| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:44 pm Post subject: Gen. Franks Says Threat on Israel Justified Iraq Invasion |
| To: USQuagmire@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Gen. Franks says Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:32:10 -0700
We have Dick Cheney telling Ariel Sharon in March of 2002 that the US will Invade Iraq to protect Israel. This is according to Ariel Sharon, as he stated on Israeli radio.
We have General Zinni, Senator Hollingsworth and Patrick Buchanan saying the same thing.
We have Richard Clarke pointing, though carefully skirting complete implication, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict being the key issue to terrorism.
We have retired Brigadier General David writing a letter to the editor in Atlanta this past winter saying this.
We have Chalabi removed once he reneges on his promise to the neocons to complete a pipeline from Iraq to Haifa in order to supply Israel with a never ending stream of cheap oil.
We have Condi Rice stating on national television six weeks before 9/11 that Saddam Hussein is not a threat nuclear or otherwise and he is effectively contained. What changed in six weeks?
We have the PNAC report, created by a military think tank for Israel in the US outlining all of this, including a "second Pearl Harbor" like event.
And now we have General Tommy Franks stating Israel was to be protected and this justified our breaking international law.
Is there anyone out there that still thinks Israel was not the prime motivation for invading Iraq and that main objective included securing oil for Israel first? Israel and persons in our government tied to military and energy contracts are the exclusive beneficiaries of 9/11. Israel hold over 40% of the contracts in Iraq, they receive more "free" armaments and increased funds from the United States and Sharon now has license due to President Bush to completely annihilate the Palestinians. And is there anyone who still believes they are not the primary influencer and decision makers for our defense and international policy?
This just disgusts me! That country is like a tick imbedded under the skin of the US Government contaminating and feeding off of us while it stays secure, safe and warm. Uhg!
-LDL
Franks: Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
08/10/04 "JTA" -- The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Given that all the other reasons for invading Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, 45 minute launch warning, link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, link between Saddam and 9-11, all turned out to be fake, it would appear that the only REAL reason for the war was Israel!
Gen. Tommy Franks: Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
08/10/04 "JTA" -- The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Franks, who retired from the U.S. military last year after leading the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he supported the Bush administration policy of pre-emption. “The reason we could not afford to give up time is because we wanted the water infrastructure to remain in place,” Franks said Monday at the National Press Club. “We wanted the oil infrastructure in Iraq to remain in place. We did not want to subject ourselves and Israel to the potential consequence of a long-range missile being fired into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.”
Franks also said Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians fuels anti-U.S. resentment in the Middle East.
Copyright: JTA
The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Franks: Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Franks, who retired from the U.S. military last year after leading the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he supported the Bush administration policy of pre-emption. “The reason we could not afford to give up time is because we wanted the water infrastructure to remain in place,” Franks said Monday at the National Press Club. “We wanted the oil infrastructure in Iraq to remain in place. We did not want to subject ourselves and Israel to the potential consequence of a long-range missile being fired into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.”
Franks also said Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians fuels anti-U.S. resentment in the Middle East.
http://www.jta.org/ | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: Gen. Franks Says Threat on Israel Justified Iraq Invasio |
| The war in Iraq was for for the Zionist (JINSA/CSP/PNAC) Neocon agenda and their Likud cronies in Israel (what is the background on General Tommy Franks as I have heard that he is of Russian Jew descent as he certainly looks like one - keep in mind that the agenda of the Zionist JINSA/CSP/PNAC neocons at the Pentagon was to interwine the US military and Israeli military so they could never be separated - what better way to ensure such than to put in Israel firster Zionist Jews in the upper level command positions):
| Alpha wrote: | To: USQuagmire@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Gen. Franks says Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:32:10 -0700
We have Dick Cheney telling Ariel Sharon in March of 2002 that the US will Invade Iraq to protect Israel. This is according to Ariel Sharon, as he stated on Israeli radio.
We have General Zinni, Senator Hollingsworth and Patrick Buchanan saying the same thing.
We have Richard Clarke pointing, though carefully skirting complete implication, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict being the key issue to terrorism.
We have retired Brigadier General David writing a letter to the editor in Atlanta this past winter saying this.
We have Chalabi removed once he reneges on his promise to the neocons to complete a pipeline from Iraq to Haifa in order to supply Israel with a never ending stream of cheap oil.
We have Condi Rice stating on national television six weeks before 9/11 that Saddam Hussein is not a threat nuclear or otherwise and he is effectively contained. What changed in six weeks?
We have the PNAC report, created by a military think tank for Israel in the US outlining all of this, including a "second Pearl Harbor" like event.
And now we have General Tommy Franks stating Israel was to be protected and this justified our breaking international law.
Is there anyone out there that still thinks Israel was not the prime motivation for invading Iraq and that main objective included securing oil for Israel first? Israel and persons in our government tied to military and energy contracts are the exclusive beneficiaries of 9/11. Israel hold over 40% of the contracts in Iraq, they receive more "free" armaments and increased funds from the United States and Sharon now has license due to President Bush to completely annihilate the Palestinians. And is there anyone who still believes they are not the primary influencer and decision makers for our defense and international policy?
This just disgusts me! That country is like a tick imbedded under the skin of the US Government contaminating and feeding off of us while it stays secure, safe and warm. Uhg!
-LDL
Franks: Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
08/10/04 "JTA" -- The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Given that all the other reasons for invading Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, 45 minute launch warning, link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, link between Saddam and 9-11, all turned out to be fake, it would appear that the only REAL reason for the war was Israel!
Gen. Tommy Franks: Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
08/10/04 "JTA" -- The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Franks, who retired from the U.S. military last year after leading the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he supported the Bush administration policy of pre-emption. “The reason we could not afford to give up time is because we wanted the water infrastructure to remain in place,” Franks said Monday at the National Press Club. “We wanted the oil infrastructure in Iraq to remain in place. We did not want to subject ourselves and Israel to the potential consequence of a long-range missile being fired into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.”
Franks also said Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians fuels anti-U.S. resentment in the Middle East.
Copyright: JTA
The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Franks: Threat on Israel justified pre-emption
The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.
Franks, who retired from the U.S. military last year after leading the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he supported the Bush administration policy of pre-emption. “The reason we could not afford to give up time is because we wanted the water infrastructure to remain in place,” Franks said Monday at the National Press Club. “We wanted the oil infrastructure in Iraq to remain in place. We did not want to subject ourselves and Israel to the potential consequence of a long-range missile being fired into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.”
Franks also said Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians fuels anti-U.S. resentment in the Middle East.
http://www.jta.org/ | | | | | Alpha | | | | dangerousdna | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:26 am Post subject: US assault kills hundreds of Iraqis in Najaf |
| http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/naja-a09_prn.shtml
US assault kills hundreds of Iraqis in Najaf
By James Conachy
9 August 2004
The US and allied occupation forces in Iraq have launched a bloody attack on densely populated urban areas where support is strongest for the Shiite movement led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Fighting has raged for four days in the impoverished Sadr City suburb of Baghdad and cities across the country’s south, with the most intense combat taking place in Najaf—the site of the holiest Iraqi Shiite shrine, the Shrine of Imam Ali.
Over 5,000 American marines and Iraqi interim government troops are involved in the assault on Najaf. Fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships and ground artillery are being used against the poorly armed Iraqi defenders, who are seeking to prevent an American entry into the city. US marine spokesmen claimed Friday they had killed more than 300 of Sadr’s Mahdi Army militiamen and captured over 1,000, at the cost of just two American dead.
Sadr City, one of the most densely populated urban areas on the planet, has been subjected to aerial bombardment.
The aim of the assault is not only to wipe out Sadr’s militia in Najaf and other cities, but to terrorize and intimidate the entire Iraqi population into accepting the interim government the Bush administration installed in June. In the Orwellian language of the US military—which is being uncritically repeated in the American media—the US puppet regime of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, which has no popular support and is increasingly resorting to police state methods, is the representative of “democracy”. The Iraqis who are resisting the US invasion and occupation of their country are “anti-Iraqi forces” and “terrorists”.
Journalists on the scene are reporting that much of the center of Najaf, as well as the Shiite cemetery on the city’s outskirts, are already in ruins due to US bombing. The Imam Ali shrine has been damaged, electricity has been cut off, and there are reports of dozens of civilian casualties. In Baghdad, the Iraqi health ministry reported that at least 22 people were killed in fighting on Saturday alone in Sadr City.
A spokesman for Moqtada al-Sadr, Ali Yassiri, told the press: “A huge terrorist activity is being imposed on Najaf and Sadr City. We put responsibility on the US government and the occupation and the governor of Najaf.”
Allawi claims that he and the Najaf governor ordered the US assault—which sparked the fighting elsewhere in the country—in response to an attack on August 5 on a Najaf police station by “bandits and gangs trying to hide behind Moqtada al-Sadr”. US military spokesmen say they entered Najaf only in response to a request from Allawi and the governor.
Allawi is claiming that the target of the attack is not Sadr and his movement, but rather criminals who are posing as supporters of the Shiite cleric. The interim prime minister went so far on Saturday as to issue an invitation to the cleric to stand in the elections that are ostensibly to take place in January 2005.
The claims of Washington and its stooge regime in Iraq are refuted by the events leading up to the clashes on August 5. The fighting now underway is the outcome of a calculated decision by the US military to provoke Sadr’s movement into a confrontation.
On July 31, leading members of Sadr’s organization were seized in late-night raids, led by US troops, in the city of Karbala. Two days later, on August 2, American and Iraqi interim government troops attempted to surround Sadr’s personal residence in Najaf, and only withdrew after hours of fighting with the Mahdi Army militia. The Mahdi Army then reestablished open control over the city and set up stronger defensive positions to repel the next attack.
In Sadr City and other areas, the militia did the same. These defensive actions by Sadr’s movement have since been used as the justification for the US assault.
The pretense that the decision to launch the US offensive was made by the “sovereign” Iraqi government headed by Allawi, a long-time CIA stooge, is yet another bald lie peddled by Washington and uncritically parroted by the American media.
Allawi and his government have no independence from the US government and military, which invaded the country, toppled the previous regime, and installed the interim government in order to do Washington’s bidding. Allawi and his fellow American puppets are performing the same function for US imperialism that the various regimes installed by the Nazis in occupied Europe performed for German imperialism: providing a fig leaf of local support for war crimes carried out against conquered peoples. World public opinion recognized the Nazi-installed regimes for the political obscenities they were. Allawi and company are no better.
The Norwegian puppet government of Vidkun Quisling, whose name became the generic term for those who collaborate in the suppression of their own population, signed the orders for the deportation to Nazi death camps of over 1,000 Norwegian Jews and hundreds of communists, socialists and resistance fighters. Quisling was tried and executed for his crimes in October 1945, following Norway’s liberation.
The claim that the current attack on Najaf is a response to actions by the Iraqi resistance is further belied by the fact that the American marines spearheading the operation are a specialized assault force from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). The marines of the 11th MEU are among the reinforcements rushed to Iraq in July to increase American troop strength from 138,000 to over 145,000 by the beginning of August. The additional troops were initially deployed around the city of Fallujah.
The World Socialist Web Site drew attention to this deployment on June 29, in an article headlined, “Is the US military preparing another massacre in Fallujah?”
At the time there were numerous indications that Fallujah would be the target of the first major US offensive following the ostensible transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government. The resistance organizations in the predominantly Sunni Muslim city held off a US assault in April, and Fallujah has been outside the control of the occupation forces ever since.
While the initial target of the US bloodbath is Najaf, rather than Fallujah, the basic point of the WSWS article has been vindicated: the so-called transfer of sovereignty was to serve as the cover for new US massacres of Iraqis, which would be the centerpiece of an intensified effort to suppress the anti-colonial resistance by means of violence and terror.
The basic motive for the renewed crackdown is the fact that a series of truces worked out in May to end the fighting in Fallujah as well as the Shiite uprising sparked by Sadr’s call for resistance, and the subsequent installation of Allawi’s puppet government in June, have not stemmed the growth of organized resistance to the US occupation. In recent months, the resistance has established effective control over large swathes of the country.
Despite having 145,000 troops in Iraq and overwhelming firepower, the US military does not have sufficient forces to overcome the opposition. Sadr’s Mahdi Army has emerged as the main political force across southern Iraq. In Baghdad, Sadr’s movement controls Sadr City, and it has retained control over parts of Najaf, Karbala, Nasiriya, Basra, Amara and other southern cities. In opinion polls, the cleric registers close to 70 percent support or sympathy, while Allawi’s interim government is reviled by the majority of the population.
British journalist Robert Fisk commented on July 31: “[W]atching any Western television station in Baghdad these days is like tuning in to Planet Mars. Doesn’t Blair realise that Iraq is about to implode? Doesn’t Bush realise this? The American-appointed ‘government’ controls only parts of Baghdad—and even there its ministers and civil servants are car-bombed and assassinated. Baquba, Samarra, Kut, Mahmoudiya, Hilla, Fallujah, Ramadi all are outside government authority. Iyad Allawi, the ‘Prime Minister’, is little more than mayor of Baghdad. ‘Some journalists,’ Blair announces, ‘almost want there to be a disaster in Iraq.’ He doesn’t get it. The disaster exists now.”
A US military attempt to reverse the erosion of its control was inevitable. One factor in the decision to target Sadr’s movement first, instead of Fallujah, may be the illness of the leading Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Sistani, 73-years-old, is currently in Britain, receiving emergency medical treatment for serious heart problems. In April, Sistani, while refusing to condemn Sadr’s uprising, also refused to issue a call on Iraq’s majority Shiite population to join the struggle against the US occupation. His refusal to support an uprising gave the Bush administration and the US military sufficient breathing space to temporarily calm the situation.
Washington undoubtedly fears that if Sistani were to die or become physically incapacitated, the 31-year-old Sadr could step into the power vacuum and emerge as the most authoritative religious and political leader of Iraqi Shiites. His rivals in the Shiite establishment, such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), have been discredited by their participation in the interim government and its predecessor, the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.
While Sadr himself has at various points indicated his willingness to come to some kind of accommodation with the interim government and its US masters, he has directed his anti-American appeal to the most impoverished sections of the Shiite population—an explosive force that could potentially escape the control of the Shiite clergy and seek to forge a united struggle with the Sunni masses. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:07 pm Post subject: How many are Zionazi Jews? |
| So how many of the military commanders mentioned below are Zionazi Jews?:
From: Bob Allen <endsanctions@v...>
Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:43 am
Subject: Discussion on escalating Iraq War next Thursday (by the Philadelphia AntiWar Forum)
ADVERTISEMENT
Next Thursday, August 19, we continue our monthly presentation on the Iraq war
sponsored by the Philadelphia AntiWar Forum at the Rotunda. Our focus will be on
the ongoing US military offensive against the Iraqi opponents of the occupation.
According to the August 9, 2004, Philadelphia Inquirer four days of attacks by
US Marines on Najaf killed 415 Iraqis and wounded 513. Despite significant
outcry to halt the attacks US military officials are pledging to continue the
assault in the Shiite holy land.
Into the Quagmire: Year 2 of the Iraq Occupation
Slide show and discussion on recent developments in the Iraq war.
Part of a monthly discussion sponsored by the Philadelphia AntiWar Forum @
The Rotunda
4014 Walnut
Thursday August 19 at 7PM
For More Information 215 727 0082 box 3 , pawf@ critpath.org or
ndsanctions@verizon .net
Below are a collection of quotes from Muqtada al Sadr's statement from last
Friday, and a short commentary from earlier this month.
In Solidarity, Bob Allen
----------------------------
Quotes from Muqtada al-Sadr from a Friday August 6 statement from AP
''I say America is our enemy and the enemy of the people, and we will not accept
its partnership.''
''America is the greatest of Satans,'' he said, adding that violence
was in the interest of foreign troops who want ''to create divisions
and to control our dear country''
''You have taken this path and you have to put up with the dangers
and the obstacles. Heaven doesn't come without a price,'' and
''Don't wait for me to get up on the pulpit and give you directions.
I, certainly, will be gone because the enemy is lurking for me
everywhere. Don't let my death divide you.''
Another source quotes Sadr,
'The occupiers must go, and then the democratic process can start.
'I will defend Najaf until the last drop of my blood.'
Al-Sadr insisted: 'There is honourable resistance in Al-Najaf, which is
defending Islam and defending religion, creed, and the sanctities.
'I say that I am not forcing anyone to resist. The Americans themselves have
admitted that the resistance is a natural reaction to the occupation.
'Our country is under occupation. Therefore, resistance is necessary.'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kill Them All
In his two articles in the July 21 Philadelphia Inquirer, Tom Lassater points to
the predicament of US soldiers conducting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq.
While documenting the frustration among US troops with the course of the war,
both articles cite statements from front-line commanders weighing mass
extermination as a means to defeat the insurgency.
In one article he quotes the chief military intelligence officer for the First
Brigade of the First Infantry Division, (the main US military force in the
Ramadi area and Fallujah) Maj. Thomas Neemeyer. After noting the failure of $18
million in reconstruction projects in Ramadi to win over the people, "The only
way to stomp out the insurgency of the mind," he said, "would be to kill the
entire population."
The other article quotes Sgt. Maj. John Jones saying, "It's just like the West
when we were trying to settle it with the Indians." And "It means that we have
to kill all of them," said a captain standing nearby, half-joking." Earlier this
month Iraq's new intelligence director Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, answered a
question on the merits of a new offensive with combined US and Iraqi forces
against Fallujah, "We could take the city, but we would have to kill everyone in
it."
US military forces in Iraq face a dilemma. As long as both political parties
continue their wholehearted support for the occupation of Iraq, there will be no
order to withdrawal. If US troops remain in their current positions they only
succeed in making themselves effective targets for the insurgents. The remaining
alternative is to renew the offensive. But this only makes sense if it is done
on a far greater scale than the bloody urban assaults of this past spring. These
operations effectively killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, but they also
convinced millions of Iraqis that the US must leave their country.
At this point the promise of military victory over the hostile population can
only be achieved by employing the "Kill Them All" strategy.
Bob Allen | | | | snamd | | Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:10 pm Post subject: purpose for defending Israel |
| Do try to remember that Iraq did launch 35 Scud missiles completely unprovoked at Israel in the first gulf war.
Miraculously no one was killed (compared with one missile that landed on US troops in Saudi Arabi killing 16... go God! way to protect your children!)
The same way the US came to the defense of Kuwait when it was invaded, it is important for the US to aid allies when they are under attack. | | | | 7obmahdi | | Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: purpose for defending Israel |
| | snamd wrote: | Do try to remember that Iraq did launch 35 Scud missiles completely unprovoked at Israel in the first gulf war.
Miraculously no one was killed (compared with one missile that landed on US troops in Saudi Arabi killing 16... go God! way to protect your children!)
The same way the US came to the defense of Kuwait when it was invaded, it is important for the US to aid allies when they are under attack. |
35 scud missles??...hehehe...Sadam only launched 3 scud missiles...and the Israelis were lucky coz only 1 died...
U call Us and Kuwait Allies?!?...Well don't forget that America pushed on Saddam to invade Kuwait  ...a ticket for her to enter Iraq...
check out www.nogw.com | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
