Archive | November, 2011

Gaza doctor tragedy central in IsraHell stage show


by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 


An Israeli mother-and-daughter play performed at a recent theatre festival climaxed with the tale of the killing of a Gaza doctor’s family, a 2009 event that brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict deep into Israeli living rooms.

“Explosive: War tourism” culminated with the sounds of an audio recording of Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish’s cries, heard live at the time on Israeli TV, as he pleaded in a phone call to an Israeli reporter friend asking him to get the army to stop shooting at his house.

Three of Abuelaish’s daughters and a niece were killed by a tank shell during Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 offensive in the Gaza Strip.

The annual Acco (Acre) Festival of Alternative Israeli Theatre held in the Mediterranean coastal town in northern Israel is a haven for unconventional shows, and the performance by Naomi Yoeli and her daughter, Galia, was no exception.

“It is a very painful performance about an impossible situation of violence,” said Galia Yoeli, who with mother Naomi, provided a snapshot of how Israeli-Palestinian relations have evolved over decades of conflict.

Israel investigated the killings and acknowledged that two tank shells had hit Abuelaish’s house in Jabalya refugee camp. But it said the action was “reasonable” because two suspected militants were spotted on the house’s upper level.

About 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, and 13 Israelis were killed in the war Israel launched with the declared aim of curbing cross-border rocket fire from Palestinian militants.

Since the tragedy, Abuelaish, a gynecologist who had worked for years at some of Israel’s top hospitals, moved to Canada with the surviving members of his family. He wrote a book “I shall not hate,” about his story.

Play producer Revital Malka told Reuters the doctor had given his blessing to inclusion of the subject matter.

The outdoor show started with Naomi recounting to daughter Galia their family history and how previous generations, including Holocaust survivors, had settled in Israel.


Naomi used miniature items such as porcelain dolls, building blocks and a toy bus to illustrate her story while Galia sat at a laptop, whose display was projected onto a giant screen, to research the Internet details of her mother’s tale.

The miniatures forced each member of the audience to use binoculars handed out before the start of the show to be able to view the proceedings close up.

The turning point in the 75-minute performance came about two-thirds through when Naomi described the 1967 Middle East war, when Israel defeated its Arab neighbours and captured large tracts of territory from them.

She enacted scenes of a bus tour to the Gaza Strip, typical of the day, by triumphant Israeli civilians who visited areas of the “newly acquired” lands, and their disdainful treatment of the indigenous population.

Naomi explained the significance of the binoculars.

“We would like to touch the hearts and minds of the people and allow them to look at the issues with a magnifying glass and not be blind to events,” she said.

Galia said the binoculars were also symbolic of the “war tourism” among some Israelis who during the Gaza offensive, took up vantage points along the border and watched the fighting from a safe distance.

“When you stand and look from the outside, it looks almost like a miniature and people were saying: ‘Let’s kill them all’, but when you go into detail, you see a small child being killed and this is what we tried to share with our audience.”

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on Gaza doctor tragedy central in IsraHell stage show

Iran: Five Minutes to Zero Hour

by crescentandcross in Uncategorized

Tehran in the crosshairs

by Justin Raimondo

If you wade through the International  Atomic Energy Agency’s much-awaited report [.pdf] on Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear  weapons technology – a fate I wouldn’t wish on anyone – what you’ll  find is a studious ambiguity. “May,” “might,” and “could” are words that  modify practically every assertion of Iranian perfidy:

“The information indicates  that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under  a structured program. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development  of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.”

Or – since “indications” are not evidence – maybe not.

“The Agency has information  from a Member State that Iran has undertaken work to manufacture small  capsules suitable for use as containers of a component containing nuclear  material. The Agency was also informed by a different Member State that  Iran may also have experimented with such components  in order to assess their performance in generating neutrons. Such components,  if placed in the center of a nuclear core of an implosion type nuclear  device and compressed, could produce a burst of neutrons suitable for initiating  a fission chain reaction. The location where the experiments were conducted  was said to have been cleaned of contamination after the experiments  had taken place.”

Notice how unverifiable this  is: if the evidence has been “cleaned” by those perfidious Iranians,  then we’ll never know for sure, now will we? How very convenient.

Buried amidst all the technical  jargon, interpolated with ambiguous conditional phrases, we have a story  of a “clandestine nuclear network” – presumably the one set up  by A.Q. Khan – which supposedly helped the Iranians set up their  alleged weapons program. Or, rather, may have done so:

“In an interview in 2007  with a member of the clandestine nuclear supply network, the Agency  was told that Iran had been provided with nuclear explosive design information. > From information provided to the Agency during that interview, the Agency  is concerned that Iran may have obtained more advanced design information than the information  identified in 2004 as having been provided to Libya by the nuclear supply  network.”

In short: maybe – maybe  not. 

“Mainstream” media accounts of this farrago of half-truths and insinuations lead the unsuspecting  reader to believe the Iranians are physically constructing a nuclear  arsenal, which will shortly be aimed directly at Brooklyn, New York.  The fact is that the only “illegal” activities Iran has carried  out, in actual reality, are computer simulations. This is what they  mean when they accuse Iran of engaging in “nuclear testing.” No  one alleges Tehran has produced an actual physical bomb, or managed  to put together a nuclear armed missile, and is hiding them underneath  the Supreme Leader’s palace – this time around, the War Party is  at least trying to be a bit more subtle. But subtlety, as we know, is  not their forte.

What jumps out at the careful  reader of the IAEA report is that there is nothing concrete involved  in this nefarious plot: only hearsay descriptions of blueprints and  computer models, including various publicly available scientific studies  authored by Iranian scientists. According to Khan, what was transferred  to the Iranians was know-how: theoretical knowledge and contacts  with suppliers. Yet throughout the IAEA report, although there are plenty  of instances where Iran is alleged to have sought this or that dual  use component, we are never told if they actually succeeded in procuring  the item. While the report attributes its information to “Member States,” why will I not be surprised if this “intelligence” comes from the  same  folks who brought us the Niger uranium forgeries?

Although there is no smoking  gun, the injection of the A.Q. Khan network into the propaganda mix  at this level is a relatively new development, one that links the latest  Enemy of the Moment (Pakistan) with longtime-favorite Iran. Why not  kill two birds with one stone?

After the big  build-up,  the actual content  of the IAEA report is a major let-down: the  movie is nothing like the previews. That isn’t stopping the “mainstream” media from running screaming headlines. NPR declared “Some of Iran’s Work is ‘Specific’ to Nuclear Weapons,” a claim echoed almost word for word by the tabloid Daily Mail. In a declarative phrase preceded only by the word “Report” and a semicolon, CNN stated flatly: Iran  Developing  Nuclear Bombs.” Yet the report nowhere said anything this definitive: examined under a microscope – which is how we should look at any and all pretexts for war – the  whole tissue of suppositions and “secret” information is revealed  in all its embarrassing flimsiness.

There’s another headline   related to this that popped up in my Internet search for examples of   journalistic war hysteria, and it is this: Oil Rises on     Iran Nuclear Concerns.”   We are headed for a perfect storm of oil shock, economic turmoil, and   the looming  prospect of war with Iran.

This fits right in with the War Party’s agenda: wars are a great way to   mask the effects of economic failure – and simultaneously divert attention   away from its real authors. Instead of accusing “obstructionist”   Republicans of being the cause  of our increasing poverty – a   narrative even the President’s most devoted cultists must admit   is getting threadbare – Obama can blame those obstinate Iranians for   the economic chaos to come.

Now it’s clear why US officials   were ecstatic at the appointment of Yukiya Amano as the new IAEA chief,   replacing the troublesome Mohammed el-Baradei. As revealed by WikiLeaks, US diplomats came away from their   first encounter with Amano convinced it “illustrate[d] the very high   degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the   IAEA.”

The American government’s  agenda has never been in doubt, not since the days of George W. Bush,  and that is “regime change” in Iran by any means necessary. The  War Party has been building up to this climactic moment the way a composer  slowly but surely works his way up to a crescendo – and we are nearly  at the crest of the wave with the release of this report.

All we need now, to provoke  World War III, is a proper Sarajevo, an incident that will spark a regional  war, and eventually a global conflagration.

10, 9, 8, 7, 6 ….

In the context of the long  propaganda war the neocons have been faithfully waging over the pastdecade or so, we’re five minutes to zero hour.

The key to understanding the fraud at the heart of the IAEA report is the first paragraph of the summary:

“While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of   declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by   Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the   necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional   Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the   absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and   therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful   activities.”

Translation:  the Iranians have no suitably enriched fissile material   – but because they won’t surrender their sovereignty and allow us to   occupy their nuclear facilities at will, there is no “credible   assurance” of this. Iran is guilty, and must prove its innocence: that’s   what the justice of the West means in the context of its relations with   Iran.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran: Five Minutes to Zero Hour

McCain: ‘Liar’ remark indicative of US policy toward Israhell

by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 


Republican senator slams Franch, American administrations for embarrassing incident, says France has always been like that toward Israel, but Americans should know better


French President Nicolas Sarkozy may have stirred media frenzy by calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “liar” behind closed doors, but some politicians see it as an opportunity to shift the blame.

Republican Senator John McCain on Tuesday slammed the French and American leaders over their derogatory remarks on Netanyahu, saying that while the “French have always been like that” toward Israel, the United States should know better.

The former presidential candidate was referring to reports that during the G-20 summit, Obama and Sarkozy were overheard on an open mic bashing Netanyahu, with Sarkozy calling him a liar and Obama responding, “You’re sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day.”

In an interview with Fox Network, the Arizona senator said “I happen to be a great admirer of Prime Minister Netanyahu,” adding that “Israel is under more pressure and probably in more danger than they’ve been since the ’67 war and that kind of comment is not only not helpful, but indicative of some of the policies towards Israel that this administration has been part of.”

Commenting on the deadlocked peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians, McCain noted that “No one, not even the most ardent supporter of the president, can view the Israeli-Palestinian issue and peace in the region as anything but a total failure as part of (the current American) administration.”

Posted in USAComments Off on McCain: ‘Liar’ remark indicative of US policy toward Israhell

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979


by crescentandcross in Uncategorized

For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared “unacceptable” and a possible reason for military action, with “all options on the table” to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

1. Earliest warnings: 1979-84

Fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon predates Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, when the pro-West Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deep in negotiations with the US, France and West Germany, on a nuclear-energy spending spree that was to yield 20 reactors.

Late 1970s: US receives intelligence that the Shah had “set up a clandestine nuclear weapons development program.”

1979: Shah ousted in the Iranian revolution, ushering in the Islamic Republic. After the overthrow of the Shah, the US stopped supplying highly enriched uranium (HEU) to Iran. The revolutionary government guided by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned nuclear weapons and energy, and for a time stopped all projects.

1984: Soon after West German engineers visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor, Jane’s Defence Weekly quotes West German intelligence sources saying that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

2. Israel paints Iran as Enemy No. 1: 1992

Though Israel had secretly done business with the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution, seeking to cultivate a Persian wedge against its local Arab enemies, the early 1990s saw a concerted effort by Tel Aviv to portray Iran as a new and existential threat.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the US.”

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. “Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East,” Peres warned, “because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY.”

1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, says “Iran has to be identified as Enemy No. 1.” Iran’s nascent nuclear program, he told The New York Times, “really gives Israel the jitters.”

3. US joins the warnings: 1992-97

The same alarm bells were already ringing in Washington, where in early 1992 a task force of the House Republican Research Committee claimed that there was a “98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two or three operational nuclear weapons.”

Similar predictions received airtime, including one from then-CIA chief Robert Gates that Iran’s nuclear program could be a “serious problem” in five years or less. Still, the bureaucracy took some time to catch up with the Iran threat rhetoric.

1992: Leaked copy of the Pentagon’s “Defense Strategy for the 1990s” makes little reference to Iran, despite laying out seven scenarios for potential future conflict that stretch from Iraq to North Korea.

1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – about five years away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of dangers in the coming decade. The report speaks of an “acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program,” claims that Iran “began an intensive campaign to develop and acquire nuclear weapons” in 1987, and says Iran was “believed” to have recruited scientists from the former Soviet Union and Pakistan to advise them.

1997: The Christian Science Monitor reports that US pressure on Iran’s nuclear suppliers had “forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years.”

4. Rhetoric escalates against ‘axis of evil’: 1998-2002

But Iran was putting the pieces of its strategic puzzle together. A US spy satellite detected the launch of an Iranian medium-range missile, sparking speculation about the danger posed to Israel.

1998: The New York Times said that Israel was less safe as a result of the launch even though Israel alone in the Middle East possessed both nuclear weapons and the long-range missiles to drop them anywhere. “The major reaction to this is going to be from Israel, and we have to worry what action the Israelis will take,” the Times quoted a former intelligence official as saying. An unidentified expert said: “This test shows Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, because no one builds an 800-mile missile to deliver conventional warheads.”

1998: The same week, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reports to Congress that Iran could build an intercontinental ballistic missile – one that could hit the US – within five years. The CIA gave a timeframe of 12 years.

2002: CIA warns that the danger from nuclear-tipped missiles, especially from Iran and North Korea, is higher than during the cold war. Robert Walpole, then a top CIA officer for strategic and nuclear programs, tells a Senate panel that Iran’s missile capability had grown more quickly than expected in the previous two years – putting it on par with North Korea. The threat “will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature,” he says.

2002: President George W. Bush labels Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea.

5. Revelations from inside Iran: 2002-05

In August 2002, the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK, a.k.a. MKO) announces that Iran is building an underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and a heavy water reactor at Arak. It is widely believed that the evidence had been passed to the MEK by Israeli intelligence.

Enrichment and reactors are not forbidden to Iran as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but the failure to disclose the work prompts an IAEA investigation and much closer scrutiny. Iran insists its efforts are peaceful, but is found in breach of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and accused by the IAEA of a “pattern of concealment.”

2004: Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell tells reporters that Iran had been working on technology to fit a nuclear warhead onto a missile. “We are talking about information that says they not only have [the] missiles but information that suggests they are working hard about how to put the two together,” he said.

2005: US presents 1,000 pages of designs and other documentation allegedly retrieved from a computer laptop in Iran the previous year, which are said to detail high-explosives testing and a nuclear-capable missile warhead. The “alleged studies,” as they have since been called, are dismissed by Iran as forgeries by hostile intelligence services.

6. Dialing back the estimate: 2006-09

2006: The drums of war beat faster after the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh quotes US sources saying that a strike on Iran is all but inevitable, and that there are plans to use tactical nuclear weapons against buried Iranian facilities.

2007: President Bush warns that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Vice President Dick Cheney had previously warned of “serious consequences” if Iran did not give up its nuclear program.

2007: A month later, an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is released, which controversially judges with “high confidence” that Iran had given up its nuclear weapons effort in fall 2003.

The report, meant to codify the received wisdom of America’s 16 spy agencies, turns decades of Washington assumptions upside down. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls the report a “victory for the Iranian nation.” An Iranian newspaper editor in Tehran tells the Monitor, “The conservatives … feel the chance of war against them is gone.”

June 2008: Then-US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicts that Israel will attack Iran before January 2009, taking advantage of a window before the next US president came to office.

May 2009: US Senate Foreign Relations Committee reports states: “There is no sign that Iran’s leaders have ordered up a bomb.”

7. Israel’s one-year timeframe disproved: 2010-11

Despite reports and intelligence assessments to the contrary, Israeli and many US officials continue to assume that Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

August 2010: An article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic’s September issue is published online, outlining a scenario in which Israel would chose to launch a unilateral strike against Iran with 100 aircraft, “because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people.”

Drawing on interviews with “roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers about a military strike” and American and Arab officials, Mr. Goldberg predicts that Israel will launch a strike by July 2011. The story notes previous Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, and quotes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.”

2010: US officials note that Iran’s nuclear program has been slowed by four sets of UN Security Council sanctions and a host of US and EU measures. The Stuxnet computer virus also played havoc through 2011 with Iran’s thousands of spinning centrifuges that enrich uranium.

January 2011: When Meir Dagan steps down as director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, he says that Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015. “Israel should not hasten to attack Iran, doing so only when the sword is upon its neck,” Mr. Dagan warned. Later he said that attacking Iran would be “a stupid idea…. The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”

January 2011: A report by the Federation of American Scientists on Iran’s uranium enrichment says there is “no question” that Tehran already has the technical capability to produce a “crude” nuclear device.

February 2011: National intelligence director James Clapper affirms in testimony before Congress that “Iran is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities and better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so,” Mr. Clapper said. “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

November 2011: The IAEA claims for the first time that Iran is has worked on weapons-related activities for years, publishing detailed information based on more than 1,000 pages of design information that is corroborated, it says, by data from 10 member states and its own investigation and interviews.

Posted in IranComments Off on Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979

Clinton: US democracy promotion helped turn a long Arab winter into ‘Arab Spring’


by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 


ed note–readers of this site will note that from the beginning, we at TUT did not buy into this ‘Arab revolution’ and instead pegged it for what it was–a Western/Zionist/Imperialist plot to rearrange the existing regimes in the Middle East and to forestall any true revolution as took place in Iran in 1979. One of the groups we fingered for being elemental to this agenda was the National Endowment for Democracy, known as the NED, and its subsidiary groups, one of which just happens to be the National Democratic Institute where Clinton spoke. Not only does the wicked witch of the Potomic admit that the revolutions were the direct result of these subversive groups, but as well announces to the world that  any future revolutions (such as in places like Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc) will be their doing also.

In her Keynote Address at the National Democratic Institute’s 2011 Democracy Awards Dinner, Hillary Clinton acknowledged NED’s role in the “Arab Awakening”:

I think it’s important to recognize that back when the streets of Arab cities were quiet, the National Democratic Institute was already on the ground, building relationships, supporting the voices that would turn a long Arab winter into a new Arab Spring. Now, we may not know where and when brave people will claim their rights next, but it’s a safe bet that NDI is there now, because freedom knows no better champion. More than a quarter-century old, NDI and its siblings in the National Endowment for Democracy family have become vital elements of America’s engagement with the world.

Posted in USAComments Off on Clinton: US democracy promotion helped turn a long Arab winter into ‘Arab Spring’

Journalists censure UK over censorship of Iranian network


 by crescentandcross in Uncategorized

The UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) has declared a war on Iran’s English-language satellite TV channel Press TV for covering the alternative issues.

UK’s media watchdog has decided to remove the channel from the SKY platform for what it calls “breaching Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code”.

Seemingly, Ofcom has succumbed to the British royal family’s demands to ban Press TV activities despite the Iranian news network’s compliance with the law.

The move is considered to be an abuse of the UK media law and the result of mounting pressure on the organization by certain members of the royal family and government.

Ofcom issued a verdict on May 23, 2011 that Press TV has breached its rules by airing a 10 second extract from an interview with Iranian-born Canadian Journalist Maziar Bahari while he was still in detention in an Iranian prison.

Bahari claimed in the interview that he had been lured into giving a Press TV interview in 2009 with the promise of release from jail on condition that he would “condemn Western media” and that his alternative option would be to wait six years in jail for his actual trial, after which he might face execution.

Despite cogent explanations provided by the Iranian news outlet that it “neither asked Mr. Bahari to condemn Western media, nor did Press TV broadcast any footage of Mr. Bahari doing so,” the British media watchdog has since sought desperately to levy statutory sanctions against Press TV for what it calls “breaching Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code.”

In separate interviews with the Tehran Times, many international journalists and intellectuals condemned UK media regulator’s moves against Press TV during the last week of October.

Renowned American historian and IPS correspondent Gareth Porter said: “There is no conceivable justification for the UK to take Press TV off the air in that country. It is not necessary to argue that a particular news outlet offers objective coverage, because all the international competitors have their own slant on the news. But it is safe to say that without Press TV, British viewers will not see a range of interpretations and views that it provides, especially on U.S. and NATO policies and military operations.”

Anthony Lawson, independent video-journalist and political commentator, noted, “The banner heading on Ofcom’s website is: Ofcom, Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries. However, one section of Ofcom’s mission statement is as follows: Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003. This detailed Act of Parliament spells out exactly what Ofcom should do – we can do no more or no less than is spelt out in the Act. So, quite clearly, Ofcom is not independent, it is bound by a detailed Act of Parliament which means, in fact, that what everyone in the United Kingdom is allowed to watch, listen to, or use to communicate with each other, via the Internet, telephones or any other form of electronic people-to-people interface is controlled by those who rule the nation,” he told the Tehran Times.

“The Communications Act of 2003 contains no less that 411 sections, and may even cover what one is allowed to write, or, more importantly, not write in a greetings card, so to say that Ofcom’s decision to prevent Iran’s Press TV English channel from being broadcast on the Sky platform is not government-instigated censorship would be absurd,” Lawson added.

“The current U.S./Israel sponsored acts of slander and libel against Iran, regarding an alleged assassination plot, are clearly being backed by the government of the United Kingdom, which is hell bent on preventing Iran’s side of the story from being heard.  This is not only morally reprehensible it is in direct contravention of Article 19 in The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” he said.

“Therefore the forced removal of Press TV, by Ofcom (what a stupid name), from the Sky satellite platform is in direct contravention of The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and is clearly designed to prevent the population of the United Kingdom from obtaining important information that should be protected by that declaration,” Lawson underlined.

Moign Khawaja, an editor of Outer Nationalist and editor in chief of the Dubai-based Arabian Gazette, said: “The decision made by Ofcom is deplorable and should be considered as an attack on freedom of information and freedom of speech. It exposes the hypocrisy of the Western governments that profess their commitment to human rights and freedom of speech but in reality their policies are nothing but a sham. The Iranian government is routinely accused of violating human rights and suppressing freedoms of its people and mainstream media news channels spare no opportunity to bash Tehran for imposing curbs on Western journalists. But what we’re not told is the way Western governments operate and use their mouthpiece media to propagate disinformation and sow confusion among the masses.”

“Given the track record of Western mainstream media outlets like BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC etc. is questionable and their coverage during conflicts is very biased and one-sided. From a neutral perspective, the performance of both Western media outlets as well as their Eastern counterparts comes under severe scrutiny if reviewed under journalism laws and acceptable practices. However, banning a news outlet altogether or imposing media restrictions is outright dictatorial and against democratic norms and values,” he added.

Khawaja urged the British government to revise its decision and allow its citizens to have unrestricted access to Press TV as an independent and alternative source of information: “I urge British media regulator Ofcom to reverse their decision and restore Press TV channel on the Sky digital network. The British people must be given the choice and freedom to decide what news channel they tune into instead of depriving them their right to know and imposing censorship through such arbitrary measures. I hope the British public will realize the motives of this decision and demand their rights to be restored.”

The Beirut-based international lawyer and author Franklin Lamb is also among the critics of Ofcom’s decision to ban Press TV in London: “The UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom), in applying its regulations in a clumsy attempt to curtail a progressive and increasingly popular TV channel is far overboard in its application of the intent of Ofcom regulations. Ofcom is apparently trying to fit into the pattern of certain Western countries in depriving the international viewing public of more than 66 Middle East satellite channels exactly as was attempted last year by the U.S. Congress when it sought, unsuccessfully via AIPAC proposed Congressional legislation to cut off all channel providers that carried the popular Al Manar channel from Lebanon. The White House asked Johny Kerry to kill the bill in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he did.”

“Similarly in Australia, the Zionist lobby tried to ban Al Manar under almost the exact regulations that Ofcom is now employing. Australia’s ACMA declined to ban Al Manar. The public has communicated in both of the above noted cases that they want access to a broad range of points of view. Hopefully citizens of the UK will follow these recent decisions and reject Ofcom’s anti-free speech campaign against Press TV,” Lamb told the Tehran Times.

Prominent journalist and former BBC Panorama correspondent Alan Hart also talked to the Tehran Times about the new limitations imposed by Ofcom on Press TV: “Ofcom’s decision is outrageous. Press TV’s English language coverage of world affairs is, generally speaking, among the very best. There are a growing number of people in the UK and also Europe and North America who look to it for a more honest coverage of events than they can get from Western mainstream television.”

William A. Cook, the professor of English at the University of La Verne, has also talked of his cooperation with Press TV and the impartiality which the news channel has maintained: “My association with Press TV over the last few years has been professional and very positive. The issues I have been asked to address, alone or as a panel member with other experts in London or elsewhere, have been open and constructive. No one at Press TV ever attempted to challenge my perspective or expect me to alter my views on subjects. It appears to me that Press TV seeks to provide an open forum for discussion through interviews and through the U.S. Desk that allows a diversity of opinions to be presented to their audience. That I would think is a desirable goal.”

Lawrence Davidson, an author and professor of history at the West Chester University, stated: “My guess is that the shutdown is part of a concerted effort to isolate Iran at all levels. Those who did this no doubt, fancy themselves in some sort of ideological battle between freedom and religious extremism. However, the fact that freedom of speech is not a primary concern for them, suggests that their notion of who is free and who is not is confused. In the end they are just another set of bureaucratic ideologues insisting that ‘enemies’ must be silenced.”

Mark Glenn, a radio host and journalist, has said that Ofcom’s decision is hypocritical: “Firstly, we must consider the utter hypocrisy surrounding this move. The West is constantly lecturing the countries of the Middle East and especially Iran on how to adopt ‘democratic’ methods, including freedom of press and yet here we see blatant censorship of material that the West and more importantly, Jewish interests don’t like.”

“Secondly, I believe it shows how important the control of information is to someone with an imperialistic agenda. There is an old saying thus –’Where the head goes, the body follows’, and the West knows they can only continue to keep people politically subjugated by making sure they are mentally subjugated, and this means controlling what they hear, see, read, etc,” Mark Glenn said.

“Press TV, with its high journalistic standards and adherence to the truth, obviously has become a thorn in the side of those wishing to maintain a backward, regressive position vis a vis the Middle East and the changes that must come of there is ever to be peace, and this latest move on their part is just one piece of proof in that direction,” he added.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Journalists censure UK over censorship of Iranian network

Russia says will not back new Iran sanctions over nuclear program


 by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 


Russia will not support new, tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news agency quoted a senior Russian diplomat as saying on Wednesday.

“Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Iran. That approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals,” Interfax quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov as saying.

Earlier on Wednesday, France said it wanted to convene the UN Security Council and could push for unprecedented sanctions against Iran after an International Atomic Energy Agency report said Iran had worked to develop an atomic bomb design.

“Convening of the UN Security Council is called for,” Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told RFI radio.

In a statement, Juppe said diplomatic pressure needed to be ramped up.

“If Iran refuses to conform to the demands of the international community and refuses any serious cooperation, we stand ready to adopt, with other willing countries, sanctions on an unprecedented scale,” Juppe said.

Also on Wednesday, an Iranian army general warned Israel that any attack against Iranian nuclear sites would not only be met with the “destruction” of Israel, but would invite a reaction that spread beyond the Middle East.

Deputy armed forces chief Massoud Jazayeri did not further elaborate, but said that the Dimona nuclear site in Israel could be targeted by Iran if Israel attacked it.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Russia says will not back new Iran sanctions over nuclear program



by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 

“The world that awaits us, if our New Masters prevail, will be a grim dystopia.    It will be a spiritual wasteland in which an unprincipled elite rides roughshod over the teeming masses. It will be a cruel world of exploitation, moral darkness, and unspeakable brutality.” — Lasha Darkmoon, America Vanquished

by Israel Shamir

Response, Pictures and Captions by Lasha Darkmoon

The gifted British poet Lasha Darkmoon recently published a new essay in two parts called America Vanquished, claiming that the US, Germany and Russia were colonised by Jews.

How close to truth is she? Being a Gothic poet, she embellished her essay a lot, but here is the important part. She says:

In short, the Jews took over America and turned it into a Jewish colony. As simple as that. Their American hosts were hoist with their own petard.

But why worry? American Jews are Americans, are they not? If they’re smart enough to take over America, as they have demonstrably done, why shouldn’t they proceed to the next logical step and take over the world—yes, dominate the world through America? No one denies this is America’s aim: full-spectrum dominance. So if the Jews control America, and if America controls the world, doesn’t it follow logically that the Jews control the world? The logic is irrefutable.

 Jewish world domination takes on a different perspective when viewed through this historical prism. No “conspiracy theories” here. No hook-nosed Jews grasping the globe in their cruel talons. No Illuminati trying to sodomize your children and drink their blood. Just logic. Just history. Just America striving for full-spectrum dominance — with Jews leading the pack.

 You could say the wild-eyed dreams of the Protocols have at last been realized, but not in the way their original masterminds intended.

ANTI-SEMITIC CARTOON OF THE PREDATORY JEW GRASPING THE GLOBE IN HIS TALON-LIKE CLUTCHES (French caricature, 1898).  “No hook-nosed Jews grasping the globe in their cruel talons. No Illuminati trying to sodomize your children and drink their blood. Just logic. Just history. Just America striving for full-spectrum dominance with Jews leading the pack.” — Lasha Darkmoon.

Lasha Darkmoon claims, that if the Jews form an elite in the US, then US world dominance is a form of Jewish world dominance.

Her second claim is that the US has became a colony of Israel. She even claims that  “America is now Israel’s slave”.

There is a huge logical leap here: even if US Jews form an important part of the US elites, why would they give away their leadership to their cousins and brethren in the Middle East?

DARKMOON:  (stepping in) Good point, Mr Shamir. Now consider my logic and try to refute this: If the Israeli Jews give the orders to the American Jews, and if the American Jews control America, then clearly America has become an Israeli colony. But if, on the contrary, American Jews exercise all the power and tell the Israeli Jews what to do, then clearly Israel is an American colony. The logic is inescapable.

Let’s go to the next step.

Once it is admitted that America is controlled by its Jews, whether Israeli Jews or American Jews, America becomes in effect a JEWISH colony.

Given that American Jews were former immigrants to America who have managed to “take over” America, you could say that Jewry has colonized America. Ergo: no matter which way you slice it, America is either an Israeli colony or a Jewish colony. The logic of my argument, I put it to you, is irrefutable.

We can take this therefore as proven: if America is not an Israeli colony, taking its orders from Israeli Jews, then it is a Jewish colony, taking its orders from American Jews.

SHAMIR: World Jewry is a project rather than reality; in real life, Jews of different countries do not feel themselves a single united body though they do interact. Compare them with Catholics: these have the Pope and a single hierarchy, and still they are united in prayer only. Jews have no Pope, no hierarchy, and are even less united.

DARKMOON: Jews less united than the goyim? Wow! I never thought any group could be less united than the goyim, or more united than the Jews in knowing “what is good for the Jews”. If you are trying to convince us that the Jews are DISUNITED just because no two Jews think alike, some preferring Buddhism to Judaism and others preferring kippas to hats, then you are on very shaky ground indeed! We are well aware that no two individuals, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, think alike; just as we are aware that no two individuals have identical fingerprints. It doesn’t follow from this, however, that people with different opinions are going to be disunited, any more than it follows that people with different fingerprints are going to be disunited.

To say that Jews lack unity is almost like saying America lacks military power. Or the Queen of England is short of cash. The Jews  have far more unity, I put it to you, than any other other ethnic group in the world. This fundamental cohesion of the Jews is something I have pointed out in my recent essayAmerica Vanquished:

“The extraordinary success of the Jews, who make up only 2.5 percent of America’s population, can be attributed to meticulous organization, coordination and networking. This advantageous cohesiveness derives from an evolutionary characteristic of the Jews: an exceptionally strong ethnocentricism which has enabled them to infiltrate almost every single organization that could possibly threaten them as a group.” (See here)

Despite the superficial differences between various types of Jews, the Jews are surely a paradigm of unity and cohesion compared to other ethnic groups.

You yourself, Mr Shamir, have written: “Palestine is not the Ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is.” Consider that statement. Can you seriously tell  me that the Jews are likely to achieve this grandiose goal of world domination by being disunited and disorganized? by lacking coordination? No, of course not!

One could supply countless arguments to demonstrate the remarkable unity of the Jews in achieving “what is good for the Jews”. Pray tell: how did the Jews manage to take over the mass media, Hollywood, academia, the judiciary, the executive branches of government, Wall Street, the world’s banking system, the lavishly funded Think Tanks, even the porn industry, if they were disorganized and disunited?

The major Jewish organizations that crisscross America like a spider’s web—AIPAC being only one of them—can hardly be accused of ineffective disunity.

You’ve heard of mesira, the code of honor among Jews that make them stick together through thick and thin, never betraying an organ-stealing rabbi or even a serial killer to the goy authorities. Isn’t sticking together the ultimate form of unity?

You’ve  heard of the Sayanim, Mossad’s one million worldwide helpers. How these faceless individuals, all Jews living in lands outside Israel, work away for Israel in providing “safe houses”, transportation, access to communications networks and other facilities for Mossad spies. Full details of the existence of the Mossad Sayanim network were given in the 1994 book The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, himself a renegade Mossad agent.

The Jewish Sayanim remind me of bees, all buzzing away for the common good,  all united by a common purpose: to cram the hive full of honey.

One final point, Mr Shamir, which I know will make you graciously concede victory to me on this vitally important issue: in saying that “the Jews have no Pope, no hierarchy, and are even less united” than the goyim, you are guilty of a glaring contradiction. Wasn’t it only a few years ago that you argued the very opposite? Far from implying that the Jews were a disunited group, you stated that they possessed an almost supernatural unity, comparing them to locusts that moved in ordered formation to achieve their common goal.

“It is hard to swallow that the Jews have a strategy,” you said, “but no strategist. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are popular precisely because they posit such a supreme strategist.” And then, to drive home the point, you added the famous quotation from the Bible: ‘The locusts have no king, yet they attack in formation’ and devastate whole countries as if by plan.” (Cabbala of Power, p.13)

That last phrase—“and devastate whole countries as if by plan”—is your own. You are daringly comparing the Jews to locusts who have an uncanny and almost supernatural ability to act in unison.

CAN JEWS BE COMPARED TO LOCUSTS, ACTING IN COORDINATION? “The locusts have no king, yet they attack in formation” (Proverbs 30:27) and devastate whole countries as if by plan.

SHAMIR: Israel is a very important element of Jewish life, Lasha, but this does not mean an Israeli Prime Minister can order Jews around.

Granted, politically active Americans think that one can’t succeed without Jewish support. This much we can learn from the incredible reception of Netanyahu in the Capitol and from Obama’s capitulation. And US politicians think that the US Jews love Israel; that is why they express their love of Israel. However, the American Jews’ feelings towards Israel are not that straightforward. Remember a prominent American Jewish politician Henry Kissinger? He facilitated the greatest Arab attack on Israel in 1973 in order to take Israel down a notch.

So, US Jews are certainly an important part of the US elites. Consequently they influence world politics, while the Israeli Jews are just family and friends of these powerful American Jews. This is the secret of Israeli influence: without the support of American  Jews, Israel would shrink to its normal size.

“Without the support of American  Jews, Israel would shrink to its normal size.” — Israel Shamir

The US Jews’ position in the US is so strong because US society has been formed and influenced by the Jewish spirit of predatory capitalism, as expounded by such diverse thinkers as Karl Marx, Werner Sombart and Milton Friedman. Defeat of financial predatory capitalism could undo the Jewish hold. It would de-Jewify the Jews and society in general.

And here we come to your second claim, Lasha: namely, that Russia and Germany are colonised by Jews. Even granting your poetic licence, this is far from the truth. Germany is not colonised by Jews; it is still occupied by the US troops.

DARKMOON:  I’m not disagreeing with you, Mr Shamir, about Germany being under US occupation. In fact, I quote Eustace Mullins in Part 1 of my essay saying exactly the same thing.  But I certainly never said that Germany had been “colonized by Jews”. Where did I say that? I would never have made such a ridiculous statement. I said that about America, but not about Germany.

SHAMIR:  Jews play a negligible part in modern German life, Lasha. Even after the the defeat of the Third Reich, there was no resurgence of the Jewish spirit. Germany has a strong social security structure.  Predatory financial capitalism has  made few inroads. Germany is not a neoliberal state. The Germans pay tribute to Israel, that’s true; but this is only a result of American occupation. The West Germans are indeed indoctrinated in guilt feelings towards Jews, but East Germans have no guilt feelings whatsoever, and they influence the totality of German feelings. If and when US troops leave Germany, Germany will reassert itself.

Again, Russia is not colonized by Jews. Some Jewish oligarchs were expelled, and others were imprisoned by Putin. Russia usually votes against Israel in the UN and supplied enemies of Israel with its advanced weaponry. Russia now has fewer Jews than Scotland: about two hundred thousand altogether by official census, and twice that much by overblown Jewish organisations’ estimate. Granted, Russia has no anti-Semitism, and it has some influential Jews, but the important decisions are not made by them.

Was Russia “colonized by Jews” after the October 1917 revolution? This is the weakest part of your essay, Lasha. I’m afraid you know little about this subject and just repeat the silly claims of others.

DARKMOON: Again, Mr Shamir,  I must point out with all due respect that at no time did I ever claim that Russia was “colonized by Jews”, nor did I even imply it. The same with Germany. However, if that is the impression I gave you, then I must apologize for not making my meaning clearer.

SHAMIR: You tell us that important Bolsheviks used pseudonyms; true, but this is not always connected with their Jewishness. Lenin’s real name was Ulyanov, but this is not a Jewish name. The early Bolsheviks were guerrilla fighters, and they used all sorts of names to evade surveillance. This is also a part of underground ethos.

DARKMOON: Again, I am in full agreement with you, Mr Shamir. So there’s no point ticking me off  for disagreeing with you!

What I said in my article was that almost every single revolutionary Jew in Bolshevik Russia hid behind a non-Jewish name. This was either because they were engaged in subversive activities or because they were anxious to avoid being the victims of the virulent anti-semitism of those times.

Pseudonyms were adopted by non-Jews just as frequently if they were involved in seditious activities. Stalin, whose real name was Joseph Djugashvili, had at least 40 pseudonyms. See Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin, p.395, for a list of his false names. Lenin, who was half Jewish, not only had over a hundred bogus names, but also went in for glued-on wigs and giant spectacles!

SHAMIR:  Abu Jihad, Abu Ammar and Abu Mazen are nicknames, but surely they are not Jews. You and your readers, Lasha, should read Lindemann’s book Esau’s Tears. This deals extensively with the question of the Bolshevik leaders Jewishness.

These crazy numbers you quote— “66 million Russian Christians killed by Jews”— “out of 388 members of the new revolutionary government in Russia, only sixteen were real Russians”—were invented by anticommunists.

DARKMOON: Good point, Mr Shamir. I concede that the 66 million figure is probably a gross exaggeration, just as the SIX MILLION FIGURE is often alleged to be. (Note, I myself make no comment on this figure, since mathematics is not my forte.) However, both figures have been advanced by their respective propagandists. I decided to quote the 66 million figure for two reasons: (a) because I believe it was mentioned by the great Solzhenitsyn who was not given to lying; and (b) because the 66 million figure is actually mentioned in the title of Eustace Mullins’ classic essay, “The Secret Holocaust”, which I quoted extensively in my article. (See here). Since I was quoting from Mullins, I decided to quote his figures also, giving my readers his viewpoint.

The most conservative figure for the Russian Holocaust, now agreed upon by specialist historians and even cited in the Times newspaper (UK) is 50 million dead Russians.  This figure was achieved within a 36-year period of mass murder (1917-1953), initiated by Lenin the half-Jew and continued by Stalin, a Georgian non-Jew, who surrounded himself on all sides by Jewish commissars and sexy young Jewesses he liked to bed.

If you think fifty million deaths is an inflated figure, I assure you it is not.

One Jew alone, the infamous Lazar Kaganovich, personally claimed responsibility for killing twenty million. It was he who stood atop the rubble of a Christian church and proclaimed, “Mother Russia has been cast down! We have torn away her skirts!”

Apart from Kaganovich, there were other Jews who contributed to the massacre of Christians under the cruelest circumstances: Ilya Ehrenburg, Natalfy Frenkel, Mathias Berman, Genrikh Yagoda (lingerie pervert), and, last but not least, Lavrenti Beria—though Beria may or may not have been Jewish. Mainstream historians assert that he was not. But they would, wouldn’t they? — given that Beria was not only a mass murderer of peasants, but also a bloodthirsty sex maniac and pedophile who buried children in his basement — probably alive. (See here and here, pp. 516-519 ).

At no other time in the history of the world has a country been so saturated with Jewish influence as it was between 1917 and 1953 in the Soviet Union: the time of the great gulags and the merciless slaughter of the peasants.

America now faces a similar saturation problem. There have been no Soviet-style massacres in America — not yet, thank God. But who knows what grisly surprises history has up its sleeve?

If the Jews can kill 50 million people in Russia and get away with it, they can kill 50 million people in America too, but maybe they won’t get away with it so easily next time. If they can do it once, they can do it twice — unless the leopard changes its spots.

SHAMIR: We know that imperialist propaganda is able to utilize anti-Jewish prejudice in its own interests: thus, when the Empire bombed Libya, its propagandists improbably claimed that Qaddafi is a Jew and a sympathiser of Israel. When the Empire hunted Julian Assange, its fifth column claimed that he is a Mossad agent. For this reason one should be cautious at accepting such claims: they can be done by enemies with subversive purpose.

Jews played an important part in Soviet Russia’s life, and they paid for that by their obedience and strict observance of Russia’s interests. If they strayed, they were severely punished by Stalin; if they played ball, they were allowed to stay in positions of power.

The lesson of Soviet Russia and Jews was directly opposite to that read by Lasha: even if Jews play an important role in the country, a determined ruler can correct and limit their influence.

This can be done by undoing financial capitalism. Not in vain, some Jewish pundits describe Occupy Wall Street as an “anti-Semitic movement”. Though the participants surely harbor no evil thoughts about the Jews, their goal of destroying the neoliberal model is at variance with Jewish power structures. Without their money, the Jews will shrink into mere shadows of themselves, and the nightmare will be over.

THE ROTHSCHILDS AT PRAYER: “Without their money, the Jews will shrink into mere shadows of themselves, and the nightmare will be over.” — Israel Shamir

“More than one family friend has mentioned that, for every meal, the Rothschild family sets a place at the table for Lucifer.”

— Fritz Springermeier, quote and picture found here.

DARKMOON: (summing up): I am not really in disagreement with you on most important points. Even though I have accused you of being guilty of a “glaring contradiction” — your apparent U-turn on the unity of the Jews, once united like a swarm of locusts flying in ordered ranks, now disunited and split into several conflicting groups — this need not in fact be a contradiction at all.  It could be a development or new nuance to your views, an added complexity; indeed, a kind of paradox in which the Jews are united and disunited at the same time, just as the universe is filled with light and darkness at the same time, and just as good and evil exist simultaneously in the same heart.

On one point, however, I am forced to take issue with you:  I never said that Germany and Russia were “Jewish colonies”.

America, yes; but not Germany and Russia. And America only in a metaphorical sense. To all intents and purposes, America has become a Jewish colony.

Jews did not emigrate to Germany and Russia en masse as they emigrated to the United States. They were already well entrenched in Germany and Russia, part of the unassimilated population of those two nations for several centuries. They sprung to prominence in Germany, reaching their maximum degree of influence in the time of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), just before the ascent of Hitler to power.

In Russia,  the Jews  sprung to similar prominence at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, led on by the Jew Lenin and his Shabbat goy henchman, Stalin, who was later to become the world’s greatest mass murderer—aided and abetted by his closely knit contingent of court Jews.

See Simon Sebag Montefiore’s sensational 2-part biography Young Stalin and Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.

Never before have I read a biography with so many Jews in the forefront, all seething like maggots in the rich soil of Mother Russia, all thirsting like vampires for the blood of their Christian victims.

Full marks to Simon Sebag Montefiore, himself a Jew, for having the courage to draw our attention to these frightening freaks of nature.

They belong in the seventh circle of Dante’s hell.

“ANOTHER PEOPLE WILL POSSESS YOUR LAND…” — Lasha Darkmoon, ‘The Coming Doom’.

Life is too short and precious to waste it on “anti-Semitism”. One has to move beyond this puerile response to Jewish world supremacy. Perhaps the role of the Jew in human affairs is to be the beast of prey that teaches the rest of us to run a bit faster.

Posted in USAComments Off on DARKMOON UPON AMERICA

Lieberman: Military force against Iran must be considered


by crescentandcross in Uncategorized

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on Tuesday said the U.S. must consider using military force against the Islamic Republic of Iran as an option for preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon.

“It is time for an unequivocal declaration that we will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability by peaceful means if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must,” said Lieberman from the Senate floor.

Lieberman was responding to a report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Tuesday that cited “credible” evidence that Iran continues to doggedly pursue a nuclear weapon despite harsh sanctions leveled against it by the U.S. and European Union.

Most experts agree that the seismic shift in geo-political balance that would occur if Iran obtained such a nuclear weapon would result in a dangerous escalation of tensions in the already volatile region

In his speech, Lieberman also expressed confidence the U.S. possesses the capability of stopping Iran from obtaining such a weapon either through sanctions or by military might and needs only to muster the political will.

“If the Iranian regime acquires a nuclear weapons capability, it will be because our leaders allowed it to happen,” he said. “It is still within our power to stop it. But it will require more than further incremental pressure—which is to say, more of what we have already been doing, that clearly hasn’t been working.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Lieberman: Military force against Iran must be considered

Jewish moral superiority


by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 

Op-ed: Brutal killings in Libya, Syria and Egypt a sharp contrast from “Jewish values”

ed note–A year ago when the “Arab revolutions” began, one of the predictions we made here at TUT was that Jewish interests would use this as a means of showing how ‘barbaric’ and violent the Arabs are, while in peaceful, democratic Israel, nothing even similar takes place. It took a while, but our predictions have been proven correct with the following article.

The real reason for running it however is to show the truly mad, pathological nature of Jewish thinking. As the reader will see in the following piece, the author–fully-delusional about the “moral superiority” of Jewish values–COMPLETELY NEGATES FROM DISCUSSION the oceans of blood that Jews have shed, and particularly in the last century, including both world wars, the massacre of hundreds of millions by Jewish communism and the present bloodbath taking place in the Middle East, and all the result of JEWISH POWER AND “JEWISH VALUES”.

Our point in bringing this up for discussion is a theme that we cover often on both this website and its accompanying internet radio program, which is that Jewish thinking is a form of religiously-induced mental illness, no different in many respects from paranoid schizophrenia, where its victims embrace a form of reality that simply does not exist. The following article is but one proof of this theme in the author’s attempt to elevate “Jewish values” above those of others while ignoring all the evil and injustice that has taken place throughout history as a result of those “values”. Keep in mind also as you read this that the author cites the biblical character “Joshua” as the ultimate righteous warrior, despite the fact that-according to the Old Testament narrative–Joshua and his army of Chosenite butchers massacred 31 villages of people and enslaved those who managed to survive.

Avi Rath

The nature of a nation is measured, among other things, but its conduct in times of anger. When our sages applied this wisdom to individuals, they meant that anger brings out the dark forces latent within a person. Fury may often be accompanied by lack of control, and then we discover the truth about the individual in question.

I’m still under the impression of the images of the lynching of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Don’t get me wrong: I am not teary-eyed and my heart is not broken over Gaddafi’s demise. Every dog has its day, even the one who lived like a king and dubbed himself as Africa’s king of kings. Yet the point is the very lynching in and of itself, which was accompanied by loss of control and hysterical shouts by the masses: “Allahu Akbar.”

When I also think of the sights from Cairo’s Tahrir Square, including the gang rape of a Western journalist, and when I add to this the images from Syria, where Assad is mercilessly butchering his own people, as well as the image of that scumbag who perpetrated the lynch in Ramallah waving his blood-stained hands, as well as the scumbags who butchered the Fogel family, including a three-month-old baby, and the sights of burned buses and restaurants – one cannot but fully realize what our sages meant when they spoke of realities revealed in times of anger.

Upon entering the land and ahead of the people of Israel’s first battle, God issued two grave warnings to our leader, Joshua: First, remember those who helped us and refrain from being ungrateful. The second warning was to avoid looting. Indeed, God warned Joshua not to exploit the atmosphere of war to embark on a moral disintegration beyond the required red lines, even at a time of anger and war.

Baby killers cheered

War is a situation that may bring dark forces out of man and society. Wars in the ancient and modern world have been accompanied by rape, looting and other disgraceful phenomena. This is precisely what God warned Joshua against – in war too, one must preserve one’s humanity and gratitude, and avoid looting.

Above all stood the notion that was to accompany Joshua, the people and the army throughout that period, serving as a lighthouse and a moral compass and anchor: “Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.”

The people passed the test of gratitude, but failed the looting test, and paid a heavy price for it. Indeed, this is the moral level that was required of Joshua’s troops. This level turned into a high moral bar for all Jewish fighters over the generations.

Given that the moral and inner world of those who face the Jews, as revealed in the lynches and at the squares, is so remote and shows such grim realities in respect to human life and its sanctity, one wonders: If they are capable of mercilessly massacring their own people and brutally butchering their former leader in front of the cameras, and if their role models are the scumbags with blood on their hands, what would be the fate of those who fall into their hands and are not members of their people? What will happen to those who are not members of their faith?

The answer is clear, and the images of the Fogel family and thousands of others in restaurants and on buses prove it.

War is not only physical and military; it is also and maybe mostly moral. Today, our war pits a people that sanctifies life to the point of paying huge prices in order to return one boy back home against a culture that cheers baby killers at the squares.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish moral superiority

Shoah’s pages