Israeli Air Strike on Syria

Quote from dddooo:

A UN official estimated the deaths at 500, 10 per cent of the force Hizbollah is thought to muster, not all of whom are front-line fighters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/22/wmid122.xml

Hizbollah suffered heavy losses in the fighting, perhaps as many as 1,000 killed out of its strength of up to 5,000 and it is only just now recovering.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Con.../opinion/2006/11/03/do0302.xml&site=15&page=0

"Sources in Lebanon claim Hezbollah has buried more than 700 fighters so far, with many more to go."
https://www.stratfor.com/products/p...um/read_article.php?id=273806&id=273806&camp=
More...

You are an idiot dddooo...And who disputed the number of Hezbullah killed??? That is what happened when you execute 5200 sorties using illegal munition. Talk about bravery.

And that is the difference between you and the American army. At least these people are willing to fight it mano o mano. You on the other hand are a chicken shit zionist to do that.

What I was talking about is what happened to the fourth strongest army on earth at the hands of a militia group.


But you know what is so interesting about the whole thing dddooo????


Every time a campaign is carried in the US to end the war in Iraq, your fifth column zionist lobby in the US kicks in a hyper counter campaign to warn the american people about the danger of cutting and running and leaving the terrorists in Iraq behind. You on the other hand, you get 100+ of your bambinos killed, and you pull out running with your tail up your ass

It is ok for you to cut and run even though what you perceive as a threat is next door to you. But it is never OK for your American slaves to do that...Right dddooo???
 
Quote from dddooo:

You "forgot" the date of this article - September 06, 2007, the next day after the attack. The article you posted pretty accurately describes what was known on that day. The information I provided became known in following days and in no way contradicts the information in your article.

Your attempt to lie again and deliberately ignore the date of your article is duly noted though.
More...

What a filthy liar. Buddy. Where are the satellite images? where is the solid proof??? Where are the AIF jet photos???

Aside from wikipedia, sanara tabloid paper and the "anonymous" military expert outing israeli officials, where are the hard core evidence to shut me up???
 
Quote from WAEL012000:

What a filthy liar. Buddy. Where are the satellite images? where is the solid proof??? Where are the AIF jet photos???

Aside from wikipedia, sanara tabloid paper and the "anonymous" military expert outing israeli officials, where are the hard core evidence to shut me up???
More...
Oh come on Wael, there are no satellite images, pictures or any other "solid proof" that Israeli planes violated Syrian airspace in the first place, are there? It does not mean it did not happen, does it? Don't play this silly game, you will lose. The information related to military activity is obviously classified but Syrian silence and North Korean condemnation are quite telling.
 
Quote from hapaboy:

"You people?"...Whatever, moonbat.If the shoe fits.....anti-Semite fits you perfectly.
You're a loser racist moonbat. Accept your lot in life. It is what it is...
More...

Yawn. Oh, and I love that term "moonbat". Where did you get that one from, your favorite Jewish neo-kahn writer. LOL :)
 
Quote from I.Q.:

Yawn. Oh, and I love that term "moonbat". Where did you get that one from, your favorite Jewish neo-kahn writer. LOL :)
More...
You're a loser racist moonbat. Accept your lot in life. It is what it is...
 
Israel Bombs Syria, Neocons Cheer

By Kurt Nimmo

Obviously, the rush to war—or unprovoked mass murder—is not going fast enough for Israel. “Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times,” Yedioth Internet reports. “The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea.”

It appears this ruse is a cover for Israel’s latest provocation—an airstrike against “a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran,” according to a Nazareth-based Israeli Arab newspaper. Imagine Syria and Iran launching strikes against an Israeli missile base stocked by the United States (Israel receives $3 billion a year in military “assistance,” with about $1.8 billion a year in Foreign Military Financing grants from the Department of Defense, according to the Arms Trade Resource Center). Such an attack and violation of national sovereignty would be slapped across the front page of the aforementioned New York Times in 72 point blood red type while neocons would be slavering for retribution, i.e., demanding the mass murder of Syrian and Iranian grandmothers and grade schoolers.

In addition, reports the Canadian Press, “Israel is keeping troops along the Syrian border on high alert” and “there have been no signs that Syria is preparing for war after the alleged incident.” Of course, a military response by Syria would be welcome by the Israeli Jabotinskyites and their neocon collaborators, especially during Rosh Hashana.

As should be expected, Syria has complained to the United Nations, a useless reaction as the U.N. does the bidding of its master, even though over the years the supposedly august body has issued 131 resolutions condemning various Israeli crimes, including repeated violations of Syrian, Jordanian, and Lebanese sovereignty (and the quite routine acts of stealing Palestinian land, slaughtering Palestinian school children en masse, and targeting United Nations observers).

Predictably, Israel’s Arab and Muslim hating Jabotinskyite leaders are “very happy with the success of the operation,” apparently involving “Israeli ground forces who directed the air strike,” that is to say not only aircraft but soldiers violated Syrian sovereignty. In addition, the U.S. neocons “are happy to have Israel carry the message to both Syria and Iran that they can get in and out and strike when necessary,” according to Haaretz. On the other hand, we can assume to neocons, often more fanatical than their Israeli brethren, are unhappy with the fact Israel did not bomb Damascus and president Assad’s summer palace.

September 12, 2007
 
Ban on Political Junkets to Israel Deals Blow to Lobbying Efforts

Nathan Guttman | Wed. Sep 05, 2007

Washington - In a challenge to one of the most powerful lobbying tactics used by the Jewish community, a county in Maryland decided last week that local legislators could no longer go on sponsored trips to Israel.

Montgomery County’s ethics commission decided last month that council members are prohibited from traveling at the expense of the local Jewish community, even when funding is indirectly provided by a private foundation. A trip planned months in advance was subsequently canceled.

“We were stunned by the commission’s decision,” said Ron Halber, executive director of the Greater Washington Jewish Community Relations Council, which organized the trip.

In an e-mail to a Montgomery County legislator, the ethics commission wrote that “the routing of monies through a lobbyist organization to provide travel services makes the gift unacceptable.”

The decision has such weight because sponsored trips to Israel are widely used by Jewish groups both nationally and locally to build support for Israel among non-Jewish leaders and to cultivate one-to-one relationships between American and Israeli leaders. On a national level, the trips have recently come under scrutiny amid the scandals surrounding Washington lobbyists and their relationships with lawmakers. The Montgomery County decision now brings the dilemma to the local level, as communities face the need to adjust to the changing winds in Washington and growing concerns about the power of lobbyists.

Hadar Susskind, Washington director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, called the Montgomery County decision “mistaken.” Susskind said that his organization has already begun looking into the decision in order to check if it represents a wider trend that could affect other Jewish communities.

“If it will become a widespread phenomenon, that would be misguided and unfortunate,” he said. According to Susskind, the trips to Israel are seen as an important tool for educating local leaders on issues relating to Israel and for building ties between Israeli and American leaders on the local level.

The attention given to lobbying trips to Israel has caused a number of organizations to make a formal separation between their lobbying arm and the branch in charge of sponsoring travel to Israel. Groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have founded subsidiary organizations that deal with taking lawmakers, officials and journalists to Israel. As accompanists for trips to Israel, other organizations now have dedicated staffers who are not registered lobbyists.

The concern about the trips has already seeped down to the local levels where policies tend to depend on state and county ethics rules. Many JCRCs have turned to private foundations to cover the costs, and some have given up funding the trips altogether.

In Boston, the JCRC has asked since 1999 that trip participants pay their own way, covering an estimated $3,200 in travel costs. A Massachusetts ethics commission approved the community’s funding of the trip, but the local JCRC decided to drop the funding anyway, according to executive director Nancy Kaufman.

“Even though we felt we are on solid ground, we decided to err on the side of caution,” Kaufman said.

She added that there was no decline in participation after the funding was stopped. But other officials in Jewish organizations are skeptical about dropping the community funding for travel to Israel, arguing that local council members don’t have the official travel fund available to members of congress.

“It would not be fair to ask elected officials to pay from their own pocket,” an official with a major Jewish group said.

In Montgomery County, a nine-day trip to Israel was scheduled to leave September 2 and was expected to include council members and county officials from the region surrounding the nation’s capital. The JCRC of Greater Washington organized the trip and paid for all travel expenses, though the costs were reimbursed by a private foundation. Participants were requested to pay only $500 to help cover the costs.

The trip, according to the local JCRC, was supposed to expose Maryland lawmakers to different facets of the Israeli society, including immigration, homeland security and other issues specific to each participant’s fields of interest. Organizers make clear that “this is not a junket” and that traveling officials have a long and demanding schedule while in Israel. “They come back exhausted,” Halber said.

For the local Jewish community, the trips help forge stronger ties with the lawmakers and government officials and help to make them aware of the political issues relating to Israel.

In Maryland, each and every member of congress and most of the local officials have taken part in trips to Israel. Many of them later moved on to higher positions on the local and national scene.

Though dozens of local officials have traveled to Israel under the same arrangements for years, this year councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg contacted the county’s ethics commission asking for an official approval prior to leaving for Israel. A month later, Trachtenberg received a short e-mail from the commission, stating that after “many hours of deliberation, the Ethics Commission has decided that you may not accept the gift of a trip to Israel that has been offered to you.”

The full decision has not yet been released, but in the brief explanation given to Trachtenberg the commission said that the trip was not possible as long as the JCRC played any role in the funding.

“I was surprised by the decision,” Trachtenberg told the Forward, “and so were other council members.”

The councilwoman added that after receiving a full explanation from the commission, she intends to seek a new formulation that would make the trip possible.

“We view it as no more than a temporary setback,” Halber said. He stressed that the visits to Israel of local lawmakers and officials are purely educational and have nothing to do with the group’s lobbying work, which focuses mainly on support for Jewish institutions dealing with health and human services.

Halber said that if the ethics commission does not change its mind, local leaders are poised to find ways of changing their funding system to make the trips possible.

“One thing is clear,” Halber concluded. “We are not stopping our missions to Israel.”
Wed. Sep 05, 2007
 
Democrat Puppets Continue to Back War for Israel Despite Public Outrage

How the Israel lobby has played the Democrats for fools

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently bragged of being “a master in calculation and tabulation” whose “double proof” formulas showed the US wouldn’t wage war on Iran, may want to recheck his figures and compare them with Pat Buchanan’s assessment of the chances for such an attack.

On MSNBC on Monday, August 27, and in his follow up columns of August 28 and September 1, Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head in identifying the powerful forces pushing for a US war against Iran, a war that Buchanan believes might be met (at least initially) with public approval.

As Buchanan noted on MSNBC: “I think if you took polls of the American people, they would put Iran right up at the top of America's enemies list.”

The recent US public paranoia over Iran, of course, isn’t based on reality, but rather on the latest neocon media campaign claiming anti-US machinations by Iran in Iraq, and portraying Iran’s ongoing nuclear power program as an imminent WMD “threat.” The propaganda has effectively allowed the Bush administration to scapegoat Iran for America’s self-inflicted Middle East wounds, and portray Iran as on the cusp of developing renegade nuclear weapons, which is a lie.

Buchanan continues: “So I think in the Democratic Party, of course, you've got the -- with due respect, you've got the Israeli Lobby and Israel, and you've got the hardline like [Sen. Joe] Lieberman, and you've got the Neoconservatives, and you've got a lot of evangelical Christians and others who think this is a real menace and you ought to hit them.”

Translated from PC-speak, what Buchanan is correctly conveying here is that the Democratic Party is in the grip of the Israel lobby not only in the form of groups like AIPAC and the office of “hardline Joe Lieberman,” but also in the form of other members of the Congressional Jewish nationalist caucus, which includes left liberal Jewish Zionists such as Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, Howard Berman, Carl Levin, Steve Rothman and Barney Frank, among others.

On the other side of the aisle, Buchanan says, you’ve got a GOP hierarchy heavily influenced by “evangelical Christians” and providing it cover for war. What Buchanan really means is, not all evangelicals, but rather fanatical Christian Zionist dispensationalists, who make up only a percentage of evangelicals, but who are as committed to putting Israeli interests ahead of American interests as are the Jewish ethnic nationalists in the Democratic Party, but for different political, cultural and theological reasons.

In his follow up columns, Buchanan continues to drive all these points home: ‘Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al-Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war, and for having assured the American people it would be a "cakewalk."'

In its rush to ape the GOP, Buchanan says, the Democratic Congress has basically destroyed its own ratings on the war issue--and this just months after it was swept into power on a huge American backlash against Bush’s incompetent management of the Iraq war:

“Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war,” Buchanan notes.

Why didn’t the Democrats simply continue to ride the anti-war tidal wave all the way to another big victory over the wounded, discredited GOP? Again, due to the Jewish nationalist influence over party leadership:

“Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran,” writes Buchanan. “Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”

As blogger Arthur Silber observed, this vote has put the Democrats on record as supporting “an amendment that accuses Iran of committing acts of war against the United States. Thus, if we were to attack Iran, we would purportedly only be acting defensively, and in response to what Iran has already done. This amendment, based entirely on unproven, propagandistic, intentionally warmongering allegations, was pushed in large part by Lieberman. Democrats (and progressive bloggers) may condemn the former Democrat all they wish: the fact remains that every Democratic Senator who voted on this measure voted for it. When the wider war begins, they will have no serious basis on which to object.”

So what were the Democrats supposed to do, ask party partisans, cede the national security issue to the GOP by opposing the Lieberman’s censure?

Well, going back to the amendment that could have been used to stop a Bush attack on Iran that was killed by Nancy Pelsoi at the behest of AIPAC, (and from a sane, war-opposed perspective inline with the overwhelming majority of educated Americans), the Democrats could have done the following:
 
1) Passed the amendment forcing Bush to come to Congress for permission to wage war against Iran.

2) If such a request came, put forward a full throttle campaign portraying it as yet more GOP warmongering destined to compound America’s problems in the Middle East, consistent with the GOP’s last wrongheaded and misleading initiative against Iraq. Such a campaign would have properly educated the public about the minimal threat posed by Iran.

3) Rejected the request with the overwhelming support from the American people, which would have forced Bush to back down and limp from office in disgrace, thus solidifying the anti-war voting block going into the 2008 elections.

But it must be remembered: the Democratic leadership isn’t interested in what’s best for America or in advancing the will of the American people; they’re only interested in satisfying their Zionist partners and the actualization of a left-liberal, big-government, quasi-totalitarian state. War with Iran helps accomplish both.

The Democratic leadership didn’t want to allow their members to force Bush to obtain permission to attack Iran because they knew it would put them on record if and when the request came from Bush. Such a vote could have been painfully divisive to the party (in the same way their vote last May granting Bush the $120 billion Iraq war spending package with no strings attached has proven a problem ever since). Likely to pass, any Iran war vote would have demonstrated to the American public once and for all that the majority of Democrats are as complicit in America’s Middle East disasters as are the Republicans.

And if the American public realized that the Democrats were equally culpable, how could the party win the presidency by pulling off yet another bait and switch scam running as a force for “change” as it did in the 2006 elections? Simply put, it couldn’t. And so Pelosi killed the amendment vote altogether.

Democratic strategists thought the no-vote policy would accomplish two goals at once: an official position of ambiguity on Iran that, cynically, would allow the party to maintain at least some support from its huge war-opposed rank and file; and at the same time, advance the Israel lobby’s goal of a war with Iran (which is clearly the Bush administration default policy) by giving Bush a free hand to bomb without a any possible hitches--which is what originally motivated AIPAC to demand the amendment’s removal.

Of course, the Democrats didn’t count on the treacherous Joe Lieberman’s censure resolution, which forced them take a position anyway. And as a result, it has been all downhill for them since.

As Pat Buchan noted, when it comes to war, the Democratic Congress “has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.”

Indeed, few trust the Democrats now on anything at all; a recent Gallup poll found 55% of Americans disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their overall job. And why should they be trusted? They have tried to manipulate and massage nearly everyone, and as a result, have ended up with the support of no one.

Their collapse is almost epic, but a Logic 101 student could have predicted such an outcome.

The 10 - 20% of Americans who are fanatical hawks are of course always going to back the GOP, which has proven time and again it will happily wage perpetual war against “Islamofascism” on behalf of Israel with no qualms whatsoever. But the owls (wise independents and realists) have been backing away from Washington’s Middle East adventures for months now, and or today in full retreat; and the doves have been loudly opposed to U.S. Middle East interventionism for years.

So why didn’t the Democrast simply side with the owls and the doves and ride the anti-war tidal wave to yet another overwhelming election victory in 2008? Because in their greedy grab for power, they tried to have it all ways: as the "strong on defense" (read war) party, and as the party of peace; as the pro-Israel party, but also the party of responsible Middle East policy.

The Democrats are also making terrible decisions because they are listening to the neocons’ secret weapon, the Democratic Jewish nationalist Zionists, who are so warped by their Israeli loyalties that they can no longer determine what is and is not in the Democratic Party’s best domestic political interests. And of course, the bitter Joe Lieberman, who still caucuses with the Democrats, is ever eager to repay in kind the party that rejected him in his 2006 primary and forced him to run as an independent.

What all this really boils down to is that the Democrats are a venal party of cynics, knaves, and fools, because they have no principles other than the quest for power, and because in that quest, they take counsel from groups that put Israeli interests ahead of American ones. The GOP can get away with such behavior because its large Judeo-Christian Zionist base has no problem subordinating what it views as an increasingly decadent and pagan America’s interests to those of the Judeo state of Israel. But with a large secular base opposed to religious wars, such a strategy could never have succeed for the Democrats.

Of course, the delusional, scheming Democratic leadership apparently thought it could--so long as war with Iran was staved off until Hillary Clinton and a large Democratic Congressional majority were safely in office. But while successfully pounding away at the GOP on the issue of Iraq, the Democratic Party was back-stabbed by Joe Lieberman on behalf of the Right side of the Zionist-axis, which has now successfully moved the goalposts. The Democrats have been forced to buck up the battered and teetering GOP by siding with it on a contrived issue designed to demonize Iran in the form of a censure that was worded by Lieberman so as to be virtually fail proof.

Why were the Dems so easily played for fools? Perhaps they earnestly thought they could trust the historically Democrat-partisan Israel lobby to wait until 2009 for an Iranian war. But clearly, the Jewish Zionist coalition, which now includes many Republicans, wasn’t convinced that a future Congress, one that will likely be elected amidst an unpopular Iraq war, would be sufficiently hawkish to back a campaign against the Iranians--even one orchestrated by a president Hillary.

And so the U.S. is left once more with two parties at the helm in Washington DC hopelessly removed from the best interests of the people they purport to represent, and both yet again putting the country on the path to a destructive and unnecessary war.

Really, how much longer can a “democracy” with an unrepresented majority possibly continue to survive, let alone function?
 
I wonder, if this happened in your town would FOX news report it as terrorism, or necessary genocide?

If this occured in your town would you fight back, or roll over and take it?

----------------------------------------------------------

Israeli army attacks the northern Gaza strip
Wednesday September 05, 2007 16:29 by Ghassan Bannoura - IMEMC News ghassanb at imemc dot org

Tanks and gunboats of the Israeli army attacked the northern area of the Gaza Strip on Wednesday morning.





On Wednesday at dawn, a number of Israeli tanks and bulldozers invaded the industrial zone of Beit Hannon town. Eyewitnesses reported that the invading forces destroyed animal shades, farm houses and shops in the area.

The army left the area shortly before midday, with no kidnappings or injuries reported.

Later in the day, Israeli naval boots attacked Palestinian Authority security posts located near the town of Beit Hannon, causing severe damage to the structures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top