< HOME  Monday, March 06, 2006

Phase Two: Preparing for War

Diagrams from an Iranian computer believed to depict an atomic bomb will be key to US arguments at the UN Security Council to take action on Iran's nuclear program, Time magazine reported.

The computer, purportedly stolen from an Iranian nuclear engineer and obtained by the CIA in 2004, contains documents and diagrams, including a presentation in Farsi 'with catchy graphics', that the US believes demonstrates Tehran's intention to build nuclear weapons...

Time called the computer data 'circumstantial' and US officials admit it is 'no smoking gun' proving Iran is building a nuclear bomb.


[The Guardian points out, however, that] any such presentation will bring back memories of a similar briefing in February 2003 in which Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, laid out evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which proved not to exist.
But, minor details like lack of proof did not deter US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton from expressing a hardline position against Iran before an AIPAC audience, yesterday.
"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve ... we must be prepared to rely on comprehensive solutions and use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses."

* * *

[In a related article,] British MPs returning from a fact-finding mission to Washington . . . expressed astonishment that widely differing policies — ranging from military action to diplomatic soft-pedalling — were still being debated even as the [IAEA] board prepared for its vital meeting in Vienna today.

Iran yesterday raised the stakes by vowing that it would resume large-scale uranium enrichment if the meeting referred the Islamic republic to the UN Security Council.

Condoleezza Rice . . . who will today hold talks in Washington with Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, is advocating a cautious approach.

“Nobody has said that we have to rush immediately to sanctions of some kind,” she said at the weekend.

“I think the Security Council will have to have a serious discussion about what the next steps will be.”

Bolton . . . told the MPs that he wanted a “Chapter 7 resolution” under which the UN would authorise military action, such as air strikes, against Iran.

[Bolton] was quoted as saying: “They must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means. We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down.”

* * *

Another option . . . ascribed to the Pentagon, where they had talks with Peter Rodman, the Assistant Defence Secretary, and Brigadier-General Carter Hamm, formerly the US commander in northern Iraq, was to throw the issue “into the Security Council like a hand grenade and see what happens”.

However, Mr Gapes said that both the CIA and Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, believed that the US should “ride it out” rather than engage in “posturing”, because of a lack of clarity as to what the Security Council would agree. Going to the UN could lead to a rerun of the attempts to get agreement on Iraq before the war.

Differences do not end there.
Britain has ruled out a military option if diplomatic pressure fails. The US has not.

[T]here are disagreements in the administration over whether air strikes and small-scale special forces operations could be effective in halting or slowing down Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme.

Some believe Iran has secret facilities that are buried so deep underground as to be impenetrable. They argue that the US could never be certain whether or not it had destroyed Iran's "capability".
So, where do we stand now?
"If [Iran is] referred to the Security Council, problems might occur for others as well as [Iran]," Ali Larijani said . . . "We would not like to use our oil as a weapon. We would not like to make other countries suffer."

[Bolton,] in turn warned of "painful consequences" if Iran made good on a separate threat, also repeated Sunday in Tehran, to answer a punitive vote by moving rapidly toward large-scale uranium enrichment.
It seems that there WILL be a confrontation. The question is, when and how, and will it be unprovoked, or will something else happen to provoke it? These are dangerous times, indeed.


At Monday, March 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Hitler staged an attack on their military to fire off WW2... I'm not sure there's anything stopping the colonial forces of doing the same/simiar.

They were bombing the crap out of Iraq before the invasion, trying Sadam in attacking them, thus justifying a war.

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

As I have repeatedly stated.

There is simply not enough justification to go to war against Iran. Period. At least not a full scale war. I will not support this.

That said, there is enough intelligence and justification for a targeted bombing of nuclear sites...if the intelligence is basically full proof that such sites exist. And I think Israel should be the bomber, as they are the ones most likely to suffer, should Iran get a nuke.

I want to add that a site that is merely building blocks for a nuke (and not a nuke itself) will not cause the sorts of massive civilian casualties that blowing up a nuke factory would.

If the sites are completely obliterated, then Iran simply would not have the technological capacity to fight back, and I think WWIII will be averted. I also think such an attack by Israel should occur with secret deals with all those nations with nukes - whereby they declare they will not counterattack.

Until the Iranian president recants statements he made declaring the Holocaust didn't exist, and stating an intention to obliterate Israel, then Israel has every reason and justification for such targeted bombing. They are fighting for their very survival.

My two cents.

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I want to further add that anything Michael Bolton says concerning the actions of other nations is laughable. The man is a fright upon the world, and has no moral authority. He also looks like a golden retriever.

I also think the US simply does not have the diplomatic will to start bombing another country, after the fiasco in Iraq. It saddens me, exactly how much Iraq has weakened the US. (in addition to being a humanitarian disaster)

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I said Michael Bolton and I meant John Bolton. Haha, I guess I had the singer on my mind. :-p

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Miss R,
Ahmedinejad never said the Holocaust dis not exist - please be exact in quoting. It is the lack of your beloved "freedom of speech" that Ahmedinejad complained about.

Israel has worn off the feelings of its sympathizers after WWII incidents, just as the US wore off its sympathizers after the 9/11 incidents.

A long time ago, I left a religious cult that I had been born into. I cannot describe the experience of the day when it dawned on me that I was living in a thought-control cult.

You seem intelligent and empathetic. I read all your responses in the other post and I see a familiar pattern - a pattern of ruling out negativities that I heard against my cult, and bending over backwards to justify. One day I snapped under the pressure of truth and justice. I hope one day you do too. :)

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


I am quite aware of what the Iranian president said. He wanted to "look over the proof" as to whether the Holocaust ever existed. Same thing. He then held a conference, and invited Holocaust deniers to attend - who refused to go to Auschwitz to see the proof of gas chambers.

For the record, my grandmother was in the Holocaust, and I find it deeply offensive when the Holocaust is denied or questioned as to its existence. Is there a free speech right to do so? That is questionable. Given denying the Holocaust is a lie, and there is no first amendment right to a lie, the free speech grounds on which Holocaust denial rests is quite flimsy.

That said, I generally support more speech, rather than less.

I am not bending over backwards. In fact, you are the one bending over backwards to support your beliefs.

The Iranian president also said - point of fact - that he wants to destroy Israel. If a madman with nukes who says such statements is not a threat to Israel's existence, then I do not know what is.

I do not think the U.S. should get involved, however, as this is more Israel's threat than America's, and as a point of fact, America has been so fucking incompetent in how it handles wars (and human rights/collateral damage, etc), that I do not trust America to handle this.

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I urge all to this Memorandum to President Bush and President Ahmadinejad.

Worth linking to on the main page.

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I agree the US has no moral justification for doing anything in Iran.

No arguments from me.

Until the President of Iran tons down his rhetoric and recants his Holocaust denial, as well as states he has no intention of driving Israel into the sea, then Israel does have a legitimate reason to target bomb specified sites.

Of course, ideally, the President of Iran would recant such statements, and no bombing occurs.

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, thought I'd ck in for the day; noted the activity at the other blog on "Les Visible" and read all the dumb junk. I've used present monikers/pseudonyms for a good while. I first started as "Dionysus" in regular print media way back in '92. So u can see I've been in this business for a good while. And I'll conclude this section-paragraph w. this: I never, ever even hrd of puke-ball Mr. "Visible" till I saw his idiot blog, "smokingMirrors..." on WhatReallyHappened.com a few weeks ago--just a little after, in fact, I saw WakeUpFromYourSlumber... on same WhatReallyHappened.com. So much for slime-brains "Visible," as I've said my piece already on this site's other blog on the subject. Visible is just another anti-antisemitic version of "Miss R," two peas in a Judaic-Talmudic pod, a cancer within our white Christian, formerly Constitutional republic, now a putrid, filthy empire engaged in Orwellian "perpetual war...."

But let me now address "romunov" ("R") regarding our dear Saint, unc' Adolf. R, u need to ck David Hoggan's "Forced War," authoritative account of the starting of WWII, which Hitler DID NOT START. On the contrary, the allies including esp. half-Jew Winston Churchill and then also Neville Chamberlain, along with the Judaic cabal in Wash. DC, were the ones who did everything they could to initiate WWII. Note English made an OFFENSIVE alliance with the Poles early in 1939, insuring the Poles (who were later miserably betrayed--as deserved--by allies) would start the war as they were determined to take the German city of Danzig (technically then a "free city" by Versailles, at the time). Indeed, it was the Pole aggression of long standing against Germany in general, fm just after WWI, and specfically then against Danzig which started WWII which Hitler didn't see well enough as simply a trap to annihilate Germany, and the pretext to ensnare the US into the United Nations conspiracy.

And the British-American aggression and policy thereto is brilliantly, extensively, and conclusively documented by such well known historians as Charles A Beard, the lawyer, Mr. Tansill (I'm pretty sure is the right spelling for the name), also Harry Elmer Barnes, and another outstanding historian named Chamberlin. It was the West which started WWII in conspiratorial aggression against unc' Adolf and Germany--this after the same Western powers did all they could to bring Hitler to power in order to insure War. (See Antony C. Sutton's "Wall Street..." series including esp. "Wall Street And The Rise of Hitler.")

"Miss R" is a known Jew-liar, who previously said, for example, the Bible says Jews own Palestine. "Miss R" is such an incompetent liar, she doesn't even give ref.s for her "Bible" lie. So much for Jew-liars--they're just liars, and the holohoax is simply another proven Jew lie, a putrid, scummy atttempt to impose Jew filth religion upon the Christian people of the US. (Again, to repeat, just ck Codoh.com, Ihr.org, and Zundelsite.org.)

CONCLUSION: All Christian prayers are FOR THE HEROES and patriots of Iran, may God give them strength to resist the aggression of the Judeo-"Sadducean" imperialist conspirators, criminals, and murderers who presently run the USA. (Pls ck Apollonian essays on New Testament Conspiracy theory-analytic-template on NewNation.org, under "commentary.") Mighty Thor

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Miss R,
Very few people deny the Jewish Holocaust. The plight of the Jews and Gypsies during WWII is heart-wrenching. However, the disproportionate amount of perpetual historical guilt used to hide the inhuman atrocities of Israel is what causes Ahmedinejad and others to try to reverse the disproportionate focus -- as compared to other human tragedies.

Golda Meir says: "There was no such thing as Palestinians ... It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."

Now there is a Palestinian people.

It is a frightfully Orwellian concept that Israelis are "concerned about survival". Palestinians had to painstakingly invent themselves from a deliberate "wiping out" of a nation.

Ahmedinejad did not propose the destruction of Israel. Israel is an artificial creation in the land of Biblical Palestine. The just alternative is to have a proportionally democratic government of all citizens (Jews and Arabs) in the whole of the land (like all civilized countries). Isn't it simple and plain? That would wipe Israel of the map, and the "West Bank" and "Gaza" off the map too -- without any destruction. And implement a proportionally representative democracy in the Biblical land of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital.

At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Akber, wow, I never thought of it that way, but that is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Ahmedinejad's statement.


At Monday, March 06, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Akber, are you proposing the "wonderful" one state solution that worked so well in Lebanon and Yugoslavia?

Because I think it would be an awful solution.

Most people are in consensus that the two state solution makes sense.

And any attempt to have one state (which of course would be an Arab/Muslim state) is an attempt to get rid of Israel by another name.

And the Iranian president flat out said did say he wants to drive Israel into the sea. Not sure how there are any two ways to interpret that - even according to your interpretation. (which would get rid of Israel and get rid of Jews in Israel)

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

qrswave, well, that's because I consider Ahmedinejad to be a popularly elected patriotic leader, unlike the "nice" ones in the pocket of the US. Similarly, I never doubt the sanity or patriotism of Sharon or Olmert or Bush.

Miss R, you and I agree: a democratic land will be the end of Israel. Ergo, Israel is an artificial creation enabled by man-made demographic distortion. Ergo, there is ZERO incentive for Israel to give full citizenship rights to people living under its control. Ergo, Israel will use all means to dehumanize them. Isn't it plain like the sun.

Zaid and Bakr were two identical twins living in Palestine. One fateful night, Zaid happened to be in Ramallah while Bakr was in Jerusalem. Bakr became an Israeli citizen while Zaid was caged in an enclosure by Mr. Zion - without work, without a passport and without citizenship or voting rights. After a few years, Zaid starting throwing rocks at Mr. Zion - Mr. Zion said "see, that is why I locked him up".

The argument that the dwellers of the "territories" are inherently evil is imbecile. They are culturally and religiously identical to the Arab Israelis (whom you so admire) and is the creation of the "territories" that preceded their behaviour. Simple cause and effect. :) Not very complex at all. The territories-dwelling Arab-animals have no work, no passport, no freedom to travel, no control over their own destiny. Israel hoped they would flee, but they did not.

One last question: Why does the existence of Israel override every other moral, political, historical and legal concern. Isn't that the Zionist philosophy?

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


My belief in the state of Israel exists because I believe in truth, freedom, and religious pluralism. Islamic fundies simply do not. I am sorry to state the obvious. But they do not.

I do not advocate one state, because in fact I advocate two states. The main part of Israel stays as is, and the territories become Palestine. Ergo, everyone gets the right to self determination.

Your claims of "artificial state" are patently false. Jews have continually resided in Israel for several millenia. In fact, their continual claims to the state of Israel run longer and deeper than the Palestinians. So much for "artificial creation."

Until the Palestinians care more about their own statehood than they do about the destruction of Israel, they will exist in the state they are in now. It is that simple.

In Gaza, there is only one official religion - Islam. All other religions are outlawed. In Israel, religous pluralism, freedom, and democracy exist. Israeli Arabs have full citizenship rights and in fact have seats in the Knesset.

So, in conclusion, I wonder why you are anti-truth, freedom, and religious pluralism. Because in order to advocate the sort of state you are advocating, you would have to be.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

I do not support fundo governments. My model of Islamic governments are Malaysia and UAE.

Palestinians were very secular (like the whole of the Levant - Syria, Lebanon, Iraq etc.)

The current Islamization of Palestinians is a very new reactive phenomenon - not *preceding* the demographic distortion that you and I earlier agreed on.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Why are you against the two state solution? Israelis have every right to their own state, and in fact, lived in the region, continuously, for over several millenia.

And the fact remains that Palestinian terror is not new, and existed, as I stated in my other post, for quite some time, and before the formation of the State of Israel. It existed before the occupied territories came to pass.

Until the terror stops and Palestinians care about having their own state over the destruction of Israel, they neither deserve their own state, nor will they get one.

And the current model of a Palestinian state is increasingly Islamic fundie. Hamas is in fact an Islamic fundie organization.

I feel bad for the non-suicide bomber Palestinians. Those people deserves their own state. Hopefully they will one day rise up and get rid of the Islamic fundies currently in charge, and demand peace.

That is when the two state solution is possible.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

It is hard to discuss anything in vitriolic terms. The two-state solution has been proposed on 1967 borders. Your are mixing cause and effect, and the ignoring Zionist terrorism for 80 years. An honest dialogue is not possible when you can choose not to see certain things - for exactly the same reasons that honest dialogue with Israel is not possible due to its small Zionist core.

Freedom was never given by the occupier - it was only won through the teeth of the unjust occupier, and so it is written, and so it shall be. :)

Go see Les Miserables again if you have not already.

Right now your words are soaked in the intoxication of brutal military power. I understand. Times never remain the same.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


You are ignoring Palestinian terrorism - the terrorism I spoke of in my other post. The systematic terrorism aimed at wiping Israel off the map.

I am aware of what went on during 80 years, and most of what you claim occurred are either blatant lies (which I do not fault you for, you are under a mind control ;-)), or are exaggerations.

The Palestinians started slaughtering Israeli settlers long before there was a state of Israel. They advocated Hitler. They spread lies and propoganda now accepted as fact by people like you. I not fault you - you are merely repeating what you were taught. I think you are a decent man, at heart.

FACT: Most of the land occupied in the main land Israel was actually purchased lawfully by absentee landlords, or abandoned. Some your claims re: the 1967 borders being "artificial" and "made up" are spurious.

FACT: Your beloved prophet Mohammed is part of why Jews fled Israel. He was responsible for the slaughtering of thousands of Jews. (this one is a tough one to read, I realize, but it is also true - http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/theprophet.html)

More on the conquests of Mohammed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed

I did not want to invoke Mohammed, and I do not justify even a single Israeli action based on what happened hundreds of years ago. But the hypocrisy of Islam - a religion founded on war and death to Jews - which then claims there is no Jewish tie to Israel...is just stunning. And so it is worth pointing out said hypocrisy.

Despite Mohammed's best efforts, Jews remained in the Middle East. Eventually, there was a truce, and those that remained flourished for centuries, living alongside Muslims. But the above fact also remains correct.

MORE FACTS: Jordan killed more Palestinians than Israel has. (in "Black September", something I linked to in a previous post)

FACT: Israel has attempted time and time again to give away the occupied territories, and the Palestinians have continually refused/invoked war instead.

The bottom line is that Israel is wrongfully maligned, deserves to exist, and the Palestinians, despite their use of terror, deserve their own state - when they are willing to act like grown ups, and start caring about having such a state over the destruction of Israel.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Miss r said: "Israel has attempted time and time again to give away the occupied territories"

Yeah, right.

We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.

-- Gen. Yehoshafat Harkabi (former head of IDF Intelligence); Maariv, 2 November 1973. Cited by David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p.181 third edition (2003).

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


Then what about the Barak plan? The terms of the plan - the very terms - gave the Palestinians at least 95% of what they could have asked for. Instead of bargaining with that plan, Arafat invoked terror. (the Intifada)

In 1948, the Palestinians were offered a state by the UN - this was rejected, and they went to war instead. From 1948-1967, the Palestinians were living in virtual slavery in Middle Eastern nations, mostly Jordan. That was not Israel that did that - that was Jordan.

Quotes like the one you cited notwithstanding, the facts are the facts are the facts.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

the quote she cited is a fact, sayan.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

You are adorable, JC. Cute li'l malcontent! Aww...so adorable! Stick still firmly lodged high up your ass, huh?

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Your time travel is astounding - from Muhammad to Hamas victory last month. My handicap as a Muslim is that I cannot abuse Abraham, or Moses or Jesus - as I revere them as righteous prophets, and honour their trials, tribulations, wars and kindness. 17 times a day, a Muslim invokes blessings in the five daily prayers - on Muhammad - "as Abraham and his people were blessed (exact words)".

In this thread, the only point you hampering is to malign an entire nation as immature, violent etc. - that is the dehumanization. On a flight from Toronto to New York once, I was seated beside an IDF officer on vacation. His words: "I hope it does not come to us killing them all". That is the same dehumanization that Hitler attempted on the Jews.

This thread is for all to see. I will not ask the referee for a knockout - but your flailing around precludes me from further discussion. There are only two options: either the Palestinians are inferior human beings, or they are oppressed - all other lines of reasoning will inevitably lead to these two conclusions. Take your pick.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


Choice C.

They are a violent people. That is my pick.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Let me amend myself.

The leaders and demogogues are violent.

The regular average Joe Palestinian is generally a victim of those in power.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

those in power being of course, zionists.

curious fact. according to jack bernstein:

"The ASHKENAZI Jews, who now comprise 90% of the Jews in the world, had a rather strange beginning. According to historians, many of them Jewish, the Ashkenazi Jews came into existence about 1200 years ago. It happened this way:

At the eastern edge of Europe, there lived a tribe of people known as the Khazars. About the year 740 A.D., the Khazar king and his court decided they should adopt a religion for their people. So, representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, were invited to present their religious doctrines. The Khazars chose Judaism, but it wasn't for religious reasons. If the Khazars had chosen Islam, they would have angered the strong Christian world. If they had chosen Christianity, they would have angered the strong Islamic world. So, they played it safe -- they chose Judaism. It wasn't for religious reasons the Khazars chose Judaism; it was for political reasons.

Sometime during the 13th century, the Khazars were driven from their land and they migrated westward with most of them settling in Poland and Russia. These Khazars are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar (Ashkenazi) Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really Jews -- AT LEAST NOT BLOOD JEWS."

So, Askhenazis are not Jews by Blood. They have no relation to the land. And their religious profession is a sham. Are they still Jews? Or are they "Jews."

Bernstein continues:

"Nearly all Arab Moslems and Arab Christians do have respect, even reverence, toward the holiness of the land; but, only a small minority of the Jews have the same respect. 95% of the Jewish population are atheists or secular humanists and are not impeded by the Ten Commandments or other restraints on sinful human behavior.
When the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews won control of the "Holy Land," every form of sin began seeping into this land. Within a few short decades, the holy land became a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. Drug trade, drug abuse, illegal weapons sales, prostitution, gambling, labor racketeering, murder, extortion, blackmail, insurance fraud, loan-sharking and corruption of government officials and police became part of daily life in Israel…"

"If Israel AS IT NOW EXISTS simply collapsed and ceased to exist, the world would certainly be better because of it. Unfortunately the New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv triangle will not allow Israel to die quietly. As the collapse of Israel draws nearer one of two courses of action by the triangle is likely to be taken:

1. Israel could trigger a large-scale Mideast war, a war which Israel could not win alone. Then the New York leg of the triangle would use its influence on the U.S. government to send U.S. military forces to aid Israel.
It isn't expected that the Moscow leg of the triangle will become militarily involved. Moscow will merely sit back and let the U.S. weaken itself in helping Israel fight the Arabs.
At some point during the war, when the U.S. military is deeply involved and the U.S. citizens demoralized, the Zionist-oriented Jewish international bankers will make their move. Evidence leads to the conclusion that it is these bankers who own the Class A Stock of the U.S. Federal Reserve, America's central bank. In this position of power these Zionist bankers can, and likely will, trigger an economic collapse in America -- like they did in 1929 when they caused the stock market crash and started the severe depression of the 1930's.
Since the money system currently used in the U.S. is NOT backed by gold, silver, or anything of value, the paper dollars and tin coins now in use will be worthless.
In the resulting state of confusion and in an effort to obtain food and other necessities, the American people will accept the "New States Constitution" which has already been written. This will place the American people under the dictates of one-world government run by the Zionist-oriented international bankers and Zionist/bolshevik Jews.
Exactly what direction the war in the Mideast will take only the New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv triangle and God can know.

When it is all over, the main LOSERS will be:
The American people.
The Arab people.
The Sephardic Jews and those Ashkenazi Jews who stand for justice and freedom.

The only WINNERS will be:
The Zionist international bankers and the Zionist/bolshevik (communist/socialist) Jews.

2. The other likely course of action would be a back-up plan, IF the American taxpayers say, "We've had enough!"
The cost of supporting a bankrupt Israel is draining increasing amounts of money from the American taxpayers. At some point,the taxpayers are going to say "enough!" When that happens, the Moscow leg of the New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv triangle will move in to fill the void.
To neutralize the United States, the Zionist international bankers will likely create an economic collapse and throw the U.S. into a state of chaos.
What military action the Soviet bolshevik Jews and the Israeli Zionist/bolshevik Jews will take against the Arab countries only the TRIANGLE and God can know. It is likely they will strike at the Arab oil fields first.
But whatever action is taken, one thing is certain -- the LOSERS will be:

The American people.
The Arab people.
The Sephardic Jews and those Ashkenazi Jews who are for justice and freedom.

The only WINNERS will be:
The Zionist international bankers and the Zionist/bolshevik (communist/socialist) Jews.

And just before he ends the book he gave us this decription of you, sayan, in 1985, and it fits you to a t:

"The contents of this book are expected to bring a strong reaction from the Zionist Jews.
I am well aware of the tactics YOU, my Zionist brethren, use to quiet anyone who attempts to expose any of your subversive acts.
If the person is a gentile, you cry, "you're anti-Semitic," which is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide your actions.
But if a Jew is the person doing the exposing, you resort to other tactics:
* First, you ignore the charges, hoping the information will not be given widespread distribution.
* If the information starts reaching too many people, you ridicule the information and the person or persons giving the information.
* If that doesn't work, your next step is character assassination. If the author or speaker hasn't been involved in sufficient scandal, you are adept at fabricating a scandal against the person or persons.
* If none of these are effective, you are known to resort to physical attacks.
But NEVER do you try to prove the information wrong."

He, being a "jew", must have known your kind very well, sayan.

as here: "You are adorable, JC. Cute li'l malcontent! Aww...so adorable! Stick still firmly lodged high up your ass, huh?"

says volumes about you, sayan. about your vileness, depravity, decadence, disease, immorality and amorality. there is nothing good or light in you, sayan. all your mock expressions of empathy ring hollow, even in writing. you are empty , sayan, shallow and rotten to the core.

but yes, you do profess no faith as 95% of you ilk. you, as they, hope there will be no judgment. if anything you fear judgement, don't you, sayan. imagine being told to rise from your grave and have your crimes read out to you, sayan.

hell is forever, sayan, and the fire was lit a long time ago, it burns so hot it has no color and there is no light.

and even though you, as many like you contemplate suicide, that is no escape, sayan, you will not slip quietly into the darkness.

you will be held responsible.

sleep well sayan. soon you will awaken.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I love you, my demented friend. You have now proven you are, at heart, not different than Appy/Thor. I do find Appy/Thor cuter, myself, though you do have a nice punim. Very squeezable.

So are you saying that honor killings when a woman is raped is better than the "Sodom and gomorra" of Israel? Are you saying that death for being gay is better? Are you saying that women in burkas is better than the so-called "Sodom?"

Personally, the most moral people I know are secular humanists. Religion itself is based on violence and hatred, as well as being anti-science and anti-rationality.

But that said, I believe in religious pluralism. Believe what you want, as long as you don't inflict that on me. Islamic fundies and the Palestinians do not believe that.

You do not believe that.

Oh well, you are cute. Large stick there, but cute.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger yusuf chun said...

the filth you spew is meaningless, sayan. the fact remains: your homeland is not in palestine. you have no right to it at all. your's is a false claim.

but being a zionist you'd define a false claim as moral wouldn't you, sayan?

btw, you have proven nothing. i quoted one of yours, sayan.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Sorry I deleted my post before I saw your reply, just to avoid religious debate. We agree on this issue to a large extent.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


Do I advocate strict Judaism? Did I ever say it was good? Hell no! I actually do not advocate religion. :-p My ideal state is not a two state solution - rather - it is a world with no religious states anywhere, where people live and let live. A two state solution for Israel is the best alternative to that.

And yet those strict adultery laws you mentioned are pretty much dead. They are not used - only a tiny minority of Judaism abides by such laws. The vast majority are not like that at ALL.

In contrast, there are millions of fundamentalist Muslims, and this is only increasing in number. There is a real problem.

Moderate Islam is one of the world's great religions. (well, I should add the caveat that I obviously do not believe in religion, though I realize others do and respect their beliefs) Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates are all nations with Muslim majorities that also are pro-west and generally tolerant. So it is not that there is something inherent with Islam that causes people to be violent. (that said, Islam in fact did have a very violent foundation, but then, so did Judaism, and for that matter, so did the early years of Christianity - hellooo Crusades!)

Religion in general is violent. You do see a pattern there - no?

Palestinians traditionally were represented by moderate Islam, though lately their leaders have turned fundie. This is not a good turn. Fundamentalism is absolutely an evil that is anti-human rights. I am not tolerant of intolerance, even if it is religious intolerance.

I brought Mohammed into the debate not to debate Islam, but only to point out the fact that - as a point of fact - Mohammed himself is part of the reason why more Jews did not live in Israel at the foundation of the nation.

Obviously modern day moderate Islam is not tied to its foundation. (Islamic fundamentalism is) Modern day Judaism and Modern day Christianity have very little resemblance to their foundations, though fundie versions of these religions certainly do.

The problem is that fundie Islam is far more prevalent than fundie Christianity (represented by Thor/Appy, btw) of fundie Judaism. I am not sure why this is, or what can be done to improve things.

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Wait for my upcoming book :) on this subject. I am not afraid of Islamic fundamentalists, just disappointed at some of their irrationality. I am not afraid because they are principled and follow a certain code, which is known to Muslims.

BTW, fundies is not same as extremists.

Islamic laws cannot be abrogated, but they can be implemented variously, and therein is the key to combat Islamic extremism, not fundamentalism. Again, the key is relentless logic, education and persuasion.

the terms 'pro-west', modern or 'terrorist' or 'moderate' do not do ANY good. Islamic fundamentalism is good for the concept of "Ummah" - which is unique to Islamic due to its non-racist and broad monotheistic appeal - across cultures and nations.

For a long time, Israel saw Islamic fundamentalism as a cure for Palestinian nationalism (see early support of Hamas) and US saw it as an antidote to the USSR. So, the fundamentalism is very benign and is a great tool for identity-building.

Fundamentalism turns to extremism in the absence of intellectual debate - and in the face of existential threats. The former is due to the US propping up dictators who cause intellectuals to flee to the West. The latter is caused by US bombs.

The book will be ready in about 5 years. :)

At Tuesday, March 07, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


I actually agree concerning what you said about propping up oil dictatorships. Well, I agree and disagree. I agree that it is one of the reasons of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. I do not think it is the only reason. Many complex causes and effects are at work there.

As far as Israel propping up Hamas, I know there was early support there (and this goes back to my not agreeing with everything Israel has done), but it does not mean that Israel does not have a right to react in the present when their very existence is at stake. I also think Israel did not know what they were getting into all those years back.

This actually is a good discussion. Too bad your book will be out in five years, the world can use your insight now!!


Post a Comment

<< Home