From: Ad 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:48:21 +0100, Adam wrote:
>
>>> So all that and the bottom line is that you are sure they did it
>>> because come one man, it is Israel and the US.
>> One man? The PM of Israel? Oh & Bush is just one man. Gee next you'll be
>> saying that Bush invaded Iraq all by himself.
>>
>>>  You have nothing more then your
>>> opinion exactly as I thought at the start.
>>>
>>>
>> It's hardly simply an opinion & the facts are creeping out all the time
>> as they are wont to do.
>>
>> 3 known knowns:
>>
>> 1) He (& thus the state of Israel) had decided on the plan in March in
>> consultation with the IDF.
>>
>> 2) He (as the PM of Israel) had consulted with Bush, Blair & Chirac on
>> making the Lebanese remove Hizbullah from the border (& disarm
them) &
>> to put the Lebanese army on the border prior to any kidnapping or other
>> useful provocation.
>>
>> 3) He (as the PM of Israel) was certain there would be a similar attempt
>> to kidnap soldiers on the Lebanese border.
>>
>> 1 through to 3 are not opinions.
>>
>
> And 1 through 3 do not prove: "You forget this is a US admin which
> conspired in advance with the Israelis to launch a major invasion of
> Lebanon over just 2 seized Israeli mil personnel."
>
> Which is all that I had all along.
>

There was no prof wrt France & The UK conspiring with Israel over Suez
either until after the event. However most noted the rather
"coincidental" simultaneous attacks & other mutually
supportive actions inc diplomatic actions.

So this appears mucho like Suez except that the all the western powers were
in on it, none sent troops (making do with diplomatic obstructionism) &
Nasrallah rather than Nasser was the target.

There are far too many coincidences for it to all be coincidental.

More will come out. I have little doubt of that. But hey you'd dispute that coz MRD.

Initially you took the position that there was no prior planning. The PM of
Israel has disabused you of that notion.

There was no consultation between Israel & the US over disarming
Hizbullah etc. prior to the pretextual event. The PM of Israel has
disabused you of that notion.

Meanwhile back on the farm....

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20166

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday he opposed
making public testimony given to a high-level inquiry into last year's
Lebanon war against Hezbollah.

"Our position is to refrain - at this stage - from releasing testimony
heard by the Winograd committee because this would result in real damage to
Israel's vital interests," his office said in a statement.

"This is a tangible and immediate concern to the country's security,
foreign affairs and to people and bodies which dealt and continue to deal
with these concerns.""

I wonder why......gee....come on Ehud...the last pieces of the jigsaw please.....

I wonder which foreign ally (or allies) might be embarrassed & why.

Real damage eh?


As it is....long term I think it may have been positive if anything because
of the destruction of the Israeli mil myth (on both sides) & thus their
"deterrence".

This has lead to the solidifying of the Arab position around the Saudis
which is overdue but welcome.






Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5