N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story

You've gotta believe it when a writer for the publication says they're not an apologist for it, right? What more objective source can you find than an employee of the publication in question? :sarcasm:

There was an uproar around this edit, and the times could have very easily changed its own archives. My original post was NOT inaccurate, regardless of the face saving techniques employed by the NYT since that time.

PNAC & Dubya happened, and nothing's changed regardless of the bumper stickers in 2008.

 

Yeah, instead we should believe you. :eyeroll:

There is no evidence they did that. Stupid conspiracy theory is still stupid.

Your original post assumed as fact something for which there was no evidence. It appears to have been based on ignorance as to how news websites work in the Internet age. Stupid conspiracy theory is still stupid.

 

A government selected by the people is always better than one selected for them.

 

The shah was the shah from 1941 until 1979. The British and Russians forced his father to abdicate the throne, and as his son was the next in-line to the throne. And it was Mossadegh who dissolved the Parlliament and tried to assume all authority of the government for himself.

 

In real life the only person I have ever met who had any admiration for America was a young girl from the Dominican Republic that admiration was only on a material level ..........well her sister made it there and found the houses could be blown down with a huff and a puff .................

but now that girl told me stories ......bein' the next door 'kept poor neighbours' ! bout Gitmo and (*)(*)(*)(*) looooong long before we ever heard about it ...it was worse when it was a secret, poor poor sods who found themselves there before, nameless ones who suffered in a place no one even knew existed out side the natives. They experimented on them

 

What I find uproarious is that 196 nations have signed the UNODA chemical weapons convention. Israel has not.

 

I know you were discussing something someone else told you, but if you've got anything supporting the highlighted section, I'd love to read it. To the best of my knowledge, the detention area of Gitmo was created in 2002. if there's supporting evidence of it being used for the detention of prisoners prior to that and how they were treated, I'd like to know about it.

 

It was known as a detention centre for 'crazy people' and feared ................... I don't have anything off hand because it was just one of those things I have been told and now it is my bed time. I shall look over the week end. it might be interesting to know, a good place to start, how long the USA has been renting it from Cuba ......who tear up the cheques ( only one has ever been cashed and that was by a new secretary who put it in the Bank unknowing so by mistake )

 

It was leased starting in 1909. The detention facility/military prison was supposedly founded in 2002. Thanks for looking into it.

 

Good to know. You should update this Wikipedia essay for them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax#U.S._role

 

The 'good' side did not win WW2 as we can now all clearly see.

 

There were no good sides in WWII.

 

We can clearly see that what is sold to us as the 'good side' was lies.

Were it not lies, the US and the UK(but mostly the former), would not have brought perpetual terror, murder, child killing, and evil to so many parts of the World. I personally think that much of the post war propaganda they put on the Germans, were really indications of their own intentions.

 

two words: project paperclip.

 

LOL So you would be ok with Nazi rule?

 

I'm pretty sure I know how he'd answer that question, but I'm curious as to how he'd feel under Japanese rule? Whadya think, Jack?

 

What an absurdly framed question.

- - - Updated - - -

Japanese 'rule'???

WTF man.

N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story

 

Well there were only 2 sides in WWII the Allies and the Axis Powers. Since the Allies won you are saying they are the wrong side. Which means you prefer the Axis powers to have won.

 

Yes, I guess then it must.

I wonder why.

Could it be because the US state and Israel are lying terrorist states?

Yes it could.

 

Show me where the modern world and UN declare the US a terrorist state? Hmm....Seems they are not lol. And of course you side with the Nazi's you are a supporter of the holocaust and advocate such atrocities against Jews today.

 

Prove your statement or I will report you right now.

 

Well by saying "the wrong side" won in WWII suggest you support the Nazi's which you you conceded. The Nazi's committed the holocaust so by supporting the "other side" winning you support the holocaust. And by declaring Israel a "terrorist" state you support them being bombed into extermination.

 

Back to the main topic - AIPAC. The gloves are off.

Ynet reveals the operative plan. “Some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists, intend to storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution authorizing US strikes against Syria.”


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4426658,00.html

 

edit: sorry, didn't mean to continue the topic drift - I was working off a quote from the previous page

Just a hypothetical, since the Japanese were the other main power within the Axis... who knows how the world would've ended up? And don't get me wrong, just because I'm not a fan of AIPAC and think they hold too much sway in the American political system doesn't mean I sympathize with the Nazis or the KKK. I'm intolerant of intolerance in most forms, including the methods and extreme ideologies of the state of Israel, but that doesn't automatically convert to hating Jews or wishing the Axis powers had won WWII.

I'm not a guy that you should expect to fall in line with the "Jews run the world" conspiracy. I think that's an intellectually lazy way of examining the negative situations in the world. Sure, Zionism is a cause of a lot of problems, but when any group claims themselves exceptional and then acts to enforce that belief, they're going to cause problems. The same goes for extremist Christian or Islamic fundamentalists, street gangs, Goldman Sachs executives, college fraternities, Alex Rodriguez, or white supremacists. The world is full of people who have dangerous delusions of grandeur.

I've got nothing against people who are confident, assertive, and proud of themselves and their accomplishments. When they start deciding that others are beneath them and deserve to be treated as such, without common human courtesy and dignity, I start to get annoyed.

 

Prove to me where I said I (QUOTE YOU)...."advocate such atrocities against Jews today.?

Show me.

Where did I say or write it?

Or did I not write it, but sometimes it can be true in the mind?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mind if I pass on it, since it is very muddled.