it is good to remember our friends, as well as the…Home by Mike Cunningham October 24, 2013 82 1 min 8 yrs Tweet ……..memory of all those peace-loving Muslims who gave us… This some Thirty years ago yesterday! Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] Jihad Post navigation Previous postNext post 82 thoughts on “it is good to remember our friends, as well as the…” some of us remember Mike, it’s nice that you do also. Right now a terrorist that blew up 2 embassies is sitting in NY Jail after pleading not guilty of course at the advice of his lawyer paid for by the Libyan Government. You see blowing up a barracks, or an embassy is not an act of war or terror now, it’s just an everyday criminal act. Where was the barracks? wheresoever the Empire wanted them to be…. Why was the barracks there? because the enemy was there The ‘enemy’ is everywhere. Oops – how “disgusting” of me to write that! because the enemy was there So the enemy got to you before you got to them then? Or maybe they were simply “returning the favour”? Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the U.S. 24th Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) [in Beirut, at the time of the bombing]; “It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support [which fired a total of 360 5-inch rounds between 10:04 A.M. and 3:00 PM.] — which I strongly opposed for a week — to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and that the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.” Probably worth noting how the evil terrorists targeted a military base and the heroic Americans shelled a village. soldiers are fare targets trip. It goes with the uniform. The death of so many in such an event is tragic, and should be remembered. It is. The attacks on those barracks changed security protocols. I remember their deaths, and I say a prayer for them. I also understand they were legitimate targets. The embassies I referred to earlier were not. //So the enemy got to you before you got to them then? Or maybe they were simply “returning the favour”?// That’s it. Some people don’t take kindly to being bombarded with artillery. Noel – You are accepting Daytripper’s cheery picking of Geraghty’s much longer article as the only facts. It was a multi-national peacekeeping force, present in Beirut at its request to the UN to provide stability during the dangerous civil war period. That peacekeeping force saved Lebanese lives, and at the expense of the lives of its own members. Soldiers from France and the United States who died in an effort to provide safety for the people of Lebanon, who were split into warring factions (much of it instigated by Syria and Iran). Note the terrorists had previously blown up the Embassy, killing 63 people. No it was evil imperialism. The US wanted to extend the USExxon empire, that’s all it wuz. don’t confuse them with facts Mahons. America BAD… Terrorists GOOD. It’s what they want to believe. Reality has no part in what passes for thought in their heads. The US wanted to drill for oil in downtown Beirut and put in pipelines from the Bekaa Valley Chomsky told me so. They only said that they were there to keep the peace. I’m just waiting for Patty to come along and blame Obama for the Beirut bombings 😉 womanizer 🙂 you can’t handle the truth. We have enemies plotting our destruction, but we are paranoid and evil. You won’t like the source, but facts are facts. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/for-the-record-explores-the-weapon-that-could-shut-down-america/ From the book By Way of Deception, by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, I read on page 321: In the summer of 1983, the same informant told the Mossad about a large Mercedes truck that was being fitted by the Shi’ite Muslims with spaces that could hold bombs. He said that it had even larger than usual speces for this so that whatever it was destined for was going to be a major target. Now the Mossad knew that, for size, there were only a few logical targets, one of which must be the US compound. The question then was whether or not to ward the Americans to be on particular alert for a truck matching the description. Mossad’s boss in Tel Aviv, Nahum Admony, refused to provide specifics to the US and provided only “the usual general warning, so commonplace, it was like sending a weather report”. Ostrovsky acknowledges that President Reagan’s decison to send US marines to Beirut was based on humanitarian instincts with intent to stop the slaughter recently perpetrated by ‘Christians’ against palestinians with Israeli connivance. Allan take your meds I knew Allan would get to the bottom of it all ! What’s wrong with being a womanizer What a great, great word that is. how un-pc of you Phantom It is un PC that there is no female equivalent of it A ” man-izer “ There are lots of female equivalents but they are all derogatory, which really does prove what a sexist world we live in. True Womanizer is often a kind of compliment But regardless of that, it’s just such an eloquent word, a little treasure of the English language Allan is making progress, baby steps, but still progress, he is quoting a Jewish guy favorably. of course the book has a dubious history, but at least Allan recalls page 321. Wait, 321? Is that a signal? A code. It sounds like a count down! The Troll, on October 24th, 2013 at 4:21 PM Said: you can’t handle the truth. We have enemies plotting our destruction Yeah, he is called your President 😉 //Noel – You are accepting Daytripper’s cheery picking of Geraghty’s much longer article as the only facts. It was a multi-national peacekeeping force, present in Beirut at its request to the UN to provide stability during the dangerous civil war period. // Mahons, I didn’t (have to) read DT’s article. I remember well what happened, also what happened beforehand. The US had become involved in a civil war, supporting the right-wing Maronites and the Israelis, both of which had been guilty of the killings of thousands of civilians in Lebanon. Just to make no doubt about their Intention to “provide stability”, they subjected a city to massive artillery barrage. It was one of Reagan’s many mad escapades. A suicide bombing is alway macabre. But in this case the attack on the barracks was also, as Troll says, a legitimate act of war. The Troll, on October 24th, 2013 at 4:31 PM Said: Allan take your meds For somebody who advocates nuclear war on Iran and especially against its schoolchildren, and who wrote the following: Allan you are without a doubt the scum of the earth. My words can’t express the revulsion that your very existence evokes. is indicative of something not being quite right. Let’s just look again at these particular words and imagine if I or Pete or Harri had written them: My words can’t express the revulsion that your very existence evokes. and those are words about a visitor to a website whom he hasn’t met, doesn’t know and with whom he has refused debate. Now Troll, show me the words which I wrote that ‘inspired’ you to write the above. On the subject matter, I wrote that Mossad knew about the forthcoming attack on the US compound in Beirut but failed to provide adequate warning to the US. The idea that such an attack could occur and that Mossad did not have information on it is absurd, but absurd is what the credulous here do best. The book By Way of Deception was the subject of Israeli legal action to block its release in the US and it succeeded, but an Appeals Court threw out the ban. That indicates that the book contains truths damaging to Israel such as that which I mentioned. As always, there are no disputes about the accuracy or veracity of my post of 4.24pm – so I ask anybody who does find error or dispute to state what and why. Noel – There was no massive military barrage of Beirut from the US. There was from Israel who were trying to wipe out the PLO. The PLO and Syrian forces were able to evacuate due to the intervention of the US, Italy and French forces (all of whom remained to keep all the factions apart). The US rules of engagement were quite clear and the madness of Reagan was not in putting troops there but in tying their hands. To a certain extent they were sitting ducks. An attack on a barracks is less evil than on an embassy or a civilian mall, because it is a military target. But the fact that it was a military target doesn’t make it a “legitimate attack” any more than an attack on Irish Servicemen (or any of the other nations who provided troops to try to keep peace in Beirut over the last few decades) would have been. Reagan retreated from Lebanon right after that. Imagine how the Republican sons of bitches would have reacted if it was Carter or Clinton who had done that. There are no principles among party partisans, only quests for partisan advantage. Allan you are without a doubt the scum of the earth. My words can’t express the revulsion that your very existence evokes. Myself and Pinky agreed with Troll, and Phantom asked you what was so wrong when you started crying about it yesterday. I suspect Troll was merely expressing what most here think of you. //any more than an attack on Irish Servicemen (or any of the other nations who provided troops to try to keep peace in Beirut over the last few decades)// An Irish force would never have pounded the place with artillery – hardly a conventional way of “keeping peace” – or supplied one of the major players, and major killers, with weapons. But if one had, I’d be the first to say they’d asked for it if someone turned up at their barracks with a bomb. The people who carried out this attack were so ungrateful. The US was there to help! Petr I very much doubt if Allan cries over what anyone here thinks of him. Noel – The Americans didn’t pound Beirut with artillery. Neither did the French. Please put that fantasy to bed. Petr – Not ungrateful, those who were responsible for the attacks did not want stability and were responsible for escalating the conflict among the factions by fanning the religious war element among them. Colm — It’s Irish slang. It means moaning. Mahons — When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, sans UN mandate, some Iraqis immediately took up arms against them. Were those attacks on US troops legitimate? Petr I meant it in both senses. I doubt if Allan gives an FF what anyone thinks about him. What is he moaning about it days later then? My last on this, as you seem to be drawing me into a pointless discussion. Petr – I think military resistance to the 2003 invasion by Iraqis was legitimate warfare. Military resistance by German Troops in WWII was legitimate, though I wouldn’t have rooted for them either (I am not from Aberdeen). Noel’s confusing American support for Israel with American intervention in Lebanon. It is too close for him to stick to the facts. Pan back to Syria or Libya (taking Israel out of the picture) and he’s more gung ho for American military intervention than Troll on his fifth scotch on the 4th of July. Petr You don’t understand what I am saying so OK lets leave it at that. //American support for Israel with American intervention in Lebanon.// In 1983 it was both together. You mentioned WWII. Imagine you were a Jew from Lithuania or Ukraine whose parents had been massacred by the local militia, just after the German armies had moved in and conveniently sealed off the area for your persecutors. How would you feel about the Germans, do you think? And how would you feel about the country that had been providing them with cash, weapons and political support when they massacred your family? And how then would you feel when its troops turned up and started bombarding your town with artillery? All of this happened in Lebanon. It was American intervention in a civil war, including killing civilians on one side on behalf of the parties that had already massacred thousands of them in cold blood! This attack was completely legitimate. But I see you’ve dropped your Irish comparison at least. Noel – I don’t have to create imaginary facts, lets use the real World – the Germans who brought about the destruction of the Jews were finally stopped in great part by American intervention. Ask your German neighbors. Once again you are presenting what I can hope if simply a mistaken belief on your part that the US (and the French) bombarded Beirut which is simply untrue. The attack was a terrorist attack, the same as if made by terrorists in Libya who were opposed to intervention there. And it was most likely made by Iranian and/or Syrian backed Hezbollah associated group. I haven’t dropped the mention of the Irish participation in the decades long international effort to try to stop the violence there, but if you want I’ll repeat it again. Many nations contributed to this effort. I’d also point out that I feel the Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982, even with the goal of eliminating the PLO, was wrong and that they were wrong in not anticipating the actions by the Phalangists which resulted in the terrible massacre. The attack was a terrorist attack Those marines were an aggressive, violent force in Lebanon and were rightly destroyed. Petr – that is a lie. For those who are interested Ireland has lost about 20 soldiers serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon (I am unsure if that number includes the 3 murdered by their own comrade). The us navy shelled villages from the sea and the french carried out airstrikes. It is fact. Public record fact. http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0214/021449.html Tripper — Of course. It was on the news at the time! Daytripper – Indeed they did, directed at places from which they had come under fire. There was no massive military barrage of Beirut by the Americans or the French. And the PLO were able to crawl out of Beirut due to the intervention of the American Envoy Philip Habib. Let’s have some corrections: I’d also point out that I feel the Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982, even with the goal of eliminating the PLO, was wrong and that they were wrong in not anticipating the actions by the Phalangists which resulted in the terrible massacre. The Israelis facilitated the massacre – they were complicit. Elias Hobeika was the phalangist capo whose militiamen were given permission by the Israelis (Sharon, supported by PM Begin of terrorist root himself) to enter the Shatila camp and commence the massacre. The Israelis knew what would happen and watched from observation posts. Source – By Way of Deception, Victor Ostrovsky Those marines were an aggressive, violent force in Lebanon and were rightly destroyed. Nope – not that time. They were sent in to prevent further massacres as Reagan was outraged by Israeli complicity, hence the minimalist warning passed on about the truck bomb. (Source – as above) I’m sure that the shelling by US warships was a departing ‘gift’ so best check the chronological order. Where did you go boys? The fact that the shelling was targeted at factions who had been firing upon the peacekeepers who had been invited in at the desperate request of the Lebanese government fuck up your narrative? Quibble all you want, civilians areas were hit and civilians died. Opponents reacted and accurately targeted those responsible. Its a classic imperialist mindset that dismisses bold acts of revenge as terrorism. Never a thought that someone was provoked, much easier the notion that it was simply an irrational act born of an inherent hatred. It hasnt change one jot in the intervening decades either. ‘Why would they do this’ cry the ignorant. Every sodding time. Cue “praising terrorism” replies. Why do they hate us? Daytripper – Utter bullshit from you. Morally false and vile. You view facts as “quibbling”. Those who bombed the barracks were the people who specifically targeted civilians, they had no qualms about killing them themselves. It wasn’t revenge, it was a continuation of their effort to control Lebanon. Imperialists my ass. And no one is crying why would those terrorist do this, the world (and you) know bloody well – they wanted to control Lebanon and hated anything that sough to make it stable. Petr – The irony is that they hate you as much as they would hate me. Mahons is firing on all cylinders tonight. Looks like he blew you bitches straight out of the water! Well said, Daytripper. The comparision with Irish peacekeepers is odd, but if it shows anything at all, it’s the vast differences among attitudes to country and army between Ireland and the US. If Ireland had ever done anything – politically and militarily – like the US did in Lebanon (a huge IF, I grant, not only because Ireland would never be militarily capable of such a thing but also because the Irish people would have brought down any governemnt as soon as it tried such capers), there is not one Irish person I know who would not consider the barracks attack a legitimate response (omitting certain right-wing Ulster Unionists for the moment). Indeed very many would side with those who did it. But here we had the US become so actively engaged in a civil war that it commences artillery bombardment of the underdogs in that struggle, inevitably killing civilians. It provided military aid and cash and political support etc to armies and groups that are responsible for some of the worst war crimes in that country, including massacre of women and children, rape etc. in an almost perfect reenactment of some of the worst crimes against the Jews in WW2. This was all shortly prior to the barracks attack. Then when some youth driven mad with anger and hatred at the above turns himself into a bomb to attack the US army, ATW’s Americans all obediently rally around the flag and get hurt and angry at anyone who suggests they were not an innocent party. Israel comitted terrible crimes in that war, and ultimately the attack was because the US was, rightly, seen as the country that armed and faciliated and supported Israel. It’s tragic that so many marines were killed, indiviudally they were as innocent as anyone could be in that war, but it was the price for such mad policies. Noel – You have completely gone off the sanity rail on this one. Your real issue is with Israel and the need to castigate them at any opportunity. Accordingly, you ignore the facts of this attack and the surrounding events. Ireland was merely one of the many nations who sent troops to serve as peacekeepers in that troubled area. Were the Irish soldiers who were killed there because of Irish imperialism? Other nations who have participated in peacekeeping efforts by sending military personnel to Lebanon include China, Brazil, Ghana, Finland, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Fiji. What really rubs me is those damn imperialists from Fiji again! Does their desire to rule the World have no end? Mahons when are you going to realize that a large faction on here just Hate America, and the only thing they hate more is Israel. They sympathize with the jihadists, because they share an underlying belief system. That hate and an acceptance of the use of terror as a political weapon. Troll That is too simplistic and exaggerated , particularly as far as Noel is concerned. You amd Mahons may not like his analysis of what happened in Lebanon but his argument isn’t a bigoted one. It is a substantial well argued alternative to your views on this matter. It is a simplistic argument, but it’s not entirely wrong. To some, not all, but some, the idea of blowing up US Marines is delightful beyond words. And those who fight the US, even the most retrograde and oppressive jihadis, are to be sympathized with, on the ” enemy of my enemy is my friend ” principle. Cheers, Colm, mon ami. //Were the Irish soldiers who were killed there because of Irish imperialism?// mahons, that comparison really isn’t doing you any good. Maybe you follow Shane McGowan’s take on the conflict: Billy went away with the Peace Keeping force ’cause he loved a bloody good fight of course. Billy saw the Arabs and he had them on the run When he got them in the range of his submachine gun. Then he got the Israelis in his sights With a ra-ta-ta and they ran like shites. But unfortunately that is but fiction. The Irish in Lebanon were under orders not to take any military action, as far as I remember, except to return fire in a specific incident. The contingents from the other smaller nations also acted accordingly. The Irish in fact offered only passive resistance when the Israelis broke through their security line, but at least stood their ground on the roads and forced the Israelis to make a detour. I believe Ireland was the only country that offered this token resistance. Anything else would have been beyond its remit. Now contrast that with the US gunboat tactics, bringing its fleet up to the coast and bombarding the place with artillery. That’s apart from having armed and supported Israel as it conducted constant air raids against Beirut. The difference is simple: the Irish were there to make peace; the Americans were there to force a specific outcome, and that involved killing people. Link to Billy’s Bones Colm – I agree with you that Noel’s analysis is a substantial and well argued one, if by substantial and well argued you mean emotionally driven rant that ignores historical fact. It isn’t a matter of my not liking his argument or disagreeing with it, it is simply untrue. There was no US (or French) massive bombardment of Beirut. I’ve pointed that out several times now. Ignoring that refuted claim they fall back to claim there was shelling of villages, as if it was a deliberate act targeting civilians. I acknowledge that there was shelling, but I insert the fact that it was in response to being fired upon and oddly that gets no acknowledgment. I point out that the exodus of the PLO and Syrian forces (both of whom were not in Lebanon as peacekeepers) was secured at the express intervention of the US and its envoy at the time. There is no mention of their view of the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut prior to the Barracks bombing, one imagines they look favorably upon it but I wouldn’t presume to claim that they would do so until they actually do. What you are seeing here is an inability to turn from a narrative (despite the facts) of those who are opposed to Israel at any time. Hence Noel is unable to distinguish Israel’s wrongful and misguided invasion in particular from American support for Israel in general. Thus the American (and French) troops have it coming to them. Note, when Israel is not as prominent in the picture, Noel is singing the marine corps him and urging American intervention in Libya and Syria. Petr can’t help himself, he’s lose his communist membership card if he didn’t side against the West on every occasion. From him it is more of a knee jerk reaction. As for Daytripper, more of a jerk reaction, though a little odd in that it lacks his more common practice of at least not ignoring basic historical facts when complaining about the West. Often here I am amazed by right wing zealots who seem to think that actual history, media reports and other writings are unavailable to everyone else. On this occasion, and I’ll bookmark it for future reference, that failing has been on the left. The extremes of left and right overlap greatly, usually on the grounds of anti semitism and conspiracy mongering. And immense cruelty and disregard for those that they see as their enemies. Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle with Mahons 😉 Colm We need to get you to visit America some day Colm – An apt lyric here some days, but of course one remains concerned that the simply championing the middle ground in and of itself will result in the damnation noted by Dante of those who were driven out of Heaven but not accepted by Hell. I prefer to judge issues on the merits as they come, and not try to conform the facts to pre-existing beliefs Thus at times I have happily been accused of being on the left, and at other times happily accused of being on the right. here ya go appropriate version of that song with Mr Blue as America and the cop in the chair as the rest of the world. At least that is what Noel and too many others believe. it’s over the top, but Noel and others look at us as if we were that seen. When in reality we are this one. // emotionally driven rant // ? Last night you were fit to be tied, with your “bloody” this and “fuck up” that. You even so incensed you imagined someone kept saying Beirut was bombarded by the Yanks, when you were the only one who mentioned it (about half a dozen times). Now you’re trumpeting it as a “refuted claim”! Your anger also no doubt mades you fail to see the fundamental difference between the US and the Irish presence there. That huge difference is after all central to the matter at hand – was the attack on the Beirut barracks a legitimate act of war or was it not. It was, simply because the US was not neutral in the conflict. Apart from its artillery bombardment, it supported two of the factions involved, both of which were responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. It’s funny when you present the US helping the PLO leave the country as being the American good deed for the day, but that, and the survival of the Maronite govt, were the Israeli war aims, and of course also the aims of the US. The Irish in Lebanon, on the other hand, were neutral in the conflict. They supported no side and took no military action. //, but Noel and others look at us as if we were that seen. // I’m not sure what that means, Troll. But remember, tough guy Reagan took to his heels as soon as “the enemy” killed a few hundred of his soldiers. you can look at us as the bad guys all you want, it doesn’t make it true. Every time the shit hits the fan it’s us that has to carry the load and protect your asses. We do this not for our own gain, but because it is the right thing to do. You see evil, if we honestly turned our weapons to the use of evil none of you would stand a chance. We will build our toys, we will monitor and record every action, conversation, and eventually every thought that you have. We will do it for OUR protection. We will act when we choose to. All of you have benefited from this stance, you probably will again. What you have to understand is that benefit is a side note. We do what is best for us. I defy any on here to put your nations histories into comparison with ours. Most have done a lot worse for reasons of your own aggression. Judge us when you can take care of yourselves, you can’t. We can, and will. Noel – I assure you that my use of profanity was under calm and reasoned mindset. I use worse language tying my shoes. I know the difference between US and Irish presence there, the Irish presence was more symbolic. The UN presence was, as usual, backed by the nations capable of providing significant military presence (US, UK, France etc). You wrote that the US subjected the city to massive artillery bombardment and that it was part of Reagan’s Madness. If you’d like to clarify your comments now, be my guest. the Irish presence was symbolic because they produce no army, except an army of homegrown terrorists. look at the headlines. The germans and the french are going to the un to complain we record everything… boo hoo. The French invaded all of Europe for centuries, and the germans cooked people in ovens. and you call us barbarians Troll – Not true of the Irish, and many of the Irish soldiers who served in Lebanon were killed there over the years. In fact the leader of the UN troops at one point was an Irishman. They served honorably and under very restrictive rules of engagement in a combat zone. I used the world symbolic to explain that they were never going to be a significant force there on their own even as peacekeepers, and that the power that allowed the UN to attempt to keep the peace was the military power of other member nations. A side note is that the Zelig of modern Irish History Sean McBride led the international commission that investigated the invasion by Israel and found it wrongful. Might take up some of the points later — running now — but just to say that Sean MacBride was a fascinating character. There’s plenty about him not to like, but an intriguing man. His memoir – That Day’s Struggle – is a great read. There is going to be a natural instinctive hostility by our American regulars here to comments that appear to justify the killing of US troops wherever it happens in the world and in whatever circumstances but I do think it is unfair to regard such views as being indicative of a blind hatred for everything American. I was 14 at the time of those bombings and while I do remember the incident I wasn’t familiar with or even knew in fact that American troops were in Lebanon. All I knew about that place is that it was a chaotic battleground for all sorts of violent factions and military/political proxy grandstanding and it just seemed a tragedy for the ordinary people who had no choice but to live with endless conflict and slaughter. ok not true well lets look at this shall we, how many ships in their Navy? How many Planes in their Airforce? How many Tanks and Armored divisions in their Army? They are 104th out of 166 I apply the same equation today to the Brits. There are 3 Militaries in the World the Chinese, The Russian, and the American. That’s it. Against those 3 no other nation without using nukes could last a month, most not even a week. Colm It’s not that. I have stated that my country is far from perfect (even if I act otherwise) There is without a doubt though many that are on here regularly that view the U.S. as an evil presence on the world stage. The facts of history prove that not to be the case. There is no point in history where mankind has not been at war, as a nation there are things that we have to do for our safety and interests. As does every Nation. Perhaps its a pipe dream Troll, but the greatest aim for governments and indeed everyone worldwide should be to alter the culture so that the use of militarism to resolve conflicts is more and more alienated and correspondingly the existence of all armed forces is gradually but genuinely reduced to complete redundancy. I know it will never happen but it would be a good point of focus to at least attempt it. Comments are closed.