Zionist lobby worries about loosing influence

[Klucker]

Jewish Groups Monitor US Lawmakers' Lobby-Sponsored Trips To Israel.

In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, Jewish groups are closely watching plans to restrict lawmakers' lobbyist-sponsored travel, which could have a devastating impact on Israel trips that build support for the Jewish state in Congress.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605889574&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

discussed:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_government&Number=294354133#Post294354133

House GOP Considers Ban on Lobby-Paid Travel. Zionists worried

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:fWPIjRpXA6gJ:www.mezomorf.com/washington/news-20486.html+David+Dreier+travel+lobby&hl=en&client=netscape-pp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics

**************************************************

Bush-Abramoff Photos "Suggest A Level Of Contact Between Them That Bush's Aides Have Downplayed"...

… a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/22/time-bushabramoff-photo_n_14246.html

[jayhawk]

Jewish Groups Monitor US Lawmakers' Lobby-Sponsored Trips To Israel.

In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, Jewish groups are closely watching plans to restrict lawmakers' lobbyist-sponsored travel, which could have a devastating impact on Israel trips that build support for the Jewish state in Congress.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605889574&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

discussed:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_government&Number=294354133#Post294354133

House GOP Considers Ban on Lobby-Paid Travel. Zionists worried

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:fWPIjRpXA6gJ:www.mezomorf.com/washington/news-20486.html+David+Dreier+travel+lobby&hl=en&client=netscape-pp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics

**************************************************

Bush-Abramoff Photos "Suggest A Level Of Contact Between Them That Bush's Aides Have Downplayed"...

… a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/22/time-bushabramoff-photo_n_14246.html

I can't remember who it was but some scandal guy, maybe a chinese connected to the over seas financing of the Clinton campaign, showed up in the same picture with Bill C. at a white house event. Seems like Bill and George are cut from the same dirty rags.

[Bertrand]

I can't remember who it was but some scandal guy, maybe a chinese connected to the over seas financing of the Clinton campaign, showed up in the same picture with Bill C. at a white house event. Seems like Bill and George are cut from the same dirty rags.


It makes more sense to associate with 1.2 billion people than a mere 6 million if we care for America's welbeing and future.

Pete McCloskey saw that long time a ago in the 70's when he was running for president. But AIPAC and their myriad of Zionist affiliations axed Pete right away and he had to give up even politics for a professorship at Standford U. But AIPAC even tried to get him fired from Stanford... as these buggers are everywhere in the U.S. from the government top to any institution wanting to keep their cow cash for their theocratic racist state!

[Klucker]

Bertrand.

If these buggers would lay low and assimilate, nobody would bother them. - Anti-Semitism would not exist.

It is their endless scheming that annoys the Goyim.

[Bertrand]

Bertrand.

If these buggers would lay low and assimilate, nobody would bother them. - Anti-Semitism would not exist.

It is their endless scheming that annoys the Goyim.

I have always said that what they claim deliberately as being Anti-Semitism is MOSTLY (99%) directed to their FUCKING SELFISH ARROGANT and GREEDY BEHAVIOR.

However, they DELIBERATELY make is a racial and ethnic issue... The culture is rotten... as can be seen that line works fine with the ENABLERS... at large... and at THIS forum... with the DINGOS and DUMBOS of America!

IT'S THE FUCKING BEHAVIOR... FUCKING BEHAVIOR!

WHO CARES WHAT RACE, CULTURE, or ETHNIC GROUP.

But... that DELIBERATE & INTENTIONAL CONSTANT EFFORT IS TO CONVERT IT INTO SOMETHING RACIAL... to keep exploiting America and Americans!

DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR!

[halva]

Israel has to be integrated into the European Union, with Europeans behaving like adults for once and not pathetic stooges of the adolescent U.S.A..

[Bertrand]

Bertrand.

If these buggers would lay low and assimilate, nobody would bother them. - Anti-Semitism would not exist.

It is their endless scheming that annoys the Goyim.

They are hardly 10 million and want to swallow billions of people in their arrogant materialism greed and selfishness.

Any wonder why they are hated around the world.

Too bad America has allowed that kind of unacceptable BEHAVIOR to be supported FINANCIALLY by us taxpayers. This has got to change within the next decade.

Anyway, once America gets in dire financial straits... which is ahead and coming in time... given the powerful and unsurmountable world trends at the present... America will be UNABLED to continue down this path of supporting their racist theocracy.

Greed and ambition has blinded these Zionist radicals... as they are now DOING IT TO THEMSELVES... AGAINST their own LONG TERM interests.

They seem not to realize that the trends have now turned against them and the continuation of that same ugly BEHAVIOR of exploitation in greed and extreme selfishness.

[Dingo]

In the case of Berty Boy and Klucker, some of their anger at Israel and the Zionists could be taken seriously if it weren't for the fact they are both part of a gaggle of Jew haters on this board. Berty Boy can take credit for being the original Jew hater, who hijacked a board that was full of serious critics of Israel, including myself, and helped turn it into a place of Nazi style Jew bashing. I do my criticism of Israel and RW Zionism on other boards. It's a matter of the company you keep.

Now boys as you were saying?

[halva]

What is your proposal to Jew haters so that they may channel their hate into constructive activity that will be of benefit to Jews and non-Jews?

Please do not say that Jew-haters do not want to do anything to benefit Jews. It is not necessarily the first priority of Jew haters to do damage to Jews.

[halva]

Also, do not tell haters not to hate, because that is a Christian message.

[Dingo]

Halva, whatever others have told you, being incoherent does not make you profound. Your two posts above don't appear to offer a rational or meaningful question or comment. I dropped a piece of truth into a thread that was smelly with hypocrisy, insincerity and deceit. See if you can work with that.

[halva]

Halva, whatever others have told you, being incoherent does not make you profound. Your two posts above don't appear to offer a rational or meaningful question or comment. I dropped a piece of truth into a thread that was smelly with hypocrisy, insincerity and deceit. See if you can work with that.

How about getting out of reactive mode for once in your life and telling Jew haters what it is that you are demanding of them other than that they be something different from what they are and think something different from what they think.

Propose something to which every thinking person might be able to assent.

This is the obligation that should go hand in hand with power, and identification with it. Israel is power.

[halva]

According to Chossudovsky, Israel and the US are on the verge of launching a nuclear war against Iran.

Are you going to justify it? If not, what is your counterproposal?

[Dingo]

According to Chossudovsky, Israel and the US are on the verge of launching a nuclear war against Iran.

Are you going to justify it? If not, what is your counterproposal?

Now you are asking a meaningful question. I don't believe a war against Iran is any kind of answer. My answer is. Oppose it and work through international agencies to see that Iran doesn't get added to the nuclear club. In the long term all nations, including Israel and the US should make their nuclear programs open to international inspection and a conference toward eliminating all nuclear arms on a time table should be supported, including supporting candidates who back that perspective.

[halva]

What should our first action be when/if we fail to stop the war against Iran?

[halva]

http://www.zeitenschrift.net/magazin/2-jfk.ihtml

HUSHED-UP: THE MISSING LINK TO JFK ASSASSINATION
Did John F. Kennedy's determined (and then secret) behind-the-scenes efforts to prevent Israel from building a nuclear weapons arsenal play a pivotal part in the events that led to his assassination on November 22, 1963?


By Michael Collins Piper

Was Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, a front-line player in the JFK assassination conspiracy alongside elements of the CIA and international organized crime? Why did Hollywood film-maker Oliver Stone fail to reveal-in his 1993 all-star JFK assassination extravaganza-that the hero of his epic, former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, had privately concluded that the Mossad was ultimately the driving force behind JFK's murder?
As worldwide attention focuses on the problems of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East-is it valid or appropriate to raise the question of possible Israeli complicity in the assassination of an American president? These are just a few of the hotly controversial questions being posed by this author's book, Final Judgment, which has emerged as a proverbial "underground best-seller" in the United States, the topic of heated debate on the Internet and the subject of angry exchanges in a variety of public forums.

What Oliver Stone didn't tell us
In 1992, former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, a liberal Republican, made the little-noticed but intriguing comment that "in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories."
Where in the world could Findley-never known to be an extremist, by any means, and certainly not one given to venting conspiracy theories-have ever come up with such an assertion?
Actually, it's no so extraordinary a thesis, if one looks at the historical record, placing all of the conventional theories about the JFK assassination in a new perspective, calculating in previously-little known details that shed stark light on the circumstances surrounding JFK's demise and the geopolitical crises in which the American president was embroiled at the time of his shocking murder.
In truth, even the most recently widely-disseminated exposition of JFK assassination theorizing-Oliver Stone's 1993 blockbuster film, JFK-did not present even the entire picture.
Although Stone portrayed former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as a hero for pointing the finger in the direction of elements of the U.S. military and intelligence networks as the guiding force behind JFK's murder, what Stone didn't tell his audience was something even more controversial: that, privately, after some years of research and reflection, Garrison had reached an even more startling determination: that the driving force behind JFK's murder was no less than Israel's feared intelligence service, the Mossad.
As astounding as it sounds, there's actually good reason to conclude that Garrison may have been looking in the right direction. And in this day when the debate over "weapons of mass destruction" is in the forefront of global discussion, it is not so extraordinary a thesis as it seems.
Although more than 40 years have passed, fascination with the murder of America's 35th president won't go away. Assassination "buffs"-not just in the United States but around the globe-continue to chip away at the conclusions of the two official U.S. government investigations into the affair.
Although the 1979 report by a special committee of the U.S. Congress formally contradicted the earlier 1964 finding by the presidentially-appointed Warren Commission that alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone and concluded instead that there was indeed the likelihood of a conspiracy behind the president's murder-hinting broadly at the involvement by organized crime-the congressional committee's final determination actually raised more questions, in some respects, than it answered.
In 1993 Hollywood's Oliver Stone entered the fray with his blockbuster, JFK, which presented Stone's interpretation of the widely-publicized 1967-1969 JFK assassination inquiry by then-New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
Stone's film-featuring Kevin Costner as Garrison-raised the specter of involvement by elements of the so-called "military-industrial complex," along with a scattering of anti-Castro Cuban exiles, right-wing militants, and rogue Central Intelligence Agency operatives. The film told the story of Garrison's investigation, and ultimately unsuccessful prosecution, of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw (then suspected of being-and later proven to be-a collaborator with the CIA) for involvement in the JFK conspiracy.
However, as we now know, not even Stone was faithful to his hero. Longtime independent JFK assassination investigator A. J. Weberman has since revealed that, during the 1970s-well after Garrison's prosecution of Shaw-that Garrison was circulating the manuscript for a novel (never published) in which Garrison named Israel's Mossad as the mastermind of the JFK assassination conspiracy.
Garrison never said anything about this unusual thesis-at least publicly. But beginning in the mid-1980s and well into the present day, new evidence has emerged that not only points to good reason for Mossad motivation to move against John F. Kennedy, but also to the likelihood that not only Clay Shaw (Garrison's target) but other key figures often associated in published writings with the JFK assassination were indeed closely tied to the Mossad and doing its bidding.
And what is particularly interesting is that none of the individuals in question-Shaw included-happened to be Jewish. So the assertion that allegations of Mossad involvement are somehow "anti-Semitic" in nature fall flat on that fact alone. But Mossad complicity-as the record indicates-is a very real possibility.
Garrison's critics continue to assert that the New Orleans District Attorney couldn't make up his mind as to whom he thought had orchestrated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This indeed was the primary complaint against the rambunctious and outspoken and quite colorful prosecutor: that he simply couldn't make up his mind. And this is one of the reasons that even many of Garrison's supporters not only began to question his sincerity, but even as to whether Garrison's investigation was even worth the trouble.
In truth, Garrison did tend to shoot from the hip. That may have been his biggest mistake-one of many-in the course of his controversial inquiry into the murder of America's 35th president.
At one time or another, during the course of that investigation, Garrison pointed his finger at one or another various possible conspirators-ranging from "right-wing extremists" to "Texas oil barons" to "anti-Castro Cuban exiles" to "rogue CIA operatives." Occasionally Garrison went so far as to say that the conspiracy included a combination of those possible conspirators.

Clay Shaw - a CIA asset
When Garrison finally brought one man to trial, widely respected New Orleans trade executive Clay Shaw, Garrison had narrowed his field, suggesting, primarily, that Shaw had been one of the lower-level players in the conspiracy. According to Garrison, Shaw was essentially doing the bidding of highly-placed figures in what has roughly been described as "the military-industrial complex," that combination of financial interests and armaments manufacturers whose power and influence in official Washington-and around the world-is a very real force in global affairs.
Garrison suggested that Shaw and his co-conspirators had multiple motivations stimulating their decision to move against President Kennedy. Among other things, he asserted:

The conspirators opposed JFK's decision to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Indochina;

They were angry at his failure to provide military cover support for Cuban exiles attempting to topple Fidel Castro in the botched Bay of Pigs invasion;

[halva]

They were bitter at JFK for firing longtime CIA Director Allen Dulles, a grand old man of the Cold War against the Soviet Union; and

In addition, Garrison hinted, JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, may have wanted JFK removed from office for the purpose of claiming the crown for himself, but also because JFK and his younger brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were not only plotting to remove Johnson from the Democratic national ticket in 1964, as well as conducting federal criminal investigations of many of Johnson's closest associates and financial backers-even including in the realm of organized crime.
In the end, after a relatively brief deliberation, the jury hearing the Shaw case acquitted Shaw. It was only later-much later-that evidence emerged that Shaw had indeed been a CIA informant, Shaw's protestations the contrary. Only in recent years has it been determined, for example, that the American CIA was deliberately sabotaging Garrison's investigation from within, not to mention providing assistance to Shaw's defense. And although there are those who continue to say that Shaw's acquittal "proved" that Shaw had nothing whatsoever to do with the JFK conspiracy, the bigger picture suggests quite the contrary.
Shaw was involved with something very murky and so were others in Shaw's circle of friends and associates. And they were, in turn, directly connected to the strange activities of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, the summer just prior to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, before Oswald's sojourn to Dallas. Dozens of writers-many with differing points of view-have documented all of this, time and again.

The hidden bomb shell unearthed
So although the "official" legend is that Jim Garrison believed that the CIA and the military-industrial complex were the prime movers behind JFK's murder, when all was said and done, however, Jim Garrison had privately reached quite a different conclusion, one that remains largely unknown even to many people who worked with Garrison throughout the course of his investigation. In fact, as noted, Garrison had decided-based on the entirety of everything that he had learned, from a wide variety of sources-that the most likely masterminds of the JFK assassination were operatives of Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad.
The remarkable truth is that-although Garrison apparently didn't know it at the time, precisely because the facts had yet to be revealed-Garrison may have been on to something, far more than he realized. The public record now demonstrates that in 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter secret conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion over Israel's drive to build the atomic bomb; that Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that because of JFK's policies, Israel's "existence [was] in danger." Then upon JFK's assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate 180-degree turnaround.
Israeli historian Avner Cohen's new book, Israel and the Bomb, confirms the conflict between JFK and Israel so powerfully that, Israel's Ha'aretz, declared Cohen's revelations would "necessitate the rewriting of Israel's entire history." From Israel's perspective, writes Cohen, "Kennedy's demands [on Israel] seemed diplomatically inappropriate…inconsistent with national sovereignty." In any case, Cohen pointed out, "the transition from Kennedy to [Lyndon] Johnson…benefited the Israeli nuclear program."
Ethan Bronner, in the New York Times, called Israel's drive to build a nuclear bomb "a fiercely hidden subject." This explains why JFK researchers-and Jim Garrison-never considered an Israeli.
While all of this presents a strong motive for Israel to strike against JFK, even maverick Israeli journalist Barry Chamish acknowledges that there exists "a pretty cogent case" for Mossad collaboration with the CIA in the assassination conspiracy.
The fact is that when Jim Garrison prosecuted Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the Mossad link.
(…

[Dingo]

Halva, Oswald did it alone. That's what the evidence shows. Get used to it. As for the Mossad connection, on two posts you offer not one piece of evidence, only motivation and Garrison thinking it might be possible. That's pretty thin gruel. I'd say you have a few axes to grind.

[halva]

"Get used to it" is the language of power.

Are you more powerful than me?

How about continuing the nuclear disarmament debate we started.

[halva]

Clearly dingo is capable only of reactive postings.

How did he choose that name anyway?

Dingoes, as far as I know, don't even react. They just run away.

Dingo in Australia is a synonym for coward.

[Dingo]

Clearly dingo is capable only of reactive postings.

How did he choose that name anyway?

Dingoes, as far as I know, don't even react. They just run away.

Dingo in Australia is a synonym for coward.
Yeah, serious dumbasses scare me. lol. Isn't a halva some kind of over sweet pastry. I guess we could have fun with that one.

[halva]

Now you are asking a meaningful question. I don't believe a war against Iran is any kind of answer. My answer is. Oppose it and work through international agencies to see that Iran doesn't get added to the nuclear club. In the long term all nations, including Israel and the US should make their nuclear programs open to international inspection and a conference toward eliminating all nuclear arms on a time table should be supported, including supporting candidates who back that perspective.

What should our first action be when/if we fail to stop the war against Iran?

[halva]

http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/

[halva]

Yeah, serious dumbasses scare me. lol. Isn't a halva some kind of over sweet pastry. I guess we could have fun with that one.

Reactive posting.

[halva]

What should our first action be when/if we fail to stop the war against Iran?

[Dingo]

Reactive posting.
Reactive posting - touche. lol

As for your following post that's an after the shit-hits-the-fan post and is the least subject to deliberative citizen political action. Learn how to ask a good question while taking time off from conspiracy fantasies.

[halva]

Just one reactive spasm after another, delivered in the tone of a schoolmaster, who unfortunately has no lesson to teach.

It looks very much as if the shit is going to hit the fan, and there is a serious question as to what concerned citizens can do.

My view, on the most general level, is that Israel has to be denuclearised, with the nuclear 'security guarantee' provided by the United States, for such sections of the population as continue to believe that they can gain security from nuclear weapons, and that the world, and Israel itself would benefit from being integrated into a (denuclearised) European Union.

But how one is to start moving towards objectives like that after a nuclear attack on Iran is a daunting question. I can understand why people are throwing up their hands in despair.

What are your objectives, and how will you start moving towards them if/when "the shit hits the fan"? You don't think a military attack is a justified solution to "the problem" (the problem, for you, being presumably Iran's pursuit of its nuclear programme). So what happens when "the solution" that is applied is not the one you favour?

[Dingo]

Here's a thought from that great American geometrician and engineer Buckminster Fuller. The world in a certain sense is reduceable to the number 2. This two can be described as push and pull or, for the more technical, tension and compression. The corrollary to that in our present discussion would be action and reaction. You have attempted a false dichotomy here. What you call action is simply the discussion following a course that you prefer and what you call reaction is simply a response you find unacceptable. You are confusing subjective preference for some kind of higher seriousness. I think the distinction you want is SOLUTION BASED as opposed to random content. That's just the way it appears to me.

My second point is it is bad protocol to radically change a post that has been responded to. Your dumb Dingo post had elicited a response from me and now my response is left hanging without a reference point. It looks stupid. You could have posted that link later on.

As far as denuclearizing Israel, good luck. At the heart of the idea of the Israeli state is the belief that Israel must be able to ensure its own security. No way will they give up their weapons as long as a state of beligerancy exists. Inspections as part of a worldwide program could be tried but it would have to apply to everybody including the US and then we would probably have to threaten them with a complete aid cutoff to get them to go along. Hell we haven't got the political cogones to make them negotiate their way out of the occupied territories so I don't see much in the near future on the nuclear front.

I don't see Israel being integrated into Europe as a Zionist state. I'm sure that would violate the EU's rules of membership.

One can only talk seriously as a citizen about what to do before an attack on Iran. I think Iran and the US hold the major cards here. Israel clearly is determined to insure its security interests. Afterwards its pretty much in the hands of the action boys. At that point maybe I'll go try and save a redwood.

[halva]

Here's a thought from that great American geometrician and engineer Buckminster Fuller. The world in a certain sense is reduceable to the number 2. This two can be described as push and pull or, for the more technical, tension and compression. The corrollary to that in our present discussion would be action and reaction. You have attempted a false dichotomy here. What you call action is simply the discussion following a course that you prefer and what you call reaction is simply a response you find unacceptable.


I do not intend to react to that.

I have made it clear what state of affairs I would prefer to the present situation.

You have not done the same, for the simple reason that you clearly have no policy other than to facilitate or adapt to whatever 'facts' are produced by current 'decision-makers'. .


You are confusing subjective preference for some kind of higher seriousness. I think the distinction you want is SOLUTION BASED as opposed to random content. That's just the way it appears to me.

My second point is it is bad protocol to radically change a post that has been responded to.


If that is bad protocol what are we to call a false accusation of having changed a post? Better check again.


Your dumb Dingo post had elicited a response from me and now my response is left hanging without a reference point. It looks stupid. You could have posted that link later on.


My Dingo post was not dumb. I stand by it and I have not changed it.


As far as denuclearizing Israel, good luck.


What does this mean? It is a policy you claim to favour yourself. What are your ideas on how it may be achieved?


At the heart of the idea of the Israeli state is the belief that Israel must be able to ensure its own security. No way will they give up their weapons as long as a state of beligerancy exists.


This is at the heart of the idea of any state. But other states consent to conditional subordination to the hegemon. Israel is going to have to do the same, because it is unnatural and unviable for such a small state to be the global hegemon.


Inspections as part of a worldwide program could be tried but it would have to apply to everybody including the US and then we would probably have to threaten them with a complete aid cutoff to get them to go along.


It would not HAVE to do anything if the relevant decision were made. I reject your attempt to persist in policies that have been failing for decades. To me this indicates that you want them to fail.


Hell we haven't got the political cogones to make them negotiate their way out of the occupied territories so I don't see much in the near future on the nuclear front.

I don't see Israel being integrated into Europe as a Zionist state. I'm sure that would violate the EU's rules of membership.


The EU and Israel can both do whatever their peoples decide to do.


One can only talk seriously as a citizen about what to do before an attack on Iran. I think Iran and the US hold the major cards here. Israel clearly is determined to insure its security interests. Afterwards its pretty much in the hands of the action boys. At that point maybe I'll go try and save a redwood.

I refuse to humour your attempt at light-hearted facetiousness. The world has never before been in such a dire situation as it is now. I am much more willing to tolerate Jew haters than I am to tolerate someone who is flippant in the face of what we can expect over the next months.

I reiterate my original question, but you have in any case by now made it abundantly clear that you cannot or will not answer it.

I think that from this point onwards, any interaction will be repetitive.

Do you enjoy repetition, or are you going to abandon this thread?

[Dingo]

If that is bad protocol what are we to call a false accusation of having changed a post? Better check again.


Oops, made a mistake. Sorry about that.

As for the rest, stick it up your ass. You're obviously only here to peddle yourself as some sort of superior thinker. Actually I'd say you're closer to a moron.

[halva]

Oops, made a mistake. Sorry about that.

As for the rest, stick it up your ass. You're obviously only here to peddle yourself as some sort of superior thinker. Actually I'd say you're closer to a moron.

Is this your way of withdrawing?

If so, accepted.

[Dingo]

Is this your way of withdrawing?

If so, accepted.
Who said anything about withdrawing? And if I chose to, what possibly could your acceptance have to do with anything? Are you up for the roll of Lancelot or something? lol

Now the larger question is how do we develop a common agreement to phase out all weapons of mass destruction and what is the method of enforcement? You might have some thoughts on that. When the war is on there isn't a lot you can do but duck into the root cellar until things have calmed down.

[halva]

There are no other nuclear-weapons-armed states in the Middle East so the nuclear disarmament process could start with Israel.

After all, during the Cold War, when the dominant ideology justifying nuclear weapons possession was the 'balance of terror' ideology, nuclear weapons were supposed to be for 'deterrence' of the nuclear weapons of the other side.

If the other side doesn't have nuclear weapons, this particular kind of 'deterrence' is not required.

There is the precedent of South Africa, which once had a nuclear arsenal, but abolished it as part of the process of similarly abolishing apartheid. South Africa's neighbours did not have nuclear weapons, so what were South Africa's nuclear weapons for? And Israel played an important role in assisting nuclear weapons proliferation to South Africa. That particular dead-end development seems to have been checked. Let us hope permanently.

Israel also helped India onto the nuclear road. This proliferation process is illegitimate. The South African example shows that it can be rolled back.

So, take things a step at a time, with nuclear disarmament of the United States at the very end of the road IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FREELY CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT STEP.

Let the United States security guarantee to Israel continue, and let Israel commence a process of integration into the European Community ON THE SAME TERMS AS THE OTHER EUROPEAN COMMUNITY MEMBER STATES.

Nuclear disarmament can proceed through bilateral or trilateral agreement (on the Brazil/Argentine model). France and Great Britain sign an agreement with Russia. China and Pakistan make an agreement with India.

This will just leave the United States, with no need to build Star Wars defences against nuclear missiles from other countries, because no other countries will have nuclear missiles.

This process should have been initiated in 1991, when the Soviet Union disintegrated. If Yeltsin had been able to get his way, it would have been. Russian nuclear weapons would have been abolished along with those of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

[halva]

Aki Orr wrote a paper on Israeli nuclear weapons. His demands are more modest, and some people might think less unrealistic.

I am prepared to go along with what Aki proposes, if it starts things moving.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=454445&postcount=6
and
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=454449&postcount=7
and
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=454456&postcount=8

Forget about the criticisms I wrote of what Aki Orr said in his article. I will bloc behind Aki at this particular point in time.

[halva]

As for the method of enforcement: the IAEA could be the enforcer, as it is now. Of course, its support for 'peaceful' nuclear activities would have to be contested.

But its work in preventing nuclear weapons development would be made much easier by dismantling of the popular myth that some benefit is to be derived from the possession of nuclear weapons.

[Dingo]

There are no other nuclear-weapons-armed states in the Middle East so the nuclear disarmament process could start with Israel.

Well there’s Pakistan and they are just one leader away from being a fundi Muslim state. Using that fact would probably be a strong excuse for Israel resisting a nuclear free ME pact.

I can’t think of any political idea that is more imbedded than that Israel must insure its own defense. Good luck to anybody who can overcome that including your idea of the US defense umbrella and Israel joining the EU. I can’t even picture Israel accepting that as a trade off for its own nukes much less the scuttling of their Zionist policies that a membership in the EU would require.

A question is what should the US do in the ME if it was free from Israeli lobby pressure? Answer, cutoff Israel’s payments until they declare themselves ready to negotiate a full withdrawal from the post 1967 occupied territories and accept international inspection of their nuclear facilities and armaments. The submarines at a minimum give them the camouflage they need to prevent a nuclear first strike against them. That is about the most I could expect out of Israel under the most severe American pressure. As part of the negotiations Iran would have to accept full inspections of their nuclear facilities and agree to no nuclear weapons. Pakistan would remain as the Muslim state representative in the nuclear club.

From there the question becomes a world wide stand down on all WMDs phased out under rigorous international inspections of everybody including us.

The parallel on going alternative is to create a time capsule that will explain to the possible survivors of an all out world war, who will have been thrown back to some version of the stone age and therefore, hallelujah, able to start with a clean slate, how to build a new world and this time get it right. Oddly that kind of thinking could feed back constructively to our present dilemma.

My general expectation is the human race probably isn’t going to make it. I can offer at least two reasons.

1. As Carl Sagan has suggested a probable reason that we have not been able make radio contact with other intelligent life is any creature that evolved enough to send radio signals would no doubt have confronted the WMD phase in their evolution and probably not survived it.

2. According to evolutionists something like 99.5% of the species that have ever evolved on this planet are extinct. Our record of applying so much of genius to mutual destruction suggests we will probably join the majority.

Any solution to our immanent crisis must inevitably start out with the assumption that we are simply apes with enlarged data bases. Our ape tribalism will inevitably trump our international sympathies. Our one out is when faced with our immanent destruction we sometimes do look up and seriously think about alternatives. Think of the Cuban missile crisis.

Someone once said the only way the world will unite is if they are attacked from outer space. Maybe we can sell WMDs as our outer space attackers and that will kick us in the butt to do something. I doubt it but who knows.

[halva]

I am not tolerant of musings of this kind on the inherent self-destructiveness of the human race. Either they are a frivolous intellectual conceit, in which case they are deplorable and even contemptible, or if not frivolous they make any kind of intellectual debate totally absurd..

Yes, yes, yes, totally humourless. This is probably why I don't feel very good discussing any of these issues with people who are outside the Communist or ex-Communist mindset, within which dialogue takes on an altogether different character. The only reason I am talking to you is because of anger at the way you were addressing those people you think of as Jew-haters. It was/is a waste of your intellect and culture to be doing that, just as it is probably a waste of my limited mental and time resources to be engaging with you.


Well there’s Pakistan and they are just one leader away from being a fundi Muslim state. Using that fact would probably be a strong excuse for Israel resisting a nuclear free ME pact.


Pakistan is entirely reactive to India. If the Western anti-nuclear movements had not indulged India's thumbing its nose at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 (in reaction to US, French, British 'hypocrisy' over the Non-Proliferation Treaty), both India and Pakistan would be on the road to denuclearisation. And Benazhir Bhutto may have survived longer in office.

This is why I utterly reject your 'comprehensive' approach, tying progress with nuclear disarmament elsewhere to progress with nuclear disarmament in the United States. I have had enough, enough, enough of this cynical game. Americans can do as they like, disarm or not disarm. It is none of our business.


I can’t think of any political idea that is more imbedded than that Israel must insure its own defense. Good luck to anybody who can overcome that including your idea of the US defense umbrella and Israel joining the EU. I can’t even picture Israel accepting that as a trade off for its own nukes much less the scuttling of their Zionist policies that a membership in the EU would require.


There are (Jewish) forces in Israel who want to see such trade-offs. If the rest of the world can get its head in order, many seemingly impossible things become possible.


A question is what should the US do in the ME if it was free from Israeli lobby pressure? Answer, cutoff Israel’s payments until they declare themselves ready to negotiate a full withdrawal from the post 1967 occupied territories and accept international inspection of their nuclear facilities and armaments. The submarines at a minimum give them the camouflage they need to prevent a nuclear first strike against them. That is about the most I could expect out of Israel under the most severe American pressure.


I don't say no to any move in this direction. Once it starts it can only accelerate.


As part of the negotiations Iran would have to accept full inspections of their nuclear facilities and agree to no nuclear weapons.


Until recently they have been doing that. I don't defend any aspect of Iran's or any other country's nuclear programme, military or civilian.


Pakistan would remain as the Muslim state representative in the nuclear club.


India, Pakistan and China should negotiate a regional nuclear-free treaty parallel to the Nuclear-Free Middle East treaty we (or I) want to get Israel to accept.

No toleration for a nuclear-armed Pakistan.


From there the question becomes a world wide stand down on all WMDs phased out under rigorous international inspections of everybody including us.


I have told you that I reject this approach. I am not going to have you holding up nuclear disarmament by your insistence that other states (or non-elected international bodies) give orders to Americans to disarm. It is your business. Stop involving us in your domestic affairs.

I couldn't be bothered commenting on the rest of your posting.

[Dingo]

Halva I must say, even though I'm sure it's a character defect, I get a kick out of watching you trip over your silly posturings. By the way, I didn't know you were operating from a set of Marxist categories. That makes it actually kind of intriguing. Where is the "class" factor? I must have missed it. Perhaps we could get Neuro to jump in and clarify things.

You appear to be a serious fellow who is nevertheless kind of clueless. I made four points which are immanently important but apparently you are not prepared to handle.
1. Pakistan's leader has been nearly assassinated a number of times by Islamicists and much of the military and intelligence and public sympathies are on side of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Kahn, their nuclear proliferater, was spreading nuclear bomb making technology and know how to who? It's not an accident that OBL has been able to stay alive within Pakistan. To indicate the focus is strictly India is just part of you being trapped in an historical time warp.

2. You have to start with human nature so you have a clear idea of the parameters you are operating in. I can see the Marxist Lockian bias toward cultural factors exclusively might make that a problem for you.

3. No one is finally going to take disarming their own countries seriously who feels under any kind of international threat. South Africa is a very poor country under no international threat that simply could not sustain the costs of a nuclear infrastructure. Your China India Pakistan scenario is beyond a joke. Now who is China most concerned about getting nuked by? A background of general WMD disarmament has to be there otherwise the nationalistic impulse to not give up a strategic advantage will simply continue the escalation.

4. As for addressing the Jew hating business it does in fact have a very productive basis. Israel to a large degree and its often destructive psychology of Zionism is proped up by Jew hatred, it's almost symbiotic. The folks I'm addressing are like wolfs in sheep's clothing, supposed critics of Israel but in fact part of the Jew bashing psychology that keeps rightwing Zionism in business. Link criticism of Israeli policies to Jew bashing and you put the other side on the moral high road and keep them viable. Pehaps as a Marxist this point might ring a bell. Think of how the communists in Germany helped bring Hitler to power by undermining the governing party by conflating them with the Nazis. Remember Hindenburg and his crew were the "social fascists." Distinctions are important and sometimes critical. You can't have good policies unless you are clear on what's what.

I know you think problems can be solved in your narrow dimensioned schlerotic world, halva, and I give you credit for trying but somehow I doubt your fish out of water approach has much of a future.

[halva]

Halva I must say, even though I'm sure it's a character defect, I get a kick out of watching you trip over your silly posturings. By the way, I didn't know you were operating from a set of Marxist categories. That makes it actually kind of intriguing. Where is the "class" factor? I must have missed it. Perhaps we could get Neuro to jump in and clarify things.


Pursuing this dialogue rather than using all available time with our respective reference groups solving the problems we are talking about is a sign of character defect in both of us.

My invocation of Marxism has at least concentrated your mind and weaned you away from reflections that you would be better off sharing with your wife, your friends or your rabbi than with me. As for the class factor, what you have missed is that this discussion is itself the class struggle. You must be used to hearing people talking about it rather than engaging in it.


You appear to be a serious fellow who is nevertheless kind of clueless. I made four points which are immanently important but apparently you are not prepared to handle.
1. Pakistan's leader has been nearly assassinated a number of times by Islamicists and much of the military and intelligence and public sympathies are on side of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Kahn, their nuclear proliferater, was spreading nuclear bomb making technology and know how to who? It's not an accident that OBL has been able to stay alive within Pakistan. To indicate the focus is strictly India is just part of you being trapped in an historical time warp.


I dealt with this subject in my 'Nuclear Weapons and Representative Democracy':
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAL20060125&articleId=1806

Specifically: "In 1996 when India refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Greenpeace, indeed the anti-nuclear movement in general, allowed the nuclear-armed Indian government to play the role of their anti-nuclear attorney against the USA. They therefore did not condemn India's refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and so pulled the rug from under Benazir Bhutto and her attempts to curb the expansion of the nuclear weapons program of Pakistan. Bhutto fell from power in October 1996, brought down by this issue among others. The anti-nuclear movements' indulgence of nuclear-armed India's anti-nuclear rhetoric against the United States stands in glaring contrast to their former absolute intolerance of similar double-standard politics from the peace committees of the Communist-controlled World Peace Council in the heyday of the Soviet Union."

As for Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, etc., I do not believe a single word that is written about these (in recently years) largely fictitious entities. You will call me a conspiracy theorist for this, just as you did for me raising the possibility that Mossad may have been involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Until you can show me that what is argued in David Ray Griffin's critique of the 9/11 Commission Report is baseless, you will excuse me for declining to participate in any discussion whatsoever where reference is made to these names. There is not enough ground for believing that either of us would know what we are talking about.

Whatever the ambitions of self-deluding marginal Islamists, Pakistan's nuclear weapons would have to be abolished if India's were. I don't know what Israel's objectives were in helping India with their nuclear weapons programme. Do you? In any case it all represents illegal and unacceptable horizontal proliferation of a kind that was kept more or less under control until the time of Kennedy's assassination and could be kept under control again if there could be an end to that sinister synergy between the secret services of the US and Israel that benefits the citizenry of neither of these states. If believing this is 'living in a time warp' please explain what benefits may be derived from updating oneself.


2. You have to start with human nature so you have a clear idea of the parameters you are operating in. I can see the Marxist Lockian bias toward cultural factors exclusively might make that a problem for you.


The message I get from this is that you believe it is 'human nature' to wish to possess nuclear weapons. My view is that it is not human nature but avoidable ignorance.


3. No one is finally going to take disarming their own countries seriously who feels under any kind of international threat. South Africa is a very poor country under no international threat that simply could not sustain the costs of a nuclear infrastructure. Your China India Pakistan scenario is beyond a joke. Now who is China most concerned about getting nuked by? A background of general WMD disarmament has to be there otherwise the nationalistic impulse to not give up a strategic advantage will simply continue the escalation.


This statement is predicated on the delusion that any country other than the most powerful nuclear-weapons possessing state can acquire ANY security from nuclear weapons possession. Have you learned nothing from what happened to the Soviet Union? After the initial mistake of embarking on nuclear weapons construction, China has been trying to avoid compounding the mistake by going down the nuclear arms race road of the Soviet Union. The question is not who they are concerned about getting nuked by. The question is whether they diminish or increase this danger by developing nuclear weapons themselves. The Soviet Union was brought down by the threat of a counter-force first strike. NATO's 'limited nuclear war' double whammy would not have been a viable strategy without the existence of Soviet nuclear weapons. They never tried it out on Stalin, before he had built his nukes. Nor do they try it out on Castro now. [Are you advocating that he should develop nuclear weapons?]


4. As for addressing the Jew hating business it does in fact have a very productive basis. Israel to a large degree and its often destructive psychology of Zionism is proped up by Jew hatred, it's almost symbiotic. The folks I'm addressing are like wolfs in sheep's clothing, supposed critics of Israel but in fact part of the Jew bashing psychology that keeps rightwing Zionism in business. Link criticism of Israeli policies to Jew bashing and you put the other side on the moral high road and keep them viable. Pehaps as a Marxist this point might ring a bell. Think of how the communists in Germany helped bring Hitler to power by undermining the governing party by conflating them with the Nazis. Remember Hindenburg and his crew were the "social fascists." Distinctions are important and sometimes critical. You can't have good policies unless you are clear on what's what.


Perhaps you should start applying to the Jew haters the policy I advocate applying in relation to the US and its nuclear weapons. It would make it harder for me to see you yourself as part of the problem.


I know you think problems can be solved in your narrow dimensioned schlerotic world, halva, and I give you credit for trying but somehow I doubt your fish out of water approach has much of a future.

Well, it is an empirical question whether it has a future or not. Is there any empirical test we can apply to determine whether your proposed alternative strategy has a future. Or don't you claim to propose an alternative? If so you would be confirming my claim that your only role is to facilitate and adapt to whatever facts "right-wing Zionism" and "US imperialism" have in store for us.

Look at it this way. Which of these approaches to likely coming developments with Iran seems less ineffectual?

This
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332323.html
(dissenting base of anti-nuclear movement)
or this:
http://www.cnduk.org/wsf.html
(CND: official anti-nuclear movement)

[halva]

Some extracts from Michael Collins Piper's "Hushed-Up: the Missing Link to JFK Assassination":

1.
"The public record now demonstrates that in 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter secret conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion over Israel's drive to build the atomic bomb, that Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that because of JFK's policies, Israel's "existence was in danger." Then, upon JFK's assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate 180-degree turnaround."

Israeli historian Avner Cohen's new book Israel and the Bomb confirms the conflict between JFK and Israel so powerfully that Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper declared Cohen's revelations would "necessitate the rewriting of Israel's entire history."

2. There is also firm evidence - based on revelations by the late respected journalist Stewart Alsop - that JFK was also planning a strike against Red China's nuclear bomb program - a plan scuttled by Lyndon Johnson within a month of JFK's assassination.

During this same period, according to famed British intelligence historian Donald McCormack (writing under his nom de plume Richard Deacon, in his book The Israeli Secret Service) Israel and Red China were involved in joint secret nuclear bomb research.

We now know, in addition, that a key player in the Permindex arms procurement web, Shaul Eisenberg, emerged as the Mossad's liaison with China and ultimately played the key role in developing the massive global weapons transfers between Israel and China that came to public attention in the 1980s.

[halva]

Pity the Orphan

Uri Avnery

21-1-06

IT WAS a colorful day in Bil'in. Political flags of many colors were fluttering in the brisk breeze, the vivid election posters and the colorful graffiti on the walls adding their bit. It was the biggest demonstration in the beleaguered village for a long time. This week, the protest against the Fence was interwoven with Palestinian electioneering.

I was happily marching along in the wintry sunshine, holding high the Gush Shalom emblem of the flags of Israel and Palestine side by side. We were approaching the line of armed soldiers that was waiting for us, when I suddenly realized that I was surrounded by the green flags of Hamas.

Ordinary Israelis would have been flabbergasted. What, the murderous terrorists marching in line with Israeli peace activists? Israelis marching, talking and joking with the potential suicide bombers? Impossible!

But it was quite natural. All the Palestinian parties took part in the demonstration, together with the Israeli and international activists. Together they ran away from the clouds of tear gas, broke together through the lines of soldiers, were beaten up together. The green flags of Hamas, the yellow of Fatah, the red of the Democratic Front and the blue-and-white of the Israeli flag on our emblems harmonized, as did the people who carried them.

In the end, many of us improvised a kind of protest concert. Standing along the iron security railing, Israelis and Palestinians together, we beat on it rhythmically with stones, producing something like an African tom-tom that could be heard for miles around. The Orthodox settlers in nearby Modiin-Illit must have wondered what it meant.

THE PARTICIPATION of all Palestinian parties was in itself an important phenomenon. It was no doubt encouraged by the Palestinian elections, due to take place this coming Wednesday. It was curious to see the same faces on the posters along our route and right next to us in the crowd.

But it also showed the importance the Fence has assumed in Palestinian eyes.

Years ago, when the construction of the Wall-cum-Fence was just beginning, I went to see Yasser Arafat to suggest a joint struggle against it. I got the impression that the idea that the Wall was a serious danger was quite new to him - the Palestinian establishment had not yet grasped the significance of it. Now it is near the top of the national agenda.

This week, on the eve of the elections in which Hamas is expected to gain a significant share of the vote, the picture of Hamas activists marching side by side with Israeli peace activists, was important. Because soon Hamas will enter the Palestinian Parliament and, perhaps, the government, too.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE sharply criticized the elections because of the participation of "terrorists", echoing the statement of her new Israeli colleague, Tsipi Livni, who declared that they are not "democratic elections" because of Hamas.

What is emerging now is a new pretext for our government to avoid negotiating with the elected Palestinian leadership. The pretext changes frequently, but the purpose remains the same.

First there was the assertion that Israel would not negotiate until the new Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, dismantles the "terrorist infrastructure". That was, indeed, an obligation under the Road Map - but so was the obligation, completely ignored by Ariel Sharon, simultaneously to remove the hundred settlements or so that were set up after his coming to power.

Then came the claim that the Palestinian Authority was in a state of anarchy. How can one negotiate with anarchy?

Now there comes the contention that Israel cannot possibly be expected to negotiate with a Palestinian leadership that includes Hamas, an organization that has carried out many suicide bombings and, at least officially, does not accept the existence of Israel..

The pretexts are manifold, and more can be produced if necessary. (Reminding me of my late friend, Natan Yellin-Mor, former leader of the "Stern Gang" terrorist underground and later peace activist, who said: "I wish God would put in my way as many temptations as I have pretexts for succumbing.")

Hamas' presence in the next Palestinian government is not a reason to reject peace negotiations. On the contrary, it is a compelling reason for starting them at long last. It would mean that we negotiate with the entire Palestinian spectrum (excluding only the small Islamic Jihad organization). If Hamas joins the government on the basis of Mahmoud Abbas' peace policy, it is manifestly ripe for negotiations, with or without arms, based on a hudnah (truce).

Thirty years ago, when I started secret contacts with the PLO leadership, I was almost the only person in Israel in favor of negotiating with the organization that was at the time officially designated as "terrorist". It took almost 20 years for the Israeli government to come round to my point of view. Now we are starting again from the same point.

Why do the Palestinian organizations refuse to give up their arms? Let's not deceive ourselves: for most Palestinians, these arms are a kind of strategic reserve. If negotiations with Israel lead nowhere, the armed struggle will probably be resumed. That by itself is not unheard of. (See: Ireland.)

EVEN IF Mahmoud Abbas wanted to disarm Hamas, he would be unable to. His weak position, combined with the weakness of his Fatah movement makes such a measure impossible.

This weakness, which also finds its expression in the Fawda ("anarchy"), derives mainly from one source: the sly efforts of Sharon to undermine his position.

I have pointed this out more than once: for Sharon, the rise of Abbas constituted a serious danger. Being favored by President Bush as an example of his success in bringing democracy and peace to the Middle East, he threatened the exclusive relationship between the US and Israel, perhaps even opening the way for American pressure on Israel.

To prevent this, Sharon denied Abbas even the slightest political concession, such as releasing prisoners (Marwan Barghouti springs to mind), changing the path of the Wall, freezing settlement, coordinating the withdrawal from Gaza with Abbas, etc. This campaign was successful. The authority of Abbas has been significantly weakened.

Now Sharon's successors are using this very weakness as a pretext to reject serious negotiations with him and the next Palestinian government, calling to mind the story of the boy who, having killed both his parents, threw himself upon the mercy of the court: "Have pity on a poor orphan!"

[halva]

January 31, 2006

Battle Plans for Iran document.write ("") document.write ("")
by Mike Whitney

http://www.opednews.com

In less than 24 hours the Bush administration has won impressive victories on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. At home, the far-right Federalist Society alum, Sam Alito, has overcome the feeble resistance from Democratic senators; ensuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court sometime late on Tuesday. Equally astonishing, the administration has coerced both Russia and China into bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council although (as Mohamed ElBaradei says) “There’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.” The surprising capitulation of Russia and China has forced Iran to abandon its efforts for further negotiations; cutting off dialogue that might diffuse the volatile situation.

“We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.

The administration’s success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton can make his appearance before the Security Council with allegations of “noncompliance” that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action.

The administration has no expectation of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. Its all for show. The trip to the Security Council is simply a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go excluding the requisite “touched up” satellite photos and spurious allegations of unreliable dissidents.

We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war is inevitable.

Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.

Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based” bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar” by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse” by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.

The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.

Battle Plans

The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.

Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency.

This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.

Invading Khuzestan

In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, “Khuzestan; the First Front in the War on Iran?”, Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the “"first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks."

This strategy has been called the “Khuzestan Gambit”, and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.

Tonkin Bay Redux

On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would “hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week” that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention. The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival.

Coincidence?

Probably not.

Step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing the its dream of controlling the world’s most valued resource. They won’t let that opportunity pass them by.

We're in for another war.

[whitemajikman]

In the case of Berty Boy and Klucker, some of their anger at Israel and the Zionists could be taken seriously if it weren't for the fact they are both part of a gaggle of Jew haters on this board. Berty Boy can take credit for being the original Jew hater, who hijacked a board that was full of serious critics of Israel, including myself, and helped turn it into a place of Nazi style Jew bashing. I do my criticism of Israel and RW Zionism on other boards. It's a matter of the company you keep.

Now boys as you were saying?


Dingo I have Known You For years.........


You Are A Zionist Supporter......

Who Uses The Term "JEW HATER" to stop all Scrutiny........

You are an enabler in your own right...........

WMM

[halva]

WMM welcome back but how about some postings that don't return us to repetitive old routines.

Optimistically Dingo has decided to apply his intelligence to something more purposeful than than Jew-hater-baiting at Arianna's.

Why not just exchange information here?

[Dingo]

Halva welcomes back one of the most notorious board Jew haters whose last singular contribution is that Dingo is a Zionist without having even having a shred of evidence to back that up.

Then halva pleads for an exchange of useful information. Halva is a very confused Greek dude.

Oh yeah halva. I want to hear more about the China Mossad nuclear axis? Was that before or after the Israeli hit on JFK?

[halva]

Why don't you just fight with WMM and leave me out of it?

I welcomed him back because he changed his public position on the subject of chemtrails possibly partially under my influence so that out of good manners I am more polite towards him than I used to be.

You obviously prefer endless and prospectless antagonism to discussion that could conceivably lead to some resolution (or even, God help us, "solution"). WMM may well be interested in accommodating you, so go for your life.

The Jew-haters will be pleased seeing Jews fighting each other.

[Dingo]

Seems like the only serious discussion you engage in is with me. You ought to thank your lucky stars you ungrateful Greek wretch. LOL

The Jew-haters will be pleased seeing Jews fighting each other.
Really, what Jew has Whiteman been fighting with recently? Perhaps you were being Socratic and imagining some energetic dialectic with WM's alter ego.

[whitemajikman]

Halva welcomes back one of the most notorious board Jew haters whose last singular contribution is that Dingo is a Zionist without having even having a shred of evidence to back that up.

Then halva pleads for an exchange of useful information. Halva is a very confused Greek dude.

Oh yeah halva. I want to hear more about the China Mossad nuclear axis? Was that before or after the Israeli hit on JFK?

Dingo, You Describe me as a "Notorious Jew Hater".........

When I am Not......

You Try Desperately to pin a Badge of Hatred on me, and with that Badge of Hatred You Leave Yourself Exposed.........

If You Are Not A PRO-ZIONIST .......Explain to me WHY you continually use Their Tactics.......Especially the Use of Trying to pin The Label Of Hatred on anyone whom you deem is not Supporting The Jews.

Whether you like it or not Dingo.....

Your As Transparent as Fine Polished Glass...............

WMM

[Dingo]

Dingo, You Describe me as a "Notorious Jew Hater".........

When I am Not......

You've got a track record boy. Start off with the "Protocols" and we'll take it from there.

[halva]

If You Are Not A PRO-ZIONIST .......Explain to me WHY you continually use Their Tactics.......Especially the Use of Trying to pin The Label Of Hatred on anyone whom you deem is not Supporting The Jews.

Whether you like it or not Dingo.....

Your As Transparent as Fine Polished Glass...............

WMM

There's nothing wrong with being pro-Zionist.

Zionism is just the national ideology of the Jewish state of Israel.

Every national state has its ideology.

But the rules governing relations between states have to be the same for everyone.

I have allowed for ONE pragmatic exception, in the case of the hegemonic state. But Israel cannot have pretensions to being the hegemonic world state.

[halva]

You've got a track record boy. Start off with the "Protocols" and we'll take it from there.

In the Elders of Zion and the Masters of Discourse, in 2002, Israel Shamir tries to analyse why, one century after their first publication, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continue to have such a success throughout the world. He concludes that it is because the Zionists behave from day to day as if they were applying the programme of domination described in this book.

THE ELDERS OF ZION AND THE MASTERS OF DISCOURSE (http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm)

Shamir has an interesting reading of Stalin's purges: a kind of 'national self-determination struggle' of the Soviet Union's Jews.

[halva]

Shamir writes:

"In ever-expanding America, the Jews did not have to kill or remove the native elites; they became its important part, controlling discourse and wielding considerable financial clout."

The assassination of Kennedy?

[Dingo]

Shamir writes:

"In ever-expanding America, the Jews did not have to kill or remove the native elites; they became its important part, controlling discourse and wielding considerable financial clout."

The assassination of Kennedy?
Shamir is a "Jews for Jesus" nutcase and anti-Semite who sometimes adds something illuminating to the discussion. The above isn't one of them. I also find Goebbles illuminating on some matters. There are anti-Zionist Palestinians who won't touch Shamir with a 10 foot pole.
------------------------
There's nothing wrong with being pro-Zionist.
At the present time pragmatically in terms of achieving a two state solution I agree. In the long term I don't. Israel is not some sort of undisputed island off in the middle of the Pacific. It was the home of Arabic Muslims and Christians as well as Jews for many hundreds of years without any apparent ethnic-religious bias applied to matters of residence. Zionist Israel was achieved by a high degree of ethnic cleansing, often violently, of native residents of nonJewish background with the understanding that the majority status of Jews should hereafter be maintained.

I don't think that is consistent with modern values of equality and I certainly don't think it is consistent with views written into our constitution, which makes it highly hypocritical that we are financially and politically supporting this state of affairs.

My own hopeful take is that if there is a two state solution and Israel comes to feel more secure and acknowledges finally the chauvinistic nature of a Zionist state that they will evolve toward full political equality for all groups in all matters.
-----------------------------
Oh, and we certainly don't want your implicit endorsement of the protocols to pass.
In the Elders of Zion and the Masters of Discourse, in 2002, Israel Shamir tries to analyse why, one century after their first publication, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continue to have such a success throughout the world. He concludes that it is because the Zionists behave from day to day as if they were applying the programme of domination described in this book.
Perhaps you would also like to comment on why the blood libel of Jews as "Christ Killers" has been the most persistent basis for persecuting Jews for centuries. Must be something about how they defile Christians on a daily basis.

Halva, thanks for making it a lot clearer where you are coming from.

[halva]

Let's have some recontextualization.

The starting point of my intervention here was the attack being prepared against Iran by "the international community" on the pretext of a nuclear programme alleged to be a secret nuclear weapons programme. That is where I am "coming from".

Shamir is a "Jews for Jesus" nutcase and anti-Semite who sometimes adds something illuminating to the discussion. The above isn't one of them. I also find Goebbles illuminating on some matters. There are anti-Zionist Palestinians who won't touch Shamir with a 10 foot pole.


I can well understand why Palestinians would not want to touch Israel Shamir. He doesn't appear to be a very suitable ally for Palestinians, but rather a test case for probing the credentials of Israel as a civilized state.


Zionist Israel was achieved by a high degree of ethnic cleansing, often violently, of native residents of nonJewish background with the understanding that the majority status of Jews should hereafter be maintained.

I don't think that is consistent with modern values of equality and I certainly don't think it is consistent with views written into our constitution, which makes it highly hypocritical that we are financially and politically supporting this state of affairs.


When you say "our" constitution I take it you mean of the United States constitution. I agree with you. I don't think that the United States is either culturally or institutionally qualified to continue playing its role of "protector" of Israel (except perhaps from the viewpoint of a "nuclear" safeguard, as long as the Israeli and American public continue to believe in such notions).


My own hopeful take is that if there is a two state solution and Israel comes to feel more secure and acknowledges finally the chauvinistic nature of a Zionist state that they will evolve toward full political equality for all groups in all matters.


This is not going to be any easier in the aftermath of an attack against Iran.


Oh, and we certainly don't want your implicit endorsement of the protocols to pass.


You brought them up. I have never been interested enough in them in the past to pay much attention to them. Now perhaps I will.


Perhaps you would also like to comment on why the blood libel of Jews as "Christ Killers" has been the most persistent basis for persecuting Jews for centuries. Must be something about how they defile Christians on a daily basis.


I don't know how much all this has to do with the modern world. None of my reference group are particularly interested in Jews. They identify themselves sentimentally and ineffectually with the Palestinians. They are not sympathetic to the idea of Israel being in the European Union. I have an uphill struggle canvassing for this idea unless I enlist support from elsewhere.


Halva, thanks for making it a lot clearer where you are coming from.

I thought I made it clear that I am "coming from" the anti-nuclear movement via 9/11 and then the 'chemtrails issue'. On the way I have developed an interest in trying to understand how the virtual reality into which our populations have been plunged came into existence in the first place. I am not interested in religion except from an intellectual and historical perspective. Israel Shamir is a recent discovery for me and I find him stimulating though he is obviously politically unassimilable to anyone situated where I am. Probably there is no point to anyone outside Israel trying to make an ally of him (unless they are Christian missionaries or something).

[halva]

Subject: Why Russia caved-in on Iran

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060204_why_russia_caved_in_.htm
*February 4, 2006*

*Why Russia caved-in on Iran*
Tell A Friend
<http://www.opednews.com/tellafriend.php?page=http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060204_why_russia_caved_in_.htm>

*/by Mike Whitney/*

http://www.opednews.com

Many war-weary newshounds are probably wondering why Russia caved in at
the IAEA board meeting and agreed to have Iran sent before the UN
Security Council. Russia, of course, is very familiar with Iran's
nuclear program (having worked with Iran on its nuclear power projects)
and fully realizes that the Mullahs are not developing nuclear weapons.

So, why would they go along with the coercive maneuvering of the United
States that is so clearly designed to pave the way for war?

Obviously, Russia's foreign minister's comment that the referral to the
UNSC is "only a warning" doesn't adequately explain why Russia would
have placed its ally in such grave danger of a preemptive attack.

So why did Russia capitulate?

It may be, in the words of the Godfather, that the Bush administration
made Putin "a deal he couldn't refuse". For one thing, MosNews reports
just yesterday that "Lukoil will replace the disgraced Halliburton" in
providing fuel in Iraq. MosNews states, "Over three months beginning
from April 1, LITASCO will have to deliver 180,000 tons of gasoline and
130,000 tons of diesel fuel to Iraq. After this the contract may be
renewed.


Halliburton's replacement was chosen by a tender, the results of which
the Pentagon announced on March 8. The winners were six Turkish
companies and the U.S. Refinery Associates which won the right to the
largest contract worth $108.5 million."

That's a pretty hefty reward for Putin's vote on Iran, but apparently
it
only scratches the surface. (We should also note the generous prizes
handed out to the 6 Turkish companies. Is this Turkey's payoff for
using
its bases in future military operations against Iran?)

Russia's real goal, however, is "the securing of rights for exploration
and extraction at the huge West Qurna-2 oil field." Putin has always
insisted that the Bush administration honor Saddam's previous
commitments with Lukoil. It appears now that Putin is winning that
battle.

According to the Boston, Globe Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov met
with
Iraq's oil minister Ibrahim al-Ulloum to firm up "an understanding"
about Russia's $6 billion contract to develop the West Qurna-2 oil
field. Al-Ulloum, of course, is just following Washington's directives
in reviving the moribund Russian contract. But it is striking that Bush
would surrender such an enormous trophy as one of Iraq's main oil
fields
just to secure Russia's vote.

Why?

Does the administration really need a war with Iran so desperately?

Yes.

The truth is, that even the control of oil is not nearly as critical to
the US as maintaining it's continued dominance in the exchange of oil
in
greenbacks. If Iran is allowed to open its oil bourse (exchange) in
March and openly compete with the US's monopoly on trading oil in
petrodollars, the central banks across the globe will dump hundreds of
billions of dollars overnight, and the American economy will disappear
beneath the waves.

This is not fiction.

The reason the United States is the unchallenged leader of the global
economic system is because it has a stranglehold on the oil trade. Even
the oil itself, or the price at which it is sold, is of less importance
than the means by which it is traded. The nation that controls the
currency, determines the rules of the game. It forces other nations to
stockpile mountains of its debt-ridden script, while Congress breezily
produces oceans of red ink. America's fat-cat bankers and corporatists
are now living off the generosity of the developing world that must
hold
on to worthless dollars so they can purchase oil. Iran's plan to sell
its oil in petro-euros threatens to break up this massive
extortion-ring
and put the greenback nose-to-nose with its global competitor; the
euro.

The Lukoil transaction should prove to skeptics that Washington is
prepared to give up anything to prevent the opening of Iran's oil
exchange. The UN Security Council is just the last step before military
operations begin.

The Bush administration is dead-set on attacking Iran and removing this
existential threat to the American economy and the ongoing supremacy of
the reserve currency.

Now that the case is in the Security Council, things should move ahead
fairly quickly.

[whitemajikman]

You've got a track record boy. Start off with the "Protocols" and we'll take it from there.

Yes... Let's begin Exploring my Track Record by starting off with The Protocols............


but first......

At the present time pragmatically in terms of achieving a two state solution I agree. In the long term I don't. Israel is not some sort of undisputed island off in the middle of the Pacific. It was the home of Arabic Muslims and Christians as well as Jews for many hundreds of years without any apparent ethnic-religious bias applied to matters of residence. Zionist Israel was achieved by a high degree of ethnic cleansing, often violently, of native residents of nonJewish background with the understanding that the majority status of Jews should hereafter be maintained.

Zionist Israel was Acheived by using the Protocols as a Literal Document..........just as The U.S.S.R before her......and Now the U.S ..........

but before I continue I must comment on your above quote.

THERE IS NO TWO STATE SOLUTION..........

Not for Israel......

Because Israel is a Deception, Which Cries For Peace But Satiates itself with the Blood of Humanity........Israel is an abomination.

An Abomination that was erected by "The Brotherhood of Zion" Whom for Centuries only had one True Enemy.......Christ. It was "The Jesuits" and their proxies whom fought this Abomination for centuries up until WW1...........And The Rise Of The world Zionist Organization...........

After The Signing of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 These Two Ancient Titans of Mysticism amalgamated into what is now known as the New World Order.........

Christians and Jews now work side by side for Control of the Globe..........

But How Can This Be .....you ask.....

The Christian and the Jew now share a symbiotic relationship..........

one in which Both Will Get what They Have Always Salivated for ...........Control of G_d's Earthly realm.........

But Not For religious Reasons Because The World Is Being Fooled Regarding their "TRUE" Religious Overtones..........Which have nothing to do with G_D.

This Cabal Or Coup which I Like To Call It Does not Serve G_D.

In Fact Most Of Christianity and World Jewry Have NO Clue that They Serve Lucifer .......And That These Two Religious Icons That Have Melded Are Students of Ancient Luciferian Philosophy which was kept alive generation to generation And Symbolizes The True Anti-Christ..........The Anti-Christ Is Not a Man........But A Notion Which Now Threatens all of Humanity......and has Deceived MOST of Humanity.......

But Not Islam.....

Not as of Yet...........

TOO TRULY GET GLOBAL CONTROL THE NOTION OR COUP MUST FIRST SILENCE ISLAM.......

For Islam is apart of the Trinity of G_D.........And The Last Untainted Witness To What Is Transpiring......

The Palestinian's are The Purset Semites( G_d's Chosen People) on The Planet ........More Pure Than Any Jew Who Now Walks This Earth.............Myself included.

But Yet we Have this Coup Which wants to annihilate the Palistinian, and treat the Palestinian as the Jew Was Treated During Moses time........

Wake The Fuck Up Dingo........

History Does Repeat Itself...........

And That Is Why There Is So Much Deception and Propaganda being fed To The Global populace ........To Try And Stall The Inevitable Awakening to what is really transpiring........

Black Is White ......White Is Black..........

By The Way Pope Benedict ( A Jesuit) Is The First "Black Pope" To Sit in Command of the Vatican..........

Any questions.....?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

I don't think that is consistent with modern values of equality and I certainly don't think it is consistent with views written into our constitution, which makes it highly hypocritical that we are financially and politically supporting this state of affairs.

My own hopeful take is that if there is a two state solution and Israel comes to feel more secure and acknowledges finally the chauvinistic nature of a Zionist state that they will evolve toward full political equality for all groups in all matters.
-----------------------------
Oh, and we certainly don't want your implicit endorsement of the protocols to pass.

Your Hope.......Has Nothing to Do With Reality........

And Reality States That Israel Will Never Succumb To A Two Party State.......Because To Israel The Palestinians are Their MORTAL ENEMY.........

And The Protocols Whether you Like It Or Not........

ARE REAL.......THEY ARE WRITTEN ON PAPER.......AND OUTLINE AN INGENIUS PLAN FOR WORLD DOMINATION........

A Plan That Has Been Used Many Times Through-out Modern History.......A Plan That Our Own Intelligence Communities Use On A Daily Basis to Undermind Other Governments........

Are You Not Well Versed In Espionage.....?

Your only Recourse in Truth if you Disbelieve Me Is To Cry Out ........."JEW HATER".........

Because that is how you get beyond the very thing which you do not want to DEAL WITH............

THE TRUTH.........

Dingo There are far greater Forces At Work in deceiving you.......and making you blind to the TRUTH.......

LET YOUR HEART BE YOUR GUIDE..........AND LET YOUR MIND FOLLOW.........

Otherwise You Are Lost To The Truth..........

You Have The Ability .........You Just Need use it To See Beyond The Veil............And What Lies Beneath The Surface Of This World's Growing False reality.........and may you at least heed what I have said.

Peace Dingo

WMM

[halva]

WMM, all I want to ask is why you persist moving us away from this question: What should we try to do now?

Who is we? you might say. You are obviously doing your best to make sure it excludes YOU.

Even Israel Shamir, in writing about the Protocols, is tongue-in-cheek. His approach is scholarly, not superstitious.

I don't know which is sillier, your superstition or the self-righteous way that people like Dingo take you seriously.

[Dingo]

I read you Whiteman and I ask the question is this guy walking around loose? Anti-Semite is simply inadequate to describe your blatherings. How about full blown out of control nutcase. That would be a conservative description.

LOL. In a latter day move halva strategically decides to dissassociate himself with Whiteman and scurry back to being the high level diplomat without official portfolio. He then effects to not know what is sillier, Whiteman being a nut or my pointing out he is a nut. Perhaps he's having some defensive feelings about his own revealed lower case nuttyness. In any case, halva's discriminating faculties appear to need some burnishing. LOL

[whitemajikman]

WMM, all I want to ask is why you persist moving us away from this question: What should we try to do now?

Who is we? you might say. You are obviously doing your best to make sure it excludes YOU.

I Persist moving you away from the Question Because Diplomacy and Politics will not Do Anything to Curb what is Transpiring ......let alone find a solution.

Let Me Put it to You This Way Halva.........

The World has Flip-flopped at the hands of this COUP........But How Most Of Humanity Views it ,and how Humanity Deals With It Has Not Changed..........

Therefore Humanity Is Deceiving Itself in how to Deal With What Is Transpiring Because Of This Coup......due to ignorance of the Heart.......

Because Humanity Refuses To Evolve And Recognize this Coup For What It Truly Is........

Luciferian in .....Nature......Mind And Spirit........

The Balance That Was........ Is No Longer.........

Evil Or The Notion Of Evil.......Is Winning Over The Notion Of Good.........

Good People With Good Hearts And Intentions Are Being Duped into Taking Sides........

Sides Which Are Apart of the same Paradigm and are at the root of this deception, And It Is This Paradigm Which Must Be brought to light to all of humanity......so Humanity has a chance to prevail........


Now Halva......

If I Were To Call Up Any Politician and Warn him of what is Transpiring........

I Would Be Called A PARANOID DELUSIONAL KOOK.......By that very Same Politician......And Have Been By Many Politicians who refuse to Listen ..........Just As The Pharisees Refused To Listen Because of what they had Become.......when Christ tried to warn them............2 millenia ago....

With The passing Of The Last Millenia, The Age Of Luciferian Domination has Arisen.........


Unbeknown to most of the world except those who are initiates of the Highest degrees of all of the ancient mystery orders which Came Before The Signing of The Balfour Declaration and have grown powerful due to their Symbiotic relationship that the Balfour Declaration Represents.......

They Have Bridged The Gap.........Now It Is Mankind Who will Suffer For It's Ignorance because of the glammer which this coup has used to deceive mankind and to promote a lie that they are doing divine works.........and wish peace..........

When The Only thing a Luciferian Wants is to Destroy Christ and his message and control the world........and is the anti-thesis of Christ............

The Anti-Christ is not a man........But A Notion......

A Notion That The whole World Is Now Enslaved Too............because of the deception.......

any questions so far.......?

WMM

[dewey189]

any questions so far.......?WMM

Only one...what the hell are you talking about?

[whitemajikman]

Only one...what the hell are you talking about?


The Final Battle......

WMM

[halva]

I Persist moving you away from the Question Because Diplomacy and Politics will not Do Anything to Curb what is Transpiring ......let alone find a solution.


If that is true we are all wasting our time here.


Because Humanity Refuses To Evolve And Recognize this Coup For What It Truly Is........


Poster Dingo certainly refuses to acknowledge any aspect of reality that does not have the sanction of the mainstream political system and the media. And this in turn gives fuel to your superstition. But for me he is not a worthy representative for humanity. Quite the opposite, it's time for his particular current of liberal politics to go into the dustbin to be replaced by something more adequate. Europeans who tailend American Democratic Party politics must stop doing so, helping Americans who are more worthy of respect and together developing a new paradigm.


The Balance That Was........ Is No Longer.........


The other side of the "balance" that allegedly existed was Soviet Communism, which you demonized as much as anybody. Don't cry when you get what you have been asking for.


Good People With Good Hearts And Intentions Are Being Duped into Taking Sides........

Sides Which Are Apart of the same Paradigm and are at the root of this deception.


I have introduced the quite concrete idea that some of the problems you represent as the doings of Lucifer might become more manageable if there was something like a divorce, or at least a semi-divorce, between Israel and the United States, and if Israel became a member state of the European Union, on the same terms as the other member states. There is at least some support in Israel for such a project. Are you prepared to take sides to the extent of saying whether or not you think it is a good idea? And what difficulties it might face if there was an attempt to go ahead with it?


Now Halva......

If I Were To Call Up Any Politician and Warn him of what is Transpiring........

I Would Be Called A PARANOID DELUSIONAL KOOK.......By that very Same Politician.....


Quite so. Because politicians don't want to get "warnings". Or panicky appeals to "do something" from people who are still psychologically children. They (or the best of them) may show more interest in responding to initiatives from people who can show that they are adults, who can show that they have some social and intellectual autonomy and that they have concrete, graduated and implementable proposals. A proposal that the the Middle East be divested of all nuclear weapons including Israel's is, for example, a specific proposal. A proposal that Israel become a member state of the European Union is a specific proposal. Even if a politician is against the idea, he will try to find counter-arguments if what you are proposing is specific and at least theoretically possible. He will not just say that you are a kook. Because if you have a specific proposal, to be called a kook strengthens your position; it does not weaken it.


.And Have Been By Many Politicians who refuse to Listen ..........Just As The Pharisees Refused To Listen Because of what they had Become.......when Christ tried to warn them............2 millenia ago....


I have explained to you why politicians refuse to listen to your "warnings".



any questions so far.......?

WMM

Yes. Why are you offering a role to Dingo on this thread just when he had been deprived of one?

[Dingo]

Halva. Yes. Why are you offering a role to Dingo on this thread just when he had been deprived of one?
Don't try so hard boy. The effort is showing.

Nice to see two nutcases joined at the hip. For a couple of posts you actually had me fooled Mr. Pastry. LOL

[halva]

Back to the easy reactive mode, Dingo.

Am I surprised?

[whitemajikman]

I read you Whiteman and I ask the question is this guy walking around loose? Anti-Semite is simply inadequate to describe your blatherings. How about full blown out of control nutcase. That would be a conservative description.

You read Nothing DINGO.........

Because Simply put........YOUR DECEIVED.........

Deceived by the Notion that The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict is one of Politics which can Be Solved Merely by Regime Change in Israel.

When Israel's one and only Mandate Is the total Annihilation Of It's Enemies.......

By The way Dingo.....

My Name is WHITEMAJIKMAN Not.......White Man.

I Am Olive Skinned and very much a Jew who sees that his People have become Drunk with The Notion Of Power, Profit and Control and what that drunkeness truly means for Humanity.

I Have Seen and served the ADL In My youth When One Of The Training Manuals Was Titled ANTI-SEMITISM:Using Hatred As A Subversive Force.

I am a Freemason of The 37th Degree and have worked with The Jesuits on many occasions versus the Mossad........And I am Now Viewed as a Heretic to the Scottish Rite...

I Now Call Canada Home But Still Have Dual Citizenship, and Work as a Sub- Contractor For The Canadian Military and more Importantly to share My expertise with Their Elite Forces.

Getting Back To The Jesuit's......

While Zionist's Control The World's Monetary System and in many cases The Politic's of many countries including the U.S. ..........IT is The "Jesuits" Who Control The U.N. and the rest of Humanity......and call the Shots.

But Now Dingo......They Have Joined Forces .....To deceive the world ........

READ AND LEARN SOME HISTORY.......


Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, the General of the International Military Order of the Society of Jesus, commonly known as “the Black Pope”, ordered the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, with the advice and consent of his General Staff, composed of five assistants (each representing a hemisphere and under whom are many advisory Provincials), an advisor (resembling the likes of a military commander to warn him of any faults or mistakes), and his confessor (to ease his conscience and absolve him of his many sins).

Why? Because the appointed time has arrived for the Jesuit General to destroy both the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, secretly using his CIA/Nazi-trained, Masonic Zionist Mossad in conjunction with his CIA/Nazi-trained, Masonic Islamic Intelligence Agencies, including Osama bin Laden’s MAK and Pakistan’s ISI, while shrouded in the confusion of a huge aerial war yet to come. This will enable the General’s crusading Knights Templars (the present day Shriner Freemasons) to rebuild Solomon’s Temple — for the Papal Caesar in Rome’s Vatican. And how could the Black Pope destroy these Moslem Mosques, they comprising the third most important Islamic religious site in the world behind Saudi Arabia’s Mecca and Medina, without causing an uncontrollable Moslem holy war, called a “jihad”, resulting in the destruction of Pope Pius XII’s creation of Zionist Israel? (Remember, Israel was admitted into the New York-based United Nations in 1949 through the efforts of Jesuit-trained Francis Cardinal Spellman – the darling of Pope Pius XII who, after his Jesuits carried out the Jewish Holocaust in Europe and then driving the survivors to Palestine, intended, under the guidance of his Jesuit confessor, Augustin Cardinal Bea, to make Jerusalem an international city – while governed by the Papal Caesar’s Chaim Weizmann and his Masonic Jewish Zionists.) The Black Pope must cause a war using a country he also wishes to further destroy. Enter the “Holy Roman” Fourteenth Amendment American Jesuit Empire created in 1868 on the ruins of George Washington’s Calvinist Republic, the last political stronghold of the Protestant Reformation with freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


http://www.vaticanassassins.org/ny_attack.htm


Dingo, your Intentions Are Good But Misplaced Because You Are Still Ignorant Of The big Picture......

Even Halva Will Not Look at what I see because he is under the Impression Politics Will Prevail........

When Politics Cannot Prevail Because Politics is not dealing With THE REAL THREAT.....or with The reality Of THE THREAT.......

And really How Could It Deal with anything .......When The Big Picture Is Blurred With So Much Deceit......

WMM

[halva]

WMM, you and Dingo are welcome to argue it out on this thread.

[halva]

Subject: CARTOONS A NEOCON SET-UP

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
CARTOONS A NEOCON SET-UP

February 5/6 2006 -- Neo-cons use Denmark as their latest tool to bring
about the "Clash of Civilizations." Denmark is at the center of the
ongoing neo-con plot to bring about a bloody military confrontation
between the West and Islam. This "Clash of Civilizations" is a hallmark
of the neo-con philosophy and is most exemplified in the writings of
Prof. Samuel Huntington and Daniel Pipes.

This follows a pattern of neo-con activity designed to ratchet up
tensions. The latest example was the rapid spread of arson across
France and Belgium involving neo-Nazis, skinheads, and false flag agents that
was blamed entirely on Muslims upset about the deaths of two Muslim
youths in a northern Paris suburb. French Interior Minister Nicolas
Sarkozy stoked the flames with his rhetoric about Muslim "scum" just as
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen defended the publication of
cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an offensive manner in the
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten as a freedom of speech issue.

Neo-con Rasmussen covered with red paint thrown by a protestor. He uses
Denmark as a tool for the global neo-con "Clash of Civilizations"
criminal conspiracy.

Rasmussen, who is one of George W. Bush's leading supporters in the war
in Iraq (Denmark has sent several hundreds troops), governs with the
support of the neo-fascist, xenophobic, and inappropriately-named
Danish "People's Party." After riots in Arhus, Denmark (at the same time as
the arson attacks spread across France, Belgium, and a few German cities),
other newspapers in the West began publishing the same cartoons. Danish
embassies in Damascus and Beirut have now been set on fire and tensions
(and terrorist alerts) have been raised in many countries where the
cartoons have been republished. Coffee mugs, T-shirts, and key chains
are now being sold on the Internet depicting the offensive images. Cui
bono? Who benefits? These tactics, of course, are very convenient for
the neo-cons.

Neo-con media outlets such as The New York Sun, Fox News, and others
are having a field day with the Muslim riots that have spread around the
world in protest over the cartoons just as they had with the French
"Muslim" arson attacks. Two New Zealand papers -- The Dominion Post in
Wellington and The Press in Christchurch, have published their own
controversial cartoons of Mohammed. The papers are owned by Australia's
Fairfax Group, which also owns Melbourne's Age, and which was once
financially connected to indicted neo-con Lord Conrad Black's
scandal-ridden Hollinger publishing empire, which also includes arch
neo-con Richard Perle. The Fairfax Group generally adheres to the
neo-con corporatist party line.

The neo-cons ignore and even relish in the offensive nature of the
inflammatory cartoons depicting Mohammed as a bomb throwing terrorist
and pedophile. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have made similar
comments about the Prophet that Muslims consider blasphemous. What
would the neo-cons say if newspapers published cartoons showing a shady
looking Moses stealing gold and silver artifacts from the Pharaoh's
palace before high tailing it across the Red Sea in the middle of the
night? Or a wine-drunk Jesus cavorting with prostitutes in the red
light district of Jerusalem? There is no doubt that rabbis and evangelical
preachers would be calling for the heads of the offending cartoonists
and editors. They've done so for far less.

Moses: "I grabbed ten of the Pharaoh's best urns. I have a list here."
Jesus: "I've got the wine. Where are the Jerusalem girls?" See why
Muslims are so outraged by unflattering cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammed? The neo-cons relish in constant religious warfare, which they
have now re-coined "the Long War."

With so many hotheads in the three Abrahamic tradition religions
(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), such inflammatory speech is like
yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. The Danish Prime Minister is
wrong when he states that the offensive cartoons are protected speech.
He would certainly not defend someone who yelled fire in a crowded
Copenhagen theater. And struggling Danish farmers, bakers, and
fishermen will now pay the price for the boycott of Danish exports by Muslim
countries. Lego stockholders will suffer from a boycott of the toy
company's products.

But Rasmussen, like Sarkozy, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu, Jack Straw,
and Australia's John Howard, is marching to the martial music of the
neo-cons. They are the shock troops for the Clash of Civilizations,
Project for a New American Century, The Long War, A Clean Break, and
all the other neo-con plots, conspiracies, and contrivances. It's clearly
time to investigate the neo-cons, their networks, their funding
sources, their media ownership and investments, their doctrines, their false
flag terrorist operations, and their political contributions. Just as
Islamist terrorists, they should be rounded up as dangerous members of
society and detained until they no longer pose a threat to public
safety and the global commonwealth.

[halva]

But who can do this rounding up? Boasters and own-trumpet blowers at Internet forums?

[Dingo]

The Danish Prime Minister is
wrong when he states that the offensive cartoons are protected speech.

Pastryman, you're not only a conspiracy nut but like most of the breed a totalitarian. Political cartoons are part of free speech or is that some kind of revelation?

[halva]

WMM you can argue with Dingo about this if you like.

I could not be bothered.

The new viable paradigms for human existence on this planet will be developed over the top of this kind of blather.

Refusal of "debate" on these terms becomes an ever-more-viable strategy with each passing day.

These individuals keep playing the one trick all the time.

And it is the ONLY matter they get passionate about.

[halva]

Why ‘freedom of expression’ defence is questionable in the Muslim dispute with a Danish publication.
by Stuart Pethick

February 2, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20060202&articleId=1870

Some drawings published in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten last September have caused outrage amongst the Muslim community around the world. The drawings depict the Prophet Mohammed, which is considered sacrilegious to the Muslim faith as no images of Mohammed are allowed. If this were not bad enough, one of the pictures depict Mohammed as a terrorist, complete with a bomb in his headdress. These drawings were published again in a Norwegian magazine a few weeks ago, and the ensuing Muslim outrage is costing the Danish/Swedish dairy giant Arla millions of dollars. A boycott of Danish products has seen a $480 million yearly sale come to almost a complete stop in just five days.1 The situation is so serious that on January 26th the Saudi ambassador was withdrawn from Copenhagen,2 and ten Muslim ambassadors wrote a joint letter to the Danish Prime Minister, asking him to take a stance on the issue, something he has refused to do.3 After initially refusing to apologise, Jyllands-Posten issued a statement to ‘correct misunderstandings’.4

Whilst for many people this matter might seem a fuss over very little, I think that it represents very well the situation that we find ourselves in post-9/11, and it is a worrying sign for things to come, for two reasons. Firstly, the argument over these drawings cannot be seen in isolation. For many, these drawings appear as yet another attack among many upon the Muslim people sin