Former CIA Top Dog Now A Conspiracy Theorist?

[Mr. JOSHUA]

He Missed More Than Bin Laden....

By Donald Meissner

FrontPageMagazine.com | July 25, 2007


The establishment media's favorite terrorism expert in recent years has been Michael Scheuer -- and Scheuer's favorite scapegoats of late have been shadowy, Jewish "Israel-firsters who dominate the American governing elite."

In part, Scheuer's status in the media is owed to his status as former director of the CIA unit responsible to apprehend Osama bin Laden. In part, this is due to the fact that Scheuer appears to enjoy disparaging his former employer.
He recently echoed the Left's criticism, telling ABC News, "We've tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap, and it's going to cost us domestically in terms of the next attack on the United States."

However, Scheuer's 2004 critique of U.S. foreign policy Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, indicts more than President Bush. He blames Jewish "neo-conservatives" and implicates Israel in America's victimization.

"Surely there can be no other historical example of a faraway, theocracy-in-all-but-name of only six million people that ultimately controls the extent and even the occurrence of an important portion of political discourse and national security debate in a country of 270-plus million people that prides itself on religious toleration, separation of church and state, and freedom of speech."

Scheuer's characterization of Israel as a theocracy is ludicrous -- Israel is the only secular democracy in the Middle East, with citizens free to practice any religion, or none at all. At least Scheuer's predilection is clear: he does not hide his antipathy for the secular Jewish state.

On April 9th of this year, in a speech to the Center for Naval Analysis, Scheuer said:

"By defining bin Laden and his ilk as would-be Islamist Hitlers, the U.S. citizen Israel-firsters who dominate the American governing elite ensure that those who question the nature and benefit of current U.S.-Israel ties are slandered as pro-Nazi, anti-Semites."

In this case Scheuer, citing no specific evidence, invents a Jewish conspiracy theory. In his world the U.S. political, economic, and military alliance with Israel is a reverse proof that U.S. policy is "dominated" by that interest group. Who are these shadowy dominators, and what is the source of their awesome power? Scheuer has no answers, only insinuation and circular logic.

Scheuer publicly defended the innuendo-ridden Walt-Mearsheimer report, which he said "critiqued at length the prolonged, deranging, and clearly negative impact the Israeli lobby has had on the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy." Not everyone would stand by the ludicrous report. The imprimatur of Harvard University was rescinded from Walt-Mearsheimer. Numerous scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have documented the report's errors of fact, omission, inaccurate citations, and lack of adherence to basic scholarly standards regarding sources and interpretation.

Also troubling, in 2005, Scheuer remarked to the Council on Foreign Relations that Israel operates in America "probably the most successful covert-action program in the history of man." His lone example was the Holocaust Museum in Washington -- as though Israel arranged the Holocaust for the purposes of manipulating U.S. foreign policy.

Now that you know the consipatorial musings of Scheuer's imaginative mind, several questions arise: How does a top CIA official develop and espouse views diametrically opposed to U.S. foreign policy since 1948? Is he correct in his assertions?

Like other analysts who consider the U.S.-Israel relationship a root cause of Muslim fury -- august minds like Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, Mel Gibson, Norman Finkelstein, and David Duke -- Scheuer is primed and ready to be called an anti-Semite, so don't go there. A greater rhetorical faux pas would be to mention the Holocaust, or to reference Munich.

There is one sure way former staffers like Scheuer, a self-described "life-long Republican," enter the limelight and lecture circuit: vehemently criticize the Bush administration, and blame the entire morass on Israel and anonymous, perfidious Jews. That is truly what Scheuer and his ilk intend when they conjure and decry an imaginary pro-Israel hegemony within the United States.

Is it possible that a mere six-million beleaguered Jews in Israel, many recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Africa and elsewhere, could manipulate the world's only superpower? How many "Elders of Zion" live among us here in the United States? To paraphrase Natan Sharansky, from his book The Case for Democracy: to demonize, delegitimize, and hold Israel to a double-standard is modern anti-Semitism. To anyone who studies world history and the Hebrew Bible, this prepossession and prejudice remains as old as the Judean hills.

The Jews, slaughtered and repeatedly exiled from nations of the Diaspora, are now forced to entertain the mortifying question of their "right to exist" in their sliver of a homeland. The conspiratorial anti-Israelis profoundly misunderstand the meaning of their one correct conclusion: Israel represents the essence of the struggle. The Jews were participants in the Genesis of Western civilization, contribute fully to the blossoming of our advanced culture, and will still exist when the walls come tumbling down. For Scheuer and his cohorts, Jews are hastening its demise.

If that's his best analysis of world history, his analysis of bin Laden may also be suspect.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29286

[lider_r]

same old same old...

critisize Israel and instantly it means you've got a hang up about hating jews and Israel.

Sheuer's just pointing out the obvious- Americas unqualified support for israel is a threat to national security. When the terrorists are telling the American people themselves "This is because of your support for Israel and the oppression of palestinians and other arab countries etc etc" then how much more evidence do you need?

Then the conservatards stick their heads in the sand and say 'no! no! they do it because they hate our freedom!'

When the murderers are telling you why they want to murder you and you choose not to accept it then what hope is there to stop the murders?

[Mr. JOSHUA]

So let me get this straight, you're saying its alright for some other country or some other entity other than the US to dictate who we deal with diplomatically, politically, financially?

Perhaps if the muslims also said the reason we're bombing you is because you allow lider_r to exist, get rid of him and their will be peace, you would find that absolutely acceptable?

[Durandal]

I have no problem cutting out the aid we send. Its not a starving nation after all.

Then again I think we need to stop wasting money in the form of aid and weapon packages in general.

[AlterMega]

When the terrorists are telling the American people themselves "This is because of your support for Israel and the oppression of palestinians and other arab countries etc etc" then how much more evidence do you need?

When the murderers are telling you why they want to murder you and you choose not to accept it then what hope is there to stop the murders?

How rediculous.Were not going to give anything up because some 3rd world maniac 3,000 miles away in a turban tells us to.Should we convert to Islam and cover up all of our women,too?There's no need for appeasement.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

I have no problem cutting out the aid we send. Its not a starving nation after all.

Then again I think we need to stop wasting money in the form of aid and weapon packages in general.


That I will agree with you.

If our own country still has problems of its own, then our gov't should not be wasting its resources on other countries who won't even be grateful in the end for the services we provided them with.

The only way I would support any foriegn aid is if we didn't act and the outcome would directly affect us.

But that doesn't justify Mr. CIA's accusations that a certain group is the cause of terrorism on our soil and the rest of the world.

We might aswell restart the "final solution" with what he's implying.

He's basically saying let the terrorists dictate who we deal with.

[lider_r]

So let me get this straight, you're saying its alright for some other country or some other entity other than the US to dictate who we deal with diplomatically, politically, financially?

im saying that Americas blind faith support Israel is costing it in terms of national security. It also reflects badly on Americas allies too.


Perhaps if the muslims also said the reason we're bombing you is because you allow lider_r to exist, get rid of him and their will be peace, you would find that absolutely acceptable?

If i'd managed to single handedly abuse a whole population, kill innocent civilians, steal land etc then perhaps it would be acceptable. Strangely enough though none of those above attributes have been or ever will be in my job description.

[lider_r]

How rediculous.Were not going to give anything up because some 3rd world maniac 3,000 miles away in a turban tells us to.Should we convert to Islam and cover up all of our women,too?There's no need for appeasement.

Its no about appeasment, its giving support to those who deserve support, not giving support to those simple because they read from the same religious texts.

Theres no need to continue to support a country which is causing more headaches for America. Illegal Jewish colonies funded by American taxpayers and American armaments that are used in highly debious ways and means are harming Americas national security. If an American made missile hits a palestinian civilian's home do you expect them not to be angry at America?

If America is going to support a country/government/dictatorship that does not act ethically or within international law that it has to accept that there will be consequences.

[Laworkerbee]

im saying that Americas blind faith support Israel is costing it in terms of national security. It also reflects badly on Americas allies too.

Blind faith? pretty wide brush you use there. Israel is never above criticism in the States.

[lider_r]

But that doesn't justify Mr. CIA's accusations that a certain group is the cause of terrorism on our soil and the rest of the world.

Thats a fairly simplistic assement of his statement.

Shuer is adressing the reason why muslim nutjobs want to fly planes into buildings, and that reason (which is actually being told to us by the muslim nutjobs themselves) is because of Americas unqualified support for Israel and its military bases dotted around the arab world etc. I would of thought that when an act of terrorism has been committed the first thing people would look for is a motive? Not many people seem to be doing this, its more a case of 'they hate our freedom' 'arabs are terrorists' etc etc



We might aswell restart the "final solution" with what he's implying.


errr i must have missed the part where he suggested we start leading jewish people away to death camps....



He's basically saying let the terrorists dictate who we deal with.

No, he's saying there is a reason for terrorism, and if you want to defeat terrorism then the reasons and motives have to be addressed otherwise this will drag on and on and nobody will learn anyhting.

[lider_r]

Blind faith? pretty wide brush you use there. Israel is never above criticism in the States.

It is when it comes to the current administration.

Whenever an attack on israeli civilians is carried out by palestinians the state department calls it terrorism (which they are right to do) but when the israelis hit back and wipe out a few civilian families by 'accident' all we hear from the state department is 'we regret the loss of innocent life, but Israel has right to protect itself'.

Bush hasn't exactly pressed for halt to the expansion of Jewish colonies in the occupied terrorities, funding for them has continued as well as a sizeable defence donation, even while the last war with lebanon was raging.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

im saying that Americas blind faith support Israel is costing it in terms of national security. It also reflects badly on Americas allies too.

So in other words, do what the bully says?


If i'd managed to single handedly abuse a whole population, kill innocent civilians, steal land etc then perhaps it would be acceptable. Strangely enough though none of those above attributes have been or ever will be in my job description.

You gotta source for that?

Sounds like you're repeating leftist and mulsim extremist talking points.


Thats a fairly simplistic assement of his statement.

[QUOTE]Shuer is adressing the reason why muslim nutjobs want to fly planes into buildings, and that reason (which is actually being told to us by the muslim nutjobs themselves) is because of Americas unqualified support for Israel and its military bases dotted around the arab world etc. I would of thought that when an act of terrorism has been committed the first thing people would look for is a motive? Not many people seem to be doing this, its more a case of 'they hate our freedom' 'arabs are terrorists' etc etc

Unqualified? How so?

Motive!!!

Thats really stupid.

So in essense, you're saying that if a white man attempts to murder a black man because he's black, the black man needs to do something about himself being black so that he does not get murdered?

Don't forget the majority of the bases that are in the arab world are their by choice, not by our gov't forcing them to have our bases, if the terrorist really had a problem with that, they would be soley attacking their own gov'ts.



errr i must have missed the part where he suggested we start leading jewish people away to death camps....

Well if people are gonna start taking the easy way out of this problem and suggest all of the worlds problems originate with the jews why don't they summon up the guts to just say what they feel.

After all, what do you do with a problem thats causing all of the worlds problems.

Hitler had an idea about that didn't he?




No, he's saying there is a reason for terrorism, and if you want to defeat terrorism then the reasons and motives have to be addressed otherwise this will drag on and on and nobody will learn anyhting.

So, in other words, give in to the hostage takers demands and give him what he wants, because he won't do it again, and if he does, he certainly won't demand more next time, will he?

[TallGuy]

Whenever an attack on israeli civilians is carried out by palestinians the state department calls it terrorism (which they are right to do) but when the israelis hit back and wipe out a few civilian families by 'accident' all we hear from the state department is 'we regret the loss of innocent life, but Israel has right to protect itself'.

That's because the Palestinians target Israeli civilians deliberately. The Israelis try to avoid civilian casualties...

[Snoshi]

That's because the Palestinians target Israeli civilians deliberately. The Israelis try to avoid civilian casualties...

Noone of Israel haters will understand this...

[Chounch McGavin]

same old same old...

critisize Israel and instantly it means you've got a hang up about hating jews and Israel.

Sheuer's just pointing out the obvious- Americas unqualified support for israel is a threat to national security. When the terrorists are telling the American people themselves "This is because of your support for Israel and the oppression of palestinians and other arab countries etc etc" then how much more evidence do you need?

Then the conservatards stick their heads in the sand and say 'no! no! they do it because they hate our freedom!'

When the murderers are telling you why they want to murder you and you choose not to accept it then what hope is there to stop the murders?
Great post. I agree with you

[Snoshi]

Great post. I agree with you

What do you agree with? That fanatics in Middle-East hate USA because USA supports Israel? You have absolutely no proof of that.. Right now Arabs hate USA because of the Iraq war...

And if some fanatics really hate USA because of Israel should USA abandon one of its best allies to please fanatics?

According to your logic USA should have abandoned West Germany to please Soviets.

[Laworkerbee]

Yes if this line of thinking prevails Taiwan and every other friend we have in the world would know we would sell out our friends to appease our enemies.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Yes if this line of thinking prevails Taiwan and every other friend we have in the world would know we would sell out our friends to appease our enemies.

Including Iraq.

Same thing applies here.

[sidman69]

i agree with lider and another angering point is supporting Israel but at the same time acting as a peacemaker in the region and having double standards. Also Schauer also remakred on Fox News (big surprise) that if the democrats won the election in 2006 than we are greater danger than if the Republicans won or something along those lines.

[sinophile]

Its fantastical wishful thinking to believe anyone will change their beliefs about the US if support for Israel were withdrawn. The list of US 'crimes' will continue; and the advantage against the US will be pressed:

- The stealing of oil resources by US oil companies.
- Support for repressive regimes.
- Disrespect of faith.
- Conspiracy to subjugate a striving population in the form of lack of support for modernization, education and military advancement.
- Support of one sect over another.
- Support for Arab over Persian, Turkman over Arab and one tribe over another.
- US personnel on Arab soil.
- Meddling in sovereign Arab affairs when the US attempts to halt the massacre of Jews in an Israel/Palestine at war.
- The presence of US/Western companies on Arab soil.

In most of these cases, countries with no beef against Israel have accused the US of similar conspiracy and bias. Nevermind that China, Russia, India and others can all be accused of this and worse. Nobody will love or respect the US anymore for pulling the plug on Israel. They'll just look at the America as a vulnerable mess, susceptible to coercion and manipulation; and without principle.

If the pillar of principle, as imperfect as the US is at that task, bails... principle is off the table in world affairs for a long time to come. Have fun living in that world. The principle is that you make a peace both sides can live with, and on that score you have to ask who isn't willing to sit at the table and hammer it out. Let's hug it out bitches and make up. The US is the Ari Gold of the world.

[Paiste]

That fanatics in Middle-East hate USA because USA supports Israel? You have absolutely no proof of that..

pretty obvious that this is ONE of the reasons some arabs hate americans. And there is more then enough proof of that.

[Palmach]

pretty obvious that this is ONE of the reasons some arabs hate americans. And there is more then enough proof of that.

At the same time there is no proof that it is the ONLY reason or the PRIMARY reason. After all the same brand of Islamic militants carried out attacks in England, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Philipines, India, Pakistan, Afganistan, Turkey and North Africa; they have taken part in the Chechen wars and the Balkan conflicts. Non of those countries are active supporters of Israel nore were the attacks related to Israel. (By the way, the country where AQ has been LEAST active is ... wait for it... Israel).

The point is US would be in conflict with the AQ types regardless of US-Israeli relationship; US can drop all support for Israel and replace the Lincoln memorial with a giant statue of Arafat and it won't make a bit of difference. Given the globalized nature of the world and US place in it there is no way for US to avoid comming in contact with radicalized Islam, which, as expirience shows, tends to attack anyone not exactly like them.

[Kilgor]

im saying that Americas blind faith support Israel is costing it in terms of national security. It also reflects badly on Americas allies too.



If i'd managed to single handedly abuse a whole population, kill innocent civilians, steal land etc then perhaps it would be acceptable. Strangely enough though none of those above attributes have been or ever will be in my job description.

If I remember correctly, OBL became really pissed off after thousands of US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia for the first gulf war. Israel had nothing to do with that.

[sinophile]

If I remember correctly, OBL became really pissed off after thousands of US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia for the first gulf war. Israel had nothing to do with that.


Almost every party understands how it is in the interest of its own self-preservation that the opposition should not lose all strength; the same is true of power politics. A new creation in particular--the new Reich, for example--needs enemies more than friends: in opposition alone does it feel itself necessary, in opposition alone does it become necessary.-- Nietzche in 1889 in criticism of the Reich.

Without enemies certain philosophies cannot survive. If not Israel it will still be America.

[Kilgor]

-- Nietzche in 1889 in criticism of the Reich.

Without enemies certain philosophies cannot survive. If not Israel it will still be America.




Hence the US being "great" Satan

[JJC]

Scheuer's claims that Muslims hate the U.S. because of Israel, but can he explain the fact that they hate us even though the U.S. has played in the interests of Muslims in Afghanistan against Soviets, saved Muslims in Somalia and Kosovo, has pushed the Oslo Accords against Israel ( I guess the "Jewish Lobby" was weaker at that time), and they still bombed us? AQ never focused on Israel, but they always hated the fact that U.S. has its bases in Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and is friendly with Arabic dictators which Bin Laden hates.

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief4-4.htm this thorough analysis of Scheuer's book shows how little he really knows about what the heck he is talking about. Just another empty suit with a fancy title once working for the government.

P.S. According to "CIA expert" Mr. Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris, I'm just another Israel's "citizen-spy".

[Chounch McGavin]

What do you agree with? That fanatics in Middle-East hate USA because USA supports Israel? You have absolutely no proof of that.. Right now Arabs hate USA because of the Iraq war...
You're right bro. I have "absolutely no proof" .. Why do you think I agreed with user "lider_r" in the first place? I have all the proof necessary. You're from Israel; and as a result, I completely understand why you would question my validity

Oh, and I'm positively sure Arab terrorism was perpetrated against the US prior to our incursion into Iraq


According to your logic USA should have abandoned West Germany to please Soviets.
No. You can't say "your logic" when you don't understand me. Planes were not flown into our buildings by KGB agents because we supported W. Germany

[Snoshi]

You're right bro. I have "absolutely no proof" .. Why do you think I agreed with user "lider_r" in the first place? I have all the proof necessary. You're from Israel; and as a result, I completely understand why you would question my validity

Oh, and I'm positively sure Arab terrorism was perpetrated against the US prior to our incursion into Iraq
Again.. Like Palmach said, why do Islamic terrorists strike countries who dont even regonize Israel? And how many major terrorist attacks can you remember that happened in USA before 9/11?

No. You can't say "your logic" when you don't understand me. Planes were not flown into our buildings by KGB agents because we supported W. Germany
LOL! And 9/11 happened because of Israel now?? You got to be kidding me..


...................

[Kilgor]

I think doubters should check the Hitler meeting the grand mufti thread too.

The grand mufti liked what he saw in the final solution.

[OldRecon]

As for US support to Israel making USA in the least suspect in the eyes of many arabs, yes it does.
As for Bin Laden's rage against the stationing of US troops on Saudi soil having noting to do with Israel. I don't think the fact that the US is the most important ally of Israel make/made Bin Laden & Co. any less hostile to the presence of US troops on Saudi soil.
US pullout from Iraq will make the arabs/muslims less angry? Nope, don't think so. After all the Arab world was a wast sort of empire once, encompassing most of the Mid-East, North Africa, and some parts of southern Europe, with a position vs. the rest of the world allmost as dominant as the positon of the USA is today.
That is until the Mongolian Golden Horde sacked Baghdad, with the Ottomans taking over bussines in their path, then the French, Britts and Italians taking over bussiness in the North African parts from the Ottomans and Barbary coast kingdoms, then the Britts cheating out the Arabs in the aftermath of the arab revolt of WW-1 ..... etc.
Bin Laden & co are bedu nostalgics dreaming of re-establishing the old order of the caliphs, living hapily ever after by moving around on camelback and living in tents, and they'll hate anything standing in the way of their goal.
And as any nostalgics of past glory they also move backwards into the future.

As for this ex-CIA guy blaming Israel for the US trouble in Iraq... Well everyone needs a scapegoat some times.
But as long as the television clergymen of some following in the states don't pick up on the same tune (though I guess one can say perhaps Louis Farrakhan allready have picked up the tune), Israel will stay pretty safe I suppose. But if it do become good bussiness for mainstream television clergy to blame "the sons of Israel" (may look unlikely now, but in 20, 30 or 40 years time...), I would look over my shoulder for new allies if I was Israeli.

[OldRecon]

I think doubters should check the Hitler meeting the grand mufti thread too.

The grand mufti liked what he saw in the final solution.

Well the shady trade relations of some US and British individuals/companies, within finance and trade, with the Hitler regime, through institutions like the Bank of international settlements (BIS) weren't all that pure either.

[lider_r]

So in other words, do what the bully says?

who is bullying Israel? Last time i checked it was Israel that was occupying land and using its superior military forces in the region to enforce that occupation.


You gotta source for that?

Are you asking me if i have a source for me not single handedly abusing a whole population, killing innocent civilians, stealing land etc?



Unqualified? How so?


So sending Israel bunker busters during a war, giving it a massive aid package, providing it with military hardware and refusing to critisize its human rights record is not unqualified, blind support?


So in essense, you're saying that if a white man attempts to murder a black man because he's black, the black man needs to do something about himself being black so that he does not get murdered?

The 37 word sentence that didnt make any sense....


Don't forget the majority of the bases that are in the arab world are their by choice, not by our gov't forcing them to have our bases, if the terrorist really had a problem with that, they would be soley attacking their own gov'ts.

They are their by the choice of governments who don't exactly have the populations total support. Saudi was a good example of that.


Well if people are gonna start taking the easy way out of this problem and suggest all of the worlds problems originate with the jews why don't they summon up the guts to just say what they feel.

Since when did anybody say all the world's problems were down to the jews (apart from Mr Gibson). When Israel illegally takes land, shoots journalists, bombs UN bases, kills palestianian civilians by 'accident' and the US is giving them direct support and failing to condemn any of Israel's irresponsible actions then you must be blind for not accepting there will be ramifications.

America has always had a problem accepting responsibility for its actions, its propped up dictatorships all around the world which have led things MS13 ending up on US streets, the leftists swing in South America which has the US in a panic etc etc these are all the effects of extremely bad policy decisions which have come back to haunt America. If you back the guy who is acting like a bully, then whoever he picks on is going to hate the bully as well as the bully's friends.



After all, what do you do with a problem thats causing all of the worlds problems.

Hitler had an idea about that didn't he?


Your in Mel Gibson terroritory. Again.


So, in other words, give in to the hostage takers demands and give him what he wants, because he won't do it again, and if he does, he certainly won't demand more next time, will he?

What if the 'hostage taker' as you put as a justifiable grievance? Like somebody bulldozing his house so a jewish colony can go ahead?

[lider_r]

That's because the Palestinians target Israeli civilians deliberately. The Israelis try to avoid civilian casualties...

So the Israelis, the whitehouse and CNN constantly tell us. The reality on the ground is much different:

Massacre of Marwaheen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184122.stm), the indescriminate bombing of civilian areas within Lebanon, the choice of using cheaper unsafe cluster bombs (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/lebanon/4353.html), the saturation od southern lebanon with bomblets which have killed civilians after the war and injured UN peacekeepers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/819096.html), the possibily deliberate attack on UN peacekeepers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/26/uun.xml)in southern lebanon and Israels failure to provide detailed maps of unexploded munitions to EOD teams (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17209).

This idea that Israel always tries to avoid civilian casulties is nothing more than propaganda most of the time. If Israel was so concerned with civilian casualties then why would it risk killing civilians by bombing downtown locations, saturating the ground with millions of dodgy cluster bombs and failing to provide security for those UN peacekeepers on the border?

Israel cares about civilian casualties as much as hezbollah does. Which is fark all.

[Steel21]

Yes if this line of thinking prevails Taiwan and every other friend we have in the world would know we would sell out our friends to appease our enemies.

From a global security perspective, there is no such thing are "Friends".

There are interests and risks, costs and benefits.

For that matter, there are no enemies neither.

Why the Jews deserve our help any more or less than anyone else?

I say, since it the "Promised land", then let the almighty come down and help them, they don't need General Dynamics.

If Jewish Americans wanna help. Send non tax deductible contributions.

Frankly, no contrubributions should be tax deductible.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

who is bullying Israel? Last time i checked it was Israel that was occupying land and using its superior military forces in the region to enforce that occupation.

Do you have any comprehension?

We're talking about the US's support for Israel and how muslim terrorist supposedly hate and attack us because of that support.

Scheur claims and it sounds like you are aswell that if our support for Israel did not exist we would not be in our current situation.

So what that basically means is give up your relationship with Israel and we'll leave you alone.

The Israelis do their best to avoid collaterol damage, the palestinian terrorist do their best to maximize it.

If you have something that proves the exact opposite, please, feel free to enlighten me.


Are you asking me if i have a source for me not single handedly abusing a whole population, killing innocent civilians, stealing land etc?

Yes. Where is it?


So sending Israel bunker busters during a war, giving it a massive aid package, providing it with military hardware and refusing to critisize its human rights record is not unqualified, blind support?

No. Please elaborate how its unqualified, blind support.


The 37 word sentence that didnt make any sense....

Thus your lack of comprehension.


They are their by the choice of governments who don't exactly have the populations total support. Saudi was a good example of that.

Like I said, if it was all about that, they're attacks would be primarily or at least more spectacular in nature towards their own gov'ts.


Since when did anybody say all the world's problems were down to the jews (apart from Mr Gibson). When Israel illegally takes land, shoots journalists, bombs UN bases, kills palestianian civilians by 'accident' and the US is giving them direct support and failing to condemn any of Israel's irresponsible actions then you must be blind for not accepting there will be ramifications.

Scheur and you and all other leftists and muslim terrorists.



America has always had a problem accepting responsibility for its actions, its propped up dictatorships all around the world which have led things MS13 ending up on US streets, the leftists swing in South America which has the US in a panic etc etc these are all the effects of extremely bad policy decisions which have come back to haunt America. If you back the guy who is acting like a bully, then whoever he picks on is going to hate the bully as well as the bully's friends.


How is this related to Americas policy with Israel.

If you really had a problem with all those problems, you should be writing angry letters to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.


What if the 'hostage taker' as you put as a justifiable grievance? Like somebody bulldozing his house so a jewish colony can go ahead?

Justifiable grievance?

Putting aside your anti-Israeli mentality, I don't understand how you can justify taking someone hostage period for money not a house to replace the one supposedly bulldozed.

Money that will be funneled into more terrorism.

[TallGuy]

So the Israelis, the whitehouse and CNN constantly tell us. The reality on the ground is much different:

Massacre of Marwaheen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184122.stm), the indescriminate bombing of civilian areas within Lebanon, the choice of using cheaper unsafe cluster bombs (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/lebanon/4353.html), the saturation od southern lebanon with bomblets which have killed civilians after the war and injured UN peacekeepers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/819096.html), the possibily deliberate attack on UN peacekeepers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/26/uun.xml)in southern lebanon and Israels failure to provide detailed maps of unexploded munitions to EOD teams (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17209).

This idea that Israel always tries to avoid civilian casulties is nothing more than propaganda most of the time. If Israel was so concerned with civilian casualties then why would it risk killing civilians by bombing downtown locations, saturating the ground with millions of dodgy cluster bombs and failing to provide security for those UN peacekeepers on the border?

Israel cares about civilian casualties as much as hezbollah does. Which is fark all.
Many of these apartment buildings were occupied by Hezbollah. They had anti-aircraft guns on the rooftops, which means they were a legitimate military target. So blame Hezbollah for putting their guns there.
The BBC and ******* are notorious for bias reporting. A ******* photographer even photoshopped some photos and was eventually fired.
I haven't heard anyone complain about the Lebanese forces using heavy artillery on the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon these recent months.
As long it's not the IDF, I guess it's OK...:cantbeli:
Double standards....

[Steel21]

Many of these apartment buildings were occupied by Hezbollah. They had anti-aircraft guns on the rooftops, which means they were a legitimate military target. So blame Hezbollah for putting their guns there.
The BBC and ******* are notorious for bias reporting. A ******* photographer even photoshopped some photos and was eventually fired.
I haven't heard anyone complain about the Lebanese forces using heavy artillery on the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon these recent months.
As long it's not the IDF, I guess it's OK...:cantbeli:
Double standards....

I would go so far as to say there is no right or wrong party in a war.

In a conflict, sh*t happens, people die. Are they really apartment building with innocent civilians with AAA on top or just AAA with logistic support and potential Hezbollah recruit inside.... I don't really give a hoot.

How are is the arbitrary differentiation between military and civilians?

Should there be?

The winner is always on the right side.

[OldRecon]

I have no problem cutting out the aid we send. Its not a starving nation after all.

Then again I think we need to stop wasting money in the form of aid and weapon packages in general.

In other words: "you want to lock yourself up in the toilet"?
Not all aid and foreign policy endevours work out badly.
Ok. There's muddled ones, like the US engagment in Vietnam and the present one in Iraq. But then without the Marshall plan/aid of the late 1940's to mid 60's, the US probably would have had to shoulder both Iraq and A-stan completely alone, let alone I rather doub't NATO would still exist today.
And for some strange reason the awareness of and the goodwill from the Marshall aid among us Eurowussies appears to be somewhat stronger today, than back in the 1960's with the Eurowussie anti-Vietnam war hippies. Many of whom in one way or another had directly benefited from the Marshall aid during their adolescence during the 1940's and 50's :D.

Now what really makes the US strong, besides the ideological bla bla about "the spirit of its people" (which nevertheless have something to it)? Well it's the US position in the world trade. Without which it would be hard to finance the US military machine in the first place.
I rather doubt "locking yourself up in the toilet" would do US trade relations much good in the long run.
If you don't dare you don't win.
But then it would perhaps be better to dare if the top dogs had a somewhat better perception of what's possible and what's not :roll:.

[Steel21]

In other words: "you want to lock yourself up in the toilet"?
Not all aid and foreign policy endevours work out badly.
Ok. There's muddled ones, like the US engagment in Vietnam and the present one in Iraq. But then without the Marshall plan/aid of the late 1940's to mid 60's, the US probably would have had to shoulder both Iraq and A-stan completely alone, let alone I rather doub't NATO would still exist today.
And for some strange reason the awareness of the & goodwill from the Marshall aid among us Eurowussies appears to be somewhat stronger today, than back in the 1960's with the Eurowussie anti-Vietnam war hippies. Many of whom in one way or another had directly benefited from the Marshall aid during their adolescence during the 1940's and 50's :D.

This Just In: WE ARE ALONE IN IRAQ!

NATO has no real function today.

Marshall plan had an immediate effect for the average American taxpayer. Marshall plan increased availeble markets for US goods and services.

You can aide Iraq all you want, I'm not buying an Iraq car anytime soon. I dont think they will build PS4 neither.

With nukes, we can lock ourselves in a closet, and it would pretty darn comfy.

[Palmach]

This Just In: WE ARE ALONE IN IRAQ!

NATO has no real function today.

Remind me, who are those people carrying out a large part of the Afgan operational activity?


With nukes, we can lock ourselves in a closet, and it would pretty darn comfy

Util oil hits $250 a barrel.

[Steel21]

Remind me, who are those people carrying out a large part of the Afgan operational activity?

Util oil hits $250 a barrel.

There are something like 40,000 troops there.

US = 25000
UK, CN, FR& Germany = ~10000

Anytime you see a element smaller than a BDE, unless they are like a SOF unit, or doing a very specific task, they'll be spending most of their time just supporting themselves, and reporting back and forth with country of origin.

What is the current NATO charter? Poland and most of Eastern Europe is in NATO. Who are they defending theselves against?

We should've went to an alternate source of power a LOoooong time ago.

Or we can help Canada become the 2nd largest oil producer by helping them harvest the oil sands.

[modern nomad]

That's because the Palestinians target Israeli civilians deliberately. The Israelis try to avoid civilian casualties...

On the night of July 22, an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb in a densely populated area of Gaza City, killing Hamas military wing leader Salah Shehadeh and 16 others, of whom 15 were civilians and 9 were children, including Shehadeh’s wife and child. Over one hundred others were injured in the attack.
In a Ha’aretz interview, Israeli Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz claimed to be satisfied both "militarily and morally" with the operation. He maintained that the "the decision making process was right, balanced, proper and cautious," although he admitted there was a "problem…with the information" on which the attack was based."


http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-shehadeh.html

this halutz is such a sweet gentlemen....

[Palmach]

1. The intended target was the arch-terrorist, not the surrounding civilians, i.e. the IDF was neither interested nore seeking to maximize civilian casualties. The aim of the terrorist attacks is quite opposite - their goal and purpose is to hit as many civilians as possible.

2. The operation in question is exceptional in that the decision to attack was taken despite probable collateral damage. The reason was the extrime danger S. presented and the difficulty in locating him. Altimately the fault rests with him for hiding amongst the civilian population knowing full well he was a likely target.

3. NATO airstrikes (carried out in support of Canadian troops amongst others) routinely cause civilian casualties far exceeding those suffered in Gaza.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1636551,00.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-22-voa53.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#2007

Selective outrage, anyone?

[sinophile]

Forking the thread just a little to get away from the flaming and redundancy....

Whats the net-benefit, the tangible upside to the US Israel relationship? I'm not talking about high-minded and abstract ideals like these (http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesIssueBriefs/The_U.S.-Israel_Relationship.pdf); though I do believe principles have value in politics and world affairs.

Where is the elevator pitch anyone can understand, tailored for an age where the more pragmatic (less idealistic) a country behaves - the greater its wealth, influence and power in the world [think China]

Okay, so disengagement with Israel carries a huge cost and very little benefit. This thread is full of those points, and I made some of them. But Mearsheimer, Walt, Scheuer, Bryzinski, Carter... these guys have simplicity, pain, peak-oil, budget-deficits and war-fatigue on their side in arguing for a change in US policy.

I'm not alone in making this observation: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/880061.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/880061.html)

Scheur shouldn't be too impressed with Israel's covert effort. That fiction he's created is none to effective. America's influence over Israel in successive peace concessions, the recent Lebanon war and countless non-responses to terrorist attacks on Israelis is proof Israel is more poodle than puppeteer.

[LaoSexMachine]

I support Israel all the way but yes, the Jewish lobby is powerful up on Capitol Hill.

[AlterMega]

I support Israel all the way but yes, the Jewish lobby is powerful up on Capitol Hill.

as opposed to any other religious or politically motivated lobby?

[lider_r]

Do you have any comprehension?

We're talking about the US's support for Israel and how muslim terrorist supposedly hate and attack us because of that support.

Scheur claims and it sounds like you are aswell that if our support for Israel did not exist we would not be in our current situation.

Correct. Do you not think having an american made apache flying over occupied terrorities causing 'collatoral damage' is doing any favours for the US? I can't see how you could be in anymore denial regarding this matter. If AQ hit the US with an Iranian made missile i take it you wouldn't be blaming Iran?


So what that basically means is give up your relationship with Israel and we'll leave you alone.

As Scheur points out, Americas unqualified, unwavering support for Israel is only part of the problem of terrorism, albeit one of the most significant parts.


The Israelis do their best to avoid collaterol damage, the palestinian terrorist do their best to maximize it.

You sound like an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman.


If you have something that proves the exact opposite, please, feel free to enlighten me.

Again:

Massacre of Marwaheen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184122.stm), the indescriminate bombing of civilian areas within Lebanon, the choice of using cheaper unsafe cluster bombs (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/lebanon/4353.html), the saturation od southern lebanon with bomblets which have killed civilians after the war and injured UN peacekeepers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/819096.html), the possibily deliberate attack on UN peacekeepers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/26/uun.xml)in southern lebanon and Israels failure to provide detailed maps of unexploded munitions to EOD teams (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17209).

These are not the actions of an army which is seriously concerned about reducing civilian casualties. These actions are mainly just born out of revenge and frustration.


Yes. Where is it?

Considering im not typing this message from the police station or the Hague, you'll have to take my word for it.


No. Please elaborate how its unqualified, blind support.

Sigh. Lack of criticism where criticism is due regarding human rights abuses, killing of UN peacekeepers, provision of financial aid and cutting edge military hardware. All this regardless of how Israel acts.


Thus your lack of comprehension.

My lack of comprehension or your inability to form coherent sentences?



Like I said, if it was all about that, they're attacks would be primarily or at least more spectacular in nature towards their own gov'ts.


How naive. AQ know they can cause more damage oppressive arab governments by attacking those governments allies. Hence 9/11.


Scheur and you and all other leftists and muslim terrorists.

rofl


How is this related to Americas policy with Israel.

It demonstrates an ongoing trend of America using various brutal dictators to secure its own short term interests, regardless of human rights etc. The intellectual apathy of a good half of the American population ensures that the repucussions of these policies can be passed of as 'attacks by people who hate us because we are more free than them'.



Justifiable grievance?

Putting aside your anti-Israeli mentality, I don't understand how you can justify taking someone hostage period for money not a house to replace the one supposedly bulldozed.


I dont approve of the methods many palestinians use to further their cause, but i sympathise with anyone of any nationality when they are evicted from their land because of their ethnicity, nationality or religion by somebody else who claims to have more of a right to that land because of purely idealogical reasons.

Im not anti-israeli, nor am i pro-palestine. Im pro- human rights.

[lider_r]

Many of these apartment buildings were occupied by Hezbollah. They had anti-aircraft guns on the rooftops, which means they were a legitimate military target. So blame Hezbollah for putting their guns there.

So all of the building the IDF bombed had anti-aircraft guns on them? Even the UN one on the border?


The BBC and ******* are notorious for bias reporting. A ******* photographer even photoshopped some photos and was eventually fired.

They are also notrious for being shot at by Israeli soldiers.



I haven't heard anyone complain about the Lebanese forces using heavy artillery on the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon these recent months.
As long it's not the IDF, I guess it's OK...:cantbeli:
Double standards....


Thats a completly different topic of conversation. If your asking me if i approve of the Lebanonese army's shelling of the camps then the answer is no, regardless of the scumbags they were trying to kill/capture.

Violence which causes heavy civilian casulties is unacceptable regardless of who is carrying it out. This is why we have international laws.

[Palmach]

Violence which causes heavy civilian casulties is unacceptable regardless of who is carrying it out. This is why we have international laws.

Awsome, now good luck applying them to the NATO forces in Afganistan or US/UK in Iraq.

People like you tend to appeal to the "international law" only when it suites their agenda.

[Snoshi]

Awsome, now good luck applying them to the NATO forces in Afganistan or US/UK in Iraq.

People like you tend to appeal to the "international law" only when it suites their agenda.

Yep.. Only today 25 afghan civilians got killed in Afghanistan.. And its not even in BBC.. When one Palestinian dies BBC cries.

[lider_r]

Awsome, now good luck applying them to the NATO forces in Afganistan or US/UK in Iraq.

People like you tend to appeal to the "international law" only when it suites their agenda.

Your assuming i dont care about afghan civilian losses even when NATO is involved, so allow me to reiterate.

Violence which causes heavy civilian casulties is unacceptable regardless of who is carrying it out.

If an international law was broken by NATO troops it should be treated like any other- investigated and those responsible prosecuted.


Yep.. Only today 25 afghan civilians got killed in Afghanistan.. And its not even in BBC.. When one Palestinian dies BBC cries.

And let me guess they never report Israeli civilian casualties either because they are just so damned biased?

[Snoshi]

Then why are you so fast at criticizing Israel for civilians casualties while most of the countries who are at war kill as much or even more?

[Palmach]

Your assuming i dont care about afghan civilian losses even when NATO is involved, so allow me to reiterate.

Violence which causes heavy civilian casulties is unacceptable regardless of who is carrying it out.

Fine, when I see you hi-jack every Afganistan or Iraq thread with self-rightious accusations against the evil US/UK/NATO/the West forces I might take your statements at face value. As of now I am less then convinced.

[QUOTE=lider_r;2662892]And let me guess they never report Israeli civilian casualties either because they are just so damned biased?

The are biased, the efforts on the part of BBC to supress publication of their internal report on the matter is a good indication.

[budgie]

These days anyone disagreeing with Bush is a conspircay theorist. Don't worry, things will change after 2008...

[Durandal]

These days anyone disagreeing with Bush is a conspircay theorist. Don't worry, things will change after 2008...

Yeah, it won't be George Bush we are talking about.

That's all that is going to change, ultimately.

[lider_r]

Then why are you so fast at criticizing Israel for civilians casualties while most of the countries who are at war kill as much or even more?

Because nobody ever criticizes Israel, and when they do they are branded as terrorist lovers.

I guess Israels bombing of roads, waterways, wheat silos, ports, farms, hospitals and housing complexes were all legitimate targets then...

[JJC]

Because nobody ever criticizes Israel, and when they do they are branded as terrorist lovers.

I guess Israels bombing of roads, waterways, wheat silos, ports, farms, hospitals and housing complexes were all legitimate targets then...

When will people like you start criticizing Islamic radicals for breaching your cherished international laws by using hospitals, civilian housing complexes, and farms for their military operations?

[Snoshi]

When will people like you start criticizing Islamic radicals for breaching your cherished international laws by using hospitals, civilian housing complexes, and farms for their military operations?

What does it matter for Lider? He will support Hezbullah of using these buildings for defence, but will whine when they will get bombed..

And he said that you cannot criticize Israel? Israel is probably most criticized nation when it conducts military operation, every detail like "Mohammed got a headache from the Israeli jets" are noticed.

[lider_r]

What does it matter for Lider? He will support Hezbullah of using these buildings for defence, but will whine when they will get bombed.

Find one single instance where i supported Hezbollah, approved of their actions or said what they did was right. This is just another example of the 'if you critisize israel you are with the terrorists' attitude.



Israel is probably most criticized nation when it conducts military operation, Not when it comes to the US. And when it is critisized for such things as using tank in urban areas, firing on international journalists, seizing land in the west bank and peppering the ground with cluster munitions then it deserves that criticism, as does any other country which behaves the same.

When it comes to the US we have not seen a single peice of criticism come from the whitehouse in regard to Israel's actions. Specifically during the last lebanon war.


Well, of course, the history of this is not just two weeks old. In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon, violating all kinds of Geneva conventions and UN resolutions, the New York Times’s Tom Friedman accused the Israeli military, actually reported, indiscriminate bombing in Beirut, and there were warships, Israeli shelling indiscriminately in Beirut. These are total war crimes, massive damage and death and destruction to innocent people. The border between Israel and Lebanon involves raids of Israel, much more than Hezbollah, because of the more powerful factor.

They still control large farm acreage, the Shebaa Farms, which are Lebanese soil. The Israelis have abducted Israeli civilians. They won’t tell the United Nations or the Lebanese government the location for thousands of land mines in South Lebanon so they can be deactivated. And during the 18-year occupation of South Lebanon, itself illegal under international law from 1982 to the year 2000, Israel drew water, precious water, from the Litani and even took fertile topsoil back to Israel, and other plunders. So, you know, for Tony Snow to act like, well, you know, everything started with this attack by Hezbollah, which is basically an attack designed to provide for a prisoner exchange. This has happened numerous times over the Lebanese-Israeli border.

But as Israeli commentators pointed out, this invasion of Lebanon doesn't have anything to do with it. This is just a pretext by Israel, that Israel wants a puppet regime in Lebanon. It cannot stand an independent Lebanon, and it seeks to achieve that objective by this massive invasion and dividing the sectarian conflicts, as it did in 1982. So, it’s really tragic to see the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, and others acting as if they were emissaries of the Israeli embassy. When Mr. Burns said on the McNeil-Lehrer Report the other night that all the civilian deaths and destruction in Lebanon are due to Hezbollah, that is the kind of go signal that the Israeli regime wants to hear from the United States.

.....And all this requires people to speak up, like Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun and the Jewish Americans who were speaking up, like the 300 British Jews who spoke up condemning the devastating attack by Israel against defenseless people in Gaza. And, of course, all over the world the protests that are going on. There are 66 UN resolutions that are still on the books, critical of Israel, that Israel has not complied with. 66, not just the one resolution about disarming Hezbollah.
Ralph Nader on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/20/1434256#transcript)