Syrai signs the CWC; giess who doesn't?

Ah.

The good old NY Times.

The gatekeepers for Israel.

The same paper that buried the story about the NSA giving our private communications to Israel.

The same paper that told us there were definitely stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq in 2002.

The UN issues a lengthy report which assigns no blame. Yet the NYTimes points to it and concludes "the United Nations report was damning in its implicit incrimination of Mr. Assad’s side" Up is down. Black is white.

Using terms like azimuths, angular measurements, points of origin, it places the blame on Assad.

If after the last 12 years of this BS you cannot recognize propaganda, a sales job, another set of lies by the NYTimes you are far gone

Obama draws the line at chemical weapons.

The UN inspectors arrive in Syria and so Assad decides to launch a gas attack close by.

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

What does make sense is that the plan to attack Syria was conceived in the 90s by Israel Firster Neocons Wuermser, Perle et al, Obama is directed to set chemical weapons use as the red line, and a false flag op is run.

Klondike5 wrote:

Ah.

The good old NY Times.

The gatekeepers for Israel.

The same paper that buried the story about the NSA giving our private communications to Israel.

The same paper that told us there were definitely stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq in 2002.

The UN issues a lengthy report which assigns no blame. Yet the NYTimes points to it and concludes "the United Nations report was damning in its implicit incrimination of Mr. Assad’s side" Up is down. Black is white.

Using terms like azimuths, angular measurements, points of origin, it places the blame on Assad.

If after the last 12 years of this BS you cannot recognize propaganda, a sales job, another set of lies by the NYTimes you are far gone

so...if I found another source that said essentially the same thing you would agree that the UN report indicates the Syrian gummint was the perp? Really?

Aw, just kidding. I know you would never change your mind about anything.

Klondike5 wrote:

Oh. I get it. Rather than address the damning facts about Israel, you attack the comment for addressing two different problems. How insane to address two things in one comment. Surely this discredits both

It's not about Israel. It's about you avoiding the question.

Is this about Israel?

The Institute for Middle East Understanding has published a translation of an interview with Roger Waters by Alon Hadar that appeared in Hebrew in the September 18, 2013 issue of Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

Here are excerpts of the very long interview. He defends his use of the term apartheid to describe the occupation, says blaming the Palestinians for the conflict is like blaming a rape victim for being raped, and says the Israeli separation wall is 100 times more horrifying than the Berlin wall– and the Berlin wall was taken down.

Hadar: Israel is one of the few states in the Middle East where an artist like yourself can come and express his opinions without fearing for his life. Don’t be a big hero abroad, come here and try to convince us that you’re right.

Waters: “I tried to convince, it was not effective. I never saw a visit of a popular musician having an impact on Israeli policy, other than the fact that those singers legitimize that policy.”

W: “I’ve been in your country, I’ve traveled throughout the West Bank, I visited Jenin. I saw the checkpoints, the settlements, the occupation forces. I decided that I wanted to protest. What do they expect me to do in order to protest? To chain myself to the railings at Buckingham palace? That doesn’t seem particularly effective.”

H: But a cultural boycott is an exceptional and extreme step.

W: “When white activists started to organize protests outside South Africa to awaken world public opinion, they said: ‘You have to take apart the system because it is wrong.’ The movement progressed slowly over the years and developed the idea of a cultural boycott. The only reason for the boycott is that it is effective.”

H: You’re talking about an apartheid regime in South Africa. Here the situation is totally different.

W: “In the occupied territories, Jews are governed by civil laws and there are totally different laws for the Palestinians and the Arabs, who are under military laws. That is exactly like the old Pass Laws that were in South Africa. That’s apartheid! Clear and simple. No question.”

At this point, Waters refers us to the dictionary, to check the exact definition of apartheid, to prove that he is right. And indeed: “Population separation on the basis of race, a regime where the ruling race has privileges that members of other races do not have.” This doesn’t help, Waters continues: “When one race or ethnic group controls another race or ethnic group by means of its power, this is the crime of apartheid and that’s the status quo, all day, every day, in the occupied territories,” he says and raises his voice. “That’s how it is in Israel itself as well, there are different laws depending on whether you are Jewish or Arab.”

H: You forget that Netanyahu already declared his support for the idea of two states and called on the Palestinians to enter into negotiations without preconditions.

W: “There are some politicians who say something about the two-state solution and that they want peace, but their policies don’t show any sign that that’s true. They continue building settlements, they continue the occupation.”

H: Israel has never annexed the territories. At every opportunity, it declares that this situation is temporary. There is not one Israeli citizen who is not interested in peace.

W: “If you look at the map and see where the settlements are and where the wall passes, then you see that it’s not something temporary. There is a deliberate attempt here to annex the entire territory. By the way, they already annexed East Jersualem and the Golan Heights officially, not just de facto.”…

H: You are painting a picture of black and white, of the good guys and the bad guys. And what about the Palestinians? Aren’t they partly to blame for the situation?

W: “I think that putting part of the blame on Palestinians is a bit like putting part of the blame of rape on the woman being raped. The victim is never guilty. In this case, Palestinians were expelled from their land in `48 by armed force and were not allowed to return to their homes. They are the victims. It is unavoidable that some of them will try to resist in ways that I do not agree with.”

Sure AGIP.

And there really were WMDs in Iraq -- they just got moved to Syria, right?

Hell.

We were told there was proof that Assad did it as soon as it was reported.

Then we were told there was definite proof it was Assad as Obama pushed the attack agenda.

Then the UN report come out which makes no comment on who did it (and it would have had there been sufficient evidence -- UN investigations typically assign guilt -- like the Goldstone Report) -- and the Amen Corner of the Lobby, headed by the NYTImes chanted as one that this is the proof we were waiting for.

It is the same tactic they use every time they are meeting resistance to one of their wars on another Muslim nation. Identical to the selling of the Iraq War -- led by the NYTimes

klondikde5? how's your typing?

anyway, maybe you want to address the evidence I cited in the UN report?

or not, if you want. You could instead choose to deflect and dissemble, which isn't really arguing, but you seem to enjoy it.

Klondikde5 wrote:

Then the UN report come out which makes no comment on who did

They did describe the delivery mechanisms used which only happen to be in the possession of the Syrian military. So it's not too hard to read between the lines.

"Evidence" like "azimuths, angular measurements, points of origin"?

Reminds me of Netanyahu going to the UN with a cartoon drawing of a bomb, Colin Powell doing the same with an empty vial -- that "could" hold anthrax -- and his cartoon drawings of "mobile chemical weapons" units.

Doesn't take much to fool people like you who have internalized a lifetime of pro Zi*nist conditioning.

The Plan to attack Syria was made in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union by the Jewish Neocons as part of their overall plan to take over the Middle east for Israel using the US military (while pretending this was also good for the USA). It's all in black and white in "A Clean Break". Right after the part where the US military topples Saddam (check)and coinciding with the invasion of Iran (currently being sold on the basis of having to stop it's nuclear weapons program -- a program constantly referred to by the media but one that does not exist per consensus of the US Intelligence Community). It has nothing to do with concern for the Syrian people, nothing to do with any chemical attack. That's just part of the sales job

Hertz wrote:

Klondikde5 wrote:

Then the UN report come out which makes no comment on who did

They did describe the delivery mechanisms used which only happen to be in the possession of the Syrian military. So it's not too hard to read between the lines.

Don't believe it for a minute. It is more Zi*nist BS.

Klondikde5 wrote:

The Plan to attack Syria was made in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union by the Jewish Neocons as part of their overall plan to take over the Middle east for Israel using the US military (while pretending this was also good for the USA). It's all in black and white in "A Clean Break". Right after the part where the US military topples Saddam (check)and coinciding with the invasion of Iran (currently being sold on the basis of having to stop it's nuclear weapons program -- a program constantly referred to by the media but one that does not exist per consensus of the US Intelligence Community). It has nothing to do with concern for the Syrian people, nothing to do with any chemical attack. That's just part of the sales job

Obviously the Iraq war has already happened. Did this author give a time frame for the invasions of Syria and Iran? I mean, it sounds like it's been 20 years in the making.

nuttery wrote:

Obviously the Iraq war has already happened. Did this author give a time frame for the invasions of Syria and Iran? I mean, it sounds like it's been 20 years in the making.

It's all in "A Clean Break". Look it up. No specific time frame given but first on the list was remove Saddam. Then destroy Syria and Iran. They have been trying to get that Iran War since W's second term. These guys are sociopaths but they are patient.

So this guy is 1 for 3 in his predictions. That's good in baseball, but not so much elsewhere.

Let's see that our great ally has been up to of late, shall we?

Israeli soldiers manhandled European diplomats on Friday and seized a truck full of tents and emergency aid they had been trying to deliver to Palestinians whose homes were demolished this week.

A Reuters reporter saw soldiers throw sound grenades at a group of diplomats, aid workers and locals in the occupied West Bank , and yank a French diplomat out of the truck before driving away with its contents.

“They dragged me out of the truck and forced me to the ground with no regard for my diplomatic immunity,” French diplomat Marion Castaing said.

“This is how international law is being respected here,” she said, covered with dust.

The Israeli army and police declined to comment.

Locals said Khirbet Al-Makhul was home to about 120 people. The army demolished their ramshackle houses, stables and a kindergarten on Monday after Israel ‘s high court ruled that they did not have proper building permits….

“It’s shocking and outrageous. We will report these actions to our governments,” said one EU diplomat, who declined to be named because he did not have authorisation to talk to the media.

“(Our presence here) is a clear matter of international humanitarian law. By the Geneva Convention, an occupying power needs to see to the needs of people under occupation. These people aren’t being protected,” he said.

Original report Mondoweiss:

On Monday, Israel demolished a Bedouin community in the Jordan Valley, Mak-hul.Today there is breaking news that a French diplomat has placed herself in the way of Israeli forces trying to prevent the delivery of tents to the villagers. The report, from a reliable source:

As many of you know, a diplomatic convoy accompanied a delivery of tents to Mak hul today for the people who lost their homes in the demolition of the community on Monday.

The Israel Civil Administration has moved to confiscate the truck with the tents. A French diplomat is sitting in the truck to prevent confiscation.

Reuters TV and main correspondent is there from the morning and is capturing it all.

We have confirmation from the French Consulate… [of this information, now going out on twitter:]

French diplomat sitting in truck full of humanitarian aid in demolished # Palestine village Makhul to prevent confiscation from Israeli soldiers

Klondike5 wrote:

It's all in "A Clean Break". Look it up. No specific time frame given but first on the list was remove Saddam. Then destroy Syria and Iran. They have been trying to get that Iran War since W's second term. These guys are sociopaths but they are patient.

I looked into it and you're right about Syria and Iraq, though I saw no mention of Iran. I must have missed it.

I found this very interesting....what do you think about it....

"Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform."

That part about Israel cutting free from US aid is one thing that does not seem to be getting pushed along at all. Never mind immediately!

As far as no mention of Iran...did you read the Wikipedia summary? They purposefully left it out.

Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Recall that these people are allegedly Americans.

Here are some highlights taken directly from that paper -- written for Israel:

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas.

Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble

Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel can shape its strategic environment by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.

An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon,

Yeah, I saw those. Very interesting. What do you think about this part...

"Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East. Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East."

Beautiful +1