Archive | May 16th, 2015

I$raHell bloody and pointless wars on Lebanon

Israel's war on Lebanon

By Uri Avnery

A few days ago, Israeli TV Channel 10 broadcast an investigative story about the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon, known as Lebanon War II.

Though not very profound, it provided a good picture of what actually happened. The three main Israeli protagonists talked freely.

The picture was very disturbing, to say the least. One could say that it was alarming.

The main conclusion is that all our leaders at the time behaved with blatant irresponsibility, combined with stupidity.

Lebanon War II

To recapitualte: Lebanon War II lasted 34 days, from 7 July to 14 August 2006.

It was provoked by a border incident: Hezbollah forces in south Lebanon crossed the border and attacked a routine Israel patrol. The aim was to capture Israeli soldiers in order to effect a prisoner exchange – the only way to get the Israeli government to release Arab prisoners.

In the attack, two Israeli soldiers were dragged to Lebanese territory. All the others were killed. We were told that the captives were assumed to be alive. The film shows that the army command knew immediately that at least one of the captives was dead, and the second was assumed to have died, too. In fact, both were killed in the action.

The usual reaction to such an incident is a retaliatory strike “to restore deterrence”, such as the bombing or shelling of a Hezbollah base or a Lebanese village. Not this time. The Israeli cabinet started a war.


“Blatant irresponsibility, combined with stupidity”

The TV story does not provide a convincing answer. The decision was taken at once, after a minimum of deliberations. One gets the feeling that emotions and personal ambitions played a major role.

The war started with a massive bombardment of civilian as well as military targets, power stations, roads and villages… Decision were taken and revoked, operations started and cancelled. Targets were bombed and destroyed without any purpose, except to terrorise the civilian population…

The TV investigation consists almost exclusively of the testimonies of the three persons who actually took the decision and conducted the war.

Ehud Olmert

The first was the prime minister. Ehud Olmert had arrived at his office only a few month earlier, almost by accident. He had been the deputy prime minister under Ariel Sharon, who had given him this empty title as compensation for not giving him a serious ministry. When Sharon suddenly fell into a permanent coma, Olmert adroitly managed to succeed him.

Throughout his adult life, Olmert had been a political functionary, being loyal to nobody, jumping from party to party and from patron to patron, from the Knesset to the Jerusalem municipality and back, until he achieved his lifetime’s ambition: the Prime Minister’s Office.

He had no military experience at all. He had shirked real army service, and in the end he did some shortened service in the army’s judicial department.

Amir Peretz

Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz observing military manoeuvres through binoculars with the lens caps still on

Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz observing military manoeuvres through binoculars with the lens caps still on

The defence minister, Amir Peretz, had even less military experience. A labour activist by profession, the former secretary-general of the giant Histadrut trade union, he became the leader of the Labour Party. When his party joined Olmert’s new government, Peretz could chose a ministry and took the most prestigious one: Defense.

This combination of two government leaders without any military qualifications is unusual in Israel, a country perpetually at war. The entire country laughed when Peretz was caught by a photographer at an army exercise following the action through binoculars with the lens caps still on.

Dan Halutz

The third person in the fateful trio, the chief of staff, Dan Halutz, was supposed to make up for the military deficiencies of his two civilian superiors. He was a professional soldier, an officer in good standing. But, alas, he was an air force general, a former combat pilot, who had never handled ground troops.

In Israel, all previous chiefs of staff had come from the land forces, had been experienced infantry or tank commanders. The appointment of Halutz to this post was highly unusual. Bad tongues insinuated that the former defence minister, a person of Jewish-Iranian origin, had preferred Halutz because his father was also an immigrant from Iran.

Be that as it may, the chief of staff, less than a year in office, had no qualifications for leading a force on the ground.

It thus happened that the three leaders of Lebanon War II were new in office, quite inexperienced in directing a ground war. Two of the three had no experience whatsoever in military matters.

The chief of staff had another misfortune. It appeared later that a few hours after the decision to go to war, and before the first shot was fired, he had instructed his broker to sell his shares. In the TV story he argued that he had meant to give the instruction some days earlier, when no one dreamed of a war, and that for some technical reason there had been a delay. But like Peretz’s photo with the capped binoculars, Halutz’ affair with the shares cast a shadow over both.

Olmert, of course, has in the meantime been convicted of taking bribes and a variety of other crimes and sentenced to prison, pending appeal.

Lebanon War I

Lebanon War II was preceded 24 years earlier by Lebanon War I, which was led by Defence Minister Ariel Sharon under the auspices of Menachem Begin.

At the time, the purpose was to destroy the Palestinian bases in south Lebanon. There was a definite war aim, a clear operational plan and efficient, military and political leadership. It ended, of course, in disaster, when the Sabra-Shatila massacre shocked the world.

The Palestinian troops were indeed removed from the country and relocated to Tunisia… but instead of the Palestinian threat another, much worse threat grew in Lebanon. The Shia population, until then an ally of Israel, became a deadly and very efficient enemy.

In the wake of the atrocity, a commission of inquiry was set up and Sharon was dismissed from the Ministry of Defence (but not from the government). Military commanders were punished.

In spite of this, in Israel the campaign was considered a brilliant military achievement. Only a few realised that it was a military shambles: on the eastern front, opposite Syria, no Israeli unit reached its prescribed objective, while on the western front the Israeli troops reached Beirut only after the prescribed time, and only by breaking the UN-imposed cease-fire. (It was then that I met Yasser Arafat in the besieged western part of the city.)

Lebanon War I had one unforeseen and, lasting effect. The Palestinian troops were indeed removed from the country and relocated to Tunisia (where Arafat continued to conduct the fight until the Oslo agreement), but instead of the Palestinian threat another, much worse threat grew in Lebanon. The Shia population, until then an ally of Israel, became a deadly and very efficient enemy. Hezbollah (“Party of Allah”) grew into a potent political and military force, which eventually led to Lebanon War II.

Yet, Lebanon War I was a strategic masterpiece compared to Lebanon War II.

In Lebanon II there was no operational plan at all. Nor was there a clear war aim – a requisite for any successful military operation.

The war started with a massive bombardment of civilian as well as military targets, power stations, roads and villages, the fulfilment of an air force general’s dream. Decision were taken and revoked, operations started and cancelled. Targets were bombed and destroyed without any purpose, except to terrorise the civilian population and “burn into their consciousness” the lesson that it was not worthwhile to provoke Israel.

Hezbollah reacted by terrorising Israeli towns and villages with missiles. On both sides, casualties and destruction mounted. South and central Lebanon suffered, of course, the most.

When the fire eventually stopped, the achievements of the Israeli army amounted to nothing.

When Hezbollah did not capitulate, pressure in Israel mounted for a ground attack. It led next to nowhere. After the UN decreed a ceasefire, the Israeli leadership decided to make a last effort and launched a ground attack after the deadline. Thirty four Israeli soldiers were killed for nothing.

A large part of the operation was carried out by reserve soldiers, who were hastily called up. When the reservists arrived at their bases, they found the permanent emergency stores empty of many essential war materials. Being uniformed civilians, they complained loudly. Clearly, the army command had neglected the stores for years. The same with training – many reserve troops had not been through their annual training exercises for years.

When the fire eventually stopped, the achievements of the Israeli army amounted to nothing. A few Lebanese villages right next to the border were conquered, and had to be left again.

This time, the failures could not be covered up. A civilian commission of inquiry was set up. It condemned the leadership. Peretz and Halutz had to resign, Olmert was indicted for corruption soon after and had to resign, too.

From the Israeli government’s point of view, Lebanon War II did yield some achievements.

…listening to the three Israeli leaders in the TV stories, one is struck by the glaring incompetence of all three.

Since then until now the Lebanon-Israel border has been comparatively quiet. If there had been any discernible war aim at all, it was to terrorise the Lebanese civilian population by widespread destruction and killing. This was indeed achieved. Hassan Nasrallah, the outstanding Hezbollah leader (who was appointed after his much less able predecessor was “eliminated” by the Israeli army in a “targeted killing”) publicly admitted with unusual candour that he would not have ordered the prisoner-taking action if he had foreseen that it would result in a war.

However, listening to the three Israeli leaders in the TV stories, one is struck by the glaring incompetence of all three. They started a war in which hundreds of Israelis and Lebanese were killed and houses destroyed without a valid reason, conducted a war without a clear plan, took decisions without the necessary knowledge. Speaking on TV, they showed very little respect for each other.

An Israeli listening to these testimonies is compelled to ask himself or herself: is this true for all our wars, past and future? Has this only been covered up until now by censorship and silent agreement?

And the much larger question: has this not been true for most wars in history, from ancient Egypt and Greece until now? We know already that World War I, with its millions of victims, was ignited by political idiots and conducted by military incompetents.

Is humanity condemned to suffer this forever? Is this all that we Israelis can look forward to, another few wars conducted by the same kind of politicians and generals?

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, LebanonComments Off on I$raHell bloody and pointless wars on Lebanon

The Jewish plan to murder six million Europeans ”VIDEO”


Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945.




Posted in Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Jewish plan to murder six million Europeans ”VIDEO”



Russia voices worry over Macedonian violence


Russia’s foreign minister said Friday that Moscow was worried about the stability of Macedonia and the whole Balkans region after a recent eruption of deadly violence there.

“The latest events in Macedonia are very worrying… as well as terrorist tendencies emerging in the Balkans,” Sergei Lavrov told reporters in the Serbian capital.

“We believe that those events reflect an unstable situation in that country and the Balkans … it is (the) implementation of well prepared, planned and executed terrorist acts.”

Lavrov’s comments followed a shooting in the northern Macedonian town of Kumanovo nearly a week ago that left 22 people dead including eight police officers.

The incident came amid a political crisis in the country, with an ongoing struggle between Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski and main opposition party leader Zoran Zaev that has sparked clashes in the streets of the capital Skopje.

Tensions are rising ahead of further protests at the weekend to demand that the government resigns, following allegations made by Zaev that the ruling party wiretapped 20,000 people, including politicians and journalists.

While the weekend violence between ethnic Albanian rebels and Macedonian police was the worst in the country for 14 years, the EU has warned that it should not distract attention from Macedonia’s “very serious internal political situation” nor be used “to introduce ethnic tensions”.

But Lavrov, who spoke after meeting his Serbian counterpart Ivica Dacic, criticised Brussels’ attitude towards the Balkans.

“The need for concrete action cannot be replaced by political correctness,” he said.

Lavrov said the latest developments “occur as the Macedonian government refuses to join sanctions (imposed by EU against Russia over the Ukrainian crisis) and supports the Turkish Stream project”.

Russian energy giant Gazprom announced earlier this month that the Turkish Stream pipeline would start operating in December 2016, designed to offer an alternative to shipping Russian gas via Ukraine.

It replaces a scrapped plan to build a South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria, to supply southern Europe while skirting Ukraine, which was axed in December as relations between Brussels and Moscow nosedived.

Lavrov also voiced Moscow’s concern over the activities of Islamic extremists in the Balkans, saying that “Islamic State is active and is recruiting youngsters to send them to the Middle East and north Africa”.

Although Muslims in the Balkans are mostly moderate, about 600 people from Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia have joined jihadists in Syria and Iraq, according to estimates.

The Russian minister also criticised “recent statements by Albanian politicians aimed at reviving the project of creating a ‘Greater Albania’ that worry us”. He did not elaborate.

“Greater Albania” is a nationalist project seeking to unite all Albanians from the region in one state, including Kosovo, a territory with an ethnic Albanian majority that declared independence from Serbia in 2008 but remains unrecognised by Belgrade and the UN.

Gruevski and Zaev held talks on Thursday with ethnic Albanian party leaders, under international pressure to resolve Macedonia’s crisis. They are due to resume on Monday.

Gruevski’s government itself has accused Zaev and four others espionage and violence against officials.

Lavrov, on a one-day visit to Russia’s traditional ally Serbia, was also due to meet Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic and President Tomislav Nikolic.


French mayor seeks to ban Islam in France

zog france

Southeastern town mayor sends tweets with the message: ‘We must ban the Muslim faith in France.”

World Bulletin 

The mayor of a small town in the southeast of France is sending out tweets with the message: “We must ban the Muslim faith in France.”

Robert Chardon is mayor of Venelles, a town near Aix-en-Provence with a population of 8,000. He represents the Union for a Popular Movement party, one of the largest conservative parties in France, and that of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. He is also vice president of the Organization of Municipalities around Aix-en-Provence.

Since Thursday, he has been sending out various tweets with the anti-Muslim message.

“We also need a Marshall Plan to send Muslims to countries where the religion is practiced,” he said in his tweets.

According to him, Islam belongs to the Maghreb and France should welcome more of its “brothers” among the Oriental Christians.

He also said France’s 1905 secularism law — which guarantees freedom of religion — should be removed and  ” the Republic should promotes the practice of the Christian faith.”

Chardon decided to begin his campaign while on sick leave from his political activities; during this time he is being treated for mouth cancer.

He told the French daily Le Monde that it was during his treatments that the idea came upon him — “it’s the only solution for most of France’s problems,” he said.

He sent two tweets to the account of Sarkozy, and says that he expects a reply.

Under the terms of French law, Chardon could be liable for criminal prosecution for making these remarks.

Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Abdallah Zekri, president of the National Observatory against Islamophobia, denounced Chardon’s comments describing them as “unacceptable” and as a breach of France’ secularism “that grants citizens the freedom of belief.”

” It is not up to a racist mayor, who knows nothing about religions to decide such a thing,”Zekri added.

He urged French authorities and Sarkozy to declare their “clear” position regarding the mayor’s remarks.


Posted in FranceComments Off on French mayor seeks to ban Islam in France

Hispanic Americans and I$raHell: Signs of a positive trend?



ed note–as we have predicted many times on this website, the latino/hispanic community in America (and beyond) is the next demographic group that organized Jewish interests have targeted for penetration/mental subjugation, due to several factors, including their growing numbers, their fierce adherence to Catholicism and more importantly, the fact that many governments in South America, included but not limited to Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina & others, are firmly in the anti-Israel/pro-Iran camp.
The following piece by Shmuel Rosner outlines how organized Jewish interests do things. They keep a watchful eye on the gentiles, looking for trends that may harm Jewish interests in the near or distant future, then go about the business of penetrating that particular group and installing various viruses on the group’s mental hard drive so as to render them ineffective.

Jewish Journal

Israel is concerned with the changing face of America. It is concerned with minorities turning into a majority. And no, this is not a racist tendency, or an inherent problem with Asians or Hispanics. It is purely self-interest: Israel relies on the US for support, the US is changing, Israel would like to retain the support – so Israel needs to figure out if the new America is going to be as supportive as the current America.

There are reasons for concern that all Israeli experts, within and without government, have learned to flag.

Religion is one reason: American support for Israel has roots in a certain stripe of Protestantism. Most Hispanics are Catholic. In fact, we can now show the current numbers thanks to this week’s release of Pew’s “religious landscape” study: “Hispanics constitute a greater share of the Catholic population than of any other religious group; fully one-third of U.S. Catholic adults are Hispanics”.

Connection with American Jewry is another one – these two communities don’t quite mingle. “Jews and Latinos live parallel lives and do not mingle. They live in separate neighborhoods in major cities including Los Angeles and Chicago”, the Forward reported in 2012. Outreach efforts are many, and they have shown signs of success, but still, the results aren’t always what we’d like them to be.

This is evident in polls that ask questions about Israel.

When Israel fought in Gaza last summer, Hispanics were much less sympathetic to it than white Americans, as the Pew Research Center reported. “By about two-to-one (40% to 22%), more whites consider Israel’s response to the current conflict about right than say it has gone too far. By contrast, blacks and Hispanics are about as likely to say Israel’s response has gone too far as to say it has been appropriate (36%-27% and 35%-28%, respectively)”.

An earlier poll found that Hispanics were more likely than other Americans to think that the US is too supportive of Israel. And if that is not troubling enough, “the survey revealed that similar numbers of Jews and Latinos said they perceive anti-Semitism in the Latino community. According to the survey, 58% of Jews believe that the Hispanic American community holds some anti-Jewish prejudice, and 46% of Latinos agreed with this same statement”.

So the pro-Israel community in the US is somewhat worried, and Israeli officials are often worried. Organizations, communities, synagogues, all have outreach programs that aim to get closer to the Latino community, to better communicate with it and better understand it. Indeed, some of these efforts seem serious and worthy, and provide key Jewish leaders with access to key Hispanic leaders – not just to make them more “pro-Israel” but, more importantly, to have closer ties with a “sleeping” American giant.

Now two Israeli researches, a student at IDC Herzliya and her professor, released an analysis that might slightly calm concerned Israelis. “Attitudes of Hispanics Toward Israel” is a simple compilation of numbers from many polls – not a deep discussion of cultural trends and prejudices. In it, Shir Marom Melnik and Dr. Amnon Cavari present some simple conclusions: It is true that Hispanics support Israel less than non-Hispanic Americans.

But the numbers also show that “Hispanics who were born in the US are more supportive of Israel than Hispanic immigrants”. This is good news from an Israeli standpoint, because what it means is that “as the balance of this group shifts from immigrants to natively born, support for Israel increases”.

In fact, this study points at two possible positive trends concerning Hispanic support for Israel. Cavari, in an interview, is cautious about these signs. There are many institutions which study the American Hispanic population, but few of them have much interest in Hispanics’ attitudes toward an issue as specific as Israel. So on the one hand, this new short paper fills a gap, but on the other hand, it has to rely on data that is somewhat sketchy.

So the first positive sign is the upward trend when we look at first generation Hispanic immigrants to the US compared to native born Hispanic Americans. But as I said, the study points to yet another nugget of possibly good news. The authors write: “Hispanic registered voters have been more supportive of Israel than Hispanics who are not registered to vote”. The authors of the study believe that “this finding indicates that the politically involved Hispanics are adjusting their support for Israel to levels that are similar to those of the broad American population thus becoming more supportive of Israel than those who are not involved”.

I asked Cavari, who runs the “American Public Opinion toward Israel” lab at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy in IDC Herzliya, if one can’t reach the opposite conclusion by assuming that Israel could suffer when the less-involved Hispanics, who seem to be less supportive of Israel, enter the politically-involved group. No, he said, this isn’t likely to happen. Something in the transition of Hispanics from uninvolved to involved makes them more likely to be supportive of Israel.

What is it? The study doesn’t have a wide enough scope to give an answer to that question. Religion could be a key, Cavari says. Second generation Hispanics, and more involved Hispanics, might be less connected to the Catholic church – whether they officially move to other religions or just weaken their ties to strict Catholicism – he speculated. He then said that more study is needed. His students and him are working on it.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Hispanic Americans and I$raHell: Signs of a positive trend?

How to Turn a Nightmare into a Fairy Tale


Image result for Greater Middle East MAP

40 Years Later, Will the End Games in Iraq and Afghanistan Follow the Vietnam Playbook?

By Christian Appy | TomDispatch 

If our wars in the Greater Middle East ever end, it’s a pretty safe bet that they will end badly — and it won’t be the first time. The “fall of Saigon” in 1975 was the quintessential bitter end to a war. Oddly enough, however, we’ve since found ways to re-imagine that denouement which miraculously transformed a failed and brutal war of American aggression into a tragic humanitarian rescue mission. Our most popular Vietnam end-stories bury the long, ghastly history that preceded the “fall,” while managing to absolve us of our primary responsibility for creating the disaster. Think of them as silver-lining tributes to good intentions and last-ditch heroism that may come in handy in the years ahead.

The trick, it turned out, was to separate the final act from the rest of the play. To be sure, the ending in Vietnam was not a happy one, at least not for many Americans and their South Vietnamese allies. This week we mark the 40th anniversary of those final days of the war. We will once again surely see the searing images of terrified refugees, desperate evacuations, and final defeat. But even that grim tale offers a lesson to those who will someday memorialize our present round of disastrous wars: toss out the historical background and you can recast any U.S. mission as a flawed but honorable, if not noble, effort by good-guy rescuers to save innocents from the rampaging forces of aggression. In the Vietnamese case, of course, the rescue was so incomplete and the defeat so total that many Americans concluded their country had “abandoned” its cause and “betrayed” its allies. By focusing on the gloomy conclusion, however, you could at least stop dwelling on the far more incriminating tale of the war’s origins and expansion, and the ruthless way the U.S. waged it.

Here’s another way to feel better about America’s role in starting and fighting bad wars: make sure U.S. troops leave the stage for a decent interval before the final debacle. That way, in the last act, they can swoop back in with a new and less objectionable mission. Instead of once again waging brutal counterinsurgencies on behalf of despised governments, American troops can concentrate on a humanitarian effort most war-weary citizens and soldiers would welcome: evacuation and escape.

Phony Endings and Actual Ones

An American president announces an honorable end to our longest war. The last U.S. troops are headed for home. Media executives shut down their war zone bureaus. The faraway country where the war took place, once a synonym for slaughter, disappears from TV screens and public consciousness. Attention shifts to home-front scandals and sensations. So it was in the United States in 1973 and 1974, years when most Americans mistakenly believed that the Vietnam War was over.

In many ways, eerily enough, this could be a story from our own time. After all, a few years ago, we had reason to hope that our seemingly endless wars — this time in distant Iraq and Afghanistan — were finally over or soon would be. In December 2011, in front of U.S. troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, President Obama proclaimed an end to the American war in Iraq. “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq,” he said proudly. “This is an extraordinary achievement.” In a similar fashion, last December the president announced that in Afghanistan “the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.”

If only. Instead, warfare, strife, and suffering of every kind continue in both countries, while spreading across ever more of the Greater Middle East. American troops are still dying in Afghanistan and in Iraq the U.S. military is back, once again bombing and advising, this time against the Islamic State (or Daesh), an extremist spin-off from its predecessor al-Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that only came to life well after (and in reaction to) the U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. It now seems likely that the nightmare of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which began decades ago, will simply drag on with no end in sight.

The Vietnam War, long as it was, did finally come to a decisive conclusion. When Vietnam screamed back into the headlines in early 1975, 14 North Vietnamese divisions were racing toward Saigon, virtually unopposed. Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese troops (shades of the Iraqi army in 2014) were stripping off their military uniforms, abandoning their American equipment, and fleeing. With the massive U.S. military presence gone, what had once been a brutal stalemate was now a rout, stunning evidence that “nation-building” by the U.S. military in South Vietnam had utterly failed (as it would in the twenty-first century in Iraq and Afghanistan).

On April 30, 1975, a Communist tank crashed through the gates of Independence Palace in the southern capital of Saigon, a dramatic and triumphant conclusion to a 30-year-long Vietnamese struggle to achieve national independence and reunification. The blood-soaked American effort to construct a permanent non-Communist nation called South Vietnam ended in humiliating defeat.

It’s hard now to imagine such a climactic conclusion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike Vietnam, where the Communists successfully tapped a deep vein of nationalist and revolutionary fervor throughout the country, in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan has any faction, party, or government had such success or the kind of appeal that might lead it to gain full and uncontested control of the country. Yet in Iraq, there have at least been a series of mass evacuations and displacements reminiscent of the final days in Vietnam. In fact, the region, including Syria, is now engulfed in a refugee crisis of staggering proportions with millions seeking sanctuary across national boundaries and millions more homeless and displaced internally.

Last August, U.S. forces returned to Iraq (as in Vietnam four decades earlier) on the basis of a “humanitarian” mission. Some 40,000 Iraqis of the Yazidi sect, threatened with slaughter, had been stranded on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq surrounded by Islamic State militants. While most of the Yazidi were, in fact, successfully evacuated by Kurdish fighters via ground trails, small groups were flown out on helicopters by the Iraqi military with U.S. help. When one of those choppers went down wounding many of its passengers but killing only the pilot, General Majid Ahmed Saadi, New York Times reporter Alissa Rubin, injured in the crash, praised his heroism.  Before his death, he had told her that the evacuation missions were “the most important thing he had done in his life, the most significant thing he had done in his 35 years of flying.”

In this way, a tortured history inconceivable without the American invasion of 2003 and almost a decade of excesses, including the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, as well as counterinsurgency warfare, finally produced a heroic tale of American humanitarian intervention to rescue victims of murderous extremists. The model for that kind of story had been well established in 1975.

Stripping the Fall of Saigon of Historical Context

Defeat in Vietnam might have been the occasion for a full-scale reckoning on the entire horrific war, but we preferred stories that sought to salvage some faith in American virtue amid the wreckage. For the most riveting recent example, we need look no further than Rory Kennedy’s 2014 Academy Award-nominated documentary Last Days in Vietnam. The film focuses on a handful of Americans and a few Vietnamese who, in defiance of orders, helped expedite and expand a belated and inadequate evacuation of South Vietnamese who had hitched their lives to the American cause.

The film’s cast of humanitarian heroes felt obligated to carry out their ad hoc rescue missions because the U.S. ambassador in Saigon, Graham Martin, refused to believe that defeat was inevitable. Whenever aides begged him to initiate an evacuation, he responded with comments like, “It’s not so bleak. I won’t have this negative talk.” Only when North Vietnamese tanks reached the outskirts of Saigon did he order the grandiloquently titled Operation Frequent Wind — the helicopter evacuation of the city — to begin.

By that time, Army Captain Stuart Herrington and others like him had already led secret “black ops” missions to help South Vietnamese army officers and their families get aboard outgoing aircraft and ships. Prior to the official evacuation, the U.S. government explicitly forbade the evacuation of South Vietnamese military personnel who were under orders to remain in the country and continue fighting. But, as Herrington puts it in the film, “sometimes there’s an issue not of legal and illegal, but right and wrong.” Although the war itself failed to provide U.S. troops with a compelling moral cause, Last Days in Vietnamproduces one. The film’s heroic rescuers are willing to risk their careers for the just cause of evacuating their allies.

The drama and danger are amped up by the film’s insistence that all Vietnamese linked to the Americans were in mortal peril. Several of the witnesses invoke the specter of a Communist “bloodbath,” a staple of pro-war propaganda since the 1960s. (President Richard Nixon, for instance, once warned that the Communists would massacre civilians “by the millions” if the U.S. pulled out.) Herrington refers to the South Vietnamese officers he helped evacuate as “dead men walking.” Another of the American rescuers, Paul Jacobs, used his Navy ship without authorization to escort dozens of South Vietnamese vessels, crammed with some 30,000 people, to the Philippines. Had he ordered the ships back to Vietnam, he claims in the film, the Communists “woulda killed ‘em all.”

The Communist victors were certainly not merciful. They imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people in “re-education camps” and subjected them to brutal treatment. The predicted bloodbath, however, was a figment of the American imagination. No program of systematic execution of significant numbers of people who had collaborated with the Americans ever happened.

Following another script that first emerged in U.S. wartime propaganda, the film implies that South Vietnam was vehemently anti-communist. To illustrate, we are shown a map in which North Vietnamese red ink floods ever downward over an all-white South — as if the war were a Communist invasion instead of a countrywide struggle that began in the South in opposition to an American-backed government.

Had the South been uniformly and fervently anti-Communist, the war might well have had a different outcome, but the Saigon regime was vulnerable primarily because many southern Vietnamese fought tooth and nail to defeat it and many others were unwilling to put their lives on the line to defend it. In truth, significant parts of the South had been “red” since the 1940s.  The U.S. blocked reunification elections in 1956 exactly because it feared that southerners might vote in Communist leader Ho Chi Minh as president. Put another way, the U.S. betrayed the people of Vietnam and their right to self-determination not by pulling out of the country, but by going in.

Last Days in Vietnam may be the best silver-lining story of the fall of Saigon ever told, but it is by no means the first. Well before the end of April 1975, when crowds of terrified Vietnamese surrounded the U.S. embassy in Saigon begging for admission or trying to scale its fences, the media was on the lookout for feel-good stories that might take some of the sting out of the unremitting tableaus of fear and failure.

They thought they found just the thing in Operation Babylift. A month before ordering the final evacuation of Vietnam, Ambassador Martin approved an airlift of thousands of South Vietnamese orphans to the United States where they were to be adopted by Americans. Although he stubbornly refused to accept that the end was near, he hoped the sight of all those children embraced by their new American parents might move Congress to allocate additional funds to support the crumbling South Vietnamese government.

Commenting on Operation Babylift, pro-war political scientist Lucien Pye said, “We want to know we’re still good, we’re still decent.” It did not go as planned. The first plane full of children and aid workers crashed and 138 of its passengers died. And while thousands of children did eventually make it to the U.S., a significant portion of them were not orphans. In war-ravaged South Vietnam some parents placed their children in orphanages for protection, fully intending to reclaim them in safer times. Critics claimed the operation was tantamount to kidnapping.

Nor did Operation Babylift move Congress to send additional aid, which was hardly surprising since virtually no one in the United States wanted to continue to fight the war. Indeed, the most prevalent emotion was stunned resignation. But there did remain a pervasive need to salvage some sense of national virtue as the house of cards collapsed and the story of those “babies,” no matter how tarnished, nonetheless proved helpful in the process.

Putting the Fall of Saigon Back in Context

For most Vietnamese — in the South as well as the North — the end was not a time of fear and flight, but joy and relief. Finally, the much-reviled, American-backed government in Saigon had been overthrown and the country reunited. After three decades of turmoil and war, peace had come at last. The South was not united in accepting the Communist victory as an unambiguous “liberation,” but there did remain broad and bitter revulsion over the wreckage the Americans had brought to their land.

Indeed, throughout the South and particularly in the countryside, most people viewed the Americans not as saviors but as destroyers. And with good reason. The U.S. military dropped four million tons of bombs on South Vietnam, the very land it claimed to be saving, making it by far the most bombed country in history. Much of that bombing was indiscriminate. Though policymakers blathered on about the necessity of “winning the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese, the ruthlessness of their war-making drove many southerners into the arms of the Viet Cong, the local revolutionaries. It wasn’t Communist hordes from the North that such Vietnamese feared, but the Americans and their South Vietnamese military allies.

The many refugees who fled Vietnam at war’s end and after, ultimately a million or more of them, not only lost a war, they lost their home, and their traumatic experiences are not to be minimized. Yet we should also remember the suffering of the far greater number of South Vietnamese who were driven off their land by U.S. wartime policies. Because many southern peasants supported the Communist-led insurgency with food, shelter, intelligence, and recruits, the U.S. military decided that it had to deprive the Viet Cong of its rural base. What followed was a long series of forced relocations designed to remove peasants en masse from their lands and relocate them to places where they could more easily be controlled and indoctrinated.

The most conservative estimate of internal refugees created by such policies (with anodyne names like the “strategic hamlet program” or “Operation Cedar Falls”) is 5 million, but the real figure may have been 10 million or more in a country of less than 20 million. Keep in mind that, in these years, the U.S. military listed “refugees generated” — that is, Vietnamese purposely forced off their lands — as a metric of “progress,” a sign of declining support for the enemy.

Our vivid collective memories are of Vietnamese refugees fleeing their homeland at war’s end. Gone is any broad awareness of how the U.S. burned down, plowed under, or bombed into oblivion thousands of Vietnamese villages, and herded survivors into refugee camps. The destroyed villages were then declared “free fire zones” where Americans claimed the right to kill anything that moved.

In 1967, Jim Soular was a flight chief on a gigantic Chinook helicopter. One of his main missions was the forced relocation of Vietnamese peasants. Here’s the sort of memory that you won’t find in Miss SaigonLast Days in Vietnam, or much of anything else that purports to let us know about the war that ended in 1975. This is not the sort of thing you’re likely to see much of this week in any 40th anniversary media musings.

“On one mission where we were depopulating a village we packed about sixty people into my Chinook. They’d never been near this kind of machine and were really scared but they had people forcing them in with M-16s. Even at that time I felt within myself that the forced dislocation of these people was a real tragedy. I never flew refugees back in. It was always out. Quite often they would find their own way back into those free-fire zones. We didn’t understand that their ancestors were buried there, that it was very important to their culture and religion to be with their ancestors. They had no say in what was happening. I could see the terror in their faces. They were defecating and urinating and completely freaked out. It was horrible. Everything I’d been raised to believe in was contrary to what I saw in Vietnam. We might have learned so much from them instead of learning nothing and doing so much damage.”

What Will We Forget If Baghdad “Falls”? 

The time may come, if it hasn’t already, when many of us will forget, Vietnam-style, that our leaders sent us to war in Iraq falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction he intended to use against us; that he had a “sinister nexus” with the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked on 9/11; that the war would essentially pay for itself; that it would be over in “weeks rather than months”; that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators; or that we would build an Iraqi democracy that would be a model for the entire region. And will we also forget that in the process nearly 4,500 Americans were killed along with perhaps 500,000 Iraqis, that millions of Iraqis were displaced from their homes into internal exile or forced from the country itself, and that by almost every measure civil society has failed to return to pre-war levels of stability and security?

The picture is no less grim in Afghanistan. What silver linings can possibly emerge from our endless wars? If history is any guide, I’m sure we’ll think of something.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on How to Turn a Nightmare into a Fairy Tale

Fear mongering, the ISIS gambit and Zionist recruitment

By Brandon Martinez 

As the fear campaign advances into ever-more delirious extremes, Westerners continue to be submerged in sensationalist headlines about ‘homegrown terrorism’ and ‘ISIS recruits.’

The American, Australian, Canadian, British, French, German and other governments have been on the hunt lately, swooping up a handful of would-be ISIS recruits before they could make their journey to Syria and Iraq. The arrests appear to be part of a stage-managed public relations effort to 1) keep up the false pretense that the West is actually trying to stop people from joining ISIS, when in fact they have been gleefully turning a blind eye to it if not aiding and abetting it, and 2) to justify the growing surveillance state across the West.

ABC News tells us that more than 2000 Westerners, mostly from immigrant communities but also a number of white converts to Islam, have joined ISIS and other terrorist groups fighting to topple the Syrian government. Knowing the high level of surveillance and monitoring that Western agencies already employ against Muslim communities, it beggars belief that all of these individuals simply evaded the all-seeing eye of Western intelligence which includes the “Five Eyes” spy network consisting of the combined espionage might of the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia. The massive resources of the spy agencies of those countries in conjunction with the data mining brigands of the NSA makes it hard for one to believe that they’re just unable to track and intervene before Western citizens depart for the phony ‘jihad’ against Israel’s adversaries in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.


The Intercept revealed that in a recent FBI ‘bust’ of an alleged ISIS sympathizer who was purportedly planning an attack inside the US, the suspect was goaded by FBI informants, as is the case with nearly every major foiled ‘terror plot’ in recent American history. John T. Booker Jr., the Kansas man accused of plotting a terrorist attack on behalf of ISIS, had checked himself into a mental hospital about a year before his arrest.The Intercept reports that the two FBI informants who initiated contact with Booker Jr. “provided the 20-year-old with the materials and support that led to his arrest on Friday on charges stemming from his alleged plans to carry out an attack against Fort Riley in support of the Islamic State.”

This example is merely one of many hundreds of cases involving the FBI’s army of 15,000 plus informants who infiltrate Muslim communities then work to incite and coerce impressionable, dejected young Muslims into completely inept and doomed-to-fail ‘terror plots.’

Canadian authorities have been caught mimicking the FBI’s duplicitous and unethical tactics of fabricating terror plots by way of informants. One recent case involved a bumbling British Columbia couple, John Nuttall and his wife Amanda Korody, who were prodded and pushed into a laughable ‘terrorist conspiracy’ by undercover RCMP agents. The Vancouver Sun reported that the undercover agents “spent more than four months in a futile attempt to have John Nuttall articulate a real [terrorist] plan.” Another Sun report described the ‘terror couple’ as “impoverished addicts” and delineated how an undercover agent coddled and encouraged them every step of the way, making suggestions about explosives and targets.

A story that broke earlier this year unveiled the West’s two-faced gambit as it relates to ISIS. The Turkish government exposed the identity of a Syrian national on the payroll of Canadian intelligence who was acting as a human trafficker for ISIS, escorting dozens of Europeans through Turkey and delivering them to ISIS strongholds in Syria, including three British schoolgirls.

“Turkish news agencies reported … that a foreign intelligence agent detained in that country on suspicion of helping the [three British] girls travel to neighbouring Syria to join ISIL was working for the Canadian government,” stated an Ottawa Citizen report on the scandal. The agent in question, Mohammed Mehmet Rashid, told Turkish authorities that he made routine trips to the Canadian embassy in Jordan where he received his marching orders from CSIS, Canada’s spy agency. That embassy was headed by Bruno Saccomani, a former RCMP officer and the former chief of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s security detail. Harper handpicked Saccomani to be the ambassador to Jordan.

Another issue routinely overlooked by mainstream media is that ISIS is not the only violent radical group that Western citizens are bustling to join. Hundreds of Canadians, Americans, Australians and Europeans have joined the Israeli military over the years, participating in the murder of thousands of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, the mass destruction of property and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.


In an article entitled “Supporting ‘terror tourism’ to Israel gets Canadian tax credits,” Yves Engler, an expert on Canadian foreign affairs, observes that in Canada “[i]t is illegal for Somali Canadians to fight in that country but it is okay for Canadian Jews to kill Palestinians in Gaza. And the government will give you a charitable tax credit if you give them money to support it.” Engler documents the activities of pro-Israel charities operating freely in Canada that recruit young Jews to fight for Israel. “At least 25 volunteers from the Greater Toronto Area fought in Gaza during Israel’s 22-day 2008/2009 assault that left some 1,400 Palestinians dead,” notes Engler, adding that “during Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon theCanadian Jewish News reported that ‘Canadian youths leave home to join Israeli army.’”

“The double standard is extreme,” Engler writes, pointing out how Canadians are proscribed from recruiting for foreign militaries under the Foreign Enlistment Act, but this law apparently doesn’t apply to Jews who enjoy a privileged status in Canada and other Western countries.

The Canadian government’s pro-Israel extremism showed its ugly face in 2014 when the Harper administration added IRFAN-Canada, a Muslim charity which helped raise funds for the besieged people of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, to its list of banned ‘terrorist organizations.’ According to the Harper regime’s skewed Zionist logic, Muslim charities that work with the democratically elected leadership of Gaza in order to dispense humanitarian aid to the suffering Palestinians are engaged in ‘supporting terrorism.’ Yet Jewish-Zionist charities are allowed, even aided and abetted by the Canadian state through ‘tax credits’ for donors, to raise funds for the Israeli military and even to recruit radicalized Canadian Jews to fight in Israel’s bloody wars of aggression – but this somehow does not constitute material support for terrorism.

Evidently, in Harper’s pro-Zionist fantasy world ‘terrorist’ is a smear word applied exclusively to the opponents of Israeli imperialism, whereas a state birthed through ethnic cleansing and maintained by way of bribery, blackmail, and state-sponsored mass murder is praised to the heavens merely for allowing its privileged Jewish citizens and disenfranchised Arab subjects to vote for whichever hawkish Zionist politician will continue the policies of terror in the holy land.

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Fear mongering, the ISIS gambit and Zionist recruitment

“Arab” League of Traitors to meet on joint military force to fight ‘extremist threats’



Arab military chiefs will meet this week in Cairo to discuss the forming of a joint military force to fight the region’s growing extremist threat, an Arab League official said Sunday.

After Arab League leaders agreed to create such a force at a March summit in Egypt, army chiefs from member states will hold talks Wednesday on details of how the force will be created, its role and its financing, a League source told AFP (Agence France Presse).

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi pushed for the creation of the force after Islamic State executed a group of Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya in February, prompting retaliatory airstrikes from Egypt.

The plan gained further momentum after Saudi Arabia and several Arab allies launched airstrikes on Iran-backed Shiite Huthi rebels in Yemen.

Islamic State has emerged as the most brutal extremist group in the region, carrying out widespread atrocities and winning the support of several other jihadi organizations.

On Sunday, it released a video purportedly showing the execution of some 30 Ethiopian Christians captured in Libya.

Iran, Afghanistan announce security cooperation

Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Iran announced Sunday plans for enhanced security cooperation to combat threats from IS, including possible joint military operations. Standing alongside visiting Afghan leader Ashraf Ghani, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said the tumult hitting the region meant intelligence must be shared.

His comments came after IS, which holds swathes of Syria and Iraq, said it was responsible for a suicide bombing in Afghanistan’s eastern city of Jalalabad which killed 33 people.

The attack on Saturday at a state-owned bank where government workers were drawing their salaries was the first in Afghanistan claimed by IS. More than 100 people were also wounded. Ghani’s two-day visit to Iran is his first since taking over from president Hamid Karzai in September, and he was accompanied on the trip by his foreign minister and minister for oil and mines.

The Afghan leader has repeatedly raised the prospect of IS making inroads in his country, though the jihadist group has never formally acknowledged having a presence in Afghanistan. A former finance minister and World Bank technocrat, Ghani said IS presented “a serious danger and different form of terrorism”.

“People die daily, we face barbarism,” he said at a joint press conference, prompting Rouhani to nod in agreement.

“And without greater cooperation a macabre phenomenon such as Daesh cannot be contained,” Ghani said, using an Arabic acronym for IS.

Rouhani said: “We have agreed to cooperate further in the fight against terrorism, violence and extremism in the region, especially in border regions.

“We need intelligence sharing and, if necessary, cooperation in operations because the problems that exist are not restricted and gradually spread throughout the region, affecting everyone.”

The two leaders did not specify further what they thought could be done to confront IS, which swept into Iraq from Syria last June. The group holds Mosul, Iraq’s second city.

Iran has been central in the Baghdad government’s fightback against IS, coordinating Shiite militias and providing military advisers from its powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The largest such operation saw IS cleared early this month from Tikrit, a city north of Baghdad and the childhood home of executed Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have seen defections to IS in recent months, with some voicing their disaffection with their one-eyed supreme leader Mullah Omar who has not been seen in almost 14 years. A person purporting to be an IS spokesman said in a call to AFP that the group was behind the Jalalabad bombing. An online post allegedly from IS made the same claim, but could not be verified.

Iran and Afghanistan have close ties. In 2001, Tehran took the rare step of cooperating with Washington in a US-led invasion that ousted the Taliban regime from power in Kabul.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on “Arab” League of Traitors to meet on joint military force to fight ‘extremist threats’

Few Jews in Spain, yet supposed ‘Jewish lobby’ still draws readers


By Jerome Socolovsky

 A new book published in Spain seeks to put to rest the notion that a “Jewish lobby” is influencing government and business in a country that has one of the smallest Jewish communities in Europe.

In “The Jewish Lobby: Power and Myths of Contemporary Spanish Jews,” Alfonso Torres, a Colombian-born journalist who has lived in Spain since 1977, calls on Spaniards to dispense with “old cliches and historical prejudices” about Jews.

Spaniards should know better, he says, because their country was “the cradle of Sephardic Judaism.”

The book comes at a time when ”anti-Jewish” tendencies in Spain are being questioned. An Anti-Defamation League survey recently found that 34 percent of Spanish respondents held ”anti-Semitic” views, one of the highest percentages in Europe.

Another new book, “Anti-Semitism in Spain: The Image of the Jew (1812-2002)” reveals how prejudiced images of Jews lived on for hundreds of years after King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella’s expulsion decree in 1492.

The author, Gonzalo Alvarez Chillida, a history professor at the National Distance University of Spain, calls it “an anti-Semitism without Jews.”

Jews began moving back to Spain after the Inquisition was abolished in the 19th century. Today an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Jews live in Spain, out of a total population of roughly 40 million.

While meant for a scholarly audience, “Anti-Semitism in Spain” has some fascinating anecdotes, such as how anti-Semitic stereotypes resurfaced when Spain invaded North Africa in the 19th century and came into contact with the descendants of Jews who had fled the Inquisition.

The Jews were once again seen as “avaricious, fawning, servile, cowardly, traitorous, and repugnant physically” — though the invaders “almost unanimously perceived Jewish women as beautiful,” according to Alvarez Chillida.

Ironically, Torres’ book employs some of the very Jewish caricatures he condemns, especially in publicizing the work.

The jacket copy lures the reader with enticing questions about the power Jews wield in Spain.

“It’s worth asking how much power contemporary Spanish Jews wield,” the blurb reads. “Who are the wealthiest and most influential magnates? How have they amassed their fortunes? Which political and financial operations have they been involved in, and through which non-Jewish personalities move the invisible strings that connect them to the highest echelons of the state?”

The author says the idea of a “Jewish lobby” in Spain is “one of the great lies” bandied about by the Spanish media, though he doesn’t give concrete examples.

Much of the recent focus on the topic has been tied to the publication of the book.

Along with an article on the book, the newspaper El Mundo published an “ABC of Jewish Spain.” The list of famous Spanish Jews included movie star Cecilia Roth, who starred in Pedro Almodovar’s Oscar-winning “All About My Mother,” and fur designer Elena Benarroch.

Indeed, “The Jewish Lobby” dwells on the wealthiest and scandal-ridden Spanish Jews, including Jews from abroad who have taken up residence in Spain, despite the author’s caveat that they are not representative of the Jewish community.

The author goes into detail about financier Marc Rich, who received a controversial pardon from President Clinton for racketeering, illegal trading and tax evasion; and real estate magnate Jacques Hacheul, an associate of Mario Conde, a convict from the Banesto bank scandal.

Torres notes Spain’s refusal to extradite Russian media tycoon Vladimir Goussinsky to Moscow following appeals from American Jewish leaders to King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia, who are said to be personally sympathetic toward Jews and the State of Israel.

Spanish Jews did not react kindly to the book.

“We Jews in Spain deserve better than this book,” said Victorino Cortes of Guesher, a watchdog group for anti-Jewish bias that has its hands full with the Spanish media. “If this journalist is our ‘friend,’ imagine our enemies.”

There “isn’t a single interview with the many other Jews he refers to when he says the great majority of Jews in Spain live anonymously” and modestly, Cortes said.

In the chapter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Torres “dedicates pages and pages about what Israel is doing wrong, but there’s hardly any criticism of Arafat and the terrorist groups,” Cortes said.

The chapter does criticize the reflexive pro-Palestinian attitudes among Spanish politicians and journalists. It also condemns those who “distort history” by comparing the casualties from the Palestinian intifada to the murder of 6 million Jewish “civilians” in the Holocaust.

While it might seem elementary, that distinction appears lost on other intellectuals in Spain and also in Portugal, whose Nobel laureate Jose Saramago compared Israel’s blockade of Ramallah earlier this year to the Auschwitz death camp.

The authors of “The Jewish Lobby” and “Anti-Semitism in Spain” point out that derogatory terms still exist in Spanish dictionaries.

“Sinagoga” not only means synagogue, but also “a place where illicit schemes are hatched.” A “Judiada” is an “action that is ill-meaning or unjustly undertaken against a person.”

Torres adds an appendix with more than 5,000 common Spanish surnames believed to derive from family names taken by conversos, Jews who chose to stay in Spain and convert to Christianity rather than be killed for their faith.

“By casting about anti-Semitic dispersions, we are throwing stones at our own glass houses,” he writes.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Few Jews in Spain, yet supposed ‘Jewish lobby’ still draws readers

Spanish author: Wahhabism aims to destroy Islam from inside


By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Manuel Galiana Ros, Spanish researcher and the author of the books “The Zionist lobby in Spain” and “The Global Crisis” described Wahhabi jihadism as a “fake Islamic ideology” created by new world order to “to destroy Islam from inside.” Following is an approximate transcription of our interview with him.

Over the past 35 years, more than 17000 people have lost their lives in terrorist operations conducted inside the Islamic Republic of Iran by western backed terrorist groups such as the Mujahedin e-Khalq organization (MKO, MEK). Why do you think there is no (or if there is any, few) coverage of these assassinations in main stream western Media? But instead they often picture Iran as the state sponsor of terrorism.

It is about what really happens in the West. Do the people really know that in the past 35 years about 17000 Iranian people have been killed by terrorist and Takfiri groups? No there is no information in Europe, not in Spain that I hear of about that. In fact Iran is never perceived in Europe as a victim of terrorism, but as supporter and promoter of terrorism. It is because all the mainstream Media are directly and indirectly controlled by Zionism. Not only the Media, they also have control over all news agencies. For example, one of the main 5 or 6 news agencies in the world, the Reuters, was already controlled financially in the year 1895 by the Rothschild family.

They control money, they control Banks, they control corporations, they control all the mainstream Media, they control the world business, they control Hollywood and they control everything. I think I would like to see as soon as possible that the European Union and the Euro money, disappear. Because that is one of the main elements of control they have over Europe. The European Central Bank is depending on more electronic money on and on and the debt is increasing all the time in Europe. But I ensure that is going to end. I anticipate there are going to be serious changes soon.

The second international congress of 17000 Iranian terror victims is scheduled to be held in Tehran, August 2015. International scholars and political figures are invited to attend the congress. How do you see the significance of holding such events?

An event like that, that I myself was not aware of, most of the populations in Europe and America are not aware of either. So with that effort you will be doing, I hope the facts will be known and it will hopefully have some positive effects.

There are documents that indicate the Zionist regime of Israel, as a state sponsor of terrorism, was involved in the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientists. Why is it that there is no reaction from the international organizations such as the UN?

It is because Iranian scientists and Iranian subjects are not important to them. Although there are many countries in the United Nations, there are a few important countries that are controlled by Zionism and many of the other non-important countries’ votes are conditioned by these few countries. So the fact that many Iranian people including the scientists have been killed is not relevant for the west.

Takfiri terrorism is the result of dogmatic thoughts and retrogressive views of some regimes in the region such as Saudi Arabia. Despite this bitter fact, these regimes are openly supported by the United States. What is your view about this?

Since Wahhabism and Takfirism started a long time ago, they have been progressing all the time, sometimes slowly. After the 80s, when Wahhabism was incorporated not only in Saudi Arabia and Qatar but also in Turkey, in Turkish mosques and educational system, it is much installed. The United States took over from the British. The British were traditional allies of the Saud family and it was in 1944, when the World War II was finishing, the then American president Roosevelt signed a treaty with one of the Saudi kings that included oil against military cooperation. That alliance counts for many years now and in the last 60 years so much money has been moving and that money can help condition and corrupt many western politicians.

The so called Islamic State, on one hand, is the illegitimate child of the extremist views of Salafism and Wahhabism, and on the other hand, the Zionist regime of Israel is considered as one of its significant supporters. In your researches, what did you find about these connections?

Speaking now specifically about Wahhabi jihadism, the definition basically would be: “the fake Islamist ideology of the new world order in order to create confrontations to destroy Islam from inside”. Everybody knows where this ISIS or caliphate or whatever it is called comes from. It has a precedent in Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida as everybody knows is an organization that was formed, created, financed and trained by both Mossad and CIA during the Afghanistan war with the Soviets.

There are countries that train all these groups that really work against Islam, and provide them with weapons. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. There are other countries like Turkey and Jordan that make their territory available for military trainings. The terrorists can go across their borders.

There are also a couple of other elements that are not so widely known and that refers to some historical or religious aspects. It is known that many Jews converted to Islam in a fake way. In Arab language they are referred to as “Sabatin”. For example I would mention that somebody like Ataturk in Turkey was himself of Sabatin origin who was in very good terms with the British and Zionists in general.

I am mentioning this because there is also a very strong suspicion that Wahabism also has those same roots; Zionist and Talmudic roots. The fact is, and that is recognized in some reports by the Iraqi intelligence and even recognized by the American Intelligence, that the Saud family origins from Jews of Basra in Iraq and Mr. Abdolwahhab’s grandfather had been a Jew coming from Turkey. So there is the presumption that these people should be coming from these Sabatin origins.


Posted in Middle East, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Spanish author: Wahhabism aims to destroy Islam from inside

Shoah’s pages