Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (5179)	9/28/2001 3:27:12 PM
From: Noneyet	Respond to of 23908

Thomas, thanks for that link. The last two paragraphs are the proverbial nail in the coffin. I have reposted your link below. Oh what spin will the spin doctors put on this one. Will it be the professor from NY university is neo nazi, or that the amateur video was a setup by neo nazi's out of hollywood. zog.to The "Los Angeles Times" reported, "The most damaging point of the report - and to Israel's case - has been proof that Israel flew surveillance aircraft over the camp while the firing was going on. Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling...Israel denied this to the United Nations and publicly until the British newspaper "The Independent" reported the existence of an amateur videotape showing an Israeli pilotless reconnaissance aircraft - the kind used by artillery spotters to perfect their aim - over Qana during the shelling." Once aware of the videotape, Israel changed its story. Finally, the most recent unbiased research into the assault on the "USS Liberty" was conducted by Dr. John Edgar Borne at New York University. His detailed analysis concludes that "the account of the attack given by the Liberty men is the correct and truthful one" and that the attack "was deliberate and that all available evidence points to this conclusion."

To: Thomas M. who wrote (5179)	9/28/2001 8:22:01 PM
From: chalu2	Respond to of 23908

I think you will be glad to see that I have solved the USS Liberty issue in a way that identifies the REAL villain and war criminal, and in the only way that makes any sense: Message 16429927 Now, was it unprecedented for the perpetrator, a so-called U.S. commander-in-chief to take hostile action against a supposedly friendly country? Of course not! As one authority says about our villain, he was then waging a hostile war on the people of South VietNam, supposedly our beloved allies: Johnson tried to block every attempt at neutralization, every attempt at political settlement. This Is all documented. There's just no doubt about It. I mean, it's wiped out of history, but the documentation is just unquestionable -- in the internal government sources and everywhere else. And so there's just no question that the United States was trying desperately to prevent the independence of South Vietnam and to prevent a political settlement inside South Vietnam. And in tact It went to war precisely to prevent that. It finally bombed the North in 1965 with the purpose of trying to get the North to use its influence to call off the insurgency In the South. There were no North Vietnamese troops In South Vietnam then as far as anybody knew. And they anticipated of course when they began bombing the North from South Vietnamese bases that it would bring North Vietnamese troops into the South. And then it became possible to pretend it was aggression from the North. It was ludicrous. but that's what they claimed. Well, why did they do it! Why was the United States so afraid of an independent South Vietnam; Well, I think the reason again is pretty clear from the internal government documents. Precisely what they were afraid of was that the "takeover" of South Vietnam by nationalist forces would not be brutal. They feared it would be conciliatory and that there would be successful social and economic development -- and that the whole region might work! This was clearly a nationalist movement -- and in fact a radical nationalist movement which would separate Vietnam from the American orbit. It would not allow Vietnam to become another Philippines. It would trade with the United States but it would not be an American semi-colony. And suppose it worked! Suppose the country could separate itself from the American dominated global system and carry out a successful social and economic development. Then that is very dangerous because then it could be a model to other movements and groups in neighboring countries. chss.montclair.edu Amazing how this all now makes sense!