whether jew or xian doesn't matter as they are on the same side of the
fight with muzzies.
let them kill each other
On Sep 12, 11:27 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone should give him a medal for having the cojones to stand up to
> muslim terrorists.****
>
> ** **
>
> B****
>
> ** **
>
> Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Alleged 'Innocence Of Muslims' Film's Company
> Manager, Claims Responsibility ****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-ant...
> -film_n_1879195.html****
>
> By STEPHEN BRAUN and GILLIAN FLACCUS 09/12/12 07:15 PM ET AP Share on
> Google+****
>
> ** **
>
> LOS ANGELES -- The search for those behind the provocative, anti-Muslim
> film that triggered mobs in Egypt and Libya led Wednesday to a California
> Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes who acknowledged his role in
> managing and providing logistics for the production.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview
> outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced
> "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Muslims and the prophet Mohammed and
> was implicated in inflaming mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and
> Libya. He provided the first details about a shadowy production group
> behind the film.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described
> filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that AP contacted Tuesday
> to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the
> same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers
> said Nakoula's aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nakoula told the AP that he was a Coptic Christian and said the film's
> director supported the concerns of Christian Copts about their treatment by
> Muslims.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. During a conversation outside his
> home, he offered his driver's license to show his identity but kept his
> thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently
> found it and other connections to the Bacile persona.****
>
> ** **
>
> The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris
> Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the
> anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt's Christian Coptic
> population has long decried what they describe as a history of
> discrimination and occasional violence from the country's Arab majority.****
>
> ** **
>
> Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who burned Qurans on the ninth
> anniversary of 9/11, said he spoke with the movie's director on the phone
> Wednesday and prayed for him. He said he has not met the filmmaker in
> person, but the man contacted him a few weeks ago about promoting the movie.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> "I have not met him. Sam Bacile, that is not his real name," Jones said. "I
> just talked to him on the phone. He is definitely in hiding and does not
> reveal his identity. He was quite honestly fairly shook up concerning the
> events and what is happening. A lot of people are not supporting him. He
> was generally a little shook up concerning this situation."****
>
> ** **
>
> Protesters enraged by the amateurish film and its cartoonish portrait of
> Islamic figures burned the U.S. consulate Tuesday in the eastern Libyan
> city of Benghazi.****
>
> ** **
>
> Libyan officials said Wednesday that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three
> other embassy employees were killed during the mob violence, but U.S.****
>
> officials now say they are investigating whether the assault was a planned
> terrorist strike linked to Tuesday's 11-year anniversary of the 9/11 terror
> attacks.****
>
> ** **
>
> Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to
> federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than***
> *
>
> $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal
> prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years
> without approval from his probation officer.****
>
> ** **
>
> The Youtube account, "Sam Bacile," which was used to publish excerpts of
> the provocative movie in July, was posting comments online as recently as
> Tuesday.****
>
> ** **
>
> The person who identified himself as Bacile and described himself as the
> film's writer and director told the AP on Tuesday that he has gone into
> hiding. But doubts rose about the man's identity amid a flurry of false
> claims about his background and role in the purported film.****
>
> ** **
>
> Bacile told the AP he was an Israeli-born, 56-year-old, Jewish writer and
> director. But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve
> Klein, said Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym, he was not Jewish or
> Israeli and a group of Americans of Mideast origin collaborated on the film.
> ****
>
> Officials in Israel also said there was no record of Bacile as an Israeli
> citizen.****
>
> ** **
>
> In his brief interview with the AP, Bacile defiantly called Islam a cancer
> and said he intended the film to be a provocative political statement
> condemning the religion.****
>
> ** **
>
> But several key facts Bacile provided proved false or questionable. Bacile
> told AP he was 56 but identified himself on his YouTube profile as 74.****
>
> Bacile said he is a real estate developer, but Bacile does not appear in
> searches of California state licenses, including the Department of Real
> Estate.****
>
> ** **
>
> Hollywood and California film industry groups and permit agencies said they
> had no records of the project. A man who answered a phone listed for the
> Vine Theater, a faded Hollywood movie house, confirmed that the film had
> run for a least a day, and possibly longer, several months ago, arranged by
> a customer known as "Sam."****
>
> ** **
>
> Google Inc., which owns YouTube, pulled down the video Wednesday in Egypt,
> citing a legal complaint. It was still accessible in the U.S. and other
> countries.****
>
> ** **
>
> Klein told The Atlantic on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that
> he was not Jewish or Israeli. Klein had earlier told the AP that the
> filmmaker was concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Klein did not
> return phone messages by the AP on Wednesday.****
>
> ** **
>
> "Nobody is anything but an active American citizen," Klein told the
> Atlantic. "They're from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, there are some that are
> from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are evangelical."****
>
> ** **
>
> Klein told the AP that he vowed to help make the movie but warned the
> filmmaker that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a
> Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film
> that was perceived as insulting to Islam.****
>
> ** **
>
> "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> ==========================================****
>
> (F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in
> this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All
> rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have
> been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in
> compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the
> Copyright Act of 1976.****
>
> The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
> Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
> permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
> if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
> teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
> for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
> as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
> criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
> determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
> substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
> copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information
> go to:****
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml****
>
> ** **
>
> THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION
> IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
A real water bed
Dr. Eowyn posted: "The big sign in a German furniture store says NOT to get on the water bed. But does anyone pay any attention and obey? No! Watch what happens! LOL [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wm-Ge8LL7o] H/t FOTM's igor ~Eowyn"
|
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: How We Became Israel
U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of
behavior pioneered by the Jewish state.
---
with jewish influence from within
This "Israelification" of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for
Israel. Based on the available evidence, it's not likely to be good
for the United States.
---
neither israelification and islamification are wanted by Americans.
On Sep 13, 8:04 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> How We Became IsraelPeace means dominion for Netanyahuand now for us.ByAndrew J. Bacevich•September 10, 2012
> Peace means different things to different governments and different countries. To some it suggests harmony based on tolerance and mutual respect. To others it serves as a euphemism for dominance, peace defining the relationship between the strong and the supine.
> In the absence of actually existing peace, a nation's reigningdefinitionof peace shapes its proclivity to use force. A nation committed to peace-as-harmony will tend to employ force as a last resort. The United States once subscribed to this view. Or beyond the confines of the Western Hemisphere, it at least pretended to do so.
> A nation seeking peace-as-dominion will use force more freely. This has long been an Israeli predilection. Since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, however, it has become America's as well. As a consequence, U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This "Israelification" of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it's not likely to be good for the United States.
> Here is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describing what he calls his "vision of peace" in June 2009: "If we get a guarantee of demilitarization … we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state." The inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank, if armed and sufficiently angry, can certainly annoy Israel. But they cannot destroy it or do it serious harm. By any measure, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) wield vastly greater power than the Palestinians can possibly muster. Still, from Netanyahu's perspective, "real peace" becomes possible only if Palestinians guarantee that their putative state will forego even the most meager military capabilities. Your side disarms, our side stays armed to the teeth: that's Netanyahu's vision of peace in a nutshell.
> Netanyahu asks a lot of Palestinians. Yet however baldly stated, his demands reflect longstanding Israeli thinking. For Israel, peace derives from security, which must be absolute and assured. Security thus defined requires not simply military advantage butmilitary supremacy.
> From Israel's perspective, threats to supremacy requireanticipatory action, the earlier the better. The IDF attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 provides one especially instructive example. Israel's destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 provides a second.
> Yet alongside perceived threat, perceived opportunity can provide sufficient motive for anticipatory action. In 1956 and again in 1967, Israel attacked Egypt not because the blustering Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser possessed the capability (even if he proclaimed the intention) of destroying the hated Zionists, but because preventive war seemingly promised a big Israeli pay-off. In the first instance, the Israelis came away empty-handed. In the second, they hit the jackpot operationally, albeit with problematic strategic consequences.
> For decades, Israel relied on a powerful combination of tanks and fighter-bombers as its preferred instrument of preemption. In more recent times, however, it has deemphasized its swift sword in favor of the shiv between the ribs. Why deploy lumbering armored columns when a missile launched from an Apache attack helicopter or a bomb fixed to an Iranian scientist's car can do the job more cheaply and with less risk? Thus hastargeted assassinationeclipsed conventional military methods as the hallmark of the Israeli way of war.
> Whether using tanks to conquer or assassins to liquidate, adherence to this knee-to-the-groin paradigm has won Israel few friends in the region and few admirers around the world (Americans notably excepted). The likelihood of this approach eliminating or even diminishing Arab or Iranian hostility toward Israel appears less than promising. That said, the approach has thus far succeeded in preserving and even expanding the Jewish state: more than 60 years after its founding, Israel persists and even prospers. By this rough but not inconsequential measure, the Israeli security concept has succeeded. Okay, it's nasty: but so far at least, it's worked.
>
> What's hard to figure out is why the United States would choose to follow Israel's path. Yet over the course of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama quarter-century, that's precisely what we've done. The pursuit of global military dominance, a proclivity for preemption, a growing taste for assassinationall justified as essential to self-defense. That pretty much describes ourpresent-day MO.
> Israel is a small country with a small population and no shortage of hostile neighbors. Ours is a huge country with an enormous population and no enemy, unless you count the Cuban-Venezuelan Axis of Ailing Dictators, within several thousand miles. We have choices that Israel does not. Yet in disregarding those choices the United States has stumbled willy-nilly into an Israeli-like condition of perpetual war, with peace increasingly tied to unrealistic expectations of adversaries and would-be adversaries acquiescing in Washington's will.
> Israelification got its kick-start with George H.W. Bush's Operation Desert Storm, a triumphal Hundred-Hour War likened at the time to Israel's triumphal Six-Day War. Victory over the "fourth largest army in the world" fostered illusions of the United States exercising perpetually and on a global scale military primacy akin to what Israel has exercised regionally. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon announced that henceforth it would settle for nothing less than "Full Spectrum Dominance."
> Bill Clinton's contribution to the process was to normalize the use of force. During the several decades of the Cold War, the U.S. had resorted to overt armed intervention only occasionally. Although difficult today to recall, back then whole years might pass without U.S. troops being sent into harm's way. Over the course of Clinton's two terms in office, however, intervention became commonplace.
> The average Israeli had long since become inured to reports of IDF incursions into southern Lebanon or Gaza. Now the average American has become accustomed to reports of U.S. troops battling Somali warlords, supervising regime change in Haiti, or occupying the Balkans. Yet the real signature of the Clinton years came in the form of airstrikes. Blasting targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia, and Sudan, but above all in Iraq, became the functional equivalent of Israel's reliance on airpower to punish "terrorists" from standoff ranges.
> In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush, a true believer in Full Spectrum Dominance, set out to liberate or pacify (take your pick) the Islamic world. The United States followed Israel in assigning itself the prerogative of waging preventive war. Although it depicted Saddam Hussein as an existential threat, the Bush administration also viewed Iraq as an opportunity: here the United States would signal to other recalcitrants the fate awaiting them should they mess with Uncle Sam.
> More subtly, in going after Saddam, Bush was tacitly embracing a longstanding Israeli conception of deterrence. During the Cold War, deterrence had meant conveying a credible threat to dissuade your opponent from hostile action. Israel had never subscribed to that view. Influencing the behavior of potential adversaries required more than signaling what Israelmightdo if sufficiently aggravated; influence was exerted by punitive action, ideally delivered on a disproportionate scale. Hit the other guy first, if possible; failing that, whack him several times harder than he hit you: not the biblical injunction of an eye for an eye, but both eyes, an ear, and several teeth, with a kick in the nuts thrown in for good measure. The aim was to send a message: screw with us and this will happen to you. This is the message Bush intended to convey when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> Unfortunately, Operation Iraqi Freedom, launched with all the confidence that had informed Operation Peace for Galilee, Israel's equally ill-advised 1982 incursion into Lebanon, landed the United States in an equivalent mess. Or perhaps a different comparison applies: the U.S. occupation of Iraq triggered violent resistance akin to what the IDF faced as a consequence of Israel occupying the West Bank. Two successive Intifadas had given the Israeli army fits. The insurgency in Iraq (along with its Afghan sibling) gave the American army fits. Neither the Israeli nor the American reputation for martial invincibility survived the encounter.
> By the time Barack Obama succeeded Bush in 2009, most Americanslike most Israelishad lost their appetite for invading and occupying countries. Obama's response? Hew ever more closely to the evolving Israeli way of doing things. "Obama wants to be known for winding down long wars," writes Michael Gerson in theWashington Post."But he has shown no hesitance when it comes to shorter, Israel-style operations. He is a special ops hawk, a drone militarist."
> Just so: with his affinity for missile-firing drones, Obama has established targeted assassination as the very centerpiece of U.S. national-security policy. With his affinity for commandos, he has expanded the size and mandate of U.S. Special Operations Command, which now maintains an active presence in more than 70 countries. In Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, and the frontier regions of Pakistanand who knows how many other far-flung placesObama seemingly shares Prime Minister Netanyahu's expectations: keep whacking and a positive outcome will eventually ensue.
>
> The government of Israel, along with ardently pro-Israel Americans like Michael Gerson, may view the convergence of U.S. and Israeli national-security practices with some satisfaction. The prevailing U.S. definition of self-defensea self-assigned mandate to target anyone anywhere thought to endanger U.S. securityis exceedingly elastic. As such, it provides a certain cover for equivalent Israeli inclinations. And to the extent that our roster of enemies overlaps with theirsdid someone say Iran?military action ordered by Washington just might shorten Jerusalem's "to do" list.
> Yet where does this all lead? "We don't have enough drones," writes the columnist David Ignatius, "to kill all the enemies we will make if we turn the world into a free-fire zone." And if Delta Force, the Green Berets, army rangers, Navy SEALs, and the like constitute (in the words of one SEAL) "the dark matter … the force that orders the universe but can't be seen," we probably don't have enough of them either. Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems willing to test both propositions.
> The process of aligning U.S. national-security practice with Israeli precedents is now essentially complete. Their habits are ours. Reversing that process would require stores of courage and imagination that may no longer exist in Washington. Given the reigning domestic political climate, those holding or seeking positions of power find it easierand less riskyto stay the course, vainly nursing the hope that by killing enough "terrorists" peace on terms of our choosing will result. Here too the United States has succumbed to Israeli illusions.Andrew J. Bacevich is a visiting professor at the University of Notre Dame.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-we-became-israel/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
behavior pioneered by the Jewish state.
---
with jewish influence from within
This "Israelification" of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for
Israel. Based on the available evidence, it's not likely to be good
for the United States.
---
neither israelification and islamification are wanted by Americans.
On Sep 13, 8:04 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> How We Became IsraelPeace means dominion for Netanyahuand now for us.ByAndrew J. Bacevich•September 10, 2012
> Peace means different things to different governments and different countries. To some it suggests harmony based on tolerance and mutual respect. To others it serves as a euphemism for dominance, peace defining the relationship between the strong and the supine.
> In the absence of actually existing peace, a nation's reigningdefinitionof peace shapes its proclivity to use force. A nation committed to peace-as-harmony will tend to employ force as a last resort. The United States once subscribed to this view. Or beyond the confines of the Western Hemisphere, it at least pretended to do so.
> A nation seeking peace-as-dominion will use force more freely. This has long been an Israeli predilection. Since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, however, it has become America's as well. As a consequence, U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This "Israelification" of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it's not likely to be good for the United States.
> Here is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describing what he calls his "vision of peace" in June 2009: "If we get a guarantee of demilitarization … we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state." The inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank, if armed and sufficiently angry, can certainly annoy Israel. But they cannot destroy it or do it serious harm. By any measure, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) wield vastly greater power than the Palestinians can possibly muster. Still, from Netanyahu's perspective, "real peace" becomes possible only if Palestinians guarantee that their putative state will forego even the most meager military capabilities. Your side disarms, our side stays armed to the teeth: that's Netanyahu's vision of peace in a nutshell.
> Netanyahu asks a lot of Palestinians. Yet however baldly stated, his demands reflect longstanding Israeli thinking. For Israel, peace derives from security, which must be absolute and assured. Security thus defined requires not simply military advantage butmilitary supremacy.
> From Israel's perspective, threats to supremacy requireanticipatory action, the earlier the better. The IDF attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 provides one especially instructive example. Israel's destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 provides a second.
> Yet alongside perceived threat, perceived opportunity can provide sufficient motive for anticipatory action. In 1956 and again in 1967, Israel attacked Egypt not because the blustering Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser possessed the capability (even if he proclaimed the intention) of destroying the hated Zionists, but because preventive war seemingly promised a big Israeli pay-off. In the first instance, the Israelis came away empty-handed. In the second, they hit the jackpot operationally, albeit with problematic strategic consequences.
> For decades, Israel relied on a powerful combination of tanks and fighter-bombers as its preferred instrument of preemption. In more recent times, however, it has deemphasized its swift sword in favor of the shiv between the ribs. Why deploy lumbering armored columns when a missile launched from an Apache attack helicopter or a bomb fixed to an Iranian scientist's car can do the job more cheaply and with less risk? Thus hastargeted assassinationeclipsed conventional military methods as the hallmark of the Israeli way of war.
> Whether using tanks to conquer or assassins to liquidate, adherence to this knee-to-the-groin paradigm has won Israel few friends in the region and few admirers around the world (Americans notably excepted). The likelihood of this approach eliminating or even diminishing Arab or Iranian hostility toward Israel appears less than promising. That said, the approach has thus far succeeded in preserving and even expanding the Jewish state: more than 60 years after its founding, Israel persists and even prospers. By this rough but not inconsequential measure, the Israeli security concept has succeeded. Okay, it's nasty: but so far at least, it's worked.
>
> What's hard to figure out is why the United States would choose to follow Israel's path. Yet over the course of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama quarter-century, that's precisely what we've done. The pursuit of global military dominance, a proclivity for preemption, a growing taste for assassinationall justified as essential to self-defense. That pretty much describes ourpresent-day MO.
> Israel is a small country with a small population and no shortage of hostile neighbors. Ours is a huge country with an enormous population and no enemy, unless you count the Cuban-Venezuelan Axis of Ailing Dictators, within several thousand miles. We have choices that Israel does not. Yet in disregarding those choices the United States has stumbled willy-nilly into an Israeli-like condition of perpetual war, with peace increasingly tied to unrealistic expectations of adversaries and would-be adversaries acquiescing in Washington's will.
> Israelification got its kick-start with George H.W. Bush's Operation Desert Storm, a triumphal Hundred-Hour War likened at the time to Israel's triumphal Six-Day War. Victory over the "fourth largest army in the world" fostered illusions of the United States exercising perpetually and on a global scale military primacy akin to what Israel has exercised regionally. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon announced that henceforth it would settle for nothing less than "Full Spectrum Dominance."
> Bill Clinton's contribution to the process was to normalize the use of force. During the several decades of the Cold War, the U.S. had resorted to overt armed intervention only occasionally. Although difficult today to recall, back then whole years might pass without U.S. troops being sent into harm's way. Over the course of Clinton's two terms in office, however, intervention became commonplace.
> The average Israeli had long since become inured to reports of IDF incursions into southern Lebanon or Gaza. Now the average American has become accustomed to reports of U.S. troops battling Somali warlords, supervising regime change in Haiti, or occupying the Balkans. Yet the real signature of the Clinton years came in the form of airstrikes. Blasting targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia, and Sudan, but above all in Iraq, became the functional equivalent of Israel's reliance on airpower to punish "terrorists" from standoff ranges.
> In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush, a true believer in Full Spectrum Dominance, set out to liberate or pacify (take your pick) the Islamic world. The United States followed Israel in assigning itself the prerogative of waging preventive war. Although it depicted Saddam Hussein as an existential threat, the Bush administration also viewed Iraq as an opportunity: here the United States would signal to other recalcitrants the fate awaiting them should they mess with Uncle Sam.
> More subtly, in going after Saddam, Bush was tacitly embracing a longstanding Israeli conception of deterrence. During the Cold War, deterrence had meant conveying a credible threat to dissuade your opponent from hostile action. Israel had never subscribed to that view. Influencing the behavior of potential adversaries required more than signaling what Israelmightdo if sufficiently aggravated; influence was exerted by punitive action, ideally delivered on a disproportionate scale. Hit the other guy first, if possible; failing that, whack him several times harder than he hit you: not the biblical injunction of an eye for an eye, but both eyes, an ear, and several teeth, with a kick in the nuts thrown in for good measure. The aim was to send a message: screw with us and this will happen to you. This is the message Bush intended to convey when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> Unfortunately, Operation Iraqi Freedom, launched with all the confidence that had informed Operation Peace for Galilee, Israel's equally ill-advised 1982 incursion into Lebanon, landed the United States in an equivalent mess. Or perhaps a different comparison applies: the U.S. occupation of Iraq triggered violent resistance akin to what the IDF faced as a consequence of Israel occupying the West Bank. Two successive Intifadas had given the Israeli army fits. The insurgency in Iraq (along with its Afghan sibling) gave the American army fits. Neither the Israeli nor the American reputation for martial invincibility survived the encounter.
> By the time Barack Obama succeeded Bush in 2009, most Americanslike most Israelishad lost their appetite for invading and occupying countries. Obama's response? Hew ever more closely to the evolving Israeli way of doing things. "Obama wants to be known for winding down long wars," writes Michael Gerson in theWashington Post."But he has shown no hesitance when it comes to shorter, Israel-style operations. He is a special ops hawk, a drone militarist."
> Just so: with his affinity for missile-firing drones, Obama has established targeted assassination as the very centerpiece of U.S. national-security policy. With his affinity for commandos, he has expanded the size and mandate of U.S. Special Operations Command, which now maintains an active presence in more than 70 countries. In Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, and the frontier regions of Pakistanand who knows how many other far-flung placesObama seemingly shares Prime Minister Netanyahu's expectations: keep whacking and a positive outcome will eventually ensue.
>
> The government of Israel, along with ardently pro-Israel Americans like Michael Gerson, may view the convergence of U.S. and Israeli national-security practices with some satisfaction. The prevailing U.S. definition of self-defensea self-assigned mandate to target anyone anywhere thought to endanger U.S. securityis exceedingly elastic. As such, it provides a certain cover for equivalent Israeli inclinations. And to the extent that our roster of enemies overlaps with theirsdid someone say Iran?military action ordered by Washington just might shorten Jerusalem's "to do" list.
> Yet where does this all lead? "We don't have enough drones," writes the columnist David Ignatius, "to kill all the enemies we will make if we turn the world into a free-fire zone." And if Delta Force, the Green Berets, army rangers, Navy SEALs, and the like constitute (in the words of one SEAL) "the dark matter … the force that orders the universe but can't be seen," we probably don't have enough of them either. Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems willing to test both propositions.
> The process of aligning U.S. national-security practice with Israeli precedents is now essentially complete. Their habits are ours. Reversing that process would require stores of courage and imagination that may no longer exist in Washington. Given the reigning domestic political climate, those holding or seeking positions of power find it easierand less riskyto stay the course, vainly nursing the hope that by killing enough "terrorists" peace on terms of our choosing will result. Here too the United States has succumbed to Israeli illusions.Andrew J. Bacevich is a visiting professor at the University of Notre Dame.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-we-became-israel/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Is there a tomorrow for your family ?
A Rational Study of Radical Islam, by Dr. Bill Warner [introduction]
Bill Warner He holds a PhD in physics and math and has studied Islam and its effect on history for several decades. Bill is the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam - www.politicalislam.com - an invaluable resource!
Dr. Bill Warner talks about Islam, Muslims, Hadith, Sira and the Koran to (Islamic Doctrine), give a better understanding of such things as dualism, the law of Islamic saturation and how it effects us, the Kafirs.
=================================================================================
Dr. Warner's greatest strength is his ability to synthesize, simplify and even quantify Islamic doctrine.
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
Take 45 minutes to view his latest video on the 1400 year history of Islam and you will understand what is happening to Western civilization today. We are on the precipice of becoming part of a caliphate. Arm yourself with this valuable information!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=channel&list=UL
The history of Islam in Europe and how it effects us to this day. This is a history based on numbers and facts that you may not see anywhere else and explains why we may be afraid to see Islam for what it is based on its own doctrine and practice.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Paying taxes doesn’t allow Atheists, nor any group , to dictate to others.
Unalienable rights come from the moral consensus of
the People.
---
religious people
On Sep 12, 6:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 1:26 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:> All unalienable rights are from God.
>
> No, plainol...: Unalienable rights come from the moral consensus of
> the People. But such sounds more immutable, if the language refers to
> 'God', or "Mother Nature', or more correctly, to all of the natural
> laws of the Universe. — J. A. A. —> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > speculation noted
>
> > On Sep 10, 11:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hello John,
>
> > > Although it was difficult to get through that long winded disortation,
> > > (reminds me of someone who graduated from Clemson!) and I agree that the
> > > Obama Administration has by executive order installed unconstitutional,
> > > communistic mandates upon "We, The People"; I am at a loss as to how you
> > > believe that our two party system is unconstitutional.
>
> > > Far from it.
>
> > > There is nothing in the Constitution, (or maybe you can point out the
> > > Article and paragraph for us?) that restricts the association of like
> > > minded politically thinking individuals from forming associations or groups
> > > to further their political cause.
>
> > > I also take exception to your notion that the "weak govern the strong".
> > > Examples please. With regard to bias within the law.....Yes. It's true,
> > > and has been since the beginning of recorded history. The United States is
> > > no exception, and I can cite numerous instances within our 235 year
> > > history, beginning with the "Shea's Rebellion" of bias contained within
> > > the law. To some degree, it is these "biases" that you refer to, that
> > > shape and form our "culture" and our "morals".
>
> > > All unalienable rights are from God, not government and they cannot be
> > > stripped by government, unless one "volunteers" to waive his God given
> > > unalienable right.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, Studio, but "the two major political parties" are 100%
> > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! The USA isn't a
> > > > democracy, but is supposed to be (but never has been) a Representative
> > > > Republic. The Founding Fathers were totally committed to the
> > > > principle that the PEOPLE control government. Nowhere in the
> > > > Constitution is it sanctioned to allow political parties to substitute
> > > > biased group power for the "close to a Democracy" power of the voters
> > > > on election day. Yes, there were Whigs and Tories in the 18th
> > > > century. But those were mechanisms for government control far
> > > > different from a Representative Republic! Note: That treasonous
> > > > BASTARD in the White House, Barack H. Obama, still supposes that the
> > > > USA is "our great Democracy", while he acts as our communist-socialist
> > > > dictator. As numbers of you have pointed out a year or two ago,
> > > > Democracies—if that's the only stipulated 'control' of government—will
> > > > allow the weak to control the strong. And that isn't just if it is
> > > > like: two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper. Having
> > > > controls in the Constitution that mandate justice and fairness will
> > > > allow the voters to decide controversial issues WITHIN the bounds of
> > > > justice and fairness. No biased group gets to define justice and
> > > > fairness so as to allow them to exploit others for their own selfish
> > > > gain. The best route to saving the USA, as well as our entire
> > > > socioeconomic system, is to strip all biased groups of power over the
> > > > course of government. Once that happens, there won't be any more
> > > > pressure to have governments become all things for all people, which
> > > > as we should know by now ( but Obama doesn't), doesn't work! — John
> > > > A. Armistead —
>
> > > > On Sep 6, 11:48 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Studio:
> > > > > > Since both of those are issues of
> > > > > > high controversy, the American People should be allowed to decide once
> > > > > > and for all in direct referenda.
>
> > > > > I'm in TOTAL agreement with that!
> > > > > However, Republitards will remind you we live in a Republic, not a
> > > > > Democracy.
> > > > > And neither of the 2 major parties actually want people to decide by
> > > > > referendum.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
the People.
---
religious people
On Sep 12, 6:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 1:26 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:> All unalienable rights are from God.
>
> No, plainol...: Unalienable rights come from the moral consensus of
> the People. But such sounds more immutable, if the language refers to
> 'God', or "Mother Nature', or more correctly, to all of the natural
> laws of the Universe. — J. A. A. —> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > speculation noted
>
> > On Sep 10, 11:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hello John,
>
> > > Although it was difficult to get through that long winded disortation,
> > > (reminds me of someone who graduated from Clemson!) and I agree that the
> > > Obama Administration has by executive order installed unconstitutional,
> > > communistic mandates upon "We, The People"; I am at a loss as to how you
> > > believe that our two party system is unconstitutional.
>
> > > Far from it.
>
> > > There is nothing in the Constitution, (or maybe you can point out the
> > > Article and paragraph for us?) that restricts the association of like
> > > minded politically thinking individuals from forming associations or groups
> > > to further their political cause.
>
> > > I also take exception to your notion that the "weak govern the strong".
> > > Examples please. With regard to bias within the law.....Yes. It's true,
> > > and has been since the beginning of recorded history. The United States is
> > > no exception, and I can cite numerous instances within our 235 year
> > > history, beginning with the "Shea's Rebellion" of bias contained within
> > > the law. To some degree, it is these "biases" that you refer to, that
> > > shape and form our "culture" and our "morals".
>
> > > All unalienable rights are from God, not government and they cannot be
> > > stripped by government, unless one "volunteers" to waive his God given
> > > unalienable right.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, Studio, but "the two major political parties" are 100%
> > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! The USA isn't a
> > > > democracy, but is supposed to be (but never has been) a Representative
> > > > Republic. The Founding Fathers were totally committed to the
> > > > principle that the PEOPLE control government. Nowhere in the
> > > > Constitution is it sanctioned to allow political parties to substitute
> > > > biased group power for the "close to a Democracy" power of the voters
> > > > on election day. Yes, there were Whigs and Tories in the 18th
> > > > century. But those were mechanisms for government control far
> > > > different from a Representative Republic! Note: That treasonous
> > > > BASTARD in the White House, Barack H. Obama, still supposes that the
> > > > USA is "our great Democracy", while he acts as our communist-socialist
> > > > dictator. As numbers of you have pointed out a year or two ago,
> > > > Democracies—if that's the only stipulated 'control' of government—will
> > > > allow the weak to control the strong. And that isn't just if it is
> > > > like: two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper. Having
> > > > controls in the Constitution that mandate justice and fairness will
> > > > allow the voters to decide controversial issues WITHIN the bounds of
> > > > justice and fairness. No biased group gets to define justice and
> > > > fairness so as to allow them to exploit others for their own selfish
> > > > gain. The best route to saving the USA, as well as our entire
> > > > socioeconomic system, is to strip all biased groups of power over the
> > > > course of government. Once that happens, there won't be any more
> > > > pressure to have governments become all things for all people, which
> > > > as we should know by now ( but Obama doesn't), doesn't work! — John
> > > > A. Armistead —
>
> > > > On Sep 6, 11:48 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Studio:
> > > > > > Since both of those are issues of
> > > > > > high controversy, the American People should be allowed to decide once
> > > > > > and for all in direct referenda.
>
> > > > > I'm in TOTAL agreement with that!
> > > > > However, Republitards will remind you we live in a Republic, not a
> > > > > Democracy.
> > > > > And neither of the 2 major parties actually want people to decide by
> > > > > referendum.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Democratic Platform Needs a Reality Check
lowtechgrannie posted: "The 2012 Democratic Platform, a creation of the recent convention in Charlotte states: Stronger in the World, Safer and More Secure At Home Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq Disrupting, Dismantling, and Defeating Al-Qaeda Responsibly Ending"
|
