Mediekritik diskussioner
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 OBS att texter som är äldre än några dagar gamla ofta spärras för editering, så att länkar hit garanteras referera till det avsedda materialet.
 Cookies:  Liksom många websiter använder denna cookies och/eller liknande teknologier för att förbättra användbarheten, men det går att blockera cookies i sin webbläsare och ändå läsa siten.  En cookie är en liten datafil som sparas i den enhet du använder för att läsa siten.  Vi kan använda både tillfälliga cookies och sparade cookies.  Om du läser siten godkänner du att cookies används.

USA:s militärer gör myteri - tröttnat på kriga åt Israel!

Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Mediekritik
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Sat, 2006 Jun 03 23:16:05    Post subject: USA:s militärer gör myteri - tröttnat på kriga åt Israel! Reply with quote

Military Men Who Oppose Neo-Con Warmongering Under Attack
Saturday, 20 May 2006 By Michael Piper

For generations, Republicans were strong supporters of the American military. But now that top military men are in open rebellion against the armchair civilian war hawks—the hard-line pro-Israel ideologues who directed President George Bush to order an invasion of Iraq and who now want war on Iran—the angriest voices condemning the military are from GOP circles.

Following the lead of the neo-conservatives, who are viewed as fanatics but still dominate the Bush administration and key GOP policy groups, many GOP loyalists are declaring war on the battle-tested generals, admirals and other military heroes who are saying, “Enough is enough.”

Although none of the military men have yet said “No more wars for Israel,” their rhetoric in writings and public utterances says essentially that.

Conservatives roundly denounced former Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni as an “anti-Semite” for noting that pro-Israel neo-conservatives were the driving force behind the Iraq war and that everybody in Washington knew it. Zinni knew what he was talking about: he formerly commanded all U.S. forces protecting Israel in the Middle East.

More recently, another retired Marine, Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in Time that the Iraq war was “unnecessary” and that the rationale for war by those whom he called “the zealots” made no sense. Newbold’s choice of the word “zealots” was loaded. The term arises from the legend of the Zealots—an ancient sect of Jewish fanatics.

Newbold quit the service four months before the Iraq invasion, in part, he said, because he opposed those who exploited the 9-11 tragedy “to hijack our security policy”—referring to the zealous neo-con fanatics. He added:

“Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public.” But, he said, “I’ve been silent long enough.”

De har tröttnat på lögnhalsen Bush! Han som satt i en skola i Florida - lyssnade till en saga om en get - inte reste sig när han fick reda på:
America is under attack!
Han satte varken sig själv eller skolbarnen i säkerhet - trots att hans skolbesök var utlyst i förväg! Han brydde sig inte om att informera sig - och han försökte inte ingripa mot det plan som var på väg mot Pentagon!
Han visste vad som var på gång! Han bara avvaktade att planerna skulle utföras!
Lyssna på lögnaren Bush - det här är krigspropaganda - Goebbels propaganda - byggd på en lögn kallad 9/11 - som sionister och Israel var med och iscensatte:
[Red.: Av sionism ockuperad/-e regim/-er], 9/11 och media

De kanske också har tröttnat på Wolfowitz och de andra sionisterna - Libby, Perle, Zakheim, Podhoretz, Kristol mfl. i PNAC - Project for a New American Century och deras världshärskarplan - ZOG-plan - från septermber 2000 - kallad Rebuilding America´s Defenses - - där de drömde om ett nytt Pearl Harbor - "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" - - som sen kom ett år senare 11 september 2001 och där de drömde om vapen som kunde utrota människor med viss genkod!!! rödhåriga? blåögda? smånästa? långnästa? snedögda? mörkhyade? Vilka drömde Wolfowitz och hans sionistiska anhang om att utrota? Det får vi räkna ut själva... men någon-ra sort(er) är det som de vill göra sig av med enlligt vad de skrev i september 2000.

"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and 'combat' likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, 'cyber-space,' and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).

Last edited by on Sun, 2006 Jun 04 0:41:44; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
Leif Erlingsson
Site Admin

Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 302
Location: Tullinge, Botkyrka

PostPosted: Sun, 2006 Jun 04 0:25:31    Post subject: I det sammanhanget Reply with quote

I det sammanhanget bör man även läsa det här som jag skrev på min blogg i februari 2006: wrote:
"Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations" (backup: - Det visar sig, vid läsning, att en bunke civila och militära piloter gjorde en egen konspiration efter den 11 september 2001: De träffades i Portugal och höll ett 72 timmar långt non-stop möte varvid de kom fram till ett antal slutsatser som summerades i ett dokument som sedan cirkulerade i Washington: "The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had 500 copies of this 24-page report made and sent out, including, to the White House. And I have to say it was including Pres. Bush. So they got a copy of the report." . . . Col. Donn de Grand-Pre: "That is correct. That came out of the Washington Times and I can verify that from Col. Dick Schultz, who is a friend of mine in the Joint Chiefs. Morale was not only low but he said some of the troops are ready to mutiny. If it wasn't for the fact that the government, the civilian hierarchy, has control over retirements, they would probably be blood in the streets by now." Alex Jones: "There was also an article where they panicked in the Washington Times, it was also in the Washington Post, they panicked and flew the officers on jets to luxury vacations and had these focus groups. It even talked about a possible mutiny. People were just totally distraught. What would make them become distraught overnight in the Pentagon?" Col. Donn de Grand-Pre: "It wasn't an overnight thing. You see, as I outline in book 1, and I carry that on in book 2, as well as book 3, we were on the verge of a military coup d'etat. And this was long in the planning and even after the 78 days of bombing Kosovo, it became critical. And we were close to a coup d'etat at that time. In my survey of the reports and the pilots who worked with that, a coup was a possibility. In fact, a coup d'etat was pulled on the morning of September 11th. Only it was an administrative or what we call a cold coup d'etat." Alex Jones: "Or reverse coup d'etat." Col. Donn de Grand-Pre: "Yes, in fact...." Alex Jones: "A counter revolutionary junta." Col. Donn de Grand-Pre: "Well that is correct. And as we delved into that, we found that the culprits, including Rumsfeld, were part of a neocon group that had been planning this thing for literally years prior to September 11th." Intressant är det minsta man kan säga! Läs hela!
En rejäl Google bakgrundskoll av Col. Donn de Grand-Pre görs lämpligen t ex så här:

Eller mata själv in samma söktermer som jag gjorde: ``Donn de Grand-Pre "The Serpent's Sting" "The Viper's Venom" "The Rattler's Revenge"'', där söktermerna utgörs av hans namn och namnen på hans tre böcker. För många fler söksvar, ta bort namnen på böckerna.

För den som sätter sig in i hur USA egentligen fungerar är detta ingen nyhet. Det är egentligen helt fantastiskt att det inte redan har hänt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Leif Erlingsson
Site Admin

Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 302
Location: Tullinge, Botkyrka

PostPosted: Sun, 2006 Jun 04 0:29:05    Post subject: Maniskt upprepande Reply with quote

PS: Du är oerhört tröttsam med ditt eviga, närmast maniska, upprepande av vissa återkommande saker i var och varannat meddelande. Det gör forumet till din personliga megafon, och driver säkert bort många potentiella läsare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Sun, 2006 Jun 04 0:56:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

Den här guben är starkt kritisk - men han har inte riktigt förstått hur Wolfowitz och övriga sionister i PNAC - Project for a New American Century iscensatt 9/11 - de kallade det för ett nytt Pearl Harbor - "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" - Pearl Harbor var president Roosevelts sätt att lura in USA:s befolkning i andra världskriget. Roosevelt visste att Japan skulle anfalla Pearl Harbor, men han meddelade inte sina befälhavare på Pearl Harbor om den kommande attacken. Och Roosevelt fick en förevändning för att dra in USA i andra världskriget. Det är så det går till!!! 9/11 var samma elände!!! Och människor går på propagandan... tror på sina ledare...


Det finns andra i USA som har förstått lite mer. Det går att ta del av deras videos här:
Du kan t.ex. titta på Cindy Sheehan - Hold Bush Accountable
Cindy Sheehan expresses her anger at the excuses Bush uses for being above the law. Cindy also proposes fitting punishment for the Neo-Cons.

Och här kritik från en militär som tröttnat på att kriga åt Israel.,9171,1181629,00.html
Why Iraq Was a Mistake
A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it
Posted Sunday, Apr. 9, 2006

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.

From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.

With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't--or don't have the opportunity to--speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.

Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear--I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view--at the moment--is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position.

I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.

There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq--often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.

To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress--from both parties--defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.

So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.
Back to top

PostPosted: Sun, 2006 Jun 04 1:56:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vad gäller Donn de Grand Pré så går det att Googla lite mer på honom för att läsa en intervju med honom:

där Israel och sionister - Wolfowitz och andra - använder sig av USA:


Under a heading "High-powered Microwave weapons' (Regnery Pub 1999) reported: ', the authors of Red Dragon Rising,

High-powered microwave weapons (sometimes known as radio frequency weapons) which the PLA calls the 'superstars' of warfare, represent the new armaments that may define twenty-first century warfare. These very dangerous weapons can jam electronic equipment by emitting an extremely powerful pulse of electromagnetic energy over a wide area, or their energy can be focused in a narrow beam for use against American satellites I or commercial airliners - Ed 1.

In that startling and factual work, the authors highlight the exceptional efforts on the part of the PLA to acquire the latest hi-tech data from the United States, especially for the "superstars of radio frequency and electro-magnetic pulse weaponry." In their chapter on "Targeting America", the authors refer to a bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee given the task to investigate "U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial concerns with the Peoples Republic of China".

They point out that the Clinton administration changed the export control regulations (Jan 1996) and that by the end of 1998 the PRC had 600 American super computers.

In 1997-98 the Congressional Joint Economic Committee held hearings on "Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation: Potential Impact on the Economy". Several experts appearing before the Committee warned that these weapons pose a distinct threat to the United States. It was revealed during the hearings that China (PLA) has had a high-powered microwave weapon program for 25 years under the direction of one of many Chinese students educated at Berkeley over the years.

The key statement was that the PLA has access to American research -- "through espionage".

Let's fast-forward to 1999 and to a New York Times Op Ed piece by A. M. Rosenthal (22 Oct 1999), in which he described the long-secret arms deals between Israel and Red China He was the managing editor of the New York Times for 15 years prior to that article appearing and a dedicated supporter of Israel. However, as a result of that article, he was fired.

The title of his Op Ed was "The Deadly Cargo", and the lead sets the theme:

More often now, the special cargo arrives in China from Israel -- riles from Israeli military computers, crates with the makings of missiles and other weapons, and the men in the lab coats, the engineers and scientists who know how to put it all together...

And now I see the Chinese minister of defense, who is one of the ranking Tiananmen killers, visits Israel. I read obsequious Israeli speeches praising him and his government...

The two countries talk openly about bigger arms deals in the making. I learn that the Chinese have knit together Russian and Israeli specialties...

The Russians are converting Ilyushin planes into the framework of U.S.-type flying command posts (AWACS) and will ship them to Israel...

In an astounding interview by Tom Valentine (24 Oct 1999) on Radio Free America with Andrew St. George the two developed the emerging scandal of Israel's secret arms deal with Red China. They referred to the Cox Committee hearings and stated that "unfortunately , the official Cox 'investigation' into China's capture of American technology covered up Israel's involvement."

Valentine stressed that the Reagan administration allowed the trade to escalate in the 1980s, with the help and encouragement of such officials as Richard Perle, Stephen Bryen, Fred Ickle and Paul Wolfowitz ..."They were the kingpins of the Defense Department in the Reagan years."

In case you missed it, they are now back as key advisers to President Bush II; in fact, the leading war hawk pressing for our armed forces to go to war against the Muslim World is the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.

We are being deluged by the current crop of Israel Firsters, all shouting "It's time to declare war". and "First war of 21st Century" ( Alan Dershowitz on CNN - William Kristol, Washington Times - Leonard Piekoff, Washington Post)), and former Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appearing before the U.S. Congress,
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Mediekritik All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
HOME          Läs om Intelligentsians blockering här:          Besök AllaForum!