Jane Harman urges ethnic division in Iran

Headlines: 17 may 2009 – Not a Good Day for Bibi U.S.-Russian Team Deems Missile Shield in Europe Ineffective Last paragraph:

"The much more urgent problem is to seek a resolution" of the Iranian nuclear crisis, the report says. "That is a project on which the United States and Russia need to cooperate more closely."

Interesting. Somehow I wonder, was Lieberman aware of this project, and who suggested first Europe could be endangered by Iranian nukes? Lieberman: U.S. will accept any Israeli policy decision

"Believe me, America accepts all our decisions," Lieberman told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets.

Lieberman granted his first major interview to Alexander Rosensaft, the Israel correspondent of one of the oldest Russian dailies, not to an Israeli newspaper. The role of Israel is to "bring the U.S. and Russia closer," he declared.

Compare the headline with this:

During the interview, Lieberman said Iran is not Israel's biggest strategic threat; rather, Afghanistan and Pakistan are. This comes after years of Lieberman warning about the growing Iranian threat. Now, he has dropped Tehran to number two, with Iraq coming third.

The representative from CA must not win reelection.

The Jews find it quite OK when Jane says: "There are many different, diverse, and disagreeing populations inside Iran and an obvious strategy, which I believe is a good strategy, is to separate those populations." So I say: "an obvious strategy, which I believe is a good strategy, is to keep revealing the extent of Jewish control of America, the medieval attitudes of Jews towards outsiders, and the lack of morals of people like Jane." Maybe the 97% will wake up one day and decide that Jane and her people are fundamentally different, extremely polarizing, self-righteous, obnoxious, and eternally self-interested (not to mention fat and/or ugly).

"Divide and conquer" one might say. Zionists have written about its use at least as far back as the 20s. Oded Yinon wrote one of the more recent systematic papers on the subject: Guest Article: The War of the Languages. I think we should think about it in business terms: market penetration and market domination via market segmentation because Zionists have often tried to create new separate identities where none existed before. Mamdani argues in Saviors and Survivors that the British worked hard to create distinct identities to control the Sudan and that the country still suffers as a consequence.

It is darkly amusing that she takes an open-borders stance on third world immigration while also perceiving "diversity" as a good way to tear a country apart!

What automated software are you using? I am a curious nitwit. I am a bit puzzled. 1/enter, 4/post, 5/edit, 8/save, is obvious. I am aware that the edit option substitutes the preview option. I did in fact quite a bit of "select all"/copy/delete the whole comment, paste it in a new comment box and try it again. In diverse ways. Every time I post the comment the links disappear and are automatically substituted by blanks (something like: " target="_blank"). I then added the correct links again, the moment I save the newly added links, they are gone again, substituted again by blanks. I do not have to 2. /select all 3. /copy to post a mail. I do not understand what you mean. I can also easily edit and without step 6/select all and 7/paste to be able to save edits. The only problem really are links and html tags. The same happens over at Pat Lang's, Sic Semper Tyrannis. Sometimes the tags are accepted and all is fine in the preview box, the next time you use preview they are ignored or the links swallowed. ALL tags no matter if links, italics, bold or blockquote. But I just discovered something else, the Google-analytics-script kept me from giving Cyrus a thump down. I guess, I'll figure this out. I hope it doesn't take that long as last time. If I would knew were to start checking. Maybe Java scripts, then Firefox add-ons. Last time it was something enormously simple. But it took ages to realize. But something has changed here? The subscription box below. Thanks for answering anyway.

There Jane Harman goes again, putting the interests of Israel, a foreign nation not the fifty-first state, above those of the nation of which she is a citizen, and of which she serves as a legislator. It is in America's interest to strengthen the stability of civil society and state institutions to hinder and rollback the rise of extremism. This is core neocon treason of exactly the same kind that Wolfowitz et al betrayed us with in Iraq: the state institutions of any nation the Israel rightwing wants neutralized must either be co-opted (Plan A: Chalabi) or destroyed (Plan B: de-Baathification with associated dissolution of central governance). Colonial Zionists know there is no Iranian Chalabi waiting in the wings, so they would rather destroy the Iranian government. Is is a coincidence such insane talk from Jane Harman spews forth while Netanyahu is making the hard-sell on Capitol Hill? How is the chaos of an Iranian civil war in the interest of the United States? Readers, consider the ramifications for security across the Middle East and the world. The consideration of the price of oil alone and the potential reverberating damage to the world economy in a time of weakness, including an inevitable rise of poverty-induced extremism, should make it obvious it is not in America's or the world's interest. Realistically, there is little that Netanyahu, Harman, and other wackos can do that has not already been tried.

Preparing the Battlefield The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran by Seymour M. Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080...

There may be an increase in minority unrest, but there will be no ethnic civil war in Iran. This is just wishful thinking from desperate fools. The story here is the continuing effort to drag America into a shooting war with Iran. Harman's silly talk should be seen in that context. Readers should note that extremist Zionists in America and Israel are the only people clamoring for war with Iran.

I recently heard Meersheimer (my unerstanding is that he isn't Jewish) on NPR talking about anti-Semitism, and the false belief that Jews have outsized influence that is harmful to non-Jews. Combined with such statements as Harman made, it furthers my belief that W&M are just establishment shills-how harmed can their reputations be within the establishment if they are constantly on NPR? The mask never was really on for organized Jewry, was it? All that's left for Harman to do is to admit that organized Jewry uses similar ethnic strategies for political and economic gain in the United States.

That's not fair, Todd. Meersheimer isn't a paleocon (if he were, he'd never be on NPR). He has a different role to play and has to choose his battles differently.

Kevin MacDonald's arguments are making more sense now. Jane Harman and other Zionists urge ethnic division and conflict while maintaining that Nazi Israel maintain it's Jewish majority.

Points taken, David and Colin. I listened to Mearsheimer talk about anti-Semitism yesterday on NPR, and he pretty much tossed aside as anti-Semitism the notion that organized Jewry has a major influence in the media and politics. The neocons can't be blamed for everything! I also never understood the claims that W&M took great risks with their careers, since they seem to benefit from their work.

this site is wonderful