| To: lorne who wrote (1685) | 8/27/2002 2:19:48 PM | | From: Emile Vidrine | | | | ARIEL SHARON'S SECRET PLAN.
TO REMOVE PALESTINIANS FROM ISRAEL.
by.
Gordon Thomas.
Israel's hard-line prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has ordered his defence forces to
prepare to drive 'hundreds of thousands' of Palestinians on the West Bank over the
border into Jordan..
Jordanian intelligence chiefs say the operation will commence on the day the
forthcoming United States conflict starts against Iraq..
Sharon believes that will give him 'a just excuse' to remove the Palestinians - as they
would then pose what he has called 'a totally unacceptable threat to the safety of
Israel'..
Details of his plan have been leaked by Jordanian intelligence to Western intelligence
services, including MI6..
The revelation will almost certainly deepen the split within the Cabinet of Tony Blair
about Britain's continued support for military action against Saddam Hussein..
King Abdullah II of Jordan revealed his own fear about Israeli intentions on his recent
visit to London.
He told Tony Blair and President Bush that any military action to remove Saddam
would open a 'Pandora's Box that would turn the entire Middle East into a cauldron', a
senior Jordanian intelligence officer said..
'Driving out Arafat and his Palestinians would lead to an uprising in the Middle East
against everything Western', he added..
Of immediate concern to Abdullah is that his own tiny kingdom - 'a mere pimple on
the rump of Arab nationalism' was how one Western intelligence report describes
Jordan - could be swept away..
Its Arab neighbours have not forgotten that in 1991, King Abdullah's late father, King
Hussein, lent his support to Saddam..
But Abdullah has been pressurised by Washington to allow some 4,000 American
troops to mass in the southern desert of Jordan. They are now preparing for the
assault on Iraq..
With them are some 200 British Special Forces - who are expected to pathfind the
route to Baghdad when the conflict starts..
Abdullah knows that in the event of conflict, Saddam could block the routes into
Baghdad by deporting a million Iraqi 'refugees' into Jordan..
He could also cut off Iraq's imports of cheap oil to Jordan..
Jordan, already finding it has insufficient water for its 5 million population, would then
find itself paralysed..
With the prospect of an influx from the West Bank of Palestinians and the pro-Iraqi
sentiments of many Jordanians, who are bitterly opposed to King Abdullah's acceding
to American pressure, the 40-year-old monarch could find himself toppled - or even
assassinated..
An indication of how close that could come is that Bush has now provided the king
with a bodyguard of US Special Forces. They have orders to fly the monarch and his
family to the United States - if his bodyguard decides their lives are in danger..
****.
Footnote: Sharon's new plan to drive out the Palestinians comes in the wake of his
fury that the Sunday Express had obtained details of his earlier plan to snatch Yasser
Arafat and dump him in Lebanon..
The paper's world-exclusive story last weekend was the main news on Israel's Channel-
2 television and in the country's newspapers. Media across the Middle East and
Europe also carried detailed confirmation of the story..
Sources close to Sharon said he was 'furious about the leak and had ordered a top
level enquiry into how details had been passed to the Sunday Express'.. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1677) | 8/27/2002 4:36:01 PM | | From: Eashoa' M'sheekha | | | | Thanks Thomas.
You know, many of us would just like to learn the truth in these matters since the attacks of 911, but it seems for every piece of information to blame one group, there is a contradicting piece of information to blame another.
I try to find sites that at least appear to have an unbiased approach in the hopes that history will not have been re-written to serve the writers.I also try to garner as much information as I can from those familiar with the subject at hand, but if those people are misinformed or willing to deceive, we are at their mercy, not being up to speed on these issues myself.
It's like investing, isn't it?After a while you don't know who or what to believe so you do as much due diligence as you can bare and then make your decision.
One comment I read dealt with the concept of a country or countries being able to wage war without consequence .That article referred to the ME situation after 1967 whereas the defeated were willing to go back to the boarders they started from.I tend to agree that it appears self defeating to just give back the spoils of war if your country was not the aggressor, however, therein lies the argument of who started it in the first place.
I will continue to try to remain neutral and ferret out the truth the best I can.Some can only hope there can peace before there is war, unlike some on SI advocate.
" They " say WAR never solves anything.I tend to agree,but know that WARRING,unfortunately, has become part of our human make-up, and there appears to more " war war war " than " talk talk talk ".
What a world.
PS: Thanks for the info.I will study it further. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1682) | 8/27/2002 8:05:57 PM | | From: Chris land | | | | | The only reason they apologized was because it was right around Christmas and they didn't want to incur the negative publicity. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the school up till that time had been breeding hate and contempt for Christianity and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (1688) | 8/28/2002 1:01:48 AM | | From: Thomas M. | | | | I tend to agree that it appears self defeating to just give back the spoils of war if your country was not the aggressor
Except that Israel was the aggressor, unquestionably.
Furthermore, the primary dispute is not with the countries that fought in the 1967 war - Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It is with the Palestinians. They were not part of the war, yet they have borne the consequences of it.
Tom |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1691) | 8/28/2002 2:06:18 AM | | From: Eashoa' M'sheekha | | | | " however, therein lies the argument of who started it in the first place. "
Was the remainder of that sentence you left out.
To which you assert, " Except that Israel was the aggressor, unquestionably. "
As I said " therein lies the argument of who started it in the first place ".
If a group of people surround my home with bazookas aimed at me, I might just be tempted to take them out as a pre-emptive defense measure, as opposed to waiting for the place to possibly go up in flames.
They may whine and say what they want later after I bring them to their knees,things like " we really weren't going to attack..we were just...uh..uh...showing off our new stuff...ya!..that's the ticket!....showing off our new stuff
to uh...uh,,,scare you!...ya..that's it...scare you...etc..
Sorry Thomas...I don't buy it... neither did Israel.. and they are still here today to tell the story.
That's the crux of the argument for me Thomas.I will not discuss that aspect further.
But to reiterate....peace is the objective for me...not who was right and who was wrong...who started..who didn't...
Just find a merciful solution without war.
Here's a few Canadian links, if you're interested, that shows how divided that argument still is.........
cdn-friends-icej.ca
arts.mcgill.ca
politicalscience.uwaterloo.ca
And this one from Norway :
i-cias.com
I have nothing further to add to this subject.
Regards,
Kc |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: ChinuSFO who started this subject | 8/28/2002 3:41:35 AM | | From: Spytrdr | | | | the strong geopolitical case against Irak...
gl.iit.edu
.
.
<<U.S. Plants Footprint in Shaky Central Asia
[...]
A 'Great Game' Renewed
Central Asia has a long history as a venue for geopolitical intrigue. This was the site for the 19th-century test of strength and influence between Russia and Britain that Rudyard Kipling immortalized as "the great game." Then the area was the buffer zone between an eastward- expanding Russian empire and a nervous Britain that feared the Russians had designs on British India. Russian armies conquered most of Central Asia during the 19th century, stopping only at the Pamir Mountains and the Afghan border.
In the first years of the 21st century, the collapse of Russian imperialism, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism and the world's ever-increasing thirst for oil, have all contributed to a new kind of strategic significance for Central Asia. Geography is still critical. The five former Soviet republics and Afghanistan together constitute a zone of weak states in the middle of a neighborhood that includes Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran and China, whose western-most province, Xinjiang, borders Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In this setting, what happens in Central Asia can have wide repercussions.
During the 1990s the United States began to quietly build influence in the area. Washington established significant military-to-military relationships with Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Soldiers from those countries have been trained by Americans. Uzbekistan alone will receive $43 million in U.S. military aid this year. The militaries of all three have an ongoing relationship with the National Guard of a U.S. state -- Kazakhstan with Arizona, Kyrgyzstan with Montana, Uzbekistan with Louisiana. The countries also participated in NATO's Partnership for Peace program.
"We wanted to extend our influence in the region, and promote American values, too," said Jeffrey Starr, a Pentagon official who was responsible for these relationships during the second Clinton administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Oil and gas have enhanced the region's strategic value. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan sit atop vast quantities of both. Geologists keep raising their estimates of Kazakh oil reserves as more becomes known about the oil fields beneath the Caspian Sea. The Energy Department now says Kazakhstan may have as many as 95 billion barrels of oil, or nearly four times Mexico's proven reserves. Chevron, a U.S. company, was the first to make a major commitment to the development of Kazakh oil, and the company -- now Chevron Texaco -- is investing billions of dollars in Kazakhstan.
"We have an enormous economic and energy stake in this country," said a senior U.S. official in Kazakhstan. "It's part of our national energy strategy." By 2015 Kazakhstan and its Caspian neighbors could make up one of the world's most important sources of oil, the official said.>>
washingtonpost.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| |
