Israel Strikes Iranian Oil Tankers Bound For Syria

Its not about Gadaffi - whether or not he was a good guy - or Assad and whether or not he was a good guy - what is with this avoidance mode - everything to avoid the central points being made.

"Its not complicated .. what we did to Gaddafi - was nasty - and did our nation no favors - and certainly did no favors for Libya - the war on terror - peace and security in the world - or make the world a better place"

Do you not at least have some concern for the people of Libya ? - or just never bothered to think about it ... or the numerous other issues I brought up .. such as Lil Kim -giving us ZERO hope .. not that there was much anyway .. but that is not the point..

We have all kinds of dealings with other nations .. Some of these dealings are based on mutual trust .. even with folks like China and Russia - and most especially with those two..

you seem not to see (or are intentionally ignoring) any of the moves happening on the geopolitical chessboard - outside the myopic focus on some pawn - completely oblivious to your Queen being ravaged and your King being sodomized.

These forays into the ME - are not good for you - not good for me - not good for the Nation - Not good for the ME - nor Earth.

10 Trillion dollars we could have diverted from mindless military expeditions - to infrastructure , Education, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium over the last 2 decades.

Instead we threw that money down the toilet .. because Gadaffi and Assad are bad boys - oh .. and don't forget the Saddamite.

Any questions ?

 

Why this constant obsession with infrastructure and education? I want this country to kill people and break things. Lots of things. That's what nations should do. That and explore space.

 

LOL not sure how to respond - I mean .. normally I would guess the person was being sarcastic .. but - in your case, I am not sure.

Can you tell us how you really feel

 

You just don't give up, do you, despite pretending to be adult (albeit a petty one) in your reply to me:

(Though it is hard to see what, from my reply, would have led to hard feelings which you might need to, "get over," since my reply, unlike yours, made no personal attacks or insinuations about you).

Well that quote, at top, is not even an insult to my face, but included in your reply to @Poohbear . And this one comes from your response to @Dayton3 :

I can't help but notice the similarity to your actual reply to me, which preceded these other two responses:

So, either you are acting like a spite-filled child, repeating your totally fabricated allegations about me, every chance you get--

and I submit to moderators that this is not a personal attack, as the evidence above, points to that specific, factual characterization; I would, however, be amenable to changing, child to, "adult with an inability to properly control his emotions and/or regulate his actions," but child just seemed simpler--

or you are a broken record, a 1-argument pony, filling up forum space with endless reiteration,

or both.

Well, to simplify this for you, I am not a mulla-apologist, as you suggest, whatever that is. Nor am I, as you more boldly intimate, in your response to Poohbear, an ANTI-SEMITE ("...hypocrites who offer cover for what is obviously coming and for their APPROVAL of it because of who the 'enemy' is"). My "motive," was nothing disguised at all, to the competent reader, as I stated it, I think unobscurely, in my original post, which occasioned your first reply:

I added the underlining, caps, & emboldening as an aid, due to what seems your, "inattentive," way of reading (so-called). So, preventing ourselves from being dragged into an Israeli war is my motive; I would hardly call that anti-Semitic or pro-Mulla, since it would apply to most any other country, against most any other enemy.

I do have other inclinations, as well, of course. The main one, which I, again, think that a competent, & sincere, reader would have had no trouble discerning, is my prejudice AGAINST ROGUE NATIONS, operating as though they have no obligations to INTERNATIONAL LAW. This applies to our very own nation, when it acts lawlessly, as well as to IRAN, as well as to ISRAEL-- there are no exceptions to this, in my book, unlike in yours. That is the most basic-level difference in our viewpoints, as I also made very clear in my reply, but which only spawned, from you, all this bad-mouthing of me (or, more specifically, of the type of, hate-worthy, person, who does, almost verbatim, what you accused me of doing). I believe that falls under the term, "gas-lighting," or, if I were Jewish, would be called, "demonizing."

(BTW-- It seems odd that you would be so hyper-sensitive to appearances of anti-Semitism, that you would unfairly disseminate such profuse propaganda against me, yet not realize how poorly your disingenuous, even sneaky, back-stabbing way of doing it, might reflect upon the people for whom you are attempting to be a supporting voice, and spokesperson.)

 

I love reading about history. Thus I love reading about wars.

 

Right - but there is a difference between reading History -and about War - and Wanting the nation to throw away economic security on the basis of "Lets have more War" ..

 

A former neighbor of mine was imprisoned in the United States and has written a book, "Let The Chips Fall", which also talks about his time in the war and as a prisoner. I remember, he had it pretty good and the times and events were often funny and hilarious. He sent me his book as a gift. I should read it again now, that we are talking about that subject.
He did not emigrate to the US after the war, he came to Canada instead.
You can order the book here:
https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/isbn/0533118891/

About my source being a revisionist source, and you preferring Wikipedia, you need to learn some hard facts:
Your Wikipedia is controlled and constantly edited by certain people:
https://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque_on_wikipedia.htm

Here is an excerpt, so you know what I mean:
...Wikipedia editors censor anything which is inconsistent with a view of the world that they wish everyone else would accept. This is presumably done to further the aims of the group to which these editors belong, and to whom (it seems) lying in the service of (what they regard as) a "higher cause" is considered acceptable.

Wikipedia may be useful for quick consultation on such non-controversial matters as the melting point of platinum or the latitude of Irkutsk, but because biassed and misleading articles occur in association with other factually correct articles (a kind of "innocence by association") Wikipedia is not simply of limited value but is a positively harmful source of disinformation, at least to the degree to which those editors attempting to impose their false assertions are not prevented from doing so by the efforts of others who value the freedom to present evidence whether or not that evidence is unpalatable to some.

 

It's an odd thing that this is what history is about. You can't have 500 years of peasant farmers
sowing and harvesting their crops. Unless a meteorite lands upon them there's no EVENT in
such 'history.'

 

Yes, it was far far better to fall into the hands of Americans than Russians.
Sure, I have issues with Wikipedia and I cannot change entries which offend.
But then, if you could, those entries might change by the minute.
The world is full of revisionist 'historians' and 'scientists.' I am sure if the allies
murdered 400,000 German POW's we would be hearing about it. Just as we
hear about the millions who died in Soviet detention.

 

They shouldn't have signed the NPT.

The Iranian leaders' goals are far from a simple "bargaining chip". They are working to create an Iran-led Shia crescent throughout the Middle East. They succeeded in Lebanon and Syria, tried in Bahrain but failed, still hard at work in Iraq, and are now hoping to seduce Yemen. Building military naval bases all around, including on the coasts of Syria and Yemen (<-hyperlink) is one of their declared goals. That's not a bargaining chip, that's regional hegemony.

Of course striving for regional hegemony is not in itself a bad thing. The question is, what would be the consequences of Iran acquiring regional hegemony, not to mention the various atrocities paving the way to achieve it. Iranian regional hegemony would spell disaster, partly because it will lead to radicalization of Sunnis and mushrooming of Sunni violent "resistance" (aka ISIS style terrorists).

Yes, I know, Saudi Arabia is not a happy place either. But as long as the two regional powers need outside help to curb each other's ambitions, there's hope that the same outside will have some positive influence there, as it's been happening in Saudi Arabia for decades (slowly, but steadily). Iran, on the other hand, has been on a sharp descent from heights of Middle Eastern civilization and culture to a Dark Ages style theocracy. Right now, Saudi Arabia looks like the better option (I can't believe I'm writing this, let alone think this...).

Obama's policies in the Middle East have been one disastrous failure after another. The attack on Libya, however, was not his idea. He was just helping his Italian and French allies, who were desperately trying to avoid having their shores flooded with Libyan refugees during a long and bloody civil war in Libya. The idiots thought that ending the conflict fast would enable a stable Libyan government to quickly heal the country. Neither the Europeans, nor the Americans, have ever managed to understand the MENA realities properly.

Dumb and Dumber is a very good definition for above mentioned politicians.

I'll need some proof for your "US guaranteed Gaddafi's safety in exchange for renouncing the bomb" claim. As far as I know, a mix of sanctions, successful efforts of the intelligence community to curb the nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, and the invasion of Iraq, were the most important factors in Gaddafi's decision. Here's a hopefully non-partisan analysis:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology

Israel targets stuff that could benefit Hezbollah, or Iranian military activities in Syria. As I already proved, with a link to a reliable source, Israel is not usually targeting Iranian tankers. Payback for the intentional oil spill in Israeli economic waters, and the bombing of an Israeli civil ship, is probably the reason for the attack on one Iranian tanker. Nothing to do with the nuke program.

Yeah, let's give the theocratic Sharia loving regime of Iran nukes just to spite Israel. Kindergarten level mentality.

 

I find all this quite knowledgeable stuff. Well done.

 

You so did not.

No they're not, they're both fighting a proxy war against one another.

I do hope you're joking

No, VIOLENCE! It does require weapons.

These elections are simply fraudulent and you should put your more faith in your horoscope. The West wants a free and democratic Syria, nothing less, nothing more.

 

Uh... you can tell when something is nuclear. It's signature is quite clear.
What happened in Beirut was conventional explosives.
As an aside, tens of thousands of ordinary Lebanese homes are used
to store munitions, explosives and rockets in Lebanon. Hezbollah has
about 150,000 rockets, all aimed at Israel.

 

Slanting is the name of the game. If it's YOUR media it might be called the
Daily Jeaneette and reflect your view of the world.
Britain's BBC and the Australian ABC were both meant to be non-slanting
media, but quickly became quite left wing outlets - particularly Australia's.

 

No Rob.

I've seen the look of terror in the eyes of animals and humans. Likely you have too, but maybe you are not as perceptive as I and did not realize what you were seeing. I was fortunate to have taken care of horses as a youngster. The look of fear in their eyes is very similar to the look in human eyes. No explosives necessary to terrorize humans or animals.

As the General said, terror is a natural reaction to threats. Those who exploit that are terrorists. No explosives required.

Sure, the clowns in the media would have you believe otherwise, but they are known liars.

 

I'm not sure to which video you are referring but frequently valid condemnation of Israeli war crimes in former Palestine is dismissed as "anti Semitism".

Repeatedly howling "anti Semitism" at every slight, real or perceived is so commonplace that it is known as "the trick" according to Shulamit Aloni:

EXCERPTS "“Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic.....

And it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is to justify everything we do to the Palestinians.”CONTINUED

Shulamit Aloni
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1906/S00076/dont-be-caught-out-by-the-trick.htm

Yes, German POWs who made it to the US were treated relatively well.

However, German POWs who were captives of the French and British were frequently tortured, starved and employed as slave labor long after the war was over. German POWs in Stalin's gulags suffered sadism almost as bad as Eisenhower's real death camps:

"Eisenhower’s death camps — a stain on American history"
https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/eisenhowers-death-camps-a-stain-on-american-history/

EXCERPT "The POW camps set up by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, after World War II ended, are also called death camps, because 1.7 million German POWs allegedly died in these camps. To read more about Eisenhower’s camps, go to this website or this website.

On May 7, 1945, the German army had surrendered to General Eisenhower, who refused to shake hands with the German General, as is customary. The neutral country of Switzerland was removed as the Protecting Power for German prisoners, which was another violation of the Geneva Convention. General George S. Patton quickly released the prisoners who had surrendered to his Third Army, but General Eisenhower held his POWs until the end of 1946, forcing them to live on starvation rations. German civilians were forbidden to bring food to the POWs. Red Cross packages sent to the German POW camps were returned. The POW camps had no barracks or tents"CONTINUED


I lived, studied and worked in what was then W. Germany in the 1970s where I had the opportunity to meet survivors of Eisenhower's death camps. Why should their recollections be any less credible than those of holocaust survivors especially since there are no reparations to gain?

 

The West wants a Western leaning liberal democracy - so you say. Yet they were supporting the Sunni hard line jihadists from the Gulf states, who wanted to impose sharia law on the Syrian people.

What all the Syrians wanted; such as the Alawites, Christians, Shia's etc. was Assad and his secular and all inclusive society. The Sunni majority, who were less than the combined minorities in Syria, and who believed they should have control of the country, realized afterwards that they had been deceived by their Gulf and Western supporters and rejoined Assad's army.

Personally, I find it disgusting that our government goes around imposing what they want on people in foreign countries against their will, and under the pretense of 'democracy' when it is anything but democracy. Is it any wonder then, that the same deceptions have been used, and are continuously being used domestically by the Washington cabal.

I'm singing now a wondrous song
To tell you all that right is wrong
and what you thought was naught before
was but a lie that you had bought -
from us - Jeannette

​

 

In a way it is useless for us to argue over a million more or less dead Germans, one needs to start way back to the beginning of WWI, of which WWII was only the continuation of the total destruction of the German people, to get a better prospective. For some reason, unknown to me, certain people hated us so much, they wanted us gone forever. That desire you can even now see more clearly by observing Germany's treatment by our mainly western former enemies and their controlling henchmen. Creating all these millions of refugees, or rape-fugees as the Germans call them, and shoo them to Germany AND have Merkel welcome them with open arms, is, in my opinion, a well-thought out plan by the same forces who started the wars in the first place. To destroy the German spirit by paying for and sending over hundreds of thousands foreign 3rd class men, is their latest attempt towards their goal.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...refugee-than-killed-by-a-terrorist-in-europe/

Of course, not to forget the decades of steadfast brainwashing of the newer generations is bearing its fruits. How on earth could otherwise a granddaughter sentence her Grandfather to prison for merely having lived and done his duty under the Nazi regime? That also applies for any over ninety year old great-grandmother as we have witnessed in the case of Mrs. Haverbeck.

I imagine, behind our backs these evil forces cackle and snicker with satisfaction and glee. By forcing the German and many other European governments to adopt their Anti-holocaust laws, they strengthen and perpetuate their lies. I believe they now call it Anti-Semitism and Anti-Hate laws to catch everybody who utters a wrong word. Five years in jail is the minimum, plus some monetary fines. IF they wanted to abolish those "Hate" laws, and that's what they are... hate of the German people, they could do so at any time.

We Germans lost both wars and that's the trouble. We are totally at their mercy. Most German politicians have adapted to that servitude quite well...


Dear Gnoib, you are wrong when you say there was no food for the German prisoners in 1945. Records have shown how there was plenty, and the Red Cross was ready to deliver food, but was forbidden by the Amis. Eisenhower, the guy in charge, hated the Germans with a vengeance...

"God, I hate the Germans..." --Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944

https://mk.christogenea.org/references/eisenhowers-holocaust

Read this article and you will hopefully remember your heritage. By siding now with our torturers, who have not apologized for their crimes against our soldiers, you are hardly any better.
This article, too, mentions the 1.7 mil figure. Why do you want to find excuses and file away on it? Of course, let me not forget, you are a victim of their brainwashing tactics.

Here is one clarifying excerpt from above link:
"One month before the end of World War 11, General Eisenhower issued special orders concerning the treatment of German Prisoners and specific in the language of those orders was this statement, "Prison enclosures are to provide no shelter or other comforts."

Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose, who was given access to the Eisenhower personal letters, states that he proposed to exterminate the entire German General Staff, thousands of people, after the war. Eisenhower, in his personal letters, did not merely hate the Nazi Regime, and the few who imposed its will down from the top, but that he hated the German people as a race. It was his personal intent to destroy as many of them as he could, and one way was to wipe out as many prisoners of war as possible."

 

Your drivel does not warrant an answer from me!

 

NO dude - you have got it backwards The "Dark Age Style" Theocratic system is El Saud - Full Stop.

Al Qaeda/ISIS - who formed the Islamic State in Syria .. what was that if not Dark age stylo ? That is Saudi Arabia - El Saud Ideology .. Sunni Salafism.

Iran is not even close.. sorry Pisa .. but you are way way off base .. and should know better by now. I am not even getting into it - because I am sure I have done so in previous posts to you.

And how on earth could Iran possibly make the situation worse ? This is just busted thinking on your part ..

Libya - Jihadist wonderland
Iraq - Jihadist wonderland
Syria .Jihadist wonderland
Afghanistan - Jihadist wonderland
Saudi Arabia - Jihadist wonderland
Yemen - Jihadist wonderland

Did I miss any ? Probably .. Qatar perhaps ? not sure

How the frick and frack could it get any worse ? I left the rest of your post - Gaddafi .. its me you are talking to "Proof" get real .. google it .. as there is clearly much you need to learn about the ME.

Iran is one of the few ME countries that the US and Brother El Saud has not turned into a Jihadist wonderland .

What the fk are you talking about ?

 

Do you remember Brennesel Suppe. I do. Or the Eintopf on Saturday, were all the left overs, even from the plates, were used, I do.
I remember sitting in my mothers kitchen and scraping out cow and pig bones, the marrow of them, to be used in that flimsy soups.

You have to go back further, 1870, that war and than the humifaction, of having the German Emperor crowned in Versailles.
France never forgot and paid back after WWI. Yes it was the start of WWII.

Why should anybody should have liked Germans, treated them fair, after what Germans had done.
The KZs, how they used POWs as slave labour, all the atrocities.
Why should have anybody ?
There was the Morgentau plan.
But lets be honest, some rather smart and cool minded people prevailed and West Germany got a chance. Was it a tool because of the emerging cold war, by all means.
Is it still a tool, No. Has it really found its place, No.

 

Well, I see throughout the thread that you are in agreement with all the other Hasbara trolls, so, it is of no use for me to continue discussing German issues.

 

Rheinwiesenlager - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Rheinwiesenlager

The Rheinwiesenlager were a group of 19 camps built in the Allied-occupied part of Germany ... Most estimates of German deaths in these camps range from 3,000 to 6,000. ... easier because prisoners would be deemed as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs), a decision that had been made in March 1945 by Eisenhower.

 

How about you quote me so I know you've answered? No, a terrorist is as my definition.

 

They're not, Syrians want a free and democratic society WITHOUT Assad's dictatorship, why do you seek to defend it? The West does not back Jihadists, it doesn't want Syria under ISIS, not to say they don't get their hands on some of it but that is inevitable,