And remember Iraq was attacked FOR ISRAEL. Iraq was a serious future threat to Israel and also 2/3rds of Iraq (up to the Euphrates river in Iraq) is claimed by Jews as the Zionist thinks all of this part of Iraq is theirs and eventually israel wants to take it over.

They Iraq vote was successful once again because of the Republicans dependence on the right wing Christian Zionists and the Jewish Zionists

WMDs was all bullshit it was all Israel

Oh no, I'm blinded!!!!!

the "arab revolt" (1936-1939)
in the first 6 monthes 80 jews were killed (+400 injured).
in total more than 400 were killed.


http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/o.../IraqiJews1.htm

(Zionist) Jews attacked other Jews (and also they bribed Arab police to) in order to shit Jews up. They also attacked Jews in other countries so they would fear for their lives and go to Israel. (Zionist) Jews also helped in the holocaust.

i guess their fucking Jewish plans worked though. Jews DID go to Israel and now Jews can use this excuse and say that Arabs attacked first. Fucking Jews!!!

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/o.../IraqiJews1.htm

jews lie

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/o.../IraqiJews1.htm

jews lie

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/o.../IraqiJews1.htm

jews lie

hahaha

its funny, because despite your stupidity, you don't hold a candle to proud muslim.

I have a philosophical question for everyone...
What does the sound of one brain-cell thinking?

Answer:
Look at shag_pole's posts if you need to know.

Seriously, you look like you came right out of an AOL chat room. You don't convince anyone by putting things in caps in colors. In fact as soon as I saw you doing that I dismissed all of your anti-semitic bull and went straight to realizing you are a moron.
If you believe everything on those links, you are quite possibly the most guillible person on the planet. I hope for your sake that you mature beyond the level of a 12 year old in your posting. Good luck.

lax:

you seem un able to distinguish : factual content from presentation.

the inherent validity of the facts he presents remains whether he displays them in orange pink or blue or whatever.

an attack on his STYLE is no refutation of the FACTS he presents.

xereses....typical zionist revisionist...always in denial....hop over to the palestine thread and see how I'm dealing with your pathetic buddy aaa, ok jabby? ;)

er shag....dude I'm glad you liked those links...but tone it down a bit, then you give the morons less chance to attack your style, and it forces them to debate the issues.

:)

lax:

you seem un able to distinguish : factual content from presentation.

the inherent validity of the facts he presents remains whether he displays them in orange pink or blue or whatever.

First off, I see NO factual content. I see no support to what he's saying, no facts, not an ounce of information to support what he's saying, and it just seems like a raving lunatic having a hissy fit.
The link, btw, is a 404 error. :-D
OK now to take this post apart bit by bit.
1.)"Iraq was a serious future threat to Israel"
You just described about the entire Arab world. Congrats. Why does Iraq stand out? They were probably less of a threat because they had always been in America's crosshairs since they invaded Kuwait. Your statement is: crap.
2.)"2/3rds of Iraq (up to the Euphrates river in Iraq) is claimed by Jews"
Um...what source did you get this from? The voices in your head? Thanks for backing that up. I have never, ever, in my life hear any Jewish person claim that Iraq should be part of the Jewish homeland. Your statement is: unsupported crap.
3.)"They Iraq vote was successful once again because of the Republicans dependence on the right wing Christian Zionists and the Jewish Zionists"
The vote was successful because it was part of the rampant war on terror and because they had already shown to have a severe hate for the US. They aren't dependent on those people because they are only dependent on the majority of voters which are not Zionists. They also pay heed to special interest groups, and last time I checked there were no Zionist special interest groups handing out huge donations to every congressman (or woman) who voted for the war in Iraq. Your statement is: wild speculation.
4.)"WMDs was all bullshit it was all Israel"
They have already found stockpiles of chemical weapon shells. Not to mention again you don't support this at all, and you're just spouting crap. It makes more sense if you say it was for oil or for revenge or whatever, but it wasn't because of Israel. Your statement is: openly ignorant.
5.)"(Zionist) Jews attacked other Jews (and also they bribed Arab police to) in order to shit Jews up. They also attacked Jews in other countries so they would fear for their lives and go to Israel. (Zionist) Jews also helped in the holocaust."
OK, the Palestinian Arab revolt was a revolt of Palestinians...they attacked Jews in the area. (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_riots_1936-39.php) I see no connection to Jews attacking other Jews. I don't know what you mean about Jews helping in the holocaust, because yet again you cite no sources. Your statement is: lies.

And next time, withhold the profanity, caps lock, and try learning some grammar.

Outlandish: Did I cover it for you or are you going to just become ignorantly anti-semitic?

first off zionists are not jews and which definition of anti semitism do you mean?

the one that is based upon the correct anthropological defintion of semites/semite peoples or the commonly used zionist propegated and widely mis used + misunderstood term????

OK, well no matter, they were attacked by Arabs, not people who wanted a Jewish homeland/Israel. And, quite frankly I used anti-semitic to be nice and not say you are being ignorant and prejudiced in your attacks on Jews.

Oh and how about you address the CONTENT of my post just like you wanted me to do?

What is you definition of Zionist? My definition of Zionist was basically someone of Jewish descent that wanted to return to the traditional ways and land of their ancestors.

lax: where the hell did I attack jews????

weasel:

here: check my last post on this page, that should clarify things for you.
(I'm tired of explaining the difference between judaism + zionism)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36481&page=27&pp=20

outlandish: by encouraging these types of morons, encouraging people to just come in and spout this kind of unsupported crap...admittedly it's somewhat indirect...
You still haven't addressed any of the concerns that I've laid forth, if shag is so strong in content perhaps you'd be able to support him?

Look I think you have this idea that the jews of isreal are poor defenseless homebodies with no weapons or any way to defend themselves.

Personally I think that the Isrealis are a scarier threat to a stable middle east than anyone coming out of iraq. Does anyone remeber the 6 day war? Nuf said. Between the nukes and their own fighting forces they're pretty good at taking care of themselves. I mean yeah wars have been started because of them, but they've started a fair few themselves.

They more than hold their own in any fight, they have a complete nuclear program with up to date technology (something alot of nuclear programs lack). And they are SCARY fighters! The only reason they haven't slughtered the palestinians is that its REALLY hard to fight an internal rebllion and win without doing serious damage to the land your on. And the middle east, not so much with the arable farm land. Not to mention religion is involved which always makes things messy, as is the fact that really no one is in the right or wrong when it comes to to the battle for the west bank etc.

Thirdly I beleive Zionism was ruled illegal and racist by the UN.

Furthermore, in your first run on sentance, you state that Isreal wants to take over IRAQ. So if isreal is the aggressor, with superior man, money and fire power how is iraq, a fragile regime, a threat?

OH! a threat to their EVIL plans of WORLD DOMINATION! What was I thinking?

oh and lax: the 2/3 up to iraq thing, while not entirely clear, I beleive he is referring to the land gained in conflicts in the mid part of the last century (ie: 6 days war and other conflicts) But thats technically incorrect as they don't beleive historically its theirs so much as "we took that over damnit. We wants it! Its ours. Our preciousssss."

Oh heck yeah the Isrealis can fight. 6 Day War they took on a good part of the Arab world and won. Does that make them wrong? I mean seriously, they didn't start the war and they managed to take land (which, yes they should not have kept). Anyway...I'm just kind of sick of posts that are like "JEWS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD"
Just riles me, you know?
If people actually had, say...oh I dunno...evidence, or examples? I could listen.

I completely agree! Its ridiculous! If anythings trying to take over the world its cute japanese cartoon animals. I mean have you seen those things! Shifty devils. :D

It's just conspiracy theories in their latest evolution(revolution?).

cyberia: The General Assembly withdrew their ruling on Zionism because it offended (for obvious reasons) the State of Israel. I read that in the Time Almanac for 2004 – excellent source of just about everything. Cheers.

lax:

1) where did I attack jews?

2) I'd be more than happy to comment on the the points raised in your earlier post within the context of their own merits, the thing is I'm pretty sure shag pole is slightly confused as to the differentiation between israel as a zionist state and the commonly held misconception of the inception of israel as a "jewish" state.
hence he misinterprates going to war for alleged israelli interests as "isaraelli jews against iraqi jews"
I think the poor fellow has taken inherently valid information but has started a thread in which that information is irrelevant and out of context and furthermore hasn't been fully grasped by the thread starter himself.

ah yes it was. It was a condition for their participation in the madrid participation.
But fact is it was a relevent resolution at the time, considering Isreal's 'expansionist' tendancies. I'm not supporting the logic behind it or disregarding the history that must be considered in whole.

You know, at least Travis was able to recycle the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a fairly intelligent and coherent fashion.

cyberia: The General Assembly withdrew their ruling on Zionism because it offended (for obvious reasons) the State of Israel. I read that in the Time Almanac for 2004 – excellent source of just about everything. Cheers.

furthermore, when you check the original General Assembly resolution, who voted for it and considering the times, i'm not surprised it even came to be

as for "Iraq and The Jews", well, my field commander (i work for Mossad) has told me to clean my uzi and fly to Baghdad to prepare for operation "Baghdadi Takeover"

there you have it.

now what ya gonna do? :D

I'm sorry i don't see the connection between your feild commanders orders and the topic of this thread?

can you please clarify?

cyberia:

from the nile to the euphrates

yes, that's right
from the nile to Toronto
i'm coming to get you next

cyberia:
i was just trying to show how absurd it is that there is some kind of plan by the Israeli government or the abstract undefined group of "The Jews" who are planning to occupy a HUGE country with a HUGE population... for the purpose of... what?

Iraq may have been a serious future threat to Israel, but I doubt Israel would prefer the chaos and instability of the current situation to Saddam. Israel had no problem with destroying Saddam's future nuclear capability a couple years ago, when they bombed an Iraqi nuclear power plant. I assume if they get good intelligence about Iraqi WMD's, they would do the same now, and I would trust Israeli intelligence more than the US, at this point. So, Iraq was not attacked for Israel, because Israel can take care of immediate threats for themselves. There is no way the Israelis want any part of Iraq, that's rediculous, don't they have enough trouble already? Is Iraq now positioned for Israeli takeover? If so, how? Perhaps a few hardcore Zionist crackpots talk about it, but no one in any position of power, no one seriously.

P.S. most American Jews are democrats.

P.P.S. what Iraq vote was sucessful?

Israel without doubt a major reason for invading Iraq, one of the top three. Let’s not claim ignorance here people, the Israeli’s have powerful friends in Washington. The Neo-Conservative cabal is dominated by Zionists, now I don’t think it was Jews that did anything they get a bad rap for no reason. But there are powerful Zionist elements in the White House today, and they want to protect Israel. Now we must remember that prior to the war, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, Israel “thought” that Saddam had extensive WMD programs, and supported the US. So spider I agree with you that Israel today is probably more in danger now then before, but remember that one of the arguments for war was that “the way to peace in Jerusalem, is through Baghdad.”

There is no way the Israelis want any part of Iraq, that's rediculous, don't they have enough trouble already?

Most Israeli’s want peace, and all this crap to end granted. But remember Israel is being ruled by traditionally expansionist extremist elements, and likud is just that element.

P.S. most American Jews are democrats.

But many of the Zionist intellectuals aren’t.

goat:
Israel had no problem with destroying Saddam's future nuclear capability

and i suppose this is to power the new zionist themed disneyland eh?

Israel has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons, but analysts believe it has around 200 warheads at the plant in the town of Dimona.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3868507.stm

goat:

So, Iraq was not attacked for Israel


The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/03; Guardian, 9/3/02; Washington Times, 10/7/03] The paper advises the new, right-wing Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ....” The document advocates the removal of Saddam Hussein and the weakening of Syria. [Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 7/8/96; Carnegie Endowment

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=binyamin_netanyahu

no sireee nope no way...iraq wasn't attacked for israel.

and i suppose this is to power the new zionist themed disneyland eh?

Israel has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons, but analysts believe it has around 200 warheads at the plant in the town of Dimona.
So what? Are you advocating equal rights for nukes? I wouldn't. Israel's attack eliminated Iraq's source of nuclear materials, with little loss of life, a smart move.

no sireee nope no way...iraq wasn't attacked for israel.
The paper you cite suggested that it was in Israel's interest to remove Saddam. But there were many countries that wanted the same thing, even the ones that objected to Bush's strategy. That doesn't prove anything.

Even if Israel supported Saddam's removal in principle, I still say the present situation is not in Israel's interest, far from it.

goat:

Are you advocating equal rights for nukes?

yes, why not?

I wouldn't
why not?

But there were many countries that wanted the same thing, even the ones that objected to Bush's strategy. That doesn't prove anything.

there's a large and very crucial difference between merely voicing an objection to saddam, and having The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies draft a key strategic policy document for an incoming isr govt clearly illustrating intent and then outlining a strategy to implement that intent.
Furthermore those "other" countries do not receive American funding for their militaries.

goat:
That doesn't prove anything.

click on the "People and organizations involved" links at the bottom of the page I gave you:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=binyamin_netanyahu

makes for rather interesting reading wouldn't you say?

There are a few things to consider about this paper. It came out in 1996. It was intended to influence Netanyahu. I haven't read anything that says it actually did. It was not Israel's policy, but the think-tank's. Also, Netanyahu was not prime minister when we invaded Iraq. It's just a paper, it's not official, they write those things all the time, and its no secret. Do you know if Sharon adopted this view?

It seems that the neo-con-job strategy of invading Iraq was intended to have a kind of domino effect, which would benefit Israel, and bring about a more stable middle east. But that is still a long way from invading "for" Israel. As one of the few democracies in the middle east, we should share their interests of peace and prosperity, even if we disagree with how they deal with the Palestinians.

There are a few things to consider about this paper. It came out in 1996

indeed.

It was intended to influence Netanyahu
this wasn't some bespoke policy document for bibi, but a detailed policy document clearly outlining intent regarding middle eastern geo politics with direct relevence to israel coupled with the strategies recomended for implementation of said political issues.
The strategies outlined in this paper can easily be implemented by any isr government.

It's just a paper, it's not official, they write those things all the time

I think to asses the full possible ramifications and effects of implementation of said strategies or indeed just how effective this paper is on influencing isr foreign policy, I think one needs to further examine the source ie:IASPS.

IASPS is a highly influencial strategic organisation:


The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS) is a Jerusalem-based think tank with an affiliated office in Washington, D.C. Its main focus is "limited government" as Aristotle intends: "men think the constitution enslaves them but it is their salvation." The great philosopher of the Western tradition also noted that philosophy or the use of man's intellect "is his divinest part." Accordingly, IASPS pursues the limitation of Israeli socialist statism supported by US aid, by means of free market reform and a robust missile defense. The link between these economic and geostrategic policies reflects a critique of those policies which stand in opposition to limited government and affect an undermining of the elementary truths of human order. At the purely political level, IASPS policies stand in opposition to those supportive of statism and the diminution of the balance of power.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/about.htm

But that is still a long way from invading "for" Israel

iraq wasn't invaded "for" israel. There was no single what iraq was invaded "for", what I am highlighting is the fact that within the strategy implemented by america regarding the invasion of iraq, israel was indeed a notable factor which cannot be ignored.

So what? Are you advocating equal rights for nukes? I wouldn't.

Well if I may interject into this rather interesting conversation. The ability to have nuclear weapons depends on the geo-political aspect that a state is in. If Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons because of her geo-political weakness then surely North Korea is as well. The parallels between the two states are rather shocking, I won’t go into the specifics, but the two countries have nuclear weapons for their survival as states (at least that’s the excuse). Iran is in an even more dangerous nuclear position then Israel, not only does she have Pakistan, India, and Israel able to attack her with nuclear weapons, there is a possibility of Saudi Arabia. I perfectly understand why Iran would want a nuke, if Israel really wants tension to ratchet down then start opening up to Syria’s demands for a WMD free zone, which Israel has denied countless times.

Israel's attack eliminated Iraq's source of nuclear materials, with little loss of life, a smart move.

All the attack did was delay Saddam’s bomb making capability.

Even if Israel supported Saddam's removal in principle, I still say the present situation is not in Israel's interest, far from it.

What that projected?