuck your Uncle Hesh |
It's understood you're not playing with a full deck, especially attempting to compare two totally unrelated subjects and the contexts thereof, but just to nail the coffin completely shut:
| Quote: | FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1964-1968,
Volume XVIII Arab-Israeli Dispute,
1964-67
Department of State
Washington, DC
Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964-1967
115. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
Washington, December 23, 1964.
/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL UAR- US. Secret. Drafted by Davies on December 28 and approved in M on December 31.
SUBJECT
U.S.-U.A.R. Relations
PARTICIPANTS
The Secretary
M--Governor Harriman
AF--Governor Williams
NEA--Mr. Phillips Talbot
AA/NESA--Ambassador William Macomber
AA/AFR--Mr. Edmond Hutchinson
AFN--Mr. David Newsom
NE--Mr. Rodger Davies
Mr. Talbot said at the same time we must recognize that Nasser's policies and such recent incidents as the library burning, attack against the Mecom plane,/4/ and the Port Said speech would raise tremendous pressure domestically for termination of aid. If we decide to continue economic assistance, it will perhaps be necessary for a full and frank briefing of the Foreign Relations Committee and key members of Congress.
/4/Reference is to an airplane owned by U.S. citizen John W. Mecom, which was shot down while overflying Egyptian territory on December 19. Related documentation is in the National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL 31-1 UAR-US. |
or just go to
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xviii/l.html
to read all of document #115.
Or in your case, just continue to play in the sandbox, as it's about all you're qualified to do. |
Well, you're the shuffler, Diamond Seth, we'll have to concede your hopeless;y fatuous points.
meanwhile, keep defending the indefensible, make yourself as morally repulsive as you possibly can, and don't let it affect your haircut. After all, We're all sure you have a few deuces & threes stashed behind your jug ears. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:56 am Post subject: |
| | holy cow, such wit. be sure to impress your "friends" with such. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Eyes wide shut |
| | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: | But seemingly keeping your eyes shut, but good, when it comes to any mention the Israeli attack on the HMS Crane, or the Egyptian attack on the American oil company plane, etc., etc.
How so selective. |
The "Egyptian" attack on the U.S. oil co. plane was about as Egyptian as kreplach, and gefilte fish. It was exposed as a Jew attack by one of the Israelis, er "Egyptians". It is why no mention of it in the (Jew-dominated media). |
Thank you for demonstrating what a foolish post looks like. "It was exposed"? Right ....
New York Times: "U.A.R. Said to Down U.S. Civil Aircraft", 20 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "Downing of Plane Verified By Cairo", 21 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Protests to Cairo Likely on Downing of Plane", 22 Dec. 1964;
New York Times: "U.S. Disputes U.A.R. on Plane's Downing", 23 Dec. 1964;
Gee, the N.Y. Times...it's gotta be right. After all they were wrong about , I mean right about Wen Lee, the Chinese "spy", wrong, I mean right about the Lavon affair (they blamed THAT on Egypt, too, schmuck)
The N.Y. Times is a lying Jew rag, with truly decrepit writing. It's only the "paper of record" for Jews, and the suckers who believe their bullshit.
New York Times: "U.S. Plane Protest Spurned by Cairo", 25 Dec. 1964.
Now, go play in your sandbox. | |
New York Times: "Wen Lee likely Chinese Spy, August 11, 2000
Now go fuck your Uncle Hesh |
It's understood you're not playing with a full deck, especially attempting to compare two totally unrelated subjects and the contexts thereof, but just to nail the coffin completely shut:
| Quote: | FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1964-1968,
Volume XVIII Arab-Israeli Dispute,
1964-67
Department of State
Washington, DC
Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964-1967
115. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
Washington, December 23, 1964.
/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL UAR- US. Secret. Drafted by Davies on December 28 and approved in M on December 31.
SUBJECT
U.S.-U.A.R. Relations
PARTICIPANTS
The Secretary
M--Governor Harriman
AF--Governor Williams
NEA--Mr. Phillips Talbot
AA/NESA--Ambassador William Macomber
AA/AFR--Mr. Edmond Hutchinson
AFN--Mr. David Newsom
NE--Mr. Rodger Davies
Mr. Talbot said at the same time we must recognize that Nasser's policies and such recent incidents as the library burning, attack against the Mecom plane,/4/ and the Port Said speech would raise tremendous pressure domestically for termination of aid. If we decide to continue economic assistance, it will perhaps be necessary for a full and frank briefing of the Foreign Relations Committee and key members of Congress.
/4/Reference is to an airplane owned by U.S. citizen John W. Mecom, which was shot down while overflying Egyptian territory on December 19. Related documentation is in the National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, POL 31-1 UAR-US. |
or just go to
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xviii/l.html
to read all of document #115.
Or in your case, just continue to play in the sandbox, as it's about all you're qualified to do. |
only those truly stupid would continue to claim that the event didn't happen, and that the egyptians didn't do it. i see someone does fit that definition. | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:05 pm Post subject: |
| Do you actually ever read what you link to? Do you think that by stringing together enough unproven accusations with weasel-wording somebody has actually supporting something? The following came from your linked article.
"...he affirmed that Bush did nothing..." Affirmed. NOT Confirmed.
"He was in a position to have direct knowledge..." NOT proved he had direct knowledge.
"His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere." NOT evidence. Just political disagreement.
"His military assignment brought him into contact with..." NOT his contact proved anything.
"...Newsweek reported: "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests..." NOT first-hand information proving anything.
"...citing "a high-ranking Pentagon official"...." NOT a quote from any named person.
"...have the same names as..." NOT have been proven to be the same people.
"...cited Air Force sources ..." NOT any named people.
"...indicating that..." NOT any clear proof of anything.
"...The Lieutenant Colonel may well know ..."
Nowhere in the article does the author actually prove anything. Nor does he actually disprove anything said by Pentagon or administration officials. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:02 pm Post subject: Mossad: Israeli Treachery against USA |
| U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study
by Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times September 10, 2001
(Article ID: U00682760115, available through http://www.washtimes.com/archives.htm, search key "MOSSAD SAMS"
An elite U.S. Army study center has devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state.
There are no plans by the Bush administration to put American soldiers into the Middle East to police an agreement forged by the longtime warring parties. In fact, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is searching for ways to reduce U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad, rather than increasing such missions.
But a 68-page paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) does provide a look at the daunting task any international peacekeeping force would face if the United Nations authorized it, and Israel and the Palestinians ever reached a peace agreement. Located at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army's brightest officers. Officials say the Army chief of staff, and sometimes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask SAMS to develop contingency plans for future military operations. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, SAMS personnel helped plan the coalition ground attack that avoided a strike up the middle of Iraqi positions and instead executed a "left hook" that routed the enemy in 100 hours.
The cover page for the recent SAMS project said it was done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But Maj. Chris Garver, a Fort Leavenworth spokesman, said the study was not requested by Washington.
"This was just an academic exercise," said Maj. Garver. "They were trying to take a current situation and get some training out of it."
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
On the Palestinian side, the paper describes their youth as "loose cannons; under no control, sometimes violent." The study lists five Arab terrorist groups that could target American troops for assassination and hostage-taking.
The study recommends "neutrality in word and deed" as one way to protect U.S. soldiers from any attack. It also says Syria, Egypt and Jordan must be warned "we will act decisively in response to external attack."
It is unlikely either of the three would mount an attack. Of Syria's military, the report says: "Syrian army quantitatively larger than Israeli Defense Forces, but largely seen as qualitatively inferior. More likely, however, Syrians would provide financial and political support to the Palestinians, as well as increase covert support to terrorism acts through Lebanon."
Of Egypt's military, the paper says, "Egyptians also maintain a large army but have little to gain by attacking Israel."
The plan does not specify a full order of battle. An Army source who reviewed the SAMS work said each of a possible three brigades would require about 100 Bradley fighting vehicles, 25 tanks, 12 self-propelled howitzers, Apache attack helicopters, Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance helicopters and Predator spy drones.
The report predicts that non-lethal weapons would be used to quell unrest.
U.S. European Command, which is headed by NATO's supreme allied commander, would oversee the peacekeeping operation. Commanders would maintain areas of operation, or AOs, around Nablus, Jerusalem, Hebron and the Gaza strip.
The study sets out a list of goals for U.S. troops to accomplish in the first 30 days. They include: "create conditions for development of Palestinian State and security of Israel "; ensure "equal distribution of contract value or equivalent aid" . . . that would help legitimize the peacekeeping force and stimulate economic growth; "promote U.S. investment in Palestine"; "encourage reconciliation between entities based on acceptance of new national identities"; and "build lasting relationship based on new legal borders and not religious-territorial claims."
Maj. Garver said the officers who completed the exercise will hold major planning jobs once they graduate. "There is an application process" for students, he said. "They screen their records, and there are several tests they go through before they are accepted by the program. The bright planners of the future come out of this program."
James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said it would be a mistake to put peacekeepers in Israel, given the "poor record of previous monitors."
"In general, the Bush administration policy is to discourage a large American presence," he said. "But it has been rumored that one of the possibilities might be an expanded CIA role."
"It would be a very different environment than Bosnia," said Mr. Phillips, referring to America's six-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The Palestinian Authority is pushing for this as part of its strategy to internationalize the conflict. Bring in the Europeans and Russia and China. But such monitors or peacekeeping forces are not going to be able to bring peace. Only a decision by the Palestinians to stop the violence and restart talks could possibly do that." | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
