< HOME  Tuesday, February 14, 2006

That's what FRIENDS are for

Just in case anyone still believes that they hate us for our freedoms.
The United States and Israel are considering a campaign to starve the Palestinian Authority of cash so Palestinians would grow disillusioned with their incoming militant Hamas rulers and return ousted Fatah moderates to power, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

The newspaper, which quoted unidentified U.S. and Israeli sources, said this approach was being discussed at the highest levels of the U.S. State Department and the Israeli government. The ultimatum to Hamas will be either to recognize Israel's right to exist [on Israel's terms, of course], abandon violence and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements, or risk isolation and eventual collapse, the newspaper said.

Israel has also threatened to cut off monthly transfers to the Palestinians of about $50 million from taxes and customs it collects for them, once Hamas takes power.

* * *

What is new is the strategy to force regime change by impoverishing the Palestinians even further, according to the newspaper report.
Isn't that quaint? Regime change by extortion.
As the U.S. and Israeli officials see it, Palestinians would grow so miserable that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's leader, would dissolve parliament and call early elections within months, the New York Times said.

The strategy's risks include the probability that Hamas would try to make up withheld money from the rest of the Muslim world, and from private donors, and that Palestinians would blame the United States and Israel, and not Hamas, for their growing misery, the newspaper said.
Noooooooooooo, of course not! Everyone knows that Israel's the only democracy in the Middle East and the United States is its closest friend, buddy, and confidante.

Isn't that what friends are for - destabilizing democracies all over the world?


At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

It's called survival. I have very mixed opinions about Israel, but I will say that Hamas has as its purpose to drive Israel into the sea. Until they publicly state that this is *not* their purpose, then why exactly should Israel want any aid to go to go to them? That would just be aid supporting terror.

We see this situation very differently. I see Hamas as the threat, and you see Israel as the threat.

That all said...I think starving a people is generally a bad idea. I think when people have nothing to lose, they turn to suicide bombing. From a strategic perspective, I think this will come back to Israel to bite them in the ass. But we'll see.

Oh, and some "democracy." One of Hamas's goals is to scale back the rights of women, to bring them ini line with other fundie Muslims countries. Some government! I look at how a country (which Palestine is not yet, technically!) treats women as a bellweather for how far it has progressed. The Palestinians have a ways to go.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

It's understandable that you have mixed opinions about Israel given what is usually discussed in the mainstream media. But, I labor under no such illusions.

Israel has progressed far beyond a threat, a long time ago. Israel is now, and has been for decades, an occupier and in flagrant breach of international law.

It's not called survival. It's called forceful appropriation and occupation of another's land against express international demands that it cease and desist.

That said, starving people is not 'generally a bad idea,' but a crime against humanity and a violation of international law. Palestinians are not the aggressors, the state of Israel is the aggressor.

And regarding womens' rights, if anything, women have a right to have their husbands and their brothers and their sons return home in one piece as opposed to being disintegrated by Israeli hell-fire rockets in "targeted assassinations" or picked off by Isaeli snipers on their way to school.

Palestinian women have the right to get past checkpoints to get adequate medical attention during childbirth as opposed to having their newborns die on the road.

Pointing in derogation to Hamas's goal of scaling back women's rights would be almost laughable, if the situation weren't so bleak and dire.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

We disagree re: one of the most fundamental things you just stated...

Israel is now, and has been for decades, an occupier and in flagrant breach of international law.

I don't deny they breach international law, but then I see the UN as anti-Israel. (well, duh, given it's made up of so many Arab countries that hate Israel!)

I DO deny that they are "an occupier of other peoples lands." I see no claim the Palestinians have to the main part of Israel, such as Tel Aviv. On the other hand, whatever claim they have to the West Bank is dubious. It's not as if there was a Palestinian country prior to the formation of Israel. And Israel gained the land when Jordan, which originally had the land, placed all of their troops on the border of their country, ready to attack. (Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria also were involved in the Six Day War)

Israel won land in war. That makes them different from every other country on this planet...how, exactly?

And re: the checkpoints and bombing. I believe violence begats violence. So then let's look at the violence. Let's look at suicide bombers who actually aim for women and children. Let's look at Israelis having to worry as to who is boarding the bus, because they may blow themselves and the bus up. Let's look at that. If there are checkpoints, it's because there is a very real fear of being suicide bombed. It's a very real security fear. (that said, I am aware of the problems the checkpoints cause) If there are Israeli bombings, it's an incredibly targetted bombing to get the thugs who enacted terror in Israel.

Women in Israel have a right to be free from suicide bombing, too.

Violence begats violence. Why are you ignoring the incredible violence of the Palestinians, enacted under Hamas?

I am aware the Israelis overreact when they are attacked. It has become one big cycle of never ending violence.

But the "humanitarian crisis" of the Palestinians is mostly self inflicted. The Israelis were practicing unilateral withdrawal, prior to their electing Hamas. They chose to elect a group dedicated to eridcating Israel. Hence, they have to live with the consequences.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

And btw, this has nothing to do with the so-called "media." I am well aware of what is going on, and do not get my news from any 24 hour cable station. I have read scores of books on the subject, and in fact am somewhat annoyed that you would think my opinion is straight out of what is in the mainstream media.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

One more thing. I want it to be clear that while the Palestinians did bring on whatever treatment they get by electing Hamas, I also think it is a stupid policy, strategically, to starve out the region. I really think it will only make the Palestinians madder and more willing to attack Israel. I also realize not every Palestinian voted for Hamas, and it brings THOSE Palestinians undue suffering to withhold funds. Sadly, however, it has become clear that only a minority of Palestinians are against Hamas - an organization whose central tenet is to elliminate Israel.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

It's not "a stupid policy, strategically."

It's a crime against humanity and it's in violation of international law.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

But then if the funds end up supporting the suicide bombers Hamas has been using and has pledged it will continue to use against Israel...isn't that also a human rights disaster?

Isn't it a human rights disaster to refuse to let a Jew into Saudi Arabia? If you are Jewish - you cannot step foot into the country. If you are Israeli, you cannot step foot into most Middle Eastern countries. Is that not also a human rights disaster?

Israel is treading in the muddy waters of the Middle East. There is no easy answer, though it is very easy to say from afar that Israel is a human rights violating country, without having to deal with the constant suicide bombing.

And for the record, international law does not exist. It's all the law of the jungle when it comes to countries. If a country should choose to not submit itself to international jurisdiction, they really don't get much repurcussion, unless other countries decide to sanction them or go to war with them. As I said - internationally, it's the law of the jungle. Every country on earth has violated "international law."

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

The reason Hammas was voted in to power is very simple:
Fatah was a corrupt organisation Hamas wasn't.

I would advise both of you to go back to the history books to see what really happened.
Zionism claims from religiuos fairytales that the land west of the river Jordan is theirs. Be aware Jews are not a race nor a people as such they have the same religion, Judaism. Israelis live in the state of Israel majority religion Judaism.

From 1920 it was a British protectorate, before that it was the Otoman empire and before that mainly Arabs that ruled in the area.
They say the Romans ruled over that area from 63 BC-337 AD. And before that it was inhabited with people that were Jewish. But the Greek and the Persions were there as well. And 4000-1250 years before Christ it was the land of KanaƤn. But here we go into the misty area of fairytales regarding the claims of the Zionists.

All the time Arabs have lived in this area too named Filistina by the Greek.

Israel today is only concernd about its safety. The reason for the pullout of the Gaza strip was purely based on safety reasons.

Jewish fundementalism is as dangerous as Islam fundementalism. After the Holocaust ( which did happen) Isreal and the Zionist have made Western countries hostage with our guilt feelings regarding the treatment of Jews throughout centuries.

We in the west should point out that Israel should comply to UN resolutions which they havent done but no western country is firm here. The Zionists have created Palsitinian fundamentalism and terror, no one else.

Because I am not sharing the Zionist ideas does not mean I am against Jews or anti Semite.

TomTom, Frearless navigator

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

There is no international law for those who do not believe in God, or some higher order above individual interests.

I am not one of them. I believe in God and objective goodness - being the acknowledgement of each individual's inalienable right to live, learn, and interect with their fellow human beings, free from control, oppression, and insult by others.

And no, not welcoming someone into your country is not the same as occupying another's land and oppressing its people.

You will find me unflinching regarding this issue. Israel may have the legal right to exist within its 1967 borders as outlined in one UN resolution after another. But, it neither has a legal nor moral claim to one inch more, nor does it have the right to oppress and control whole populations in the name of "security."

As tomtom aptly put it, "Zionists have created Palsitinian fundamentalism and terror, no one else."

And likewise, just because I am against Zionist ideas does not mean that I am against Jews. (The term anti-semite is meaningless to me since I am a semite and cannot be anti-me).

In fact, there are many Jews who are against the Zionist agenda, which is a geopolitical one, not based on the Hebrew faith.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I agree that the problem all stems from religious fairytales.

In truth, there's not a huge difference between the Palestinians and Israelis...other than religion.

I also should point out that much of the mainland of Israel was sparsely settled, at best, prior to the formation of Israel. It was unuseable swampland. It's the West Bank and East Jerusalem that's at issue. And this land was taken in the 1967 War.

Anyway, the problem I have with those who claim "Zionism is racism," is that they ignore Islamic fundamentalism which in fact exists throughout the Middle East, and pretend as if Israel is particularly worse than the rest of the Middle East. I am glad you acknowledge that Islamic fundamentalism is in fact racism and a huge threat.

I acknowledge the huge moral questions inherent in the State of Israel. If there is to be a Jewish state, then, point of fact, Palestinians cannot be a part of it - population-wise, they will soon surpass Jews in the region, and if they get the right to vote, there will cease to be a Jewish state. That said, I believe in the idea of a secular Jewish state. (and in fact most Israelis are not religious, but are "culturally Jewish")

So...what? I believe the only solution is a two state solution, with the West Bank Palestinian, and East Jerusalem shared between Israelis and Palestinians, religious areas open to both religions. I believe most Israelis share this opinion, if you look at public opinion polls.

That said, this fair solution is lambasted by Hamas, who wants to drive Israel itself into the sea. So how exactly do you deal with such an organization? How do you negotiate? It's an impossibility.

That's how I view Israel.

And I don't think those who are anti-Zionist are anti-semites. I acknowledge the moral dilemma inherent in the State of Israel.

I just dispute that the land was taken wholesale from the Palestinians. It's patently untrue. The only land that ever really was Palestinian is the West Bank and Gaza. And point of fact, the Palestinians are in their dire straits in a large part because the Arab nations want the Palestinians to suffer. It's a "wedge issue" (like gay marriage and abortion in the US) that keeps the Arab dictators in power. The Palestinians getting their own state would be the worst thing for Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. (just as overturning Roe v. Wade would be a bad day for the Repugs)

Anyway, that's how I see things. I don't dispute that the Palestinians also elected Hamas because of corruption in the PLO - but they knew who they were electing. And until Hamas changes...it is understandable (though unadvisable) that Israel would want to withold funds from Hamas. (out of safety concerns for the nation)

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

P.S.: To qrswave, the whole "belief in god is what creates international law" is patently untrue.

I am not saying there's not some basic need for human rights. I am not disputing the human rights problems for the Palestinians. But it's not so simple as "Israel bad/Palestinians good." It has become a continuous cycle of violence begatting violence.

And to say that atheists or agnostics are incapable of believing in human rights is laughable. In fact religious wars have created more human suffering than anything else. I see religion as fairy tales that cause people to say "I hate you because you don't believe in my god." If you look at the history of the world, it backs up my viewpoint of religion.

Religion is not what ties us together. It is shared humanity (which religion makes us forget that we have) that ties us together.

I believe in fundamental human rights that transcend religion. And not because some fairy tale in the sky will judge us in the after life, but rather, because if we are to be better than animals, we have to live above the law of the jungle.

I am not saying I am happy that there's no international law. I am just pointing out an obvious fact. Interntional law only exists as long as any one country submits to international jurisdiction. The real "international law" is "might makes right."

I am not saying that is a GOOD thing - but it is the state of the world. And I see the UN as illegitimate, because you have Arab nations (which vastly outnumber Israel) voting for absolutely pointless resolutions (that accomplish nothing) against Israel. The UN is deeply flawed, though it's all we have. It has become another League of Nations.

We do need international law - sadly, we don't have any (real) international law.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I do want to add that it's hypocritical to say "let's promite democracy in the Middle East," and then when a party is elected that is unliked, to say "KIDDING, didn't mean it!"

If a country claims to support democracy in the Middle East and goes to war over this, they best be willing and able to support democracy even when it's messy and the consequences are Hamas.

I agree it's a bad idea for the US and Israel to act in this manner. I just am saying it's understandable (though unadvisable).

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Hamas is trying to win land back by war - just as Israel did! Fair and square. :) and they will one day.

Most Israeli citizens are imported from Europe and other countries, while Palestinians were expelled to Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere.

It is genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and lawlessness - and plain to see with those with two eyes.

One day, it will be set straight. The users of force understand no other language.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Please explain then why Hamas's agenda is to drive Israel into the sea - including the parts of Israel that had little to no Palestinians prior to the formation of Israel.

And thanks for clearing up any misconception that Hamas is anything but an organization devoted to violence.

"Apartheid." Well, in Israel, Arab Israelis have the right to vote. They only are barred from the military - something I would say they wouldn't want, anyway!

The only issue of "apartheid" is in the West Bank. And yet if the land is to be handed over to the Palestinians, they have as their agenda kicking out not only all Jewish settlors, but also saying Jews are not welcome - period.

So in fact, given the chance, Palestinians also would practice "apartheid."

It's not a case of the poor, begrieved Palestinians against evil Israel. It's far more complicated than that.

As far as genocide...um, no. It's violence begatting violence. It's action causing a reaction. There simply is not organized (or unorganized) effort by the Israelis to kill every Muslim. There isn't. I am not saying it's right to target bomb a house of those organizing suicide bombing, because that causes so-called "collateral damage." I realize that only furthers the cycle of violence. But to call this "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" is to ignore the reality of the situation.

As far as lawlessness - let's call a spade a spade. It's certainly lawless when the Palestinians suicide bomb in Israel. THAT is lawlessness. (even according to "natural law.") How anyone could advocate the killing of women and children (which is what suicide bombers do in Israel), then say Israel is evil for killing Palestinian women and children is beyond me. It's hypocritical.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger tomtom said...

If you have not read it you should read it now Karin Amstrong's "The Battle for God",

Only if fundamendalism of both sides will be wiped out then there will be a posibility of understanding and negotiation. But because of (geo)political reasons this will never happen in Israel. See the following comment.

As missR rightfully stated a Palestinian state is not what the countries really want.

An alarming article appeard on the frontpage of NRC Handelsblad ( well informd Dutch newspaper) this evening and it was the major item of the 10 o'clock news in The Netherlands: Jordan valley locked up for Palestinians. This was investigated by human rights organistaion B'tselem and the newspaper Ha'aretz and confirmed by an Israeli army spokesman. The Israeli army has taken some radical moves that prevents two million Palestinians to enter the Jordan valley. So in the west is the barrier and in the east this military zone of 15 kms wide and 120 kms long. A new Palestinian state will be surrounden by Israeli soldiers. The word annexation was used in the article and in the news buletin. This all happened when the world focussed on the Gaza strip a couple of months ago. The palestinian refugee camp got bigger.

If you want peace in the middle east and want Hamas to abandon violence ??????????

TomTom, Fearless Navigator

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Breaking NEWS: Just in from ABC News...

Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon told The Associated Press: "There are no ongoing discussions with the U.S. designed to bring down the Palestinian government."

"There is no conspiracy between Israel and the United States to hurt the Palestinian people and there is no plan whatsoever to compromise the well-being of the Palestinian people," he said.

* * *

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "There's no plot." State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he was "puzzled" by the report.

"We are not having conversations with the Israelis that we are not having with others, including the Quartet. There is no plan, there is no plot," he said.

I wonder who leaked the previous story to the NYT? Not that it was really different from their previous position. They merely characterized it as regime change.

Besides, this report (pages 3-4) ends with the exact same wording that was presented in the NYT piece.

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Most Israeli citizens are imported from Europe and other countries, while Palestinians were expelled to Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere.

"It is genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and lawlessness - and plain to see with those with two eyes."



"It's not as if there was a Palestinian country prior to the formation of Israel."

There was not a "country" officially recognized by the West, but the people who lived there, continuously, for centuries, could indeed rightfully and morally claim possession of the land.

Western notions of ownership are often construed in such a way as to dispossess nonwesterners. For example, the various Indian tribes of the Amazon jungle have been living on their lands for centuries, without every filing for "legal title".

Israel was founded on blood and massacre. Terrorist groups such as Irgun and the Stern Gang did to Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews by means of Einsatzgruppen -- mobile killing squads. And how about Sharon's "Unit 101"?

Miss R, your rather strained defences of Israel show you to have been wrestling with the truth of this for some time.

I see no reason why any Arab or Muslim should "accept" Israel. The justice of this is on their side.

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

The main part of Israel was sparsely settled at best prior to the formation of Israel. I see no claim the Palestinians have to that land.

Israel was not founded on blood and massacre. The main part of Israel was handed to the Jews, NOT the West Bank. Not content with this, there was a war on the date of formation of Israel. Did the Jews start the war? NO.

The issue is the West Bank. I already addressed that.

There is no "justice" on the side of Arabs/Muslims to have the main part of Israel.

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I want to add that what Sharon did in Lebanon is shameful and I never said I am 100% for all that Israel has done. But then I still believe in the State of Israel and don't think those actions invalidate the State of Israel - otherwise every country that has committed such acts would similarly be invalidated. (and we would no longer have countries)

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Oh wikipedia, how I love thee.


At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


One more link. Gay Palestinians feel more safe in Israel, under house arrest, rather than in Palestine, where they would be killed.

So yeah...there is a human rights issue for the women in Palestine with the religious Hamas elected.

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

anybody can edit wikipedia.

re: gay palestinians; expedient.

Heterosexuals are a much greater threat to zionist ambitions to keep Israel a majority Jewish state.

In other news, Israeli troops shot dead a mentally retarded Palestinian teenager holding a toy gun. Palestinian security forces said Mujahed al-Simadi was shot in the chest after a group of youths threw stones at a house that the soldiers had taken over.

What the fuck were they doing in the house? And why shoot a kid with a toy gun IN THE CHEST?

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Well I will find other sources if you dispute wikipedia which you can believe or not. But the facts are the facts.

As far as the toy gun...am I supposed to be outraged at the horrible state Israel is over that one? Kids with toy guns are regularly killed around the world. The fear is that the gun is real. Is it a tragedy? Yes. Is it brutality? No, it's an accident. They should have aimed for an arm, rather than the chest. But sometimes this stuff happens. I am not saying it's a good thing, it's of course a tragedy.

Why they were in the house is something I do not know.

At Wednesday, February 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I want to add that in Iran, gay teens were recently executed for being gay.

I have a real problem with the human rights issues in these countries, irrespective of American involvement. Recently, a Russian iman (the head of Islam in Russia) said that it was encouraged to use any force necessary to protest a gay pride parade in Russia. (including violence) - http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/021406russia.htm

Let me underline that this is number one guy in Russia who is saying this stuff. This is just the gay issue. Let's not even discuss all the honor killings that occur every day in these countries. (of gays and women)

Is the American involvement in Iraq atrocious and sickening? Yes. I nearly vomited looking at the Abu Ghraib photos yesterday. They were truly sickening. What goes on there is something words cannot even describe.

But that doesn't mean that there is also a very real brutality going on between Muslims in that region. Electing Hamas only will exacerbate the already existing brutality. (but that said, it is not the place of the West or Israel to enact "regime change" of a democratic elected government)

At Thursday, February 16, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

To "anonymous" of 12:58 AM 15 Feb:
U write "Irgun and Stern gang did to Palestinians what Nazis did to Jews...." U're a liar, and note u give no references. Irgun, Stern, Israelis, and Jews are all murderers, liars, frauds, etc., but don't lie about the Nazis who were magnificent patriots and heroes fighting desperately against the Jew-Bolshevik hordes who murdered millions of white Russian Christians, millions of Ukrainians, and then millions more Germans during and after WWII. (Ck James Baque, "Other Losses" and "Crimes and Mercies.") Murderers Churchill, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower were all Jews by race--so was Stalin in all probability. U ruin ur expo with ur stupid lies about German patriots. Thor

At Thursday, February 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stalin was Jewish? Lenin was Jewish? *laughs*

I wonder what that says about the millions of Jews whose religion was OUTLAWED in the USSR and feared going to the gulag if they practiced their faith.

Wow your paranoid Jew rants not only make no sense but in fact are flat out laughable!

At Thursday, February 16, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

Jews, liars through and through: All authorities agree Lenin (Ulyanov, I believe) was Jew by race, no question. U give no ref. for the Judaism being outlawed in USSR; besides, if it was outlawed it was by the "non-secular" Jews who enforced it. Stalin was surely a Jew in all probability: his three wives were Jew, and his three kids married Jews. Note Judaism is collectivistic religion, God supposedly treating Jews largely collectivistically. Communism then is merely an applied Judaism, collectivism, but only now more secular, without the God. Keep talking. Thor

At Thursday, February 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your words: Stalin was a Jew "in all probablity." Lenin was a Jew "by race."

You say these wildly insane things without a shread of proof or even making any sort of sense.

FACT: Karl Marx and Trotsky were Jewish. No denying that.
FACT: Lenin and Stalin were NOT Jewish. It's called historical record. (something you don't believe in)

If Stalin in fact was a Jew, please explain why he sent Jews to the gulag for practicing Judaism?

You don't even make sense in your wildly nonsensical statements. This is why I believe you are a Jew pretending to be a racist nutjob, just to see the reactions you will cause.


You will read how a once thriving Jewish population in Russia was ruthlessly persecuted in the USSR. In fact, all religions were outlawed in the USSR, and the treatment of Muslims in Chechnya is also awful. But your words - they are so easily refuted with fact that it is very laughable.

At Thursday, February 16, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

To anon 12:35PM, just above:
That Lenin (Ulyanov) was Jew by race is acknowledged by all and any authorities I know of. That Lenin's grandmother was Jew seems undisputed and was found out by Lenin's own widow or sister and duly reported to Stalin, as I remember the little story (Volkogonov, LENIN). That Bolshevism is and was Judaic enterprise in agreed by all authorities.

U pretend that because some Jews, u neither say how many or quote a source, went to the "Gulag" there's some problem w. Bolshevism being Jew. I know the Jew author/historian Sleszkhine, who just recently put out a book, denies ur claim; he says bolshevism was very good for all and any Jews, and none (essentially) went to any "Gulag." It's u w. problems with history if not truth itself.

U're really just an hysterical Jew liar. Fact is u don't know if Stalin was or wasn't a Jew; I say there is strong inductive indication Stalin was Jew. It doesn't really matter anyway: Stalin was allied, associated, and quite cooperative w. the Jews he worked for and with. And Stalin sure did the bidding of the Jew masters in the US, Roosevelt, Morganthau, and all the other Jews.

Wikipedia is notorious Jew enterprise/undertaking and is fraught with Jew-lies type of problems as I understand fm Judicial-inc.biz website. Jew, I've always given numerous and high quality references in all my blog entries and essays, and the record is there in black and white. That u're a pathological liar and hysteric is also quite plain in black and white.

U know what?--I agree w. u: if I was a Jew, knowing what antiChrist liars and scum they really are, I'D SURE HATE FOR ANYONE TO KNOW IT; indeed yes, u are right about that. But I'm quite confident I'm loyal to God's Christian objectivity in accord w. Gosp. JOHN 8:44. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Thor

At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

"It's widely acknowledged that Lenin was a Jew."

No it is not.

None of your paranoid and insane rantings in fact are widely acknowledged. Please provide some form of proof of your wild rantings. Saying it's widely acknowledged is not enough.

And btw, when I say proof, I mean proof other than crazy articles written by the KKK. I am referring to proof as in something written by actual historians.

At Friday, February 17, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

Miss R: I've demonstrated in previous posts, on numerous previous blogs, u are a raging, raving psychotic, etc. If it was really true as u say above, "paranoid and insane rantings," then why do u bother? Our texts speak for themselves. Who do u really think u're kidding, comrade? Thank the Lord for the mighty I-net. Thor


Post a Comment

<< Home