Paladin77 Paladin77

It all started with the Shah of Iran.

It all started with the Shah of Iran.

President James Carter is the reason we are at war

September 10–September 11, 1976: Croatian Freedom Fighters hijack a TWA airliner, diverting it to , , and then to , demanding a manifesto be printed. One police officer was killed and three injured during an attempt to defuse a bomb that contained their communiques in a train station locker. Zvonko Busic who served 32 years in prison for the attack was released and returned to to a heroes welcome in July 2008.

This was the kind of crap we had to deal with before the flood gates opened.

When the stopped supporting we lost a valued ally in the region. When President Carter allowed his people to engineer the fall of the Shah of Iran to please his humanitarian base of nuts, we opened up a can of worms that is still messing with us today.

While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of , particularly due to his strong policy of Modernization and recognition of . Yes, this evil dictator did the unthinkable. He allowed women to have the same rights as men, as written in the Quran, he recognized as a state and said they deserved to live. American and international human rights groups said that he had 100 thousand political prisoners over his 39 year dictatorship. These sweet innocent political prisoners did minor things to get arrested like try to kill the Shah, his family, overthrow the country and install a theocracy and with the help of President James Carter the terrorist took power.

From the Shah of Iran on The role of the : I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted... What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?... Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.

November 4, 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis takes place. Iranian Muslim students take over the American Embassy, taking 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. (Ended January 20, 1981) This was the thanks we received from the grateful nation of after we helped free them from the Shah’s brutal dictatorship. further thanked us by forming and funding a small diplomatic and peace loving organization called Hezbollah. Their stated goals are to bring about love peace and harmony throughout the world, by the destruction of , the , the , and to do this all they want is world wide Islamic rule.

December 1979 a rumor was started that the president of was going to switch sides and kick the Soviets out. Soviet forces invaded and assassinated the president and installed another leader. It has been suggested that President Carter and his administration started the rumor in order to get the soviets to take the news off of the hostage crisis he was dealing with. It is just a suggestion and I have no proof that this was true. Either way this was the start of the Islamic terrorist group the base. Also known as Al Qaeda.

June 3, 1980 a bomb destroys most of the exhibits in the Statue of Liberty story room. No one is arrested, but Croatian separatists are suspected. Notice that Muslim groups are attacking us.

October 6, 1981, Muhammad Anwar Al Sadat was assassinated during the annual 6th October victory parade in . A fatwa approving the assassination had been obtained from Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the for his role in the 1993 bombing. In doing this Islamic terrorist successfully destroyed the only two Muslim leaders that recognized and stopped the war on . Providing an object lesson to all other Muslim leaders.

August 11, 1982 a bomb explodes on Pan Am Flight 830, enroute from to , killing one teenager and injuring 15 passengers.

April 18, 1983 United States Embassy bombing takes place. A stolen van carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives slammed into the U.S. Embassy in killing 63 people including 18 Americans. Hezbollah Islamic terrorists responsible, you know that peace loving organization from .

October 23, 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing occurs. A truck carrying 2500 pounds of explosives crashed through the gates of a US Marine barracks in killing 241 American servicemen and wounding 81. Hezbollah responsible. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack. Hezbollah also responsible, and did you know that they were started and funded by .

November 9, 1983: U.S. Senate bombing. A time bomb consisting of several sticks of dynamite explodes at the United States Senate in response to the invasion of . No one was injured, a group known as the Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

April 14, 1985 — military aircraft, acting on President Ronald Reagan's orders to “pre-empt and discourage” Libyan terrorism, struck the North African nation Monday night.

June 14, 1985 TWA Flight 847 skyjacking, Hezbollah, terrorists take passengers of an Athens-Rome flight hostage, murdering US Navy Seaman, Robert Stethem. Just another peaceful demonstration by our friends in .

October 7 – October 10: Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, a group started and funded by the , during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69 year-old wheelchair-bound Jewish American citizen, is shot dead and thrown overboard.

April 5, 1986 discotheque bombing. A Berlin discotheque frequented by US servicemen was bombed, killing 3 people--A Turkish woman and two US servicemen--and injuring 230 including over 50 US servicemen. was held responsible for this act. At this point the president let loose the dogs of war. If the DIA will get off their butts and allow me to tell the story you will find that we were very busy from that time on.

October 11 1986 – President Reagan walks out of the summit with Grobachev, refusing to give up the strategic defense initiative missile defense in exchange for more worthless communist promises. Grobachev himself has cited this as the moment that won the cold war.

June 12, 1987 Berlin Germany- President Reagan gives his “tear down this wall” speech at the gate. He said that communism will rot from within and with a little help he was right.

April 12, 1988 Japanese Red Army terrorist Yu Kikumura was arrested at a rest stop on the turnpike in possession of pipe bombs on his way to . For those that don’t remember the Red Army they were also funded by the .

December 21, 1988 a bomb blows up Pan Am flight 103 in flight over . is responsible and they paid for it in more than one way.

February, 1989 Soviets complete their humiliating pullout from , leaving one million dead after ten years of fighting.

August 2, 1990 Saddam Hussein invades .

February 27, 1991 the United States Military and its Allies crush Saddam Hussein’s vaunted “million man army” in 100 hours.

December 21, 1991 the collapses just as President Reagan said it would.

August, 1992 President George H. Bush deploys the military to to prevent a humanitarian disaster and mass starvation. One of his orders was never to take a side or perform police actions. Only make sure the food goes to the people.

November 4, 1992 Governor Bill Clinton wins the Electoral College and the presidency with 43% of the popular vote.

February 26, 1993 when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the in . The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing. Though it was known by intelligence officials that they belonged to the group Al-Qaeda nothing was done to hunt down the group or its leader. People were arrested and convicted so the case was closed.

April 19, 1993 the administration assaults the Branch Davidian compound in and burn 76 people including 21 children to death. President Clinton blames it all on Attorney Genera, Janet Reno.

May 28, 1993 President Clinton passes the largest tax increase in world history.

June, 1993 President Clinton expands his mission to feed the hungry into nation building and police action but does not properly arm and equip the troops.

June, 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot. When allowed the FBI can do some great work.

October, 1993 Al-Qaeda linked terrorist attack troops in . 18 soldiers die in the “Black Hawk Down” scenario. But take out thousands of Somali terrorists. President Clinton responds by pulling out US troops. Bin Laden later said this event convinced him that the American soldier is a paper tiger and inspired the 9/11 attacks.

April, 1994 the Rwandan genocide begins. Despite systematic rape campaigns and ethnic murders, President Clinton and his administration do nothing to stop the slaughter.

October 21, 1994, the and signed the "Agreed Framework", whereby agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern nuclear power plants powered by light-water reactors. Eventually, 's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country.

December 11, 1994 a small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack to blow up a dozen planes over the in one day. This plan was later changed to the attacks of 9/11.

October 17, 1995 President Clinton says, “Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at the budge because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”

In conjunction with several other Islamic militant leaders, bin Laden issued two fatwa in 1996 and then again in 1998 that Muslims should force the and its allies to withdraw their military forces from the , by attacking American military and civilian targets.

February, 1996 ’s religious leader Hassan Turabi, writes President Clinton offering to turn over Bin Laden. (Think about this not in hindsight but in actuality. A man with a paramilitary organization publically states that he is going to attack US interests abroad, and soon after the chief mullah of the country this man is living in is offering him to you.)  President Clinton refuses, fearing the has no legal reason to take custody of him. (Bin Laden is now linked to two terrorist attacks on Americans)

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in than elsewhere.

June 25, 1996 Terrorists bomb the military’s barracks in . This has now been linked to Bin Laden. President Clinton does nothing at the time.

August, 1996 Hassan Turabi again offers to turn over Bin Laden. President Clinton does not accept the offer again. (Bin Laden is now linked to four terrorist attacks on Americans)

November 5, 1996 President Clinton wins reelection but falls short of winning half the votes cast.

April, 1997 President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir of Sudan “offered the arrest, and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed in Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Hamas,” According to regional expert Mansor Ijaz. President Clinton ignores him. (Bin Laden is now linked to three and one suspected terrorist attacks on Americans and just maybe Sudan knows something we don’t know, and being or wanting to be a friend to us is trying to help us.)

February, 1998 ’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi wrote directly to the FBI to offer Bin Laden. (Bin Laden is now linked to three terrorist attacks on Americans and just maybe knows something we don’t know and maybe they want to be our friend.)

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

August 7, 1998 hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the embassies in the East African capital cities of , and . The attacks, linked to local members of the al Qaeda terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden, brought bin Laden and al Qaeda to international attention for the first time as far as the news media are concerned. Bin Laden was then indicted in federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in , and , and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

August 20, 1998 someone in the administration discovered that Osama Bin Laden might be in the . With great decisiveness the President ordered the immediate bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. The plant had no connections to Bin Laden and the had been trying to give Bin Laden to us for years. Oh by the way, in a totally unrelated story, Monica Lewinsky testified in front of the grand jury the next day. Who needed as a friend anyway?

August 21, 1998 President Clinton in another bold decisive move ordered missile strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in . A little too late since Bin Laden and his troops had moved to and were now moving to after he was kicked out of . The camps were mostly empty but they did get 34 people not members of AQ, But as a presidential hopeful suggested doing the same thing may I remind all that Pakistan screamed its outrage at the US violation of its airspace, wonder if they will get mad when President Obama invades their country? Is that not an act of war from a man that wants peace?

After the missile attacks Osama bin Laden pledged to attack the again. Ayman al-Zawahiri made a phone call to a Newsweek reporter, stating that "The war has only just begun; the Americans should now await the answer."

December 16, 1998 President Clinton attacks . In a totally unrelated story the House leaders delay the impeachment debate until the dust settles from the preemptive war started by the President.

December 14, 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested. His plan to blow up international airport on New Year’s Eve. Look up the “Millennium bomber.” Though the administration tried to claim credit for stopping this terrorist attack it was later discovered that a customs agent busted him when he tried to cross the border from into the .

October 12, 2000 Al-Qaeda terrorist detonate a dinghy packed with explosives into the USS Cole, killing 17 Sailors. President Clinton did almost nothing. The investigation said AQ was to blame but no action was taken. Where is a Lewinsky testimony when you need one?

December, 2000 President Clinton receives Intel about Osama Bin Laden’s location. Military advisors urge a strike. The President refuses.

September 11. 2001 terrorist hijack four airliners. They fly two of them into ’s world trade towers, another hits the pentagon. Passengers aboard the fourth jet give their lives to stop the hijackers. President Bush tells Vice President Cheney, “We’re at war, Dick. We’re going to find out who did this and kick their ass.” The democrats in congress asked, he had 8 months on the job why didn’t he stop this from happening? They seem to ignore the seven years of attacks from the same terror group prior to Mr. Bush taking office.

September 12, 2001 Saddam Hussein is the only world leader to praise Bin Laden and the attacks. Even who we don’t have diplomatic relations with was offering help and Intel.

September 14, 2001

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed (This was written by Senator Daschel)

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

September 18, 2001 the first in a series of anthrax mail attacks targets government and the media.

October 7, 2001 after being criticized by the democrats for not having attacked anyone yet, President Bush authorizes the invasion of and the destruction of Al-Qaeda’s safe havens. Liberals claim we can’t win. Why in the world did they scream we should bomb people if they don’t think we can win?

November 12, 2001 the ruling Taliban is driven out of the capitol city of . Wait, it can’t work and we will lose is what we are told yet in over a month we took the capitol city?

December 9, 2001 the Taliban collapses baffling liberals around the world who said it could not be done. After all the Soviets fought for ten years and lost badly and we did it in 2 months. The war is not over but the enemy is in retreat and is forced to fight only in summer months and in small pockets of the country.

January 29, 2002 President Bush identified , , and as an “Axis of Evil” and pledges to deny them WMD. We were told that the president should not have done that, it will make these people angry at us and they might attack us. has been attacking us since 1979, has been messing with us for 50 years, is the new kid on the block with only 11 years of messing with us.

October 2, 2002 Congressional resolution in part states:

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

November 8, 2002 the United Nations Resolution 1441 demands Saddam disarm or face “grave consequences”

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

March 19, 2003 the US and dozens of allied nations restart the war that had been on hold since 1991 while we waited for Iraq to comply with the deal it signed. We were told that we should not have gone in there and we should not have gone in alone. The war was illegal. Congress approved it, the UN approved it, and more than a dozen nations joined us in the fighting. To the political enemies of the president this is going it alone. We were told to expect ten thousand dead troops the first day of battle and it would take years to take .

April 9, 2003 falls to US troops. Less than 30 days, good job troops!

December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein is pulled out of a rat hole by members of the 4th ID so much for fighting to the death to keep from being humiliated by being captured.

October 8, 2006 Thanks to President Clinton giving North Korea a nuclear power plant, the beloved leader, Kim Jong Il detonates a nuclear bomb while his people starve and he demands we supply him with more food or else.

January 10, 2007 President George W. Bush orders a troop surge in to quell the violence. Democrats declare the policy and our troops doomed to fail that same week.

If you notice since 2001 we stopped being attacked by any and all organized terrorists on our own soil, the only terror organizations out there fighting at all are , , and the PLO or whatever name they are running under now. If you recall, President Bush said that , , and were an axis of evil. Now we have Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil, Iran is not helping terrorists anymore, Iran is sort of bogged down and can’t seem to make any good hits either in Israel or the US and North Korea is starting to conform to international requests to play nice.

Every time we as a nation try to be nice to our enemies before we defeat them we are attacked. The terrorists that we are dealing with were started and funded by the under the KGB chief Yuri Andropov, as a way to counter the success of freedom and the decline of communism around the world. This was done because of the arrogance of the soviets who believed that they could control what they created. Once the monster was out of the cage they rapidly lost control and the advanced training they provided the terrorists was passed on to others completely out of their control to the point that now Russia is battling the terrorists tactics they once taught. No one is safe until the enemy is fought and defeated. Only one country is doing this successfully and that is the .

166,637 views 134 replies
Reply #26 Top
Well, you see this kinda illustrates your lack of understanding on the issue. I do appreciate that you went to Wikipedia, but you might also want to read a few books to really understand what happened. And btw, I didn't make up any numbers, I read them in several books on this topic, the titles of which I will post later on.
End of quote


Okay you are saying in this section of your post that the group of idiots that took over the country justified this by saying a smaller number of people were murdered by the Shah than actually happened? And this sound credible and logical to you? I would suggest that your books are not being factual. Since people are limited in their ability to travel in the country since the Shah left and the Shah was in power prior, how did they get these figures?

The Shah didn't technically have liberty to remove Mossadegh from power at the time. He was more like a figurehead monarch, and had been for some time. It would be kinda like if the Queen of England decided she didn't like the democratically elected prime minister and so decreed that he and all of Parliament were criminals and had to go. Same thing. If you actually read up on the subject, you may be surprised what you find!
End of quote


Since you have no understanding of how this works I would suggest you do some research? As long as there is a monarch that is recognized by the people then they have absolute power over the people. This is why they are called subject because they are subjugated to the crown. Just saying kill that person makes it legal. Any disobedience is treason. This is why the Queen of England is very careful about what she says because once it is said it is law.
Reply #27 Top

Is that any thing like the 600,000 deaths of Iraqis in this war? All of them verified innocent civilians but no bodies have been found to back up the claim.
End of quote


Told you! The Shah had the Bush machine.
Reply #28 Top

As long as there is a monarch that is recognized by the people then they have absolute power over the people. This is why they are called subject because they are subjugated to the crown. Just saying kill that person makes it legal. Any disobedience is treason. This is why the Queen of England is very careful about what she says because once it is said it is law.
End of quote


If there is a constitution, the powers of the monarchy can be limited. England doesn't have a constitution and the Queen's powers are limited only by tradition.

The Queen of England is indeed very careful about what she says, because her words have legal meaning in a very large part of the world. Similarly it is known in the UK that the prime minister's word is law, because he acts for the Queen.

And, yes, the Queen can dismiss the prime minister and the parliament.
Reply #29 Top
I think Arty is done. He has not bothered to show up and defend his faulty beliefs because he sees he was wrong and is ashamed to admit it. At least he learned something.
Reply #30 Top

I think Arty is done. He has not bothered to show up and defend his faulty beliefs because he sees he was wrong and is ashamed to admit it. At least he learned something.
End of quote


You think?

What I don't understand is why he wanted to vilify the Shah.

I can see why Khomeini would make up 100,000 victims. But why would anybody make up more?
Reply #31 Top
What I don't understand is why he wanted to vilify the Shah.

I can see why Khomeini would make up 100,000 victims. But why would anybody make up more?
End of quote


Because 2000 is too small so he made up 100,000 the next person sees this number and thinks it is too small and bumps it up to 300,000. That is how 20,000 killed in the Gulf war is now 600,000, yet they have not been able to prove the 20.000.
Reply #32 Top

That is how 20,000 killed in the Gulf war is now 600,000, yet they have not been able to prove the 20.000.
End of quote


Yes, but why does that happen only to the one side?

When Hitler killed millions and we found out how he did it (and how he got rid of the bodies) people did not inflate the number of victims hundred-fold. In fact there are many who doubt he killed anyone at all.

But whenever there is no evidence and some "study" that contradicsts the laws of physics (bodies not just vanish) mentions a number it is believed at face value.

Yet the legal battle against Holocaust-denial is still being fought, despite the fact that we can see the evidence all over today's Poland.

Saddam killed hundred of thousands and we found the mass graves, but nobody says a word. The media are quiet and Saddam's supporters blame the allied invasion for the violence in Iraq (and not at all the fact that Shiites wanted revenge for losing 300,000 people, this time in real with actual bodies, to Sunni Baathists).

I blame the Bush machine, an excellent little device invented by neo-cons to vanish bodies.

How did the Shah get his hands on the Bush machine you asked?

It's easy. He used the time machine the CIA used to get him into power ten years after he got into power.
Reply #33 Top

I think Arty is done. He has not bothered to show up and defend his faulty beliefs because he sees he was wrong and is ashamed to admit it. At least he learned something.
End of quote

You think? What I don't understand is why he wanted to vilify the Shah. I can see why Khomeini would make up 100,000 victims. But why would anybody make up more?
End of quote

Leauki and Paladin,

You have my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. At this point in time I am working on a professional certification, coupled with the fact that it's a beautiful weekend when not studying I will be enjoying my gods-given rights to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day! So at this exact moment I don't have too much free time to go back through my books. You seem to want proof of my claims so I intend to give you exactly that. Otherwise, in response to everything I say you seem to shout "lies, all liberal propaganda!!" Therefore, on this topic I intend not to say something unless I can back it up with an external source.

As an aside, just this morning I was flipping through some of my older books and stumbled upon a chapter in "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky. In it he addresses the Achille Lauro hijacking that occurred in 1985, in which Leon Klinghoffer was thrown overboard (one of the terrorism incidents Paladin states in this article)

This was indeed a terrible terrorist act for which no justification exists. However, this was played off in the media as just another incident of the barbarian terrorists visiting destruction on helpless civillians. What wasn't widely circulated in the media was that this particular hijacking was a calculated retalliation for an Israeli airstrike involving 8 F-15's on PLO headquarters in Tunis. In this attack many members of the PLO were killed, as well as 75 civillians. I guess those 75 civillians were just unfortunate collateral dammage, no? Perhaps the family members of those civillians who were killed might consider that airstrike a terrorist action?

My point here is that there are two sides to every fight, to unequivocally state that terrorists are coming after us simply because they hate our way of life and are "evil" while we are "good" is an oversimplification. The Israeli air raid on Tunis was retalliation for a PLO backed attack that killed 3 Israeli civillians on a yacht of Cyprus. And that PLO backed attack was in retalliation for something else, and so on tit for tat.

The truth is, Paladin's article here is partly correct in the events and timeline laid out. What is missing, however, is the other side of the story. That side being, the various acts of retalliation carried out by the Israeli, U.S and co. side in response. Again, I'm not justifying or defending "the terrorists" only stating that one needs to look at both sides of the story here. If you do that, you'll find that this is a very dirty fight in which neither side is "the good guy". And this pretty much holds true throughout history- the reality is that most fights are very dirty, and then after it's over the victor whitewashes history to make them look like they were the honorable one while the other guy was low-life scum. 

Let's take a closer look at another one of Paladin's statements;

Iran further thanked us by forming and funding a small diplomatic and peace loving organization called Hezbollah. Their stated goals are to bring about love peace and harmony throughout the world, by the destruction of Israel, the UK, the US, and to do this all they want is world wide Islamic rule.
End of quote

Yes, Hezbollah was supported by Iran. What isn't mentioned is that it was formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, an invasion, coincidentally that the UN continually stated was illegal and pushed Israel to withdraw, which they finally did decades later.

If you research the actual tit for tat responses and counter-responses, you will see that the retalliation carried out by Israel and co. tends to inflict many more casualties than the act which they are retaliating against.

For example, the failed summer war of 2006 in which Israel invaded south Lebanon (which Leauki witnessed while attending Haifa university) which involved large scale airstrikes on civillian populations, thousands of infantry and supporting armor crossing the border, was retalliation for a cross-border raid carried out by Hezbollah. That cross-border raid carried out by Hezbollah was carried out due to the collapse of hostage negotiations with Israel. While I am not justifying or condoning either side, the rockets from Hezbollah didn't start falling until after Israel began their invasion and air-strikes.

The end result? Typical of the ongoing pattern. Most of the casualties were civillians in Lebanon. Again, in the "good guy vs bad guy" mindset these civillian casualties in Lebanon somehow don't count or aren't the fault of the Israelis (even though it was their planes and artillery that dropped the bombs, go figure) because;

a) We warned them ahead of time! They should have gotten out!

b) The evil terrorists were using them as shields, we had no choice!

Thus with these arguments, instead of an apartment complex or hospital reduced to rubble killing everyone inside, those people magically become non-humans. Collateral dammage. Unfortunate, but it either wasn't our fault, or the fault of the other guys for MAKING us drop those bombs in the first place!!!

This applies to both sides. Both sides are guilty of terrorist acts! Thus we end up going back to the chicken and the egg argument of who started it all first, whose to blame, and who is more worthy of the title of "human being"

Since you have no understanding of how this works I would suggest you do some research? As long as there is a monarch that is recognized by the people then they have absolute power over the people. This is why they are called subject because they are subjugated to the crown. Just saying kill that person makes it legal. Any disobedience is treason. This is why the Queen of England is very careful about what she says because once it is said it is law.
End of quote

Actually, as a Canadian citizen it's part of our education system to learn about the monarchy and how it effects us today. Yes, the Queen still has constitutional powers but they are held in check by an elected parliament, in England. Here in Canada (in response to Dr. Guy's comments) it's mostly just show. For example, here in Canada we won true independence as a country from the crown in 1919 with the Statute of Westminster. This basically made us a sovereign nation, paying lip-service to the British Monarchy. What this means is that for any new law passed, the Governor General (who is the Queen's representative) has to sign the law in order for it to go through. However, the Governor General is appointed by the prime minister. So all that has to happen is we appoint another Governor General. That's about it.

Reply #34 Top

barbarian terrorists visiting destruction on helpless civillians. What wasn't widely circulated in the media was that this particular hijacking was a calculated retalliation for an Israeli airstrike involving 8 F-15's on PLO headquarters in Tunis.
End of quote


Actually, everybody knew about the Israeli airstrike against the PLO headquarters in Tunis.

The point about the barbarism is that it is still barbaric if one attacks and kills civilians. Everybody knew that killing innocent civilians is the PLO's calculated retaliation for a military defeat. (Heck, it is the PLO's calculated retaliation for everything.)

Attacking a terrorist headquarters of a group that wants to destroy you is a legitimate war action. The PLO and Israel were at war with each other.

But Israel does not hijack Arab civilian aircraft and kill the pessengers, not even in retaliation for barbaric attacks.

That's why the "other method", if you will, of fighting a war was described as barbaric.

So what is your point??? It was and is known.

You can fight a war against fighters or against civilians. The Israelis chose to attack fighters, the PLO chose to attack civilians.



Yes, Hezbollah was supported by Iran. What isn't mentioned is that it was formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, an invasion, coincidentally that the UN continually stated was illegal and pushed Israel to withdraw, which they finally did decades later.
End of quote


What the UN declares as illegal or not is one thing. Israel didn't invade Lebanon for fun. The PLO attacked Israel from Lebanon and the Lebanese refused to stop them (or couldn't). Plus the PLO terrorised the local population.

I realise that the UN argues that Israel doesn't have a right to respond when attacked, but normal countries would have. And that's all Israel did: respond. Contrary to apparent common belief Jews do not get rich by occupying land and paying for a huge army. They wouldn't do it unless forced to. They have no interest in doing it.

Hizbullah were the guys who shot rockets at my university when I was studying in Haifa.

You still don't get it, do you? There is a difference between murdering civilians because they are Jews (or in retaliation for anything) and responding to a military challenge.

You can learn all about that difference if you are ever attacked because of your race or religion. Good luck!


Reply #35 Top

which involved large scale airstrikes on civillian populations
End of quote


No, it didn't.

Israel attacked the points from which the rockets came. It's not Israel's fault that Hizbullah shot rockets from civilian population centres (and refused to let those people run away).

If you knew anything about the conflict, you would know that Israel dropped leaflets in advance telling people to flee ecause airstrikes would be coming next.

I have seen the leaflets and the rockets.

There were no "large scale airstrikes on civilian populations". You are lying. And that doesn't help your point about the Shah.

I assume you believe that Israel shouldn't have shot back (because Hizbullah used human shields). But I can tell you: FUCK YOU. I am not going to die just because some Arab fuck (from Hizbullah) decides that I should and because Israel refuses to shoot back and stop them.

You can do it.

If you want a world where no self-defence is allowed, you be the guinea-pig. Not me.

Not me.

You call it tit-for-tat if Israel shoots back when somebody tries to murder me? Well, cry me a river! Thieves are sent to prison every day, but thieves don't steal because other thieves were punished for it.

Reply #36 Top

a very dirty fight in which neither side is "the good guy".
End of quote


I disagree.

I believe that the side that doesn't want to fight, the side who drop leaflets before bombs to warn civilians, the side whose hospitals look after the sick of the enemy are the good guys.

I am NOT the bad guy just because somebody wants to kill me and I won't let him!

Reply #37 Top
This was indeed a terrible terrorist act for which no justification exists. However, this was played off in the media as just another incident of the barbarian terrorists visiting destruction on helpless civillians. What wasn't widely circulated in the media was that this particular hijacking was a calculated retalliation for an Israeli airstrike involving 8 F-15's on PLO headquarters in Tunis. In this attack many members of the PLO were killed, as well as 75 civillians. I guess those 75 civillians were just unfortunate collateral dammage, no? Perhaps the family members of those civillians who were killed might consider that airstrike a terrorist action?
End of quote


Please let me understand this. The PLO, an organization set up for the destruction of the state of Israel, was attacked by Israeli jets. 75 people who chose to live and work and be around this terror headquarters were killed and this justifies the hijacking of a ship of Italian registry and killing an American citizen? So to this person one American life is equal to 75 Tunisians? They are a terror organization, terrorism is their business. If Tunis did not like it they should have declared war. Did they?

You have my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. At this point in time I am working on a professional certification, coupled with the fact that it's a beautiful weekend when not studying I will be enjoying my gods-given rights to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day! So at this exact moment I don't have too much free time to go back through my books. You seem to want proof of my claims so I intend to give you exactly that.
End of quote


My mistake. I will await your response. Good luck on your certification!  :CONGRAT: 

Otherwise, in response to everything I say you seem to shout "lies, all liberal propaganda!!"
End of quote


The operative word here is “seems”.

My point here is that there are two sides to every fight, to unequivocally state that terrorists are coming after us simply because they hate our way of life and are "evil" while we are "good" is an oversimplification.
End of quote


You can’t be serious! One group, the Israelis, goes after military targets and some civilians get killed by mistake. The other group, the PLO, goes after civilian targets of opportunity and rarely go after military targets. Yet they have declared war on Israel. And this is okay with your way of thinking?

The Israeli air raid on Tunis was retalliation for a PLO backed attack that killed 3 Israeli civillians on a yacht of Cyprus. And that PLO backed attack was in retalliation for something else, and so on tit for tat.
End of quote


You really don’t see it do you? Let me try to explain it better. Israel became a state. Because it is a Jewish state all the nations around it declared war. Whom did Israel hurt by declaring its statehood? Whom did they kill doing this? They have offered all parties that live in the region, Israeli citizenship, and the ones that took it are welcomed into the nation. The ones that chose not to accept the offer have been at war for 60 years. You really don’t understand how this has been a war for 60 years, not some minor conflict of tit for tat.

The truth is, Paladin's article here is partly correct in the events and timeline laid out. What is missing, however, is the other side of the story. That side being, the various acts of retalliation carried out by the Israeli, U.S and co. side in response. Again, I'm not justifying or defending "the terrorists" only stating that one needs to look at both sides of the story here.
End of quote


Try to understand here. I posted news article and added some comment to them. If you believe that the news is unbiased then the articles are true. They happened. There was no spin on my part other than to comment on the different presidential actions or lack of them. My point was to point out that with that one act by President Carter he helped screw up the world and after 30 years we are still trying to unscrew his mess. With a strong Iran we had a calming force in the area. Without a strong Iran we have a mess that will not end until a lot of people are dead. The other side of the story is that most of the Islamic nut jobs are getting support from Iran to do as much damage as possible around the world! You can not have a one sided war. If attacked you either fight back or lose.
Reply #38 Top
Yes, Hezbollah was supported by Iran. What isn't mentioned is that it was formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, an invasion, coincidentally that the UN continually stated was illegal and pushed Israel to withdraw, which they finally did decades later.
End of quote


Sorry had to go potty and my internet connection is spotty this time of year.

Do you know why Israel attacked the PLO headquarters in Lebanon? You left out that minor tidbit. It was because the PLO was all massed there because they could no longer fight in Israel. They would attack in Israel and run back to Lebanon. You also left out the minor point that Lebanon did not declare war on Israel or help the PLO that was being attacked.

If you research the actual tit for tat responses and counter-responses, you will see that the retalliation carried out by Israel and co. tends to inflict many more casualties than the act which they are retaliating against.
End of quote


You say I am oversimplifying the situation but it looks like you are over complicating the facts. Israel attacked no one. It was attacked and has been in a state of war for all 60 years of its existence. Only two nations have stopped fighting Israel since then, Iran and Egypt. Both of its leaders were murdered or taken out of power for doing so. the only alternative is to let every man woman and child in Israel get killed in order to stop the war and for some strange reason, probably racism, the Israelis won’t lay down and die.

While I am not justifying or condoning either side, the rockets from Hezbollah didn't start falling until after Israel began their invasion and air-strikes.
End of quote


Oh yes you are condoning it! Part of the cease fire agreement was that they would not bring any weapons into that area. For six years they took weapons from Iran and hid them in civilian’s homes. They had an extensive tunnel network and would pop up and fire then go and hide. They would fire from civilian areas like a school or clinic so if Israel retaliated, it would cause great civilian casualties and make Israel look like the evil bad guys. Once it was confirmed they the sweet innocent Hezbollah had been lying and breaking the agreement Israel attacked. So it is okay with you or at least understandable to you that the enemy can hide in and around civilians, mass their weapons and hide them under schools and clinics and civilian homes. Use those weapons to attack civilian targets in Israel, but should Israel defend itself it is bad?

The end result? Typical of the ongoing pattern. Most of the casualties were civillians in Lebanon. Again, in the "good guy vs bad guy" mindset these civillian casualties in Lebanon somehow don't count or aren't the fault of the Israelis (even though it was their planes and artillery that dropped the bombs, go figure) because;
End of quote


So you missed the AP report where the civilians told of being told not to leave when the attack came or they would be killed by sweet peace loving Hezbollah, that people knew that weapons were stored under their homes but if they said anything they would be killed. Yeah, they had a choice, try to leave and get killed, speak up and get killed, or wait for an attack from Israel and maybe get killed. I guess you also missed the photo-shopped pictures of dead civilians that was later proven to have been faked from six years earlier. I know it was faked because they had to print a retraction and apologize for being fooled. Maybe that is not proof enough for you that the WAR is a real WAR and not some small conflict that is starting to get out of hand.

The end result? Typical of the ongoing pattern. Most of the casualties were civillians in Lebanon. Again, in the "good guy vs bad guy" mindset these civillian casualties in Lebanon somehow don't count or aren't the fault of the Israelis (even though it was their planes and artillery that dropped the bombs, go figure) because;
a) We warned them ahead of time! They should have gotten out!
b) The evil terrorists were using them as shields, we had no choice!
Thus with these arguments, instead of an apartment complex or hospital reduced to rubble killing everyone inside, those people magically become non-humans. Collateral dammage. Unfortunate, but it either wasn't our fault, or the fault of the other guys for MAKING us drop those bombs in the first place!!!
End of quote


In a war zone this is what happens. If you can’t grasp this then you are not capable of dealing with the truth.

Reply #39 Top
When Hitler killed millions and we found out how he did it (and how he got rid of the bodies) people did not inflate the number of victims hundred-fold. In fact there are many who doubt he killed anyone at all.
End of quote


It depends upon who you ask, now doesn't it? If you ask a skin head or neo-nazi, they will cry you are inflating the number - because it suits their agenda. Just as with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, the opposite suits the agenda of those trying to change the facts.

It is happening (more as time goes by) with the Nazi's, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And as long as there are people that maintain the moon landings were a hoax, there is nothing that is going to convince the lunatics of the reality of reality.
Reply #40 Top

It depends upon who you ask, now doesn't it?
End of quote


Of course. But the point is that we know how Hitler and Saddam got rid of the bodies. But there is no evidence for how Bush and the Shah did it, hence my theory that they have a Bush machine that vanished body at a rate of 600 per day.
Reply #41 Top
hence my theory that they have a Bush machine that vanished body at a rate of 600 per day.
End of quote


And still Mr. Bush let his political enemies live! He could have used this machine to get rid of them but has not out of the kindness of his heart.
Reply #42 Top

And still Mr. Bush let his political enemies live! He could have used this machine to get rid of them but has not out of the kindness of his heart.
End of quote


No, it's because he is both capable of deceiving the American people and deeply stupid. He doesn't realise he could use the Bush machine to vanish his political enemies. He thinks it only works with innocent civilians.

Reply #43 Top
No, it's because he is both capable of deceiving the American people and deeply stupid. He doesn't realise he could use the Bush machine to vanish his political enemies. He thinks it only works with innocent civilians.
End of quote


You sometimes have to wonder about the mental state of the clowns that can contradict themselves in the same statement with their paranoia. Still, some are at least trying to be rational. They maintain that bush is an idiot, and Cheney is the brains.

But then would not the same logic apply to Cheney? ONly to sane rational people, apparently. ;)
Reply #44 Top
No, it's because he is both capable of deceiving the American people and deeply stupid. He doesn't realise he could use the Bush machine to vanish his political enemies. He thinks it only works with innocent civilians.
End of quote


Well he is in good company, the liberals stated but I doubt they believed that Mr. Reagan was an idiot, just an actor, leaving out that he was a two time popularly elected governor of California, two time landslide winner of the presidency. They called his economic plan voodoo economics ignoring the fact that he was the first president with a degree in economics.

These same people called President Bush a wimp until the Gulf war then he was a war monger.

When President Clinton took office we were all safe yet the terrorist were able to sneak in under out nose and attack us several times but that was okay.

Now with president Bush in office we elected and idiot again. A frat boy, a party animal that does not drink alcohol and goes to bed at 9PM. He has the ability to make innocent civilians vanish but leaves enough evidence that they were around to be counted somehow, but does not use this machine on people killing our troops or his political enemies.

You sometimes have to wonder about the mental state of the clowns that can contradict themselves in the same statement with their paranoia.
End of quote


I understand how they do this, it is the belief that their political enemies will never be as good as their guy. It must be some trick that allows the republicans to fool the nation into electing them because no one they know would vote for a republican so some trickery must have been used. Myopic? Yes! Stupid? No!
Reply #45 Top

A frat boy, a party animal that does not drink alcohol and goes to bed at 9PM.
End of quote


Yes, his wife transformed him from a frat boy into a "wimp", didn't she?



He has the ability to make innocent civilians vanish but leaves enough evidence that they were around to be counted somehow, but does not use this machine on people killing our troops or his political enemies.
End of quote


I think the Bush machine can only vanish dead bodies.

Reply #46 Top

Okay, found it. The number of casualties from the Iranian revolution I found in a book by Chalmers Johnson called "blowback" I highly recommend you read it.

In regards to the supposedly 'ludicrous' claims of overinflated casualties, there are plenty of instances in which much greater numbers of people died or were killed without the state-organized killing machine of death camps and gas chambers.

In the second Congo War (1998-2003) and it's consequent aftermath (still going on today) over 5.4 million people were killed, died from disease or starvation!

In the coup d'etat in Indonesia in which a military general ousted the democratically elected president, the generally accepted figure for casualties is around 500,000. This was a coup also supported, armed and financed by the U.S!

In the Battle of Stalingrad more than 1.5 million people lost their lives. Geographically, the area in which this occurred was relatively small and confined.

So to state that in order for 300,000 people to die there would be bodies blanketing an entire nation as evidence of the crime is simply false!

In terms of the mass that 300,000 bodies would make up (during and after decomposition) it's probably less than the amount of garbage disposed of in a week! 

Reply #47 Top

Okay, found it. The number of casualties from the Iranian revolution I found in a book by Chalmers Johnson called "blowback" I highly recommend you read it.
End of quote


Why?


In regards to the supposedly 'ludicrous' claims of overinflated casualties, there are plenty of instances in which much greater numbers of people died or were killed without the state-organized killing machine of death camps and gas chambers.
End of quote


Sure there are. But that doesn't mean that you can make up any number and assign it to any person you don't like.


In the second Congo War (1998-2003) and it's consequent aftermath (still going on today) over 5.4 million people were killed, died from disease or starvation!
End of quote


That is true as far as I know, and the bodies do indeed show up (and spread disease).


In the coup d'etat in Indonesia in which a military general ousted the democratically elected president, the generally accepted figure for casualties is around 500,000. This was a coup also supported, armed and financed by the U.S!
End of quote


Of course it has been.


In the Battle of Stalingrad more than 1.5 million people lost their lives. Geographically, the area in which this occurred was relatively small and confined.
End of quote


And it took a while to remove all those bodies. I think the Russians finally burned them.

Incidentally, the number of victims of that battle was noted by both the Germans and Russians, not some uninvolved book author later.


So to state that in order for 300,000 people to die there would be bodies blanketing an entire nation as evidence of the crime is simply false!
End of quote


And nobody made that claim.

It's just that neither the Shah's supporters nor Khomeini's people have seen those bodies. They would not blanket the country, but they should show up somewhere.


In terms of the mass that 300,000 bodies would make up (during and after decomposition) it's probably less than the amount of garbage disposed of in a week!
End of quote


I assume the Nazis and Saddam Hussein didn't know that or else they could have saved the money and effort they invested into death camps with furnaces and mass graves respectively.

Reply #48 Top
I think the argument now seems to be that there were incidents were lots of bodies were found (or evidence for how they were done away with), hence any claim of mass murder is valid.

Artysim, you still don't understand the point.

It's not that mass murder could not have been committed, it's that WHEN it is committed, we can usually find evidence for it in the form of bodies or death camps.

If you are accusing someone of mass murder you better have more evidence than "the Nazis did it too so it must be possible".
Reply #49 Top
We can talk about Lyndon B. Johnson's involvement with the massacres in Indonesia, if you like.

Reply #50 Top

It's not that mass murder could not have been committed, it's that WHEN it is committed, we can usually find evidence for it in the form of bodies or death camps.
End of quote

Well, here's the thing. That kind of evidence only comes when there is an organized, state sanctioned program of murder enacted. That is where you get the killing fields, the death camps, gas chambers etc. It's what happens when a bureaucratic organization (a government or military) decides to embark on this endeavour. Since the killing is being done by an organized group, it needs to be carried out in an organized manner.

A civil war in which the existing government is destroyed is hardly organized. And it's not like there are reporters that blanket the country looking for the very evidence we've been discussing.

But all this is beside the point. Whether it was 60,000, 90,000 or 300,000 killed doesn't make it any better or worse. It was a terrible tragedy. All I'm saying is that I didn't just make that number up! I read it in a book, which I have provided you with the title. If you would like to expand your mind and see a different perspective on history, I highly recommend you take a gander at it!