BOMBSHELL, but really we knew this, didnt we?

[busybody..]

Gateway Pundit Scoops the Press

The Pentagon has reported, based on documents captured in Iraq, that Russia's military leaked American war plans, which they had acquired through espionage, to Saddam's government shortly before the start of the war in 2003. Russia denies it.

Blog of the Week Gateway Pundit has the most complete roundup on the issue I've seen, included translated excerpts of reports from the Russian press, and photographs from Russian sources that, to my knowledge, have not appeared in the mainstream western press. Like this one, taken just days before the beginning of the war, of Russian Generals Vladimir Achalov and Igor Maltsev, both of whom served with Soviet rapid-reaction and air defense forces, at an awards ceremony with Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed:



Based on the Pundit's roundup, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than guilty, guilty, guilty!



http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/ouch-photos-show-iraqi-russian-defense.html


It should be further noted that the US bombed a convoy of vehicles leaving Iraq that was supposed to be carrying WMD's. It turned out that there were Russian "diplomats" in there and the search was stopped!

I am sure as YOU are sure what was in those convoys!

 

[busybody..]

Criswell predicts ...

Pajamas Media has posted a translation of Iraq Document CMPC-2003-001950 which recounts the information provided by the Russian Ambassador to Saddam Hussein. Point numbers 3 to 5 in the document say:

3- During the meeting the ambassador gave us the following information about the US military presence in the Gulf as per the 2nd of March:

Number of troops: 206,500 out of which 98,000 naval forces and 36,500 infantry. 90% of theses forces are in Kuwait and on the Navy ships. [emphasis mine]

US troops have reached the island of Bubiyan (Bubiyan is largest Kuwaiti island in the Kuwaiti coastal islands chain)

Number of tanks: 480 Number of armored cars: 1132 Number of artillery: 296 Number of Apache helicopters : 735 Number of fighter planes: 871 Number of Navy ships: 106. 68 in the Gulf and the rest in Oman (State of Oman), Aden (Yemen), the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Number of air carriers: 5. One nuclear powered. Three in the Gulf one in the Mediterranean and one on its way. Number of Cruise missiles: 583 based on the US Navy and distributed on 22 ships. Number of Cruise missiles on planes: 64 Number of heavy bombers B-52 H: 10 in the Indian Ocean. Number of B1-B: 8 present in the US base of Thumarid in Oman.

4- The ambassador pointed that what worried us (most probably “us” refers to the Russians) was the increase in the number of planes in Jordan where the number of planes in Al Sallt base was as follows: 24 planes F-16 10 planes Tornado 11 planes Harrier He also mentioned that there were 10 A-10 tank destroyers in the Jordanian base of King Faysal.

5- The ambassador also pointed that a certain number of the 82nd Division (82nd Airborne) which was deployed in Afghanistan started coming to Kuwait. The number of troops has reached 750 soldiers.

Some or most of the information on the US order of battle must have come from Russian intelligence sources. The tally of US Naval units for example, or the count of B52-Hs in the Indian Ocean would most likely have been obtained by technical means like satellite surveillance or naval sensors. But the curious thing about the order of battle given to Saddam on March 2 is that the 4ID does appear in it at all. It was potentially the most dangerously placed American unit of all and the most powerful. Yet the Russian ambassador treats the 4ID as if didn't exist.

A contemporaneous account from the New York Times describes what happened the day before the Russian Ambassador provided his order of battle to Saddam.

Turkish Parliament Refuses to Accept G.I.'s in Blow to Bush, By Dexter Filkins, New York Times -- ANKARA, Turkey, March 1 - The Turkish Parliament today dealt a major setback to the Bush administration's plans for a northern front against Iraq, narrowly rejecting a measure that would have allowed thousands of American combat troops to use the country as a base for an attack. ... The final tally was 264 to 251, with 19 abstentions ...

Even before the vote, American officials signaled that they were confident that American forces would probably be allowed to stage through Turkey. When asked on Friday whether the Pentagon was past the point where it needed a definitive answer from the Turks, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "No." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld added, "We'll be all right." Pentagon officials have said that Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has backup plans for moving American forces into northern Iraq. "General Franks, as we speak, is looking at lots of options," General Myers said on Friday.

Despite what Secretary Rumsfeld and Generals Myers and Franks were saying on March 1 about "lots of options", the Russian Ambassador was certain by March 2 that the 4ID was out of the battle. In the event the US landed the 173 Airborne Brigade in Kurdistan in late March. As to the 4ID itself as contemporaneous Fox News release tells the story:

Friday, March 14, 2003 -- WASHINGTON — Signaling impatience with the Turkish government, the Pentagon on Friday began moving warships out of the Mediterranean into the Red Sea, where they could launch long-range cruise missiles on a path to Iraq that would not go over Turkey, officials said. Of the approximately one dozen ships to be shifted, a first group of five transited the Suez Canal on Friday, harbor officials at Egypt's Port Said said. They identified the ships as the guided missile destroyer USS Arleigh Burke of the Theodore Roosevelt battle group and the destroyer USS Deyo of the Harry S. Truman battle group.

Update
The other striking thing in Document CMPC-2003-001950 was why the Russians should be particularly worried about the smallest component of the deployment:

4- The ambassador pointed that what worried us (most probably “us” refers to the Russians) was the increase in the number of planes in Jordan where the number of planes in Al Sallt base was as follows: 24 planes F-16 10 planes Tornado 11 planes Harrier He also mentioned that there were 10 A-10 tank destroyers in the Jordanian base of King Faysal.

Why were these relatively small forces so worrisome? My guess is their location near the Iraq-Syrian border and the composition of these air units were suggestive of support for an air assault attack on traffic to and from Syria. What was moving between Iraq and Syria that would be of concern to the Russians?

Commentary

The Pajamas documents provide a peek into the greatest diplomatic catastrophe associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom. The elimination of the 4ID from Turkey relieved Saddam at a stroke from the problem of facing a two front war. The US lost the use of its most powerful ground unit and faced the excruciating logistical problem of sailing it thousands of miles to attack along another axis. It deprived America of crucial manpower in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam. It eliminated the unit tasked with tackling the Sunni Triangle and forced other units to spread out and take up the slack. How did this debacle happen? What were its consequences? Readers are invited to comment.

 

[Peregrinator]

Thats NONSENSE

My point was that the so called anti Israel stance is nothing more then a ANTI JEW stance

Lets discuss matters, shall we?

First off, you dont understand as you dont have the filter of historic and personal events as do I. As some blacks say, You wont understand, ITS A BLACK THING!


On this very page Jenin was brought up

Lets see..............Jenin. What happened?

In reality, what happened was Israel attacked a terrorist HOTBED

AFTER several MAJOR terror attacks in Israel. Is that wrong? I dont think so.

Almost immediatly the Arabs screamed MASSACRE, over 500 dead! The world of course BOUGHT IT.

The media talked of MASS KILLINGS AND MASS graves, no mention of WHU Israel was there and no mention Israel denied it!

When the truth came out, (not that I trust the UN)even the UN verified that 50 were killed of whom 38 were "fighters". The myth of Jenin however lives on.

Does the world REALLY care about dead Arabs, or is it I HATE JEWS and ISRAEL and I will believe ANYTHING BAD ABOUT EM?

I submit that the latter is true, because if its the death of INNOCENTS they care about, we would have an upheavel about DARFUR!

We would have upheavels about DEAD JEWS in Israeli schools, stores, weddings and discos when THEY are blown up.

But we do hear about dead Arabs when killed by Jews................funny, not much of an outcry when Mooselimbs kill em, and they DO KILL more of em then do Jews!


So what do we learn from Jenin?

At least TWO things

1) Desoite the world KNOWING the Arabs have a HISTORY of lying and embellisihng, they bought the fiction from them even before the shooting stopped. As long as there can be Jews painted as evil, its assumed fact. Long after the fiction is exposed, the myth lives on!

and

2) The humanity of the IDF. As I mentioned earlier about the deaths of 13 Israeli reservists. The Arabs KNOW that when they NEED help, the IDF will help them. Thats why they sent a YOUNG BOY to run to the IDF patrol. KNOWING HE WOULDNT BE SHOT, IF AN ISRAELI BOY WOULD RUN TO AN ARAB PATROL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? That young biy said there were wounded women and children in a house, the Jews KNOWING better, succumed to thier humanity and followed the boy into the house and were blown up.

Not much in the press about this!


You dont believe in G-D and thats why you dont understand how the world works. If you did, you would KNOW that G-D clearly says in the Bible he will BLESS those that Bless the stock of Abraham and curse those that curse the stock of Abraham

In the Holocaust, many great Rabbis were killed, the question is why would G-D kill the good? Becuase they didnt do anything to stop the bad!!!!!!!!!!! I dont like the answer, but it is one

It is said that history shows that anti semitism is the canary in the coal mine. When Darfur happened, and it was just the culmination of may years of hatred of Jews/Israel, G-Ds cup ran over.

The terrorist attack was a direct result of the US condemning Israel for BLOWING up BUILDINGS in response to DEAD JEWS. I warned Powell via emails thruout 2001 to be aware of his words becuase his words will hurt the US. I warned him to take direct action in Darfur, as the LEADER of the WORLD it was up to the US to correct evil. He did walk out of Darfur, but it was NOT enough. I also point to,DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE that fortold the attacks on the US. He was and remains DUMB!

You dont understand, Its a G-d Thing!

Okay. Do you suppose there are people who work the other way around? People who think that jews are bad BECAUSE of Israel, rather then thinking Israel is bad because it's Jewish? Meaning, they don't have a problem with jewish-ness, but the secular behavior of Israel is bad? Kinda like the point that you're always harping on with all your "NEGROE" threads; it's fine to be a jew, but a jew who's a butthead is still a butthead? That's not MY position, but do you see it anywhere?

 

[phrodeau]

I wonder what Colin Powell did with busybody's e-mails.

I also wonder if busybody knows that the Sec of State doesn't decide foreign policy, but only enacts it.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Utter rubbish. Post some links of this "Virulent anti-Israeli" attitude or "out and out anti-semitism."

What about your friends Woody & Krastner. If you want some from academia go get Horowitz's latest book.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

BB...serious question. Do you see all anti-zionism as anti-semitism? Why?

I cant answer for BB but I'll answer for me.

Are all anti-semites anti-zionist, I havent heard any that arent.

Are all anti-zionists anti-semetic? No, of course not.

But In many cases their anti-zionist rhetoric becomes so shrill, one has to ask "If they were anti-semetic would they sound any different?

Frankly I believe that many guard their words so as to avoid betraying their latent anti-semitism. You could even ask "Do all anti-semites admit, or even realize, they are anti-semetic?" No, I honestly dont think they do. Woody and Krastner being examples.

One thing I look for when analyzing the rhetoric of anti-zionists, is some acknowledgement of the pure hate being offered by much of their muslim opposition and how that hate offers Isreal few real options. And frankly I see very little of that in the opponents of zionism.

 

[phrodeau]

What about your friends Woody & Krastner. If you want some from academia go get Horowitz's latest book.

Woody doesn't count. He maintains that Israel was established and occupied by people who weren't really Jewish.

 

[busybody..]

Okay. Do you suppose there are people who work the other way around? People who think that jews are bad BECAUSE of Israel, rather then thinking Israel is bad because it's Jewish? Meaning, they don't have a problem with jewish-ness, but the secular behavior of Israel is bad? Kinda like the point that you're always harping on with all your "NEGROE" threads; it's fine to be a jew, but a jew who's a butthead is still a butthead? That's not MY position, but do you see it anywhere?

Possible no doubt

But lets face it

By any stretch of the imagination

The IDF practices extraorinary restraint. Yet THEY are made to seem the BAD guys

Why?

israel puts up a fence that has dropped suicide bombings by 90% and THEY are vilified? the "World Court" condemns the fence and NOT one mention of terrorism?

Only someone who is really obtuse of obtuse on PURPOSE doesnt see the truth

I do believe that ANTI JEW is couched in the pretend of "I care for the Palis" but that is BS

cause those that feel sorry for DEAD TERRORITS, say not ONE word for 600,000 dead in Darfur

 

[busybody..]

Pergy

Take the time to read these two links

a flavor

The Myth Of Palestine


Here’s an excellent post from Alexandra at All Things Beautiful: The Myth Of Palestine Part II.

The “Palestine” lovers are so concerned with a right to a state for a completely new and unprecedented nationality, whereas for some reason the right to self-determination for the world’s oldest nationality— one which has acted, by any moral barometer, with infinitely more compassion, civilization, and care for human life than the new-fangled murderous one he is championing—seems to be extremely limited if it exists at all. That is the classic definition of anti-Semitism: one standard for everyone else, and then an impossible one for the Jews.

 

[busybody..]

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/03/the_myth_of_pal.html


http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/01/the_myth_of_pal.html


Ask yourself again and again


Where is the OUTCRY for Darfor?

Why is there more OUTCRY for the dead terrorists the leveling of houses of terrorists?

One standard for Jews, that NO ONE else will live by


The US tried to kill, and bombed Iraq, before the war to kill one man SH

The US tries to capture and kill OBL

TheUS screams at Israel when they do the same things to THEIR OBL EQUIVELANT!

WHY??????????????????????????

 

[busybody..]

when Yassir Arafat was held in his compound

Israel sent in food, medicines, and batteries for his phones and lights

WHY?

But be that as it may, when his batteries for his phone ran low, the EU and Euro-pee-on CUNT-ries called Sharon to ask for MORE batteries!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sharon send them pictures of DEAD men women and children blown up at holiday dinners, discos, pizza shops by terrorists sent by Arafat and his gangs

and asked

WHY DONT YOU CARE FOR OUR DEAD KIDS AND OUR DEAD PEOPLE? WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT DEAD BATTERIES???????????????????




Dead Jews are welcomed by MOST

No, hide from it, deny it

Anti Israel is MOSTLY anti JEW

BTW, I asked YOU and Sean

WHAT HAPPENED IN JENIN?

 

[busybody..]

think about THIS when you hear the media scream about checkpoints

and the cruel Israeli's

THEY KNOW THE TRUTH

They just want DEAD JEWS


Israeli Checkpoints: The next time you read about Israel's awful inhumanity in not immediately waving Palestinians with medical problems through checkpoints, consider this:

According to a gag order lifted Sunday by Shin Bet Security Service, Islamic Jihad militants [terrorists] involved in planning attacks within Israel were arrested earlier this month. One of the militants [terrorists], a resident of the Gaza Strip, was arrested on his way to carrying out a shooting attack. The militant [terrorist] was arrested on March 7 at the Erez crossing on the Israel-Gaza border. He was carrying falsified medical permits in order to be admitted entry. He had been planning to carry out a shooting attack in an Israeli city with a weapon prepared for him within the Green Line.


In other situations, the Palestinians have used ambulances to transport weapons and terrorists. When your enemies are unwilling to respect any boundaries in their efforts to murder innocents, what are you to do

 

[busybody..]

So Pergy

1- What happened in Jenin

2- What was the link you posted about?

 

[Peregrinator]

So Pergy

1- What happened in Jenin

2- What was the link you posted about?

Why do you keep asking me that?

Which one?

 

[Peregrinator]

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=419085

 

[busybody..]

Why do you keep asking me that?

Which one?

because when I asked Sean what happened in Jenin and Jericho

he didnt answer

YOU did

with the links to some pictures

so I asked YOU!

 

[Peregrinator]

because when I asked Sean what happened in Jenin and Jericho

he didnt answer

YOU did

with the links to some pictures

so I asked YOU!

Oh. I just vaguely remembered that link from a long time ago, so I tossed it out there. I didn't claim to know anything about Jenin, myself.

 

[busybody..]

what does THAT link have to do with Jenin?

 

[busybody..]

Hey, U-I!

This

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/international/26antisemitism.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


if for YOU

 

[Peregrinator]

what does THAT link have to do with Jenin?

That's a pretty stupid question.

Thanks for the link.

 

[busybody..]

That's a pretty stupid question.

Thanks for the link.

Why is it a stupid question? I dont understand what YOUR link had anything to do with Jenin, tell me, I could be wrong

what link are YOU talking about?

And did you read it?

 

[busybody..]

Mrs Simpelton


This is for you

Its about Euro-pee

Its HATRED of the US and WHY

and

Its hatred of Jews

and about MooseLimbs

It may be long, get popcorn, but it will learn you something

and YOU, Boy, need learning!


An Interview With Claire Berlinski, Author Of Menace In Europe
by John Hawkins

John Hawkins: Why are Europeans so secular compared to Americans?

Claire Berlinski: American religiosity doesn't need to be explained; after all, throughout history, in every civilization, people have believed in the supernatural. What needs to be explained is European atheism, which is the aberration-unique in the world and in human history. It has its origins in politics, I think, not metaphysics. Voltaire was of the view that it is not so much the intrinsic power of the argument for atheism that caused people to reject faith, but rather the corruption of the Church, and largely I agree with him. Before the French Revolution, there were no atheists in Europe. Heretics, sure. But atheists? Unheard of. Political atheism-as opposed to philosophical atheism-emerged from revulsion with the corrupt Catholic Church and the detested Bourbon Monarchy; the two being intimately identified in peoples' minds, as indeed they were. Une foi, un loi, un roi, as they said, and with two down, a trifecta seemed inevitable. This in turn paved the way for intellectual atheism, represented by such figures as Nietzsche, Marx and Freud-all of whom, by the way, assumed atheism as the starting point rather than endeavoring to prove it. You could ask-why atheism, why then? Why not, say, an anticlerical form of religion? I suspect the answer lies in the linkages between atheism and the scientific revolution-linkages of loose association only; after all, no scientific discovery ever specifically disproved the existence of God. Atheism is the natural correlate to the doctrine of scientific materialism, and clearly atheism gained strength through its identification with the triumphs of science. But it needed a political context to take hold, and only in Europe did it find one. In this sense, the separation of Church and State in the US worked, paradoxically, to the advantage of the Church.

But in another sense, as I argue in my book, the popular view of Europe as a completely secular society is too facile. Anticlerical forms of religion have taken hold. Someone once sent me an article, perhaps in was in the Guardian, about three young women, imbeciles all, who had devoted themselves to radical beliefs: the first to the destruction of capitalism, the second to Islam, and the third to something like an old-fashioned Christian heresy, close in spirit to the Albigensian heresy. There is something going on in Europe, a flourishing of sects, all of which have something in common and that is an absolute, virtually pathological, refusal to profit from experience. Now, why should anyone devote herself to the destruction of capitalism when we know perfectly well, if we know anything at all, that the realistic alternatives are monstrous, inefficient, stupid, brutal and self-defeating? When it comes to anti-capitalism and fruity Christianity, it is quite interesting to think of both as Christian heresies. As official belief has waned in Europe, Christian heresies have come to flourish. Communism, after all, has its roots in certain apostolic teachings about poverty and property; and free love is just what the Church faced in the 12th century and effectively crushed. One can argue-and I do, in my book-that Europe remains what it has always been: a Christian society, one now tormented by heresies.

John Hawkins: In the book, you said that anti-Americanism seemed to be at least in part, a religion substitute for many Europeans. Can you elaborate on that idea?

Claire Berlinski: Certainly. The phenomena to be explained are the irrationality and the ardor of European anti-Americanism. Irrational, because entirely disproportionate to any real faults in American society. Of course America has flaws, and no, it is not lunacy to point them out. But in poll after poll, you see substantial numbers of Europeans, non-trivial numbers, who believe the September 11 attacks were staged, yes, staged, by an oil-hungry American military-industrial complex to justify its imperialist adventures in Iraq. In Germany, 20 percent of the population believes this. In France, a book arguing this case was a galloping bestseller. Now that is bughouse nuts. Totally bats in the belfry. Then the ardor: "My anti-Americanism," wrote one columnist in the British Telegraph, "has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness." If only we could harness all that outrage and transform it into a non-polluting energy source! You see this kind of thing all the time in the European press. (Meanwhile, if the French, say, wipe out the entire Ivorian air force, do you see protestors on the streets chanting "No blood for cocoa?" What a question.) When you have these two phenomena together-irrationality and this curious passion, this fervor-it seems reasonable to conclude that you are in the presence of something like a cult. So you consider it, sociologically. What role does this ideology serve in the European psyche? One answer: It fulfills many of the roles once played by the Church. It offers a comprehensive-if lunatic-answer to the question, "Why is the world the way it is, and why is there evil in that world?" It provides a devil to excoriate and then to exorcise. There is community and belonging in anti-American activism, ecstasy in protest. Again, a form of Christian heresy, and no more lunatic, surely, than anything the Cathars believed, if also no less.

John Hawkins: How pervasive is anti-Americanism in Europe?

Claire Berlinski: Very, very. See poll numbers above. We see members of the Dutch parliament in hiding, the abrogation of freedom of expression throughout Europe, the rise of right-wing leaders who openly advocate the mass deportation of non-white Europeans, one barely-thwarted terrorist attack after another-and yet, according to the polls, the majority of Europeans consider the United States to be their biggest worry. They're monomaniacally obsessed with the danger posed to them by Americans and the perfidious cabal of Jews who yank our puppet strings.

John Hawkins: A lot of people like to play down the differences between America and Europe, but it has become clear that there is a huge cultural & political gap between us on a wide variety of issues. Why do you believe we've grown so far apart or have we always been split like this and just haven't really noticed because our cooperation during the Cold War masked the differences?

Claire Berlinski: The divide has always been there-European anti-Americanism is as old as America itself. It tends to flare up and then die down, flaring up generally at times of European insecurity. Certainly, since the end of the Cold War Europe has really come into its own, and unfortunately, Europe's own is historically rather an unattractive thing. If young Germans are now seen muttering darkly about how they deplore American militarism-a sentiment, I am persuaded, that represents nothing more than their own stifled longing to switch on the tank's ignition and thrill once again to the low deep rumble of its engine-it is certainly nothing new; Germans have complained for a very long time of these things. If we heard less of this during the Cold War, yes, of course it was because the alternative to our militarism was the hammer and sickle; this kind of choice does seem to sober people up.

John Hawkins: Do you think Americans should regard France as an enemy nation? Why or why not?

Claire Berlinski: Oh no, of course not. An enemy nation? Like North Korea? It's not widely appreciated that we actually receive excellent counter-terrorism cooperation from the French. Their anti-terror officials are brutal as hell and twice as ruthless, too, so this is quite useful to us. No, France is not an ally, precisely, but neither it is an enemy. Ask me again in 75 years, when France will be the first Islamic nuclear power in Europe. Then we may have a real problem on our hands.

John Hawkins: Here's a quote from the book: "Indeed, it is perfectly conceivable that Britain could, like France, become a quasi-hostile power within one election." Why do you say this?

Claire Berlinski: Here's another quote from the book: "Traditionally, Britain's anti-American elites have been vocal, but they have generally been marginalized as chattering donkeys: They have never been able to exert sufficient influence to unravel the Anglo-American alliance. There are now, however, some two million Moslem immigrants in Britain, and more worshipers at Britain's mosques each week than at the Church of England. These immigrants form a highly visible and powerful anti-American vanguard and voting bloc, and their sentiments are particularly hostile toward America. According to a December 2002 poll commissioned by The Guardian - a newspaper anything but prone to anti-Islamic hysteria - 13 percent of British Moslems approved of the September 11 attacks. Another fifteen percent declared themselves unsure. More than half refused to believe al Qaeda had been responsible, and more than two-thirds believed the United States had declared war on Islam. Following September 11, British schoolchildren of Pakistani origin cheered and punched the air.

"Anti-Americanism has by this route escaped its circumscribed association with Britain's privileged pseudo-sophisticates, permeated Britain's underclass and its working class, and become inextricably conflated with a raw strain of racial and religious resentment. As a consequence, the Anglo-American alliance is far more vulnerable than most Americans realize."

John Hawkins: There's a lot of talk about anti-Semitism in Europe. Are the complaints overblown? Realistic? What's your opinion?

Claire Berlinski: I'm going to forward you, separately, a document I received from a friend of mine in Paris. I'm sorry I don't have time to do a proper translation, but if you run it through Google translation you will absolutely get the gist.

...This document was circulating widely in the Grandes Écoles-the French Ivy League. Read it and tell me if you think the complaints are overblown. Feel free to post the whole thing for your readers. Let them judge for themselves.

(Hawkins note: This email was around 3500 hundred words long. I ran it through a translator and posted some of the lowlights here)

"...The Jews always were afraid of to disappear, this is for that that they colonize all and in all points and do not hesitate to exterminate the other populations (do not forget that according to the Tora, the jewish people reserves itself the right to exterminate all nation that opposes itself to the sionisme). The Jews are therefore as parasites, that do not stop growing as a virus. Si one climbs back up has the second World War, one goes counts that the description of the Jews done by the Nazis and aussidans mein Kampf, is so far reality.

...The wars of the Palestinians were more more more than more justified since one hunted them of their country. But the Jews never respected an alone treated one. It suffices to compare a card of 1948 and an of today to see the difference: Multiplication by 2 of the territories. The international instances and Ben Gourion came to an agreement on borders. It suffices to wonder why Israël present east there where it should not be? this simple question is carrier of sens,Tous simply by this that the Jews did not stop invading the countries being close to, as germany did it during the 2ème World War. It do not respect nothing since the creation of their State. Worse again, today they do not do anymore wars to invade, it do it slyly, in a silent way. With a political one: colonization. As a virus that one injects to contaminate the whole bodies.

...Political activism must be more more more than more visible, have not anymore fear to pity you, to criticize, see, to be unaware of them: not to sit quoted of a Jew, not to get dressed as them, do not go out with Jews, not to recruit them, not to speak to them etc. ..... Go to the manifs, done to turn this letter for a day justice will be done. They will pay a day or the other their crimes."

I've written about anti-Semitism in Europe at great length-in my recent book and elsewhere-and don't want to repeat myself here, but I'll just add this footnote from my book, because I think it's so revealing. 'In a poll conducted by researchers at the University of Bielefeld, it was found that 51 percent of Germans believed Israel's present-day treatment of the Palestinians to be equivalent to the Nazi atrocities against European Jews during the Second World War; 68 percent believed that Israel was waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinians; 82 percent were angered by Israel's policies toward the Palestinians; 62 percent were sick of "all this harping on" about German crimes against Jews, and 68 percent found it "annoying" that Germans today were still held to blame for Nazi crimes. In a triumph of understatement, the German pollsters remarked that the findings "may be worrying."'

John Hawkins: Have the riots in France and the Cartoon riots had a big impact on European opinion?

Claire Berlinski: Two separate issues. Let's begin with the cartoons. Directly after the riots began, France Soir carried just a terrific editorial, something to the effect that sure the cartoons were blasphemous and that's just tough; the Catholic Church claimed very much the same right in France until we took care of that little problem with the Revolution. Great stuff. Long overdue. One day later, the editor was sacked. Throughout Europe, the same thing: displays of backbone followed immediately by the most pusillanimous kind of candy-ass truckling. Jack Straw turned in a particularly lamentable performance. But so did the US State Department.

The riots in France-which ones? The ones four months ago or the ones happening now? No effect at all on public opinion, as far as I can see; no one finds it in any way unusual to see the French taking to the streets; it's just what the French do.

John Hawkins: When it comes to immigrants, do you think they have more opportunity and face less racism in America or Europe? Why so?

Claire Berlinski: Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely more opportunity and less racism in America. This is such an important point. I noticed this especially during my last visit to the US. Every time I took a taxi, I asked my driver-who was invariably an immigrant-how his experience of coming to America had been. Every single one had an immediate, unforced, positive response. "Americans don't know how good they have it," said one guy from Sierra Leone, in a sentiment widely echoed by every immigrant to whom I spoke. To the last! Ask that question anywhere in Europe and you'll get a very different answer. (For one thing, the driver probably won't be an immigrant, he'll be a native Frenchman or German who loathes immigrants with all his being.) I did have a cab driver from Ghana on my way back from the airport when I returned to Paris. "How's it been for you here?" I asked. His immediate response: dur, dur, dur. Hard, hard, hard. There are many reasons for this, but here are the two most important: first, the vitality and flexibility of the American economy, which promotes upward mobility and thus real hope for anyone who starts at the bottom, as most immigrants do; and second, the longstanding tradition in America of welcoming immigrants and viewing them as fully part of the fabric of American life. America is a country of immigrants; this permeates the culture in thousands of ways, many of them subtle but nonetheless immensely meaningful. Rates of intermarriage, for example. Americans consider immigrants so fully American that they are willing to marry them. Not so in Europe, where rates of intermarriage are much, much lower.

John Hawkins: For the time being, the European public seems to have turned against the idea of creating a "United States of Europe." Do you think the wishes of the European public will be respected, will they change, or do you think Europe's elites will push on for a united Europe regardless of what the people want?

Claire Berlinski: They can push all they like, and of course they will, but I doubt they'll get very far. After all, they lack the one thing that has ever in history succeeded in united disparate ethnic and linguistic groups-overwhelming force.

It won't happen any other way. Had the EU been understood as a formal alliance of nation-states, along the lines of the Dual Alliance or the Three Emperors' League, it might have had a better chance, but it was intended to be a union, not an alliance.

It's worth observing German tourists as they enter cafes in Paris. No loud voices, for one thing, unlike the Americans; no one wants to be caught blaring away in German. A constant furtiveness for another. And from the waiters, never an attempt to speak German. English sure; there's money involved. Italian? Why not. They love those people. But German? Mais non. No waiter alive thinks of the Germans as fellow Europeans and no German thinks of himself as just another tourist. How could EU officials ever imagine that these memories could simply be cancelled or that they would never count? How can anyone in his right mind expect that an EU, with no power to command, could hope to retain the allegiance of its members?

It's also interesting how much Europeans hate their own elites, especially those sitting on their indolent rumps in Brussels. People just hate being told what to do and how to live by a social class with no moral authority. That's key, I suspect. The European elite simple has no moral authority. It doesn't stand for anything. It has no depth of character.

John Hawkins: The subtitle of your book is "Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too." However, most of the big problems Europe has, declining birth rates, rampant secularism, stagnant economic growth because of socialism, difficulty in assimilating immigrants, and mediocre militaries are issues we really can't help them with much. So, what to you say to people who believe it's a bad thing that Europe is in decline, but there's just nothing much we can do about it?

Claire Berlinski: Well, they're right. There's not much we can do about it. But we should certainly diagnose the problem accurately and prepare for a future in which Europe is completely up the spout, with all the obvious ramifications this will have for us, rather than letting it take us by surprise. Oddly, many Americans don't seem to be aware how grave these issues are, and that includes policy makers. I just got an email from the duty officer at the American consulate warning me to watch out, because al Qaeda might strike in Europe. You know, God love them for trying, but isn't this a little obvious by now?

Another thing that struck me as I was writing the chapter about Jose Bove is that among the very urgent reasons Americans need to pay attention to what's going on in Europe is because there is now such a large current of European thought, and European malaise, in American cultural and political life. It's significant-and no joke-that a clown like Jose Bove has such a large American following. This is only one of the reasons that Americans must pay attention, but it's quite an important one. The fawning over these European cultural, intellectual and political figures has to end, as does the admiration of social welfare programs that have in fact had catastrophic economic and cultural consequences.

John Hawkins: Can you tell us a little bit about your new book, Menace In Europe: Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too.

Claire Berlinski: The book is about the new problems of old Europe, and the old problems of new Europe, and I discuss all of these questions in much greater detail. I've lived in Europe most of my adult life and still do. So these are my problems as well. I've tried to describe them in personal terms, by telling a set of stories unknown to most Americans, stories that taken together expose a thesis-this continent is darker than it appears. It is in a sense a book of travel writing, but it's not the customary frothy encomium to European charm. (Adam Gopnik's Paris to the Moon would be a perfect example of the latter genre, a book with almost no relationship to life as it is really led by ordinary Europeans.)

My aim was not to write an indignant denunciation or a facile parody of Europe, however. Some of what is happening in Europe is admirable, or if not admirable, admirable in intent, and I do try to show this. The problems cannot be reduced to simple slogans and do not admit of simple solutions. But they can be stated, clearly, and illustrated, and that is what I have tried to do.

 

[busybody..]

if you read nothing else in there

just read THIS

and see why Euro-pee is DYING

and why I wish its DEMISE in the most GRUESOME way possible



John Hawkins: How pervasive is anti-Americanism in Europe?

Claire Berlinski: Very, very. See poll numbers above. We see members of the Dutch parliament in hiding, the abrogation of freedom of expression throughout Europe, the rise of right-wing leaders who openly advocate the mass deportation of non-white Europeans, one barely-thwarted terrorist attack after another-and yet, according to the polls, the majority of Europeans consider the United States to be their biggest worry. They're monomaniacally obsessed with the danger posed to them by Americans and the perfidious cabal of Jews who yank our puppet strings.

 

[busybody..]

The Saddam Tapes and Media Distortion
By Bill Tierney
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 24, 2006


Media outlets invested in our defeat in Iraq have put forth serious efforts to discredit the reasons for going to war. One only need hear the absolute certainty in Tim Russert's voice to know that the liberal media considers the Iraq WMD issue over and done with. After countless repetitions of “no WMD,” you would think that people were thoroughly trained. It comes as no surprise that when the Saddam Tapes came to light, they had to be dealt with.

The first salvo in the liberal media’s unsuccessful attempt to deep-six the tapes came from Newsweek, when they published “The Saddam Tapes, What They Don’t Prove” a week before the presentation of the tapes. The writers, Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff, stated the tapes were taken without permission from an FBI-run translation center. They never asked the government why they gave the CD an UNCLAFFISIED label and shipped it out to a translation agency without knowing what was on it. It was from there that the CD ended up at my front door. They could have seen the canceled checks for services rendered had they asked.




Newsweek then trotted out the “years old" response. According to this argument, since the tapes are years old, they are insignificant. The only relevant issue is whether the discussions took place during the time frame when Iraq said it was complying with UN resolutions. All the discussions cited took place during this time frame.



Next came ABC’s World News Tonight broadcast and Nightline segment three days before the presentation at the Intelligence Summit, a private conference where intelligence professionals and concerned citizens can discuss intelligence and national security matters away from the normal bureaucratic constrictions. To ABC’s credit, they did play a segment on Hussein Kamel stating how Iraq did not tell UNSCOM everything about their weapons program. However, on the discussion between Saddam and Tariq Aziz, they jumped to a suspect conclusion.



This contentious section can be read either that Saddam had our best interests in mind two years before the war, and warned both Britain and us of an unspecified future WMD attack, or musings on how an attack could be conducted through proxies. Would Saddam have told a US or British Ambassador that there was going to be a WMD attack by unspecified parties on Washington, but not provide any detail? How did he know?



In preparation for their story, ABC interviewed a native Iraqi that not only knew Tikriti dialect, military and Baath Party jargon, but had actually addressed Saddam in similar meetings, General George Sada. According to General Sada, ABC asked him to listen to the tapes, and he stated that Saddam was probably discussing an attack through third parties to set up plausible denial if he were accused. He suggested that Saddam made the outburst of “terrorism is coming” during Tariq Aziz’s briefing, then realized he was on tape and came up with the "warning” to cover himself. This possibility adds yet another layer of complexity. Brian Ross went on to interview General Sada for forty minutes, attempting to get a sound bite to dismiss the tapes. The general knew his intention and didn't oblige; so this man, probably the most qualified man in the world available to the media, was omitted from ABC's story.



Early on Saturday February 18th, the morning of the presentation, CNN ran a special on how the inspectors found nothing in Iraq. Later that day, they ran a television piece which filled the time focusing on their strenuous efforts to translate the tapes, and then in their television piece, reported only the Saddam – Aziz conversation. Apparently, status reports on rebuilding the chemical and nuclear weapons programs were not worth the cut.



A common media dismissal technique is to state that the tapes don’t prove that WMD was in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Since none of the tapes date from the time period immediately prior to the war, this is an irrelevant point. The tapes do show that the Iraqis had weapons programs; they had an intensive concealment mechanism; and that Saddam stated the war was ongoing. Iraqi press throughout the Nineties took the view that the U.S. was at war with Iraq, so it is up to the skeptics to show where Saddam, in a fit of conscience, gave up his weapons program before the war, after successfully removing the inspection teams in 1998. Just when did Saddam’s change of heart take place, and where is the evidence?



The liberal media’s wishful thinking extends to print media also. On January 7, 2004, the Washington Post printed Barton Gellman’s story ”Iraq’s Arsenal Was Only on Paper.” In this article Gellman cites a letter supposedly written six days after a senior Iraqi official, Hussein Kamel, defected, which stated that “destruction of the biological weapons agents took place in the summer of 1991.” However, in 1995, UNSCOM forced the Iraqis to admit they had a facility used to produce biological weapons, which was destroyed in 1996. Are we to assume that they had a bioweapons facility between 1991 and 1996, but didn't produce any bioweapons? After Hussein Kamel's defection, the Iraqi’s initial spin was that Kamel had a secret weapons program that he kept hidden from the rest of the Iraqi government. The Saddam Tapes include a briefing of a coordinated response system if there were a biological outbreak. The Washington Post article failed to mention that Iraq finally admitted to producing ricin in September of 1995, after numerous previous opportunities to do so. The Iraqi Survey Group concluded that the Iraqi Intelligence Service produced ricin during the Nineties, and tested it on political prisoners.




With the posting of the documents and tape transcripts to the Foreign Military Studies Office site at Fort Leavenworth, it didn’t take long for AP to run a story stating Saddam was frustrated that no one believed he had given up his WMD. The story quotes extensively from the transcripts, but makes no mention that the speakers are rehearsing their version of events for the United Nation. They could be expected to say ”We told the U.N. we have no weapons.” This is no guarantee of ground truth. At least eight of the tape transcripts focused on negotiations with the U.N., and must be understood in this context.



The Iraqis had provided the U.N. with declarations on their chemical and missile program, and were confident that they had handled all the technical questions on verification. However, they acknowledged numerous times on the tapes that the biological declaration had so many gaps that their allies on the Security Council, France and Russia, couldn't make arguments to close the biological file. The focus in these discussions is not the actual weapons program, but on how to end the inspection program. Also missing from these discussions were any problems arising from defector reporting. What Tariq Aziz tries to dismiss as traps by Rolf Ekeus (then UNSCOM Director) were probably reports on the WMD program from defectors.



The AP story quotes Hussein Kamel as stating “We played by the rules and paid the price.” The immediate context is his reiteration of this statement from the foreign minister as a response to the United Nations. He later states on page 6 of DOCEX Saddam 030306:



“It is possible, Sir, they have a problem that is a great deal bigger than the biological file: The types of weapons, the materials we imported, the product which we told them about, and the degree of their use. All of that was not correct. And all of them do not know. We did not say that we used them against Iran and we did not say the amount of chemical weapons we produced. We also did not say anything about the type of chemical weapons and the important materials in reality.”



On page 7 of the same document:



“On the nuclear file, Sir, we are saying that we disclosed everything? No, we have undeclared problems in the nuclear field, and I believe that they know them. Some teams work and no one knows some of them. Sir, I am sorry for speaking so clearly. Everything is over. But, did they know? No, Sir, they did not know; not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists, and not all the places.”



In this section, Hussein Kamel apologizes for speaking clearly, implying that the members of the Revolutionary Command Council were aware they were being taped and guarded their speech accordingly. By "everything is over," does he mean that the program is finished? If so, why are there still "undeclared problems with the nuclear file?"



Saddam makes an interesting comment in another taped meeting (ISGQ-2003-M0004444 page 5) prior to the presidential site inspections:



“When they pass Tikrit they are going to Al Makhoul. This we are learning from experience, between Tikrit and Makhoul the distance is 70 km, so we will know when they leave. We know that is a real complication, there is a complication... we do not need to divulge our position. I will tell them to please come in...this is what we have... we are going to move them during the week, take the entire Makhoul area...we don’t want to give up our position and don’t need to… the targets that we want them to deploy…we exhaust them so the real targets get lost.”



Intelligence from 1997 indicated that prohibited items were being held at Makhoul, and it was the only presidential site where an inspection was originally requested. It must have been understood among the attendees what "them" was going to be moved. We are left to guess at its meaning, but it’s a safe bet it was something Saddam wanted kept away from the Special Commission.



Another intriguing tape is ISGQ-2003-M0007133. It discusses retaining the expertise in PC-3, the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, by dispersing the engineers throughout other ministries and adjusting their pay and benefits so they will be available when needed. Near the beginning of the meeting, one of the speakers states:



“. . . The decision was made that this project should be included in the Industrial Military Organization, with confirmation from you, Sir, that the preservation of the unity of this project is a must. Because it is a unique experience.”



If Saddam really had a change of heart, and completely complied with U.N. resolutions, then why are they speaking of preserving the unity of the nuclear weapons project by hiding the technicians in other ministries? This fits nicely with the account of the scientist burying uranium enrichment material in his garden.



The writer of the AP story, Charles J. Hanley, is firmly in the "no weapons" camp. Although he states with assurance that all the weapons were destroyed in 1991, in a September 5, 2005 article he wrote that: "In April 2002, workers in the western desert were busy smelting down the last gear from a long-defunct uranium-enrichment project.” Why wasn‘t this destroyed in 1991 like everything else? How does Mr. Hanley know it was long-defunct? Did he or the government investigators take the Iraqi story at face value?



The liberal media will continue to dissect any further information on the Iraqi weapons program according to their template that “Bush lied, people died.” With the continuing release of documents, it will be interesting to see how long they can keep it up before they finally admit "We were all wrong."

 

[Peregrinator]

Why is it a stupid question? I dont understand what YOUR link had anything to do with Jenin, tell me, I could be wrong

what link are YOU talking about?

And did you read it?

You're asking me what a link that purports to be pictures of the aftermath of Jenin has to do with Jenin?

The NYT one right up there a couple posts.