I'm dedicating this one to you Roscoe Sr.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J0IuUXHBkaw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J0IuUXHBkaw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
UPDATE: No errors here yet. All Big 10 Totals were foolishly bet higher and UNDERS both steamed so far 10-15 minutes to post in SEC. It's BW vs the Oddsmakers again. Don't know who's winning the overall battle but in the SEC OVERS RULE. One in the bank, one skying at Half, 2 more tonight, and 2 more tomorrow. And then the Final plays in the 60s. Yup! The Final somehow has gone UNDER 10 out of 12 despite all the OVERS.
Iraq: A War For Israel
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]By Mark Weber[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The United States invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of the country since then, has cost more than three thousand American lives and many tens of billions of dollars, and has brought death to tens of thousands of Iraqis.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it launched?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, he said:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack Iraq? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush – who was already fervently committed to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author. [1][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that “nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: “Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." [2][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Six months before the attack, President Bush met in the White House with eleven members of the US House of Representatives. While the “war against terrorism is going okay,” he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.” [3][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a White House meeting on Feb. 27, 2003, just three weeks before the invasion. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer, Bush said: “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we have to avoid that.” [4][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Fervently Pro-Israel[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its hardline government is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of “leading Israeli commentators,” the London Times reported, the address was “so pro-Israel that it might have been written by [Israel prime minister] Ariel Sharon.” [5] In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.” He also told the gathering: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.” [6][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Condoleeza Rice, who served as President Bush’s National Security Advisor, and later, as his Secretary of State, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.” [7][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Long Range Plans[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right...” [8][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist “neoconservative” research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. [9][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful government posts, where... they’ve managed to weave a number of issues – support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general – into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core... On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war – not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it... For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, also looked into the “neo-conservative” role in fomenting war. [10][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001...”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-Zionist “neo-conservatives” in the Bush administration – who for years had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel’s security in the region – exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they were backed by the Israeli government, which also pressured the White House to strike Iraq. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq,” reported a leading Israeli daily paper, Haaretz, in February 2002. [11] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.” [12][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.” [13][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [14][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The role of the pro-Israel lobby in pressing for war is examined in an 81-page research paper by two prominent American scholars, John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. [15][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In the paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” they write:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Pressure from Israel and the [pro-Israel] Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure… Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party. In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Important members of the pro-Israel lobby carried out what professors Mearshiemer and Walt call “an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for invading Iraq. A key part of this campaign was the manipulation of intelligence information, so as to make Saddam look like an imminent threat.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former White House Communications director, has been blunt in identifying those who pushed for war: [16][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Uri Avnery – an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel’s parliament – sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote: [17][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers... The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. ... Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In Britain, a veteran member of Britain’s House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians,” said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. “There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States,” he added. [18][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Summary[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel – shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress – that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel’s greatest regional enemies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel, just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Americans have already paid a high price for their nation’s commitment to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price – not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state – until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]By Mark Weber[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The United States invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of the country since then, has cost more than three thousand American lives and many tens of billions of dollars, and has brought death to tens of thousands of Iraqis.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it launched?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, he said:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack Iraq? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush – who was already fervently committed to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author. [1][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that “nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: “Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." [2][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Six months before the attack, President Bush met in the White House with eleven members of the US House of Representatives. While the “war against terrorism is going okay,” he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.” [3][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a White House meeting on Feb. 27, 2003, just three weeks before the invasion. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer, Bush said: “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we have to avoid that.” [4][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Fervently Pro-Israel[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its hardline government is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of “leading Israeli commentators,” the London Times reported, the address was “so pro-Israel that it might have been written by [Israel prime minister] Ariel Sharon.” [5] In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.” He also told the gathering: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.” [6][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Condoleeza Rice, who served as President Bush’s National Security Advisor, and later, as his Secretary of State, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.” [7][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Long Range Plans[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right...” [8][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist “neoconservative” research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. [9][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful government posts, where... they’ve managed to weave a number of issues – support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general – into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core... On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war – not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it... For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, also looked into the “neo-conservative” role in fomenting war. [10][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001...”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-Zionist “neo-conservatives” in the Bush administration – who for years had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel’s security in the region – exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they were backed by the Israeli government, which also pressured the White House to strike Iraq. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq,” reported a leading Israeli daily paper, Haaretz, in February 2002. [11] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.” [12][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.” [13][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [14][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The role of the pro-Israel lobby in pressing for war is examined in an 81-page research paper by two prominent American scholars, John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. [15][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In the paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” they write:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Pressure from Israel and the [pro-Israel] Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure… Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party. In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Important members of the pro-Israel lobby carried out what professors Mearshiemer and Walt call “an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for invading Iraq. A key part of this campaign was the manipulation of intelligence information, so as to make Saddam look like an imminent threat.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former White House Communications director, has been blunt in identifying those who pushed for war: [16][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Uri Avnery – an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel’s parliament – sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote: [17][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers... The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. ... Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]In Britain, a veteran member of Britain’s House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians,” said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. “There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States,” he added. [18][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Summary[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel – shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress – that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel’s greatest regional enemies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel, just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Americans have already paid a high price for their nation’s commitment to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price – not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state – until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.[/FONT]
I'm starting to believe this shit hahaha 
hno:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The Problem of the Gas Chambers[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]By Robert Faurisson
<HR align=left>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Those who contest the "genocide" claim and the existence of the "gas chambers" are called Revisionists. Their argument runs approximately as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]But what insults and distortions an Exterminationist historian such as Georges Wellers allowed himself when, more than ten years after Paul Rassinier's death, he decided to expose the minutest part of the arguments of this ex-inmate of a concentration camp who had had the courage to reveal the lie of the "gas chambers" in his writings![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The best way in which a historian may inform himself regarding the actual claims of the disciples of Paul Rassinier is to refer to the work of American professor Dr. Arthur R. Butz entitled The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. [2][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For my part, I take the liberty of making only a few observations specifically for serious research-oriented historians.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]I call their attention to a paradox. Although the "gas chambers" are, in the view of the official historians, absolutely central to a picture of the Nazi concentration camp system (and furthermore, as proof for the totally perverse and devilish character of the German concentration camps in comparison to all previous and more recent concentration camps it ought to be meticulously shown how the Nazis proceeded to invent, construct, and operate these fearsome human slaughterhouses), one must be thoroughly astonished that in the impressive bibliography of the concentration camp literature there is not a single book, not a single brochure, not a single article, on the "gas chambers" themselves. One must not be misled by some very promising titles; rather one must ascertain the contents of these writings for oneself. I regard as "official historical writing" those publications which are written about the concentration camps by institutions or foundations that are partly or wholly financed from public funds, such as, for example, in France, the Comité d'Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale (Committee for the History of the Second World War) and the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaire (Jewish Contemporary Documentation Center), and in Germany (Munich), the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]One must wait until page 541 of the thesis by Olga Wormser-Migot on the system of Nazi concentration camps, before one finds a passage about the "gas chambers." However, for the reader there are still three other surprises:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It gets even better. Several years after the war, before both British and French tribunals, the camp officials of Ravensbrück (Suhren, Schwarzhuber and Treite) repeatedly confessed to the existence of a "gas chamber" in their camp. They even vaguely described its operation. Eventually, those who did not commit suicide were executed because of this alleged "gas chamber." The same "confessions" were given prior to their deaths by Ziereis for Mauthausen (Austria) and by Kramer for Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Today, one can see the alleged "gas chamber" of Struthof-Natzweiler and in the same place one can also read the unbelievable "confession" of Kramer. This "gas chamber," which is designated as an "historical monument," is a complete fraud. The slightest amount of critical spirit will be sufficient to convince oneself that a gassing in this small room, without any sealing whatsoever, would have been a catastrophe for the executioner as well as for the people in the vicinity. In order to make this "gas chamber" (which is guaranteed to be "in its original condition") believable, someone has gone so for as to clumsily knock a hole into the thin wall with a chisel, and thereby break four tiles. The hole was so arranged that Josef Kramer would have dumped through it the mysterious "salts" (about which he could give no further details and which, when mixed with a little water, killed within one minute!). How could salts and water make such a gas? How could Kramer have prevented the gas from coming back out the hole? How could he see his victims from a hole which would have let him see no more than half the room? How did he ventilate the room before opening the rudimentary door, made from rough-cut lumber? Perhaps one must ask the civil engineering firm in Saint-Michel sur-Meurthe (Vosges), which after the war altered the place which today is presented to visitors "in its original condition"?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Even long after the war, prelates, university professors, and some ordinary citizens gave eyewitness descriptions regarding the terrible reality of the "gas chambers" of Buchenwald and Dachau. With regard to Buchenwald, the "gas chamber" gradually disappeared from the minds of the people who had previously maintained that there was one in this camp.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Dachau[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]With regard to Dachau, the situation is different. After it had been firmly established for example by His Eminence Bishop Piguet, the bishop of Clermont-Ferrand that the "gas chamber" had been especially useful in gassing Polish priests, [3] eventually the following official explanation came to pass:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Broszat[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]No official historical institute has done more than the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich to make the myth of the "gas chambers" believable. Since 1972 its director has been Dr. Martin Broszat. As a member of this Institute since 1955, Dr. Broszat became famous as a result of his (partial!) publication in 1958 of the confessions that Rudolf Höss (former Commandant of Auschwitz) is supposed to have written in a communist prison before he was hanged. However, on 19 August 1960, this historian had to tell his amazed countrymen that there had never been mass gassings in the entire Old Reich (Germany's 1937 frontiers), but rather, only in a small number of selected places, especially in occupied Poland, including Auschwitz and Birkenau but not Majdanek. This startling news was given in a simple letter to the editor which was published in the weekly magazine Die Zeit (19 August 1960, page 16). The title was quite misleading and restrictive: Keine Vergasung in Dachau (No Gassing at Dachau) instead of Keine Massenvergasung im Altreich (No Mass Gassing in the Old Reich). [4] In order to support this contention, Dr. Broszat provided not the slightest piece of evidence. Today [1978], eighteen years after his letter, neither he nor any of his colleagues has provided the slightest explanation for this affirmation. It would be highly interesting to learn:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]German Camps in Occupied Poland[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Let us now examine the "gas chambers" in Poland.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For proof that the "gas chambers" in Belzec or Treblinka really existed, one is asked to rely essentially upon the statement of Kurt Gerstein. This document from a member of the SS, who allegedly committed suicide in 1945 in the prison of Cherche-Midi in Paris, abounds with so many absurdities that in the eyes of historians it has for a long time already been thoroughly discredited. [6] Furthermore, this statement has never been made public, not even in the documents of the Nuremberg tribunal, except in an unusable form (with truncations, falsifications, and rewritings). The actual document has never been available with its absurd appendices (French "draft" or the "supplements" in German).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Regarding Majdanek, a visit to the actual site is absolutely necessary. It is even more convincing than a visit to Struthof-Natzweiler, if that is possible. Over this question I will publish additional information.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]With regard to Auschwitz and Birkenau, one must rely essentially on the "Memoirs" [7] of Rudolf Höss, which were prepared under the supervision of his Polish captors. At the actual site, one can only find a "reconstructed" room (Auschwitz I) and ruins (Auschwitz II or Birkenau).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]An execution with gas has nothing to do with a suicidal or accidental suffocation. In the case of an execution, the executioner and his team must not be exposed to the slightest danger. For their executions, the Americans employ hydrocyanic acid in a sophisticated way, and that only in a small, hermetically-sealed chamber. Afterwards, the gas is exhausted from the chamber and neutralized.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For this reason, one must ask how, for example in the case of Auschwitz II or Birkenau, one could bring 2,000 people into a room measuring 210 square meters in area, and then in this highly crowded situation throw in the very strong pesticide Zyklon B, and then immediately after the deaths of the victims let a work crew without any gas masks enter the room in order to take out the bodies which had been thoroughly saturated with cyanide.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Two documents [8] from the German industrial archives which were registered by the Americans at Nuremberg tell us that the Zyklon B had a strong tendency to adhere to surfaces and could not be removed from an ordinary room with a strong ventilator, but only by natural aeration for almost 24 hours. Additional documents may be found only at the site in the Auschwitz Museum archives, which were never described elsewhere, but which show that this room of 210 square meters, which is today in a dilapidated condition, was only a very simple mortuary, which (in order to protect it against heat) had been located underground, and which was provided with only a single door which served as both an entrance and an exit. [9][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Concerning the crematoria of Auschwitz, there is just as there is generally for the entire camp an overabundance of documents and invoices down to the last penny. However, concerning the "gas chambers" there is nothing: no contract for construction, not even a study, nor an order for materials, nor a plan, nor an invoice, nor even a photograph. In a hundred war crimes trials, nothing of the sort was ever produced.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Christophersen[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"I was in Auschwitz and I can assure you that there was no 'gas chamber' there." Only seldom does one hear defense witnesses with enough courage to pronounce this statement. They are persecuted in the courts. [10] Still today, everyone in Germany takes the risk that, if they give an eyewitness account in favor of Thies Christophersen (who wrote The Auschwitz Lie), they will be punished for '"defaming the memory of the deceased." [11][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Immediately after the war, the Germans, the International Red Cross and the Vatican (which was otherwise so expert as to whatever happened in Poland), as well as many others, declared in an embarrassed tone: "The 'gas chambers' we knew nothing about them!" Yes but I would put the question this way: "Can one know about things which did not even happen?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There was not a single "gas chamber" in even one of the German concentration camps; that is the truth. The nonexistence of "gas chambers" should be regarded as welcome news; to hide this news in the future would be an injustice. Just as there is no attack upon a religion if one portrays "Fatima" as a fraud, the announcement that the "gas chambers" are an historical lie is no attack upon concentration camp survivors. One is merely doing one's duty being truthful.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]After 30 years of research, revisionist authors have reached the following conclusions:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Two publications and an official intervention by the author:[/FONT]
hno:[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The Problem of the Gas Chambers[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]By Robert Faurisson
<HR align=left>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]<HR align=left>[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]No one, not even those individuals who regard the Third Reich with nostalgia, denies the existence of concentration camps under Hitler. Everyone also recognizes that certain camps were equipped with crematory ovens: instead of being buried, the corpses were reduced to ashes. The repeated occurrence of epidemics made cremation necessary, especially for those who had died of typhus (see the photos of mass graves at Belsen et cetera). What is disputed by numerous French, British, American, and German authors is the existence of "extermination camps." This expression is used by historiographers to refer to those camps that were supposed to have been equipped with "gas chambers." Allegedly, these "gas chambers" were different from American gas chambers in that they were used to kill hundreds of men, women, and children at a time. Because the victims were chosen because of their race or religion, this is referred to as "genocide." The poison employed in this "genocide" is said to have been Zyklon B (a pesticide based upon prussic or hydrocyanic acid).[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Article 19 of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal
(in reality: the Inter-allied Military Tribunal) at Nuremberg[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof.[/FONT](in reality: the Inter-allied Military Tribunal) at Nuremberg[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Article 21 of the Statutes[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Those who contest the "genocide" claim and the existence of the "gas chambers" are called Revisionists. Their argument runs approximately as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It suffices for both of these problems ("genocide" and "gas chambers") to apply the customary methods of historical criticism, to see that one is confronted here by two myths that are inseparable. The criminal intentions that are attributed to Hitler have never been proven. As far as the weapon for this crime is concerned, no one has actually seen it. Here one is confronted by an extraordinarily successful war and hate propaganda campaign. History is full of frauds of this kind, beginning with their religious fables of sorcery and witchcraft. What distinguishes our times from earlier epochs is the frightening power of the media and the propaganda ad nauseam which is made for what must be called "the hoax of the twentieth century." Let him beware who, after 30 years, gets the idea to expose this hoax. He will learn depending upon the situation through imprisonment, fines, assaults and insults. His career can be shattered or endangered. He will be denounced as a Nazi. Either his thesis will be ignored, or else it will be distorted. No country will be more unrelentingly ruthless toward him than Germany. [1][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Today however, the silence is about to be broken about those men who have dared to write responsibly that Hitler's "gas chambers" (including those of Auschwitz and Majdanek) are only a historical lie. That is a great advance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]But what insults and distortions an Exterminationist historian such as Georges Wellers allowed himself when, more than ten years after Paul Rassinier's death, he decided to expose the minutest part of the arguments of this ex-inmate of a concentration camp who had had the courage to reveal the lie of the "gas chambers" in his writings![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The best way in which a historian may inform himself regarding the actual claims of the disciples of Paul Rassinier is to refer to the work of American professor Dr. Arthur R. Butz entitled The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. [2][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For my part, I take the liberty of making only a few observations specifically for serious research-oriented historians.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]I call their attention to a paradox. Although the "gas chambers" are, in the view of the official historians, absolutely central to a picture of the Nazi concentration camp system (and furthermore, as proof for the totally perverse and devilish character of the German concentration camps in comparison to all previous and more recent concentration camps it ought to be meticulously shown how the Nazis proceeded to invent, construct, and operate these fearsome human slaughterhouses), one must be thoroughly astonished that in the impressive bibliography of the concentration camp literature there is not a single book, not a single brochure, not a single article, on the "gas chambers" themselves. One must not be misled by some very promising titles; rather one must ascertain the contents of these writings for oneself. I regard as "official historical writing" those publications which are written about the concentration camps by institutions or foundations that are partly or wholly financed from public funds, such as, for example, in France, the Comité d'Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale (Committee for the History of the Second World War) and the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaire (Jewish Contemporary Documentation Center), and in Germany (Munich), the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]One must wait until page 541 of the thesis by Olga Wormser-Migot on the system of Nazi concentration camps, before one finds a passage about the "gas chambers." However, for the reader there are still three other surprises:[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The passage in question covers only three pages.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It carries the title: "The Problem of the Gas Chambers."[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The "problem" consists of trying to determine whether the "gas chambers" at Ravensbrück (Germany) and Mauthausen (Austria) really existed; the author comes to the conclusion that they did not exist; however she does not examine here the "problem" of the "gas chambers" of Auschwitz or any of the other camps, probably because in her mind they do not present a "problem." [on page 157 of her book she says that Auschwitz I had no gas chamber.][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It gets even better. Several years after the war, before both British and French tribunals, the camp officials of Ravensbrück (Suhren, Schwarzhuber and Treite) repeatedly confessed to the existence of a "gas chamber" in their camp. They even vaguely described its operation. Eventually, those who did not commit suicide were executed because of this alleged "gas chamber." The same "confessions" were given prior to their deaths by Ziereis for Mauthausen (Austria) and by Kramer for Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Today, one can see the alleged "gas chamber" of Struthof-Natzweiler and in the same place one can also read the unbelievable "confession" of Kramer. This "gas chamber," which is designated as an "historical monument," is a complete fraud. The slightest amount of critical spirit will be sufficient to convince oneself that a gassing in this small room, without any sealing whatsoever, would have been a catastrophe for the executioner as well as for the people in the vicinity. In order to make this "gas chamber" (which is guaranteed to be "in its original condition") believable, someone has gone so for as to clumsily knock a hole into the thin wall with a chisel, and thereby break four tiles. The hole was so arranged that Josef Kramer would have dumped through it the mysterious "salts" (about which he could give no further details and which, when mixed with a little water, killed within one minute!). How could salts and water make such a gas? How could Kramer have prevented the gas from coming back out the hole? How could he see his victims from a hole which would have let him see no more than half the room? How did he ventilate the room before opening the rudimentary door, made from rough-cut lumber? Perhaps one must ask the civil engineering firm in Saint-Michel sur-Meurthe (Vosges), which after the war altered the place which today is presented to visitors "in its original condition"?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Even long after the war, prelates, university professors, and some ordinary citizens gave eyewitness descriptions regarding the terrible reality of the "gas chambers" of Buchenwald and Dachau. With regard to Buchenwald, the "gas chamber" gradually disappeared from the minds of the people who had previously maintained that there was one in this camp.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Dachau[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]With regard to Dachau, the situation is different. After it had been firmly established for example by His Eminence Bishop Piguet, the bishop of Clermont-Ferrand that the "gas chamber" had been especially useful in gassing Polish priests, [3] eventually the following official explanation came to pass:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]This gas chamber, whose construction had been started in 1942, was still not completed in 1945 when the camp was liberated. No one could have been gassed in it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The little room, which visitors are told is a "gas chamber," is in reality completely harmless and, while all sorts of construction plans are available for "Baracke X" (the crematorium and vicinity), one cannot determine upon what basis or technical explanation one can claim that this structure is an "unfinished gas chamber."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Broszat[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]No official historical institute has done more than the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich to make the myth of the "gas chambers" believable. Since 1972 its director has been Dr. Martin Broszat. As a member of this Institute since 1955, Dr. Broszat became famous as a result of his (partial!) publication in 1958 of the confessions that Rudolf Höss (former Commandant of Auschwitz) is supposed to have written in a communist prison before he was hanged. However, on 19 August 1960, this historian had to tell his amazed countrymen that there had never been mass gassings in the entire Old Reich (Germany's 1937 frontiers), but rather, only in a small number of selected places, especially in occupied Poland, including Auschwitz and Birkenau but not Majdanek. This startling news was given in a simple letter to the editor which was published in the weekly magazine Die Zeit (19 August 1960, page 16). The title was quite misleading and restrictive: Keine Vergasung in Dachau (No Gassing at Dachau) instead of Keine Massenvergasung im Altreich (No Mass Gassing in the Old Reich). [4] In order to support this contention, Dr. Broszat provided not the slightest piece of evidence. Today [1978], eighteen years after his letter, neither he nor any of his colleagues has provided the slightest explanation for this affirmation. It would be highly interesting to learn:[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]How does Dr. Broszat know that "gas chambers" in the Old Reich were frauds?[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]How does he know that the "gas chambers" in Poland are genuine?[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Why do the "proofs," the "certainties," and the "eyewitness accounts" concerning the concentration camps in the west suddenly have no value, while the "proofs," "certainties," and "eyewitness accounts" concerning the camps in Poland Communist territory still remain true?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]German Camps in Occupied Poland[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Let us now examine the "gas chambers" in Poland.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For proof that the "gas chambers" in Belzec or Treblinka really existed, one is asked to rely essentially upon the statement of Kurt Gerstein. This document from a member of the SS, who allegedly committed suicide in 1945 in the prison of Cherche-Midi in Paris, abounds with so many absurdities that in the eyes of historians it has for a long time already been thoroughly discredited. [6] Furthermore, this statement has never been made public, not even in the documents of the Nuremberg tribunal, except in an unusable form (with truncations, falsifications, and rewritings). The actual document has never been available with its absurd appendices (French "draft" or the "supplements" in German).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Regarding Majdanek, a visit to the actual site is absolutely necessary. It is even more convincing than a visit to Struthof-Natzweiler, if that is possible. Over this question I will publish additional information.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]With regard to Auschwitz and Birkenau, one must rely essentially on the "Memoirs" [7] of Rudolf Höss, which were prepared under the supervision of his Polish captors. At the actual site, one can only find a "reconstructed" room (Auschwitz I) and ruins (Auschwitz II or Birkenau).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]An execution with gas has nothing to do with a suicidal or accidental suffocation. In the case of an execution, the executioner and his team must not be exposed to the slightest danger. For their executions, the Americans employ hydrocyanic acid in a sophisticated way, and that only in a small, hermetically-sealed chamber. Afterwards, the gas is exhausted from the chamber and neutralized.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]For this reason, one must ask how, for example in the case of Auschwitz II or Birkenau, one could bring 2,000 people into a room measuring 210 square meters in area, and then in this highly crowded situation throw in the very strong pesticide Zyklon B, and then immediately after the deaths of the victims let a work crew without any gas masks enter the room in order to take out the bodies which had been thoroughly saturated with cyanide.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Two documents [8] from the German industrial archives which were registered by the Americans at Nuremberg tell us that the Zyklon B had a strong tendency to adhere to surfaces and could not be removed from an ordinary room with a strong ventilator, but only by natural aeration for almost 24 hours. Additional documents may be found only at the site in the Auschwitz Museum archives, which were never described elsewhere, but which show that this room of 210 square meters, which is today in a dilapidated condition, was only a very simple mortuary, which (in order to protect it against heat) had been located underground, and which was provided with only a single door which served as both an entrance and an exit. [9][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Concerning the crematoria of Auschwitz, there is just as there is generally for the entire camp an overabundance of documents and invoices down to the last penny. However, concerning the "gas chambers" there is nothing: no contract for construction, not even a study, nor an order for materials, nor a plan, nor an invoice, nor even a photograph. In a hundred war crimes trials, nothing of the sort was ever produced.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Christophersen[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"I was in Auschwitz and I can assure you that there was no 'gas chamber' there." Only seldom does one hear defense witnesses with enough courage to pronounce this statement. They are persecuted in the courts. [10] Still today, everyone in Germany takes the risk that, if they give an eyewitness account in favor of Thies Christophersen (who wrote The Auschwitz Lie), they will be punished for '"defaming the memory of the deceased." [11][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Immediately after the war, the Germans, the International Red Cross and the Vatican (which was otherwise so expert as to whatever happened in Poland), as well as many others, declared in an embarrassed tone: "The 'gas chambers' we knew nothing about them!" Yes but I would put the question this way: "Can one know about things which did not even happen?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There was not a single "gas chamber" in even one of the German concentration camps; that is the truth. The nonexistence of "gas chambers" should be regarded as welcome news; to hide this news in the future would be an injustice. Just as there is no attack upon a religion if one portrays "Fatima" as a fraud, the announcement that the "gas chambers" are an historical lie is no attack upon concentration camp survivors. One is merely doing one's duty being truthful.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]After 30 years of research, revisionist authors have reached the following conclusions:[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The Hitler "gas chambers" never existed.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The "genocide" (or "attempted genocide") of the Jews never took place. In other words: Hitler never gave an order nor permission that anyone should be killed because of his race or religion.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The alleged "gas chambers" and the alleged "genocide" are one and the same lie.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]This lie, which is largely of Zionist origin, has made an enormous political and financial fraud possible, whose principal beneficiary is the state of Israel.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The principal victims of this fraud are the German people (but not the German rulers) and the entire Palestinian people.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The enormous power of the official information services has, thus far, had the effect of ensuring the success of the lie and of censoring the freedom of expression of those who have denounced the lie.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The participants in this lie know that its days are numbered. They distort the purpose and nature of the Revisionist research. They label as "resurgence of Nazism" or as "falsification of history" what is only a thoughtful and justified concern for historical truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Two publications and an official intervention by the author:[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]A letter to Historama, Paris, November 1975, page 10, on the expression "N.N." Originally, these initials never meant Nacht und Nebel (Night and Fog), but Nomen nescio (Anonymous). ln practice it meant that certain inmates would not be permitted to receive or send mail.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Segments of a letter to Historia, Paris, August 1977, page 132: "The Imposture of Genocide."[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]On 29 January 1978 at the Colloque National de Lyon sur Eglises et Chrétiens de France dans la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale (National Convention in Lyon on Churches and Christians of France during the Second World War) an intervention concerning the imposture of the "gas chambers" (see Rivarol, Paris, 16 February 1978, page 5).[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Regarding the great number of vicious and insulting articles, there is a study by Hermann Langbein which appeared in Le Monde Juif (The Jewish World), April/June 1975. The title is "Coup d'oeil sur la littérature néo-nazie," ("A Glimpse at Neo-Nazi Literature"), pages 8-20. Hermann Langbein was an inmate in Auschwitz. He testified at countless trials. He holds an important position in the circles of former concentration camp inmates. One of his most recent works is entitled: Hommes et Femmes à Auschwitz (Men and Women of Auschwitz), Paris, Fayard, 1975, VIII-529 pages (Translated from Menschen in Auschwitz, Vienna, 1974.) Not one of the 30 chapters, not one of the 268 sections of this book is devoted to the "gas chambers"! Rather, one constantly sees expressions such as "selection for the gas chambers" etc. There is also a study by Georges Wellers which appeared in Le Monde Juif (op. cit.) April/June 1977. The title is "La 'Solution finale', de la question juive et la mythomanie néo-nazie" ("The "Final Solution" and Neo-Nazi Mythomania,"), pages 41-84. There is also a study by Ino Arndt and Wolfgang Scheffler in Viertelsjahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte (Quarterly Review for Contemporary History), which is a publication of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. The Institute's director is currently Dr. Martin Broszat. This study was published in the issue of April 1976. The title is: "Organisierter Massenmord an Juden in NS-Vernichtungslagern" (Organized Mass-Murder of Jews in Nazi Extermination Camps), pages 105-135.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1979.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Prison et Déportation (Prison and Deportation). Paris: Spes; 1947; page 77.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Broszat's letter is reproduced in facsimile (with its English translation) in The Journal of Historical Review, May/June 1993, page 12.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]The famed Simon Wiesenthal has also admitted that "there were no extermination camps on German soil" in a letter to the editor of Books and Bookmen, page 5, April 1975. Although he later wrote in a letter dated 12 May 1986 to Professor John George of Central State University in Edmond, Oklahoma, that he "could never have said such a thing," Wiesenthal reconfirmed his earlier statement in a letter to the editor published on page 14 of the European editor of Stars and Stripes dated 24 January 1993. This letter is reproduced in facsimile in The Journal for Historical Review, May/June 1993, page 10.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]See the opinion expressed by the forensic pathologist as it is reported by the Exterminationist Pierre Joffroy in his book about Kurt Gerstein: L'Espion de Dieu/La Passion de Kurt Gerstein (The Spy of God/The Passion of Kurt Gerstein), Paris, Grasset, 1969, page 262.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Kommandant in Auschwitz/Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen (Commandant of Auschwitz/Autobiographical Memoirs) by Rudolf Höss, Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,1958,184p; introduction and commentary by Dr. Martin Broszat. Concerning "gassing," see pages 126 and 166. The entry of the work crew into the "gas chamber" is supposed to happen "sofort" ("immediately") as it is written on page 166.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]These two extensive documents which are of great importance were apparently not used at the trials of Gerhard Peters, former director of Degesch. They were registered as documents NI-9098 and NI-9912. They irrevocably reduce to nothing the "eyewitness testimony" of Höss regarding the "gas chambers."[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Photographs Neg. 6228 and following.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Case of Wilhelm Stäglich, for example. See Stäglich in the Index Nominum of Butz's book (op. cit.).[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, SunSans-Regular, sans-serif]Die Auschwitz-Lüge (The Auschwitz Lie), #23 of Kritik (2341 Kälberhagen, Post Mohrkirch, West Germany), 1974. This booklet was followed by Der Auschwitz-Betrug/Das Echo auf die Auschwitz-Lüge (The Auschwitz Fraud/The Echo of the Auschwitz Lie.).[/FONT]
Fuck you Oren you lowlife scumbag. Of all the stupid things you have posted I never thought you could top. You are truly demented. 6 million Jews died. 12 million people died. Do the world a favor and make it 12 million and one.
For the rest of you thank Oren. I will no longer be posting games or line moves in any part of this forum.
For the rest of you thank Oren. I will no longer be posting games or line moves in any part of this forum.
This is what some Jews and Zionist didn't want you to know 1
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eiAwRDhX82c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eiAwRDhX82c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eiAwRDhX82c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eiAwRDhX82c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K92CAjDatIU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K92CAjDatIU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
