Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Finkelstein Hopes for Reasonable Zionist Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
alternative link
P.S. Response to several issues raised in Norman Finkelstein’s Question and Answer session at his appearance at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee on March 26th, 2008, sponsored by Milwaukee Students for a Democratic Society:
Walt and Mearsheimer
Finkelstein contends that AIPAC only influences US foreign policy affecting the “narrow” Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the greater region. Uhm, Mr. Finkelstein, you’re an intelligent guy, and well read on matters Israel, you surely must have heard of the Clean Break strategy. The strategy was prepared in 1996 for Israel by prominent, American dual-citizen, zionist policymakers. It called for Israel to “shape its strategic environment,” beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Mr. Finkelstein, that “narrow” Israel-Palestinian conflict minimally encompasses all of Israel’s immediate neighbors in the region. And it sure looks like the invasion of Iraq is a beginning phase of the Clean Break plan.
Finkestein makes fun of the thought that “second tier zionists” Feith, Libby and Wolfowitz could fool the crusty Rumsfeld and Cheney into a policy in the interests of Israel. Finkelstein points out that Cheney had collaborated with these zionists for 30 years, contesting that there’s no way they didn’t know each other well. “Would Cheney stack the defense department and VP office with agents of a foreign country? It makes no sense. It’s not believable, unless you believe Cheney and Rumsfeld were also secret agents of Israel,” Finkelstein contended.
No! Again, you’re an intelligent man, Mr. Finkelstein, surely you can understand the concept of a collusion of interests. Cheney and Rumsfeld’s selfish interests colluded with the interests of their zionist friends. It’s a two-headed monster: greedy, self-serving gentiles with zionists. And these self-serving gentiles know the zionists control the media, and having them with them, they are immune from public scrutiny. Mr. Finkelstein, don’t you think the media could destroy Cheney in a day, if it wanted to? I know, I know, an intelligent, reasonable man like you would never see that the US media is zionist, and that it has such power.
Zionism
Mr Finkelstein didn’t answer the question of how so many justice activist jews can support zionism. Instead he took zionism off the table of debate completely, stating that one shouldn’t be “sloganeering” and using “terminology that alienates people and creates divisions.” Instead more simple terms and concepts “that distill the essence of the conflict" should be used.
Pointing out that he wrote his dissertation on zionism [did he denounce it as "preposterous," I wonder] and that his friend Noam Chomsky was a zionist since he was six years old, Finkelstein asked, “Whether Comsky is or isn’t a zionist, is it really important for trying to reach consensual principles for resolving the conflict?”
Why yes it is, Mr. Finkelstein. It gets to the very essence of the problem, which you alluded to later in stating that the concept of population transfer was a “formative issue for the conflict” and "in-built in the zionist idea” regardless whether it was left or right zionism. Mr. Finkelstein, again, you’re an intelligent man, what kind of conceptual principles will be included with zionists in resolving the conflict?
Mr. Finkelstein failed to answer the question of why in the US media one hears so much about “islamofascism” and “radical islam” but not a peep about zionism. Mr. Finkelstein, was the reason you didn’t answer that question because the answer is obvious and you don’t want to highligtht it for your US-media controlled American audience. Is that also the reason, Mr. Finkelstein, that you didn’t fight harder for your tenure, because it too would’ve highlighted the strength and influence of zionists in America?
Reaction to One-state Concept
Finkelstein says he “doesn’t dread” the prospects of sharing equal rights with Palestinians. Yet his amazing reaction and response to the question of a one-state solution belie that statement. Finkelstein begins his response saying we’re “heading towards trouble” then goes on to say that Hezbollah –not Hamas– is “very serious” –as in seriously dangerous, as if zionism shouldn’t have an serious response to it, as if zionism [Jewish apartheid] were a benign or humane concept above questioning, and not the dehumanizing cancer on mankind that it is.
Mr. Finkelstein states alarmingly: “If Israel goes after Iran, it’s going to be a very big problem. “ If supporters of Israel don’t want to see Israel “destroyed” [converted to one-state in which all of its inhabitants are equal?], they should work to resolve the conflict on “practical, reasonable terms”. Apparently Mr. Finkelstein thinks the one-state solution is a devious plan from Hezbollah for destroying aparthied Israel. Again Mr. Finkelstien, you’re an intelligent man, what would be “reasonable terms” with zionists for resolving the conflict?
Comparing USA with Israel
Answering the question of why we should believe Israel wants peace, Finkelstein says, “we shouldn’t.” Then he adroitly switches the focus on America and asks, “But why should we believe America wants peace?” He goes on to describe America’s criminal behavior in Iraq and he conveniently points out that it is far greater than Israel’s ciminal behavior against the Palestinians [of course none of America's criminal behavior is in Israel’s behalf or interests] and he asserts, “but that doesn’t mean that the US should not exist,” cleverly equating calls for ending the apartheid state of Israel with calling for end of the United States of America... "a preposterous idea". Finkelstein asserts instead that we should “work within the framework of our society to make things as just as we are able to.”
Mr. Finkelstein, I’m highly insulted by your equating Israel with America. At least America has codified noble principles to live up to. What are Israel’s principles? Answer: zionism [jewish supremacism, jewish exceptionalism, jewish apartheid]. And working within that "framework," how can things get better?
And Mr. Finkelstein, if America were to live up to its principles, wouldn't one of the first things it would do is drop support for zionism?
Conclusion
Finkelstein ends his question and answer session describing the life a Palestinian friend who “hasn’t experienced one happy day in his life” living under the thumb of Jewish occupation. Finkelstein states: “I see it… how peoples' lives have been destroyed… if we do what we should be doing, we can succeed in bringing some happiness to suffering people in the world.”
Unfortunately for Mr Finkelstein’s Palestinian friend, ending the indignity of zionism isn’t “practical” in his lifetime. Nor is it “reasonable.” It simply isn't a reasonable zionist solution. Isn’t that right, Mr. Finkelstein?
Jewish Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor
P.S. Why the media silence on this fantastic story? Is it the same reason Americans don't know what zionism is? Can you imagine the same silence were this a Catholic girl telling it?... or heaven forbid, a Muslim girl?
From the inside cover of the book mentioned, Lilith's Cave:
If you want to discover demons, take sifted ashes and spread them around your bed, and in the morning you will see something like the footprints of a cock. If you want to see them, take the after-birth of a black she-cat, the firstborn of a firstborn, roast it in fire and grind it to powder, and then put some in your eye and you will see them. (The Talmud, Berachor 6a)
Friday, July 18, 2008
Hezbullah Knows How to Talk with the Israelis
The latest prisoner swap deal between Israel and Hezbullah is a healthy indicator that at least some Arabs are beginning to understand the depraved Zionist mentality, and act accordingly. Such mentality is based on arrogance, insolence, and religious and ethnic [supremacism].
Israel, a country whose collective mindset views non-Jews as virtual animals or at least lesser human beings, had to face a new enemy, an enemy that will not be scared by overwhelming brutality, but one that will meet Israel’s state terror with toughness, resilience, valor and defiance.
This is a new reality that Israelis, especially Israeli leaders, have yet to come to terms with, especially psychologically.
This explains the deep frustration that is apparent in the tone of Israeli leaders reacting to the latest swap deal, especially the fact that Israel has been forced to release the Lebanese guerilla Samir Kuntar.
Israel, utterly ignoring her own countless murderous sins, has come to view Kuntar as the prototype of the ultimate terrorist as if the tens of thousands of Jewish murderers and terrorists who have enormous amount of innocent blood on their hands were the Lord’s angels of love and mercy.
Indeed, if Israel were a normal state, and its people a normal people, it would have adopted an honest and just approach toward its neighbors, an approach that would not discriminate between “blood and blood” and “life and life.”
Undoubtedly, such an approach would have saved thousands of lives, Jewish and Arab, and spared the region and its peoples decades of pain and suffering.
But then Zionism would be losing its face, mind and heart, and would morph into something entirely different.
Unfortunately, it is probably futile to preach morality to Zionism, a manifestly demonic movement which experience shows is not capable of behaving morally and humanely.
Well, let us examine some of the statements and remarks Zionist leaders have been making with regard to the latest swap deal with Hezbullah.
Shimon Peres, the hero of the Qana massacre of 1996, who is now Israel’s President, has been quoted as saying that “We don’t want murderers to go free, but we have a moral obligation to bring home soldiers whom we sent to defend their country.”
Peres also reportedly said that “my heart is torn over the decision to pardon Kuntar,” adding that his decision to that effect “in no way constituted forgiveness.”
Certainly, no one , Arab or otherwise, is particularly infatuated with what Kuntar did in 1979, although the Israeli army then was at least partially responsible for the killing by the Lebanese guerilla of three Israelis, including a paramilitary policeman, a man and his daughter.
The three lives, like numerous other victims, Arab and Jewish, would have been spared had the insolent Israeli military establishment behaved wisely.
After all, Kuntar, and his friends who were killed in that rescue operation, didn’t come to Israel to kill and shed blood but to force Israel to release Arab prisoners.
Non the less, one is prompted to ask difficult questions, questions that most Israelis don’t like to hear let alone answer, but when confronted with, they either seek to evade or prevaricate and quibble in their answers.
Who has killed more innocent people, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar? Who has more blood, including children blood, on his hands, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar? Who has inflicted more terror, suffering and death upon innocent people, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar?
If honesty is to be the ultimate arbiter among men, then one can’t escape the inescapable conclusion that it is mass murderers like Peres, Ariel Sharon and other Israeli leaders, dead or living, who really need forgiveness for their horrible crimes against humanity.
In fact, Israelis should be reminded on this occasion that a Presidential post, a business suit with neck tie, and the ability to speak eloquent sound-bites in several languages and have audience with statesmen and VIPs from around the world, don’t really transform a criminal into a true human being.
A criminal is a criminal especially if he refuses to come to terms with his crimes and if he refuses to apologize to his victims. Needless to say, Peres has done neither.
But then criminals are not concerned about their sins.
One elderly Israeli woman interviewed by the Ha’aretz newspaper lashed out at Hezbullah for having refused until the very last moment to tell if the two Israeli prisoners were dead or alive.
“It’s the saddest day for Israel. They kept us waiting until the last second to learn the fate of our sons,” the woman was quoted as saying.
I certainly sympathize with the woman at the personal level. However, I would want to ask the Jewish lady why she thought that Jewish lives were worth more than non-Jewish lives?
I also would like to ask her what she would tell the mothers, families and relatives of thousands of Arab prisoners who have been languishing in Israel’s dark, underground dungeons since 1967?
We are talking about POWs and MIAs and other ordinary people whose families have no way of knowing if their beloved ones are dead or a live? Aren’t these “forgotten prisoners” human beings, too? Are they children of a lesser God?
Unfortunately, most Israelis, thoroughly self-absorbed and self-centered, don’t like to be asked such questions lest their superiority complexes and collective psychosis be exposed.
Finally, the latest prisoner swap shows that Israel only understands the language of cold realpolitik which is by definition immoral and coercive.
For Palestinians, who have more than 10,000 of their beloved ones languishing in Israeli concentration camps, the message is very clear: If you want to get Israel to release your beloved ones, take Israeli hostages and swap them for the Palestinian captives.
source article
P.S. The Israelis do not fool Khalid Amayreh.
Israel, a country whose collective mindset views non-Jews as virtual animals or at least lesser human beings, had to face a new enemy, an enemy that will not be scared by overwhelming brutality, but one that will meet Israel’s state terror with toughness, resilience, valor and defiance.
This is a new reality that Israelis, especially Israeli leaders, have yet to come to terms with, especially psychologically.
This explains the deep frustration that is apparent in the tone of Israeli leaders reacting to the latest swap deal, especially the fact that Israel has been forced to release the Lebanese guerilla Samir Kuntar.
Israel, utterly ignoring her own countless murderous sins, has come to view Kuntar as the prototype of the ultimate terrorist as if the tens of thousands of Jewish murderers and terrorists who have enormous amount of innocent blood on their hands were the Lord’s angels of love and mercy.
Indeed, if Israel were a normal state, and its people a normal people, it would have adopted an honest and just approach toward its neighbors, an approach that would not discriminate between “blood and blood” and “life and life.”
Undoubtedly, such an approach would have saved thousands of lives, Jewish and Arab, and spared the region and its peoples decades of pain and suffering.
But then Zionism would be losing its face, mind and heart, and would morph into something entirely different.
Unfortunately, it is probably futile to preach morality to Zionism, a manifestly demonic movement which experience shows is not capable of behaving morally and humanely.
Well, let us examine some of the statements and remarks Zionist leaders have been making with regard to the latest swap deal with Hezbullah.
Shimon Peres, the hero of the Qana massacre of 1996, who is now Israel’s President, has been quoted as saying that “We don’t want murderers to go free, but we have a moral obligation to bring home soldiers whom we sent to defend their country.”
Peres also reportedly said that “my heart is torn over the decision to pardon Kuntar,” adding that his decision to that effect “in no way constituted forgiveness.”
Certainly, no one , Arab or otherwise, is particularly infatuated with what Kuntar did in 1979, although the Israeli army then was at least partially responsible for the killing by the Lebanese guerilla of three Israelis, including a paramilitary policeman, a man and his daughter.
The three lives, like numerous other victims, Arab and Jewish, would have been spared had the insolent Israeli military establishment behaved wisely.
After all, Kuntar, and his friends who were killed in that rescue operation, didn’t come to Israel to kill and shed blood but to force Israel to release Arab prisoners.
Non the less, one is prompted to ask difficult questions, questions that most Israelis don’t like to hear let alone answer, but when confronted with, they either seek to evade or prevaricate and quibble in their answers.
Who has killed more innocent people, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar? Who has more blood, including children blood, on his hands, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar? Who has inflicted more terror, suffering and death upon innocent people, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar?
If honesty is to be the ultimate arbiter among men, then one can’t escape the inescapable conclusion that it is mass murderers like Peres, Ariel Sharon and other Israeli leaders, dead or living, who really need forgiveness for their horrible crimes against humanity.
In fact, Israelis should be reminded on this occasion that a Presidential post, a business suit with neck tie, and the ability to speak eloquent sound-bites in several languages and have audience with statesmen and VIPs from around the world, don’t really transform a criminal into a true human being.
A criminal is a criminal especially if he refuses to come to terms with his crimes and if he refuses to apologize to his victims. Needless to say, Peres has done neither.
But then criminals are not concerned about their sins.
One elderly Israeli woman interviewed by the Ha’aretz newspaper lashed out at Hezbullah for having refused until the very last moment to tell if the two Israeli prisoners were dead or alive.
“It’s the saddest day for Israel. They kept us waiting until the last second to learn the fate of our sons,” the woman was quoted as saying.
I certainly sympathize with the woman at the personal level. However, I would want to ask the Jewish lady why she thought that Jewish lives were worth more than non-Jewish lives?
I also would like to ask her what she would tell the mothers, families and relatives of thousands of Arab prisoners who have been languishing in Israel’s dark, underground dungeons since 1967?
We are talking about POWs and MIAs and other ordinary people whose families have no way of knowing if their beloved ones are dead or a live? Aren’t these “forgotten prisoners” human beings, too? Are they children of a lesser God?
Unfortunately, most Israelis, thoroughly self-absorbed and self-centered, don’t like to be asked such questions lest their superiority complexes and collective psychosis be exposed.
Finally, the latest prisoner swap shows that Israel only understands the language of cold realpolitik which is by definition immoral and coercive.
For Palestinians, who have more than 10,000 of their beloved ones languishing in Israeli concentration camps, the message is very clear: If you want to get Israel to release your beloved ones, take Israeli hostages and swap them for the Palestinian captives.
source article
P.S. The Israelis do not fool Khalid Amayreh.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
US Declaration of Independence
P.S. Nice primer of what we are sacrificing on the altar of zionism. Sadly, how many of these actors would still insist that Israel --the Jewish apartheid state-- has a right to exist and defend itself? Kind of like the Jewish anti-war activists that are opposed to war but not zionism, Jewish apartheid, the root cause of it
One Million Americans On Orwellian US Watch List
P.S. Under George The Decider, the USA has become the land of the watched.
Time to turn the tables on Israel-Firsters
Now that the dust has settled in the spat between journalist Joe Klein and the ideologues at Commentary, it is time to regret the ink spilled over the non-issue of "dual loyalties." The idea that there are U.S. citizens who have equal loyalties to the United States and Israel is passé. American Israel-firsters have long since dropped any pretense of loyalty to the United States and its genuine national interests. They have moved brazenly into the Israel first, last, and always camp. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Douglas Feith, the Rev. Rod Parsley, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the Rev. John Hagee, and the thousands of wealthy supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to care about the United States only so far as Washington is willing to provide immense, unending funding and the lives of young U.S. service personnel to protect Israel. These individuals and their all-for-Israel journals – Commentary, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal – amount to nothing less than a fifth column intent on involving 300 million Americans in other peoples' religious wars, making them pay and bleed to protect a nation in which the United States has no genuine national security interest at stake.
The Israel-firsters' success is, of course, the stuff of which legends are made. Most recently, for example, we heard President Bush echo Sen. Lieberman's insane and subversive contention that the United States has a "duty" to ensure the fulfilling of God's millennia-old promise to Abraham regarding the creation and survival of Israel. Bush told the Knesset all Americans are ready to endlessly bleed and pay to ensure Israel's security. And where does the president derive authority to make such a commitment in the name of his countrymen? From the Constitution? On the basis of America's dominant religion? From – heaven forbid – a thoughtful, hardheaded analysis of U.S. interests?
No, Bush's pledge was based on none of these. Bush's decision to more deeply involve America in the eternal Arab-Israeli war was based on nothing less than the corruption wrought on the American political system by the Israel-firsters, AIPAC's enormous treasury, and the lamentable but growing influence of America's leading evangelical Protestant preachers.
The Israel-firsters started the Iraq war and now have the United States locked into an occupation of that country that may not end in any of our lifetimes. Unless Americans ignore the likes of Hanson, Podhoretz, Lieberman, Woolsey, and Wolfowitz, the cost in blood and treasure will ultimately bankrupt America.
AIPAC is a perfectly legal organization, and the wealth of its members is channeled into reliable campaign contributions for any candidate from either party who will put Israel's interests above America's. From McCain to Obama, from Pelosi to Giuliani, from Hillary Clinton to Vice President Cheney, AIPAC pumps money to any and every American politician who is willing to adopt an Israel-first policy.
Leading American Protestant evangelical preachers – men like Hagee, Parsley, and Graham – are the newest and perhaps most anti-American members of this fifth column. They serve two purposes: (1) to reinforce in the minds of their flocks the Bush-Lieberman absurdity that the United States has a "duty" to ensure Israel's survival; and (2) to use religious rhetoric to steadily convince the Muslim world that U.S. leaders are interested only in taming – and if need be, destroying – Islam.
The reality and power of this anti-American, pro-Israel triangle – Israel-first politicians, civil servants, and pundits; AIPAC's corrupting influence; and the warmongering of major evangelical Protestant preachers – is so obvious and palpable that the only way its members can blur reality is to deny the triangle's existence and identify their critics as anti-Semites. [Its a crime to state the obvious and tell the truth.] Well, the time has come to simply ignore these folks' knee-jerk hurling of that epithet. Indeed, the slur ought to be understood for what it is: a sure sign that the Israel-firsters know that their fifth column would be destroyed in a minute if their fellow Americans come to recognize that their sons and daughters are dying in Iraq and soon elsewhere to protect an Israeli state whose existence is just as important to U.S. interests as the creation of a Palestinian state – that is, of no importance whatsoever.
To be silenced by the slurs of the Israel-firsters is to ignominiously invite the end of American independence by subordinating U.S. interests to those of a foreign nation, as well as to forget the warning of the greatest American. "If men are precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind," George Washington said in March 1783, "reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter." As long as the Israel-firsters can define the limits of acceptable public discourse, Americans are on their way to the slaughter.
source article
The Israel-firsters' success is, of course, the stuff of which legends are made. Most recently, for example, we heard President Bush echo Sen. Lieberman's insane and subversive contention that the United States has a "duty" to ensure the fulfilling of God's millennia-old promise to Abraham regarding the creation and survival of Israel. Bush told the Knesset all Americans are ready to endlessly bleed and pay to ensure Israel's security. And where does the president derive authority to make such a commitment in the name of his countrymen? From the Constitution? On the basis of America's dominant religion? From – heaven forbid – a thoughtful, hardheaded analysis of U.S. interests?
No, Bush's pledge was based on none of these. Bush's decision to more deeply involve America in the eternal Arab-Israeli war was based on nothing less than the corruption wrought on the American political system by the Israel-firsters, AIPAC's enormous treasury, and the lamentable but growing influence of America's leading evangelical Protestant preachers.
The Israel-firsters started the Iraq war and now have the United States locked into an occupation of that country that may not end in any of our lifetimes. Unless Americans ignore the likes of Hanson, Podhoretz, Lieberman, Woolsey, and Wolfowitz, the cost in blood and treasure will ultimately bankrupt America.
AIPAC is a perfectly legal organization, and the wealth of its members is channeled into reliable campaign contributions for any candidate from either party who will put Israel's interests above America's. From McCain to Obama, from Pelosi to Giuliani, from Hillary Clinton to Vice President Cheney, AIPAC pumps money to any and every American politician who is willing to adopt an Israel-first policy.
Leading American Protestant evangelical preachers – men like Hagee, Parsley, and Graham – are the newest and perhaps most anti-American members of this fifth column. They serve two purposes: (1) to reinforce in the minds of their flocks the Bush-Lieberman absurdity that the United States has a "duty" to ensure Israel's survival; and (2) to use religious rhetoric to steadily convince the Muslim world that U.S. leaders are interested only in taming – and if need be, destroying – Islam.
The reality and power of this anti-American, pro-Israel triangle – Israel-first politicians, civil servants, and pundits; AIPAC's corrupting influence; and the warmongering of major evangelical Protestant preachers – is so obvious and palpable that the only way its members can blur reality is to deny the triangle's existence and identify their critics as anti-Semites. [Its a crime to state the obvious and tell the truth.] Well, the time has come to simply ignore these folks' knee-jerk hurling of that epithet. Indeed, the slur ought to be understood for what it is: a sure sign that the Israel-firsters know that their fifth column would be destroyed in a minute if their fellow Americans come to recognize that their sons and daughters are dying in Iraq and soon elsewhere to protect an Israeli state whose existence is just as important to U.S. interests as the creation of a Palestinian state – that is, of no importance whatsoever.
To be silenced by the slurs of the Israel-firsters is to ignominiously invite the end of American independence by subordinating U.S. interests to those of a foreign nation, as well as to forget the warning of the greatest American. "If men are precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind," George Washington said in March 1783, "reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter." As long as the Israel-firsters can define the limits of acceptable public discourse, Americans are on their way to the slaughter.
source article
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Meet Mr. Freedman
P.S. Ex-Jewish Zionist, Christian-convert Benjamin Freedman warns Americans about zionists from the Willard Hotel, Washington D.C. in 1961. Shortly thereafter, JFK was assassinated, and we've been thoroughly under their control ever since. JFK was naive. He thought that as President, he could restore the country to its people.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Peace Train
The Peace Train has no zionists on it. Everyone of good will get on... the peace train.
P.S. I played this loudly [in protest, in despair] in my cubicle days before we started our disgraceful so-called 'war on terror' in earnest with the 'shock and awe' bombing and invasion of Iraq.
P.S. I played this loudly [in protest, in despair] in my cubicle days before we started our disgraceful so-called 'war on terror' in earnest with the 'shock and awe' bombing and invasion of Iraq.
Meet the 9-11 Neo-Cons
P.S. Both zionist parties [Democrat and Republican] are equally committed to waging 'the war on terror.' Democrats may support the notion that Bush lied about the case for the invasion of Iraq but don't question [wink, wink] the pretext [the official 9-11 fairy tale] for the 'war on terror.'
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Zionists Pushed for War with Iraq and Now Iran
P.S. The truth is screaming loudly through the cracks. Damn, the truth is so evident that even its shadow is drowning out the routine lies of the MSM liars. I wouldn't want to be one of the many MSM liars these days. With that in mind, locally, I'd like to give a shout out to Charlie Sykes, who I said would one day be ashamed for what he's doing. But of course, I was thinking of normal person with a normal sense of dignity.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Mr. Chomsky, (A) Corporate interests equals (B) Zionist interests.
I've often wondered why Noam Chomsky, the darling of the peaceniks and others on the left, took issue with the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, The Israel Lobby, a few years ago. Did he actually believe what he said? Or did the professor have an ethnic blind spot as suggested by Professor James Petras? What if Chomsky purposefully mislead us and committed the sin of all sins, perpetuated an intellectual fraud?
The Walt Measheimer paper(W-M) claimed that the Lobby caused American foreign policy to be biased in favor of Israel to the detriment of America's real interests in the Middle East. Imagine that. They further contended that it was these advocates for Israel that pushed America into war with Iraq. Chomsky responded with a critique of W-M suggesting that corporate influence(the oil industry and military industrial complex in particular) drove US foreign policy far more than the the Lobby, which he believed had no more influence than any other major lobby in Washington. To many of us on the left, this just seemed silly. In responding to Chomsky, Petras laid out the Lobby's trail of influence doo-doo in a convincing fashion. I will not rehash it all here.
In the past few years Zionist academics and journalists have done their best to refute the W-M paper in those few media outlets that allowed discussion or debate about the topic. Those refutations however struck most of us paying attention as ridiculous in light of the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's, comments on the topic a few years back.
In 2001, and in response to a suggestion by Shimon Peres that refusing an American request for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us," a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying this. "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." I would point out here for those worried about political correctness, that Sharon didn't just refer to Zionists or limit his comments to influence in foreign policy. The question that academics should have been asking then was not whether the Lobby has extraordinary influence on American foreign policy, but why it does. This doesn't seem to be a question our academic or journalistic community is even willing to ask, let alone explore. So let me attend to the question since our academic fraudsters are apparently afraid.
Lets examine what Chomsky said in his criticism of the M-W paper in reference to his argument that corporations likely yield far more influence on American foreign policy than the Lobby.
Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.
The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle(sic). And there is plenty of conformity.
But is there any real distinction in A and B above as Chomsky would suggest. In regard to concentrations of economic power and state-corporate linkage, lets take a look at the trend in corporate ownership in the last several years.
From the New York Times:
In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the latest income tax data. The top group’s share of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent.
Not only are the rich getting richer, they seem to be doing so at an alarming rate. Remember also that households don't include pension and retirement plans of course which hold a significant portion of remaining corporate wealth outside of the one percent of Americans that hold the overwhelming majority. Can anyone think of the most dominate ethnic group responsible for the management of those retirement assets at banks, investment houses or other financial institutions. Think about that one for a minute. I know you're feeling naughty just thinking about it. That's the way you're supposed to feel.
Now lets analyse the composition of the one percent of Americans that control almost sixty percent of the corporate wealth. Forty-five percent of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish. As many as one-third of American multimillionaires are believed to be Jewish. This is a phenomenal concentration of wealth within an ethnic group comprising only two percent of Americans. It is likely more than enough wealth when added to the value of stock controlled by Jewish managers of retirement assets, to effectively control corporate board rooms across America. Especially those that may have importance to Israel and those serving Israel's interests here in America. Media corporations, energy corporations, those peddling military hardware or other warfare profiteers, just to name a few.
So let me now add based on my observations, an equation to Chomsky's A or B question. Here it is, (A) = (B), where A equals corporations who influence American foreign policy and who are effectively owned or controlled by Zionists, and B equals, the same God Damn Zionists belonging to AIPAC and other Israel centric organizations, who own or effectively control the corporations.
So how is it that some one as brilliant as Chomsky could not put A=B together? Is this an honest mistake by this brilliant man or is this intellectual fraud? Is there anything about a Zionist or Zionism that is not fraudulent? I think I now have my answer.
source article
P.S. And since the overwhelming majority of Jews support zionism, whether or not they admit to being zionists, (A) corporate interests equals (B) jewish interests.
The Walt Measheimer paper(W-M) claimed that the Lobby caused American foreign policy to be biased in favor of Israel to the detriment of America's real interests in the Middle East. Imagine that. They further contended that it was these advocates for Israel that pushed America into war with Iraq. Chomsky responded with a critique of W-M suggesting that corporate influence(the oil industry and military industrial complex in particular) drove US foreign policy far more than the the Lobby, which he believed had no more influence than any other major lobby in Washington. To many of us on the left, this just seemed silly. In responding to Chomsky, Petras laid out the Lobby's trail of influence doo-doo in a convincing fashion. I will not rehash it all here.
In the past few years Zionist academics and journalists have done their best to refute the W-M paper in those few media outlets that allowed discussion or debate about the topic. Those refutations however struck most of us paying attention as ridiculous in light of the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's, comments on the topic a few years back.
In 2001, and in response to a suggestion by Shimon Peres that refusing an American request for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us," a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying this. "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." I would point out here for those worried about political correctness, that Sharon didn't just refer to Zionists or limit his comments to influence in foreign policy. The question that academics should have been asking then was not whether the Lobby has extraordinary influence on American foreign policy, but why it does. This doesn't seem to be a question our academic or journalistic community is even willing to ask, let alone explore. So let me attend to the question since our academic fraudsters are apparently afraid.
Lets examine what Chomsky said in his criticism of the M-W paper in reference to his argument that corporations likely yield far more influence on American foreign policy than the Lobby.
Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.
The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle(sic). And there is plenty of conformity.
But is there any real distinction in A and B above as Chomsky would suggest. In regard to concentrations of economic power and state-corporate linkage, lets take a look at the trend in corporate ownership in the last several years.
From the New York Times:
In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the latest income tax data. The top group’s share of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent.
Not only are the rich getting richer, they seem to be doing so at an alarming rate. Remember also that households don't include pension and retirement plans of course which hold a significant portion of remaining corporate wealth outside of the one percent of Americans that hold the overwhelming majority. Can anyone think of the most dominate ethnic group responsible for the management of those retirement assets at banks, investment houses or other financial institutions. Think about that one for a minute. I know you're feeling naughty just thinking about it. That's the way you're supposed to feel.
Now lets analyse the composition of the one percent of Americans that control almost sixty percent of the corporate wealth. Forty-five percent of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish. As many as one-third of American multimillionaires are believed to be Jewish. This is a phenomenal concentration of wealth within an ethnic group comprising only two percent of Americans. It is likely more than enough wealth when added to the value of stock controlled by Jewish managers of retirement assets, to effectively control corporate board rooms across America. Especially those that may have importance to Israel and those serving Israel's interests here in America. Media corporations, energy corporations, those peddling military hardware or other warfare profiteers, just to name a few.
So let me now add based on my observations, an equation to Chomsky's A or B question. Here it is, (A) = (B), where A equals corporations who influence American foreign policy and who are effectively owned or controlled by Zionists, and B equals, the same God Damn Zionists belonging to AIPAC and other Israel centric organizations, who own or effectively control the corporations.
So how is it that some one as brilliant as Chomsky could not put A=B together? Is this an honest mistake by this brilliant man or is this intellectual fraud? Is there anything about a Zionist or Zionism that is not fraudulent? I think I now have my answer.
source article
P.S. And since the overwhelming majority of Jews support zionism, whether or not they admit to being zionists, (A) corporate interests equals (B) jewish interests.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Kabbalah Queen Madonna Seduces All Star A-Rod
MIAMI - Alex Rodriguez's heartbroken wife Cynthia believes her hubby has been "brainwashed" by kabbalah-pushing pop icon Madonna and lured away from his family, an A-Rod confidant said yesterday.
"Alex, God bless him, is lost," A-Rod's ex-pal lamented. "I think he got pulled in by the dark side, if you can say that nicely. He's totally brainwashed."
"She believes it's what ruined her marriage," Romero added.
A-Rod's first encounters with the Material Mom came through their common friend, Miami nightclub owner Ingrid Casares, Romero said.
Once Madonna and A-Rod started working out together in New York in November 2007, he was under the complete spell of kabbalah's most famous practitioner, the slugger's confidant said.
"He's more infatuated with the fact he's with an icon instead of realizing what's important, which is family and truth," said Romero, 46.
"Alex [is acting like] he wants a divorce."
Sources said Alex arrived in Miami just in time for the birth of Ella on April 21.
He spent as little as 10 minutes with mother and child, then bolted back to New York and straight to Madonna's Central Park West pad, where he has allegedly spent a number of late nights.
Since then, A-Rod has seen his little daughter only a couple of times, said Romero.
He said A-Rod is going through a kabbalah practice called "cleaning out your vessel," which means getting out the old and taking in the new.
"To me that's a way of saying leave your family and move on," Romero said.
After hooking up with Madonna, A-Rod was soon frequenting Manhattan's Kabbalah Centre - where he's been spotted recently - in an all-white uniform, the sect's symbol of purity.
The temple on East 48th Street near Lexington Avenue is the same center that Madonna and her family visited yesterday.
And even when A-Rod wasn't with Madonna, she was there in spirit, according to Romero.
"He'd be in the gym and if a Madonna video would come on, he'd go into a trance," Romero said.
And when A-Rod is driving in his car, he'll only listen to Madonna music, the trainer said.
The third baseman's flirtation with Madonna and her faith led her to introduce him to fellow kabbalah practitioner Guy Oseary - manager of Madonna and other music stars - at a Los Angeles kabbalah center.
As A-Rod got deeper into his newfound faith, he spent more time socializing with Madonna and Oseary - all while growing apart from pregnant Cynthia, who was carrying their second child, sources said.
The buff Bomber was photographed wearing his wedding ring as recently as a few months ago, but was not wearing it last week.
As news of A-Rod's and Madonna's rendezvous broke last week, Cynthia left Miami with Romero and his family for Paris to be by the side of a family friend, rock star Lenny Kravitz. She was photographed strolling the streets there sans wedding band.
Cynthia has blamed Madonna for getting her husband hooked on the study of the ancient Jewish Zohar scripts, which followers claim have all the answers to the universe.
Kabbalah's 3 million worldwide followers believe that none of people's bad traits are a result of their parents.
C-Rod's suspicions about her hubby and Madonna coincided with published reports that the singer had hired one of London's most famous family-law attorneys, forecasting a pending divorce from British filmmaker and husband No. 3 Guy Ritchie.
source article
P.S. I recently talked to a woman from Wisconsin online who attributed her husband’s suicide to a Jewish woman who seduced him out of his relationship with her. She said her family was strange and always treated her with contempt. I told her that she had a brush with evil, referring to the mistress and her family. Am I wrong? Thank you for such a public seduction, Madonna. Now naïve gentiles, keep an eye on A-Rod for eye opening lessons.
"Alex, God bless him, is lost," A-Rod's ex-pal lamented. "I think he got pulled in by the dark side, if you can say that nicely. He's totally brainwashed."
"She believes it's what ruined her marriage," Romero added.
A-Rod's first encounters with the Material Mom came through their common friend, Miami nightclub owner Ingrid Casares, Romero said.
Once Madonna and A-Rod started working out together in New York in November 2007, he was under the complete spell of kabbalah's most famous practitioner, the slugger's confidant said.
"He's more infatuated with the fact he's with an icon instead of realizing what's important, which is family and truth," said Romero, 46.
"Alex [is acting like] he wants a divorce."
Sources said Alex arrived in Miami just in time for the birth of Ella on April 21.
He spent as little as 10 minutes with mother and child, then bolted back to New York and straight to Madonna's Central Park West pad, where he has allegedly spent a number of late nights.
Since then, A-Rod has seen his little daughter only a couple of times, said Romero.
He said A-Rod is going through a kabbalah practice called "cleaning out your vessel," which means getting out the old and taking in the new.
"To me that's a way of saying leave your family and move on," Romero said.
After hooking up with Madonna, A-Rod was soon frequenting Manhattan's Kabbalah Centre - where he's been spotted recently - in an all-white uniform, the sect's symbol of purity.
The temple on East 48th Street near Lexington Avenue is the same center that Madonna and her family visited yesterday.
And even when A-Rod wasn't with Madonna, she was there in spirit, according to Romero.
"He'd be in the gym and if a Madonna video would come on, he'd go into a trance," Romero said.
And when A-Rod is driving in his car, he'll only listen to Madonna music, the trainer said.
The third baseman's flirtation with Madonna and her faith led her to introduce him to fellow kabbalah practitioner Guy Oseary - manager of Madonna and other music stars - at a Los Angeles kabbalah center.
As A-Rod got deeper into his newfound faith, he spent more time socializing with Madonna and Oseary - all while growing apart from pregnant Cynthia, who was carrying their second child, sources said.
The buff Bomber was photographed wearing his wedding ring as recently as a few months ago, but was not wearing it last week.
As news of A-Rod's and Madonna's rendezvous broke last week, Cynthia left Miami with Romero and his family for Paris to be by the side of a family friend, rock star Lenny Kravitz. She was photographed strolling the streets there sans wedding band.
Cynthia has blamed Madonna for getting her husband hooked on the study of the ancient Jewish Zohar scripts, which followers claim have all the answers to the universe.
Kabbalah's 3 million worldwide followers believe that none of people's bad traits are a result of their parents.
C-Rod's suspicions about her hubby and Madonna coincided with published reports that the singer had hired one of London's most famous family-law attorneys, forecasting a pending divorce from British filmmaker and husband No. 3 Guy Ritchie.
source article
P.S. I recently talked to a woman from Wisconsin online who attributed her husband’s suicide to a Jewish woman who seduced him out of his relationship with her. She said her family was strange and always treated her with contempt. I told her that she had a brush with evil, referring to the mistress and her family. Am I wrong? Thank you for such a public seduction, Madonna. Now naïve gentiles, keep an eye on A-Rod for eye opening lessons.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel" and "everybody knows it."
Paul J. Balles argues that the US invaded and occupied Iraq at the behest of Israel lobbyists – the selfsame lobbyists who are now saying that the real threat all along had been Iran and that the US should attack Iran.
The pundits still don't see or don't want to see the truth about why the Bush administration attacked and invaded Iraq. The crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack Iraq was to help Israel. Based on prodding by zioncons Richerd Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Charles Krauthammer, Bush resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.
In May 2004, Senator Ernest Hollings acknowledged that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel”, and “everybody knows it”. Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying, “Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, “members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.”
Retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview published in the Independent:Those who favour this attack [against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
In short, the US bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq so that Saddam Hussein or any other Iraqi could not be a future weapons of mass destruction threat to Israel. It didn't really matter whether Iraq had WMDs or not. They were never to acquire them.
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
According to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, President Bush met in the White House with 11 members of the US House of Representatives six months before the attack. While the “war against terrorism is going okay”, he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.”
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a White House meeting on 27 February 2003, just three weeks before the invasion, reported Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer, Bush said, “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we have to avoid that.”
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
With Iraq secured by occupying forces, Israel and the zioncons could turn their attention to Iran. In order to facilitate that, the Israelis have been doing what American politicians call "flip-flops", saying that they did not encourage the United States to attack Iraq; and their major concern has always been Iran.
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
The 28 May 2008 newsletter of the American Jewish Committee told readers to “urge your representative to cosponsor H.Con.Res.362. It seeks economic, political and diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, spoke of an “American-Israeli consensus on the need to stop Iran’s nuclear programme by whatever means necessary."
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
source article
P.S. The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel and everybody that is free enough to see the truth knows it.
The pundits still don't see or don't want to see the truth about why the Bush administration attacked and invaded Iraq. The crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack Iraq was to help Israel. Based on prodding by zioncons Richerd Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Charles Krauthammer, Bush resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.
In May 2004, Senator Ernest Hollings acknowledged that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel”, and “everybody knows it”. Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying, “Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, “members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.”
Retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview published in the Independent:Those who favour this attack [against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
In short, the US bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq so that Saddam Hussein or any other Iraqi could not be a future weapons of mass destruction threat to Israel. It didn't really matter whether Iraq had WMDs or not. They were never to acquire them.
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
According to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, President Bush met in the White House with 11 members of the US House of Representatives six months before the attack. While the “war against terrorism is going okay”, he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.”
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a White House meeting on 27 February 2003, just three weeks before the invasion, reported Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer, Bush said, “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we have to avoid that.”
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
With Iraq secured by occupying forces, Israel and the zioncons could turn their attention to Iran. In order to facilitate that, the Israelis have been doing what American politicians call "flip-flops", saying that they did not encourage the United States to attack Iraq; and their major concern has always been Iran.
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
The 28 May 2008 newsletter of the American Jewish Committee told readers to “urge your representative to cosponsor H.Con.Res.362. It seeks economic, political and diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, spoke of an “American-Israeli consensus on the need to stop Iran’s nuclear programme by whatever means necessary."
The only country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction is Israel.
source article
P.S. The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel and everybody that is free enough to see the truth knows it.
That Shitty Little Country Threatens World Catastrophe
In 2001, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Daniel Bernard, said "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel." The diplomat added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?"
Today, Ambassador Bernard's statements ring more true than ever. Israel has been making threats to launch a military attack upon the Islamic Republic of Iran, a vile deed that would have a catastrophic effect not just on the Middle East but on the entire world.
Iran's leadership, however, believes that Israel is just bluffing concerning the threats. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed talk of a U.S. or Israeli attack against his country, calling the prospect of another war in the Middle East "craziness."
Part of the reason why Americans are paying close to $5 per gallon for gasoline is the threats Israel is making against oil rich Iran and the instability they cause on the international petroleum markets.
source article
P.S. Politically correct anti-war activists [jewish apartheid appeasers and apologists] lambaste me for my WW3 ZIONISM sign deeming it preposterous. But they fail to seriously consider the ramifications of zionism [because they can't allow themselves to do that]. Do they really think zionist crazies would stop short of WW3 supporting jewish apartheid?.. or that zionism could lead to anything else?
Today, Ambassador Bernard's statements ring more true than ever. Israel has been making threats to launch a military attack upon the Islamic Republic of Iran, a vile deed that would have a catastrophic effect not just on the Middle East but on the entire world.
Iran's leadership, however, believes that Israel is just bluffing concerning the threats. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed talk of a U.S. or Israeli attack against his country, calling the prospect of another war in the Middle East "craziness."
Part of the reason why Americans are paying close to $5 per gallon for gasoline is the threats Israel is making against oil rich Iran and the instability they cause on the international petroleum markets.
source article
P.S. Politically correct anti-war activists [jewish apartheid appeasers and apologists] lambaste me for my WW3 ZIONISM sign deeming it preposterous. But they fail to seriously consider the ramifications of zionism [because they can't allow themselves to do that]. Do they really think zionist crazies would stop short of WW3 supporting jewish apartheid?.. or that zionism could lead to anything else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
