“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, October 06, 2016

The Insanity of Thinking About a War with Russia

Truthdig

The most important lesson one can acquire about US foreign policy is the understanding that our leaders do not mean well. They do not have any noble goals of democracy and freedom and all that jazz. They aim to dominate the world by any means necessary. And as long as an American believes that the intentions are noble and honorable, it’s very difficult to penetrate that wall. That wall surrounds the thinking and blocks any attempt to make them realize the harm being done by US foreign policy.
— William Blum, former member of the US State Department, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War I

A Path That Could Lead to the Unthinkable: Nuclear War With Russia

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/do_we_really_want_nuclear_war_with_russia_20161006/


36 comments:

  1. Russia's too smart. There just going to watch us implode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Are they?

      During the 60's and 70's the US and the USSR were both involved in a huge civil defense effort in anticipation of a possible nuclear war.

      Over the years, the US effort and emphasis has faded away. Now, its handled within Homeland Security. I think the group handling it is now FEMA. The Russians have never stopped emphasizing it.

      During the 70's, the Soviet military was talking about 'winning' a nuclear war at the same time the US was talking 'MAD'.

      The US position has always been that no 'rational' country would ever start a nuclear war if they too would be destroyed. However, Russia's entire history and culture are very different from that of the US.

      Daniel P. Moynihan notes in connection with the refusal of America’s “sophisticated” elite to accept the reality of a Soviet threat. “If you’re not very educated, you’re easily frightened. And not being ever frightened can be a formula for self-destruction.”

      I always liked Moynihan.

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      At any rate, while 80% of Americans believes ISIS is the most serious security threat there is for the US and another hefty percentage are convinced Iran presents an existential threat, the only country that currently poses an existential threat to the US is Russia.

      Points of conflict with the Bear should be taken seriously.

      After the break-up of the USSR...

      Vadim Zagladin, the First Deputy Secretary of the Central Committee's International Department, publicly admitted over ten years later that Moscow had pursued a double strategy: "Rejecting nuclear war and struggling to prevent it, we, nevertheless, proceeded from the possibility of winning victory such a war", (Izvestia (no. 179) 27 June 1988, p. 3).

      .

      Delete
  2. Taking the stage in Henderson, Nevada, Mr Trump took his own victory lap for Mr Pence's performance, which he called "phenomenal".

    Mr Pence's cool demeanour contrasted with Mr Trump's bluster during his own, top-of-the-ticket showdown against Mrs Clinton. However strong MrPence's performance, Mr Trump made clear he considered it a reflection of himself.

    "I'm getting a lot of credit, because that's really my first so-called choice, that was my first hire," he said of Mr Pence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One week before the U.S./Russian truce agreement in Syria, the Washington Post headlined an article with, “Whether or not the Syrian cease-fire sticks, Putin Wins.”

    ...

    At the G20 meeting in Hangzou, China, President Putin met with Deputy Crown Prince Salmon of Saudi Arabia, the eldest son of the Saudi King and his country's Defense Minister. The Russians, despite having “…a firm alliance with Iran in hand, are now cementing a strategic oil partnership with Saudi Arabia.”

    ...

    As stated here, while frequently described as America’s best and closest ally, Israel is the only “Western” country that has steadfastly refused to take part in the international sanctions imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine.


    Oil Markets

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that U.S. forces will continue to conduct air strikes in Syria, despite Russia’s recent threats to shoot down any aircraft that threaten its forces or those of its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    ...

    The S-300 is a surface-to-air missile system that can target both aircraft and cruise missiles. Russia deployed the system on at least two of its bases in Syria Tuesday, claiming it would be used to protect its military assets.

    ReplyDelete
  5. .

    What We Talk About When We Don’t Want to Talk About Nuclear War

    Anyone who isn't concerned about possible confrontation with Russia in Syria should be, if not under Obama trying to polish his legacy then under either one of the two buffoons running for president.

    ...According to press reports, President Obama had toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a “no first use” posture. Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.

    Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee’s eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of “What is Aleppo?”

    Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely -- or naively -- charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.

    Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday weaponry. “They have a much newer capability than we do,” he said. “We have not been updating from the new standpoint.” The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, “I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not -- we are not keeping up with other countries.”

    Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. “I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over.”

    Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms like “fallout” or “dirty bomb,” classifying Armageddon as the “nuclear alternative” represents something of a contribution.

    Still, it’s worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, “first strike” and “first use” are anything but synonymous. “First strike” implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the “nuclear alternative” on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.

    Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump’s vow never to order a first strike -- not the question Lester Holt was asking -- was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his “no first strike” pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington, that “I can't take anything off the table.”


    {...}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. {...}

      Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, where “we’re doing nothing.” Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in check, he added, ought to be Beijing’s job. “China should solve that problem for us,” he insisted. “China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.”

      If China wouldn’t help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many thousands of miles away, should do so -- and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. “Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.” When the Obama administration “made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea.” But why stop with North Korea? Iran “should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places,” he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's behalf.

      Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry: “Why didn't you add other things into the deal?” Why, in “one of the great giveaways of all time,” did the Obama administration fork over $400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest explanation -- “It was actually $1.7 billion in cash” -- in “one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history.”

      Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d’horizon by decrying the one action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least in the near future. “The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems,” he stated with conviction. “All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end up getting nuclear.” For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. “I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day,” he added for no reason in particular. “Believe me, he's not a happy camper...”


      {...}

      Delete
    2. {...}

      It was now Clinton’s turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues.

      “[L]et me start by saying, words matter,” she began. “Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.”

      It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod -- or nod off.

      “It is essential that America's word be good,” Clinton continued. “And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to -- on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good.”

      Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered Trump for not offering an alternative. “Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?” If you’re going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does, she charged. “It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan.”

      With that, she reverted to platitudes. “So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home.”


      {...}

      Delete

    3. {...}

      Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start with Russia’s Putin? North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?

      In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.

      Of Harding’s speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, “It reminds me of a string of wet sponges.” Mencken characterized Harding’s rhetoric as “so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.” So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on...


      .

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good quote, Quirk.

      You've shown that no one really knows what to do about an impossible problem.

      No one....unless you are holding back your own Nobel Peace Prize winning solution.

      If you are holding back, everyone is interested in your solution.

      What is it ?

      Delete
  7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKPMZ_t765I#t=108.943336

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=57e53b40-0000-2451-a75f-94eb2c08d4d4&feature=iv&src_vid=qKPMZ_t765I&v=_wvAJgUlS-I

      Delete
    2. The early U-2 had only 1 pilot I think.

      Delete

  8. Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server. Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement. In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account. The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Burger Blues
    The problem facing the world’s largest hamburger maker: Its burgers aren’t good enough. Just one in five millennials, the fast-food industry’s core customer, has tried McDonald’s flagship “Big Mac.” New, “better burger” chains are pulling in customers with gourmet, made-to-order burgers and quick, casual service. But serving that kind of product is at odds with McDonald’s strategy of six decades, in which speed and low cost are paramount. We report that a “sensory” panel is helping McDonald’s refocus on flavor, and the company is testing using fresh instead of frozen beef, different cooking techniques and an ordering system for made-to-order, customized burgers. The challenges are clear: The company’s attempts in recent years to sell burgers with higher-quality ingredients haven’t been successful.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A sensory panel to refocus on flavor. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I doubt we will hear anything more absurd than this today. People are actually supporting this woman. I know folks who don't like Trump will vote for her as a vote against Trump. But those folks who actually support her??

    TAMPA, FL — Speaking to supporters in Tampa, Hillary Clinton says climate change is “wreaking havoc on communities across America.” Clinton warns that Hurricane Hermine “is not the last one that’s going to hit Florida given what’s happening in the climate.” She says, “When it comes to protecting our country against natural disasters and the threat of climate change, once again, Donald Trump is totally unfit and unqualified”.
    HILLARY CLINTON: “Another threat to our country is climate change. 2015 was the hottest year on record and the science is clear: it’s real, it’s wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week’s hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine. But, this is not the last one that’s going to hit Florida given what’s happening in the climate. […] If it affects people who lose their homes or their businesses that took a lifetime to build, it doesn’t matter to him. When it comes to protecting our country against natural disasters and the threat of climate change, once again, Donald Trump is totally unfit and unqualified to be our President.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. Coming from the person who bought ad space on the weather channel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Climate change is the real cause of the Syrian wars, according to President O'bozo.

    And, now Hillary has 'Ozone' Al Gore on the campaign trail for her.

    I remember how Al's wife, what was her name, Pepper or something, divorced her way out of his insanity the moment he lost the election....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tipper, I think it was, Tipper of the super kiss at the Convention.....

      Once there was no First Lady gig in it for her, she was outta there, and 'Ozone' began to grow his hair out........

      Delete
  14. "Q"Nit of the Day: Shelbyville, Tennessee


    Shelbyville, Tennessee: Muslim shoots up three churches, says “Read the Qur’an”

    October 6, 2016 11:02 am By Robert Spencer

    The link to Buchanan’s Facebook page in the report below has already gone dead. In any case, the screenshot makes Buchanan’s mindset clear: “Read the Qur’an because it is the true word of God…”
    A Muslim shoots up three churches and nothing is said about his motive or his Islamic identity. Would the same courtesy be shown a Christian who shot up three mosques? Why the coverup? Who is responsible for it?

    “Could the Suspect arrested in a Shelbyville, Tennessee Shooting Spree be a Jihadi?,” by Jerry Gordon, New English Review, October 6, 2016 (thanks to Robert):

    …Shelbyville has a new problem; a shooting spree by a suspect, Wendell Buchanan, apprehended by local whose social media discloses his possible Muslim conversion.  The issue is why local law enforcement hasn’t reached out for assistance of the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI to investigate this as a possible terrorist event.   This report would appear to suggest that Buchanan was on a self motivated jihad mission against hated kuffar religious institutions in the community:

    September 27 – October 02, 2016: Shelbyville, TN: Three churches were shot up in the Shelbyville, TN area starting on the night of Sep 27, 2016. The Horse Mountain Church of Christ was shot 16 more times the night of Sep 29. The Philippi United Methodist Church along with another church was also struck by 7.62 x 39 rounds on the 29th. (7.62 x 39 rounds are consistent with an AK47 or a SKS rifle) The Bedford County Agriculture Center was also attacked with gunfire on the 29th, shattering the front glass. There were also reports of utility boxes being shot during this time.

    On October 02, 2016, the Bedford County Sheriff’s Office announced the arrest of Wendell Buchanan, age 30 for the shootings. A check of Wendell Tobias Buchanan’s Facebook page shows that he has been quoting the Quran and demonstrates he is a very vocal follower of Islam.

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/shelbyville-tennessee-muslim-shoots-up-three-churches-says-read-the-quran

    ReplyDelete
  15. Word from my medical sources is that Hillary is in seclusion and off drugs for a few days so that when they shoot her up again before the next debate the effect of the drugs will be stronger and longer lasting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Ted Noel Takes a Close Look at Hillary’s Debate Performance - 10/7/16

      Clinton’s three-day break before the debate may have included a “drug holiday” (formally a “structured treatment interruption”) to increase the effectiveness on D-day of the medications she’s taking. More


      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/dr_ted_noel_takes_a_close_look_at_hillarys_debate_performance.html

      Delete
  16. New Hampshire is a big deal. If The Donald can win New Hampshire he wouldn't need Colorado or Pennsylvania.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gabby Morrongiello:
      Clinton’s lead vanishes in NH as Johnson voters go to Trump


      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2603807/

      Delete
    2. The Donald could win massively 270-268 with New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina.

      Delete
  17. Creepy clown beaten with bat....DRUDGE

    Time to take your Creepy Clown costume off, Quirk, people have had a gut full.

    Send the word down to your subordinates, too.

    Nobody wants any seriously wounded, much less dead, clowns found on the streets.

    It was good fun for awhile.

    Time to knock it off now, though.

    ReplyDelete
  18. .

    Normally, I’m reluctant to quote any general, especially those paid by FOX or CNN, but at least in this piece Gen. Flynn cites some credible sources (that and the fact that the US role in the Libyan FUBAR especially sticks in my craw).

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/06/gen-mike-flynn-why-hillarys-record-on-libya-is-even-worse-than-think.html

    Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary's record on Libya is even worse than you think

    …A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.

    But new evidence -- and a review of the public record -- reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.

    A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on "inaccurate intelligence" and "erroneous assumptions." Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element," and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the "growth of ISIL" in North Africa.

    However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya…


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

    Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.

    The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.

    The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again. But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.

    Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent…


    {...}

    ReplyDelete
  19. .

    Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.
    While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.

    LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports. The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.

    The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.

    As the Washington Post reported, this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”

    These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.

    Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B. Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.

    Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.


    Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law -- again...


    We have seen the same game plan used in Syria. If Clinton is elected we can expect to see it continue.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. $39 Billion For Nothing, Arms For Free

    If the aim of the Israeli government is to prevent a peace deal with the Palestinians, now or in the future, it’s close to realizing that goal. Last week, it approved the construction of a new Jewish settlement in the West Bank, another step in the steady march under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to build on land needed to create a Palestinian state.

    The Obama administration, with every justification, strongly condemned the action as a betrayal of the idea of a two-state solution in the Middle East. But Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t care what Washington thinks, so it will be up to President Obama to find another way to preserve that option before he leaves office.

    The best idea under discussion now would be to have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution, lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as Israel’s security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and borders for both states. The United Nations previously laid down principles for a peace deal in Resolution 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973); a new one would be more specific and take into account current realities. Another, though weaker, option is for Mr. Obama to act unilaterally and articulate this framework for the two parties.



    I have a better idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      From Caroline Glick @ Jeruselem Post...

      http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-Obamas-hostile-eulogy-469611

      Obama was not merely wrong when he accused Peres’s detractors of support for slavery, he was maliciously wrong.


      Due to Peres’s Oslo Accords, since 1995, all the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria have been governed by the PLO. Israel hasn’t been in charge of any aspect of their daily civic existence.

      And they have only suffered as a result. Between 1967 and 1996, when the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria were governed by the military government, the Palestinians were free. They only became “enslaved” when the PLO took over.

      Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians enjoyed far more expansive civil rights than they have since we left. The PLO transformed their lives into chaos by implementing the law of the jungle, enforced by mob-style militias. Their property rights were trampled. Their civil rights have been gutted...



      There have been a long line of conservative politicians, Christian preachers, and right wing nut jobs ranging from Pat Buchanan to Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to David Horowitcz of frontpagemag notoriety who have argued that the slaves really didn't have it all that bad. Now Ms. Glick makes the same argument regarding the Palestinians.

      The bolded sentence above shows Ms. Glick's absence of knowledge of or her complete denial of the Oslo Accords and their effects. I am tempted to conclude it is the latter since that reality should be clear to anyone who has actually read the Oslo Accords and the governing protocols for Areas A, B, and C and Gaza or who has looked at a map showing the strategic placement of settlements, barriers, checkpoints and roads that divide the WB, at least the 20% - 40% where the Palestinians are allowed to build, into nearly 100 small, separate, isolated ghettos, and in the case of Gaza into a prison.

      .

      .


      Delete
  21. There is a chance you're qualified to get a free $1,000 Amazon Gift Card.

    ReplyDelete