ElBaradei’s talking about Israeli nukes

on 110 Comments

One of the talking points for the lobby is that Arab nations are fearful of Iranian nukes. And they would be. Who wants an arms race in your neighborhood? Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA is an Egyptian, and one theory of the ’67 War is that it began because Nasser was enraged that Israel was getting nukes, and took action, with disastrous consequences. From Xinhua:

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.

At a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying

110 Responses

  1. potsherd
    October 4, 2009, 10:18 pm

    I hope Obama is forced to confront his hypocrisy on this issue. Time to bust open the conspiracy of silence once and for all.

    I’d like to see El Baradei and Ritter reconcile their conflicting statements on whether Iran’s undisclosed nuclear facility at Qom was in violation of the IAEA rules.

    • VR
      October 4, 2009, 11:06 pm

      They did not violate anything having to do with IAEA rules period. The only supposed violation was added reciprocal agreement with the USA that when they began to even build a facility (rather than when they were about to use the facility, as in the IAEA rules), this was during the direct talks with the USA – but the USA abandoned the talks and the post agreement was not even ratified because of this in Iran. So nothing was violated, it is the same bullshit lines that were used previous to the Iraq invasion. Those who do not agree, wake up and smell the coffee.

      • potsherd
        October 5, 2009, 8:54 am

        That is definitely what Ritter says. But El Baradei was reported in the US media as saying Iran “was on the wrong side of the law” in not disclosing the Qom facility, and this seems to back up Obama’s charge that Iran had acted illegally. I wonder about this statement and why, if Ritter is correct, he made it.

        If El Baradei misstated or was misquoted, then Obama was lying.

      • potsherd
        October 5, 2009, 10:30 pm

        El Baradei’s statement of 10/4

        Agency regulations require, with all countries, without exception, that they
        should inform the IAEA on the day they decided to construct a nuclear facility. Iran has joined that
        regulation in 2002, then in 2007 decided they will go back from that arrangement or regulation and
        decided to apply the old regulation, which says that 6 months before the nuclear material is
        introduced, they should inform the Agency. We disagree with that interpretation by Iran; our legal
        interpretation, in the Agency, is that Iran should have informed us the day they decided to construct
        that facility. That is the Agency’s view; that is the regulation that is applied to all parties of the NPT,
        without exception. Iran takes a different view, but the Agency view (is) as I explained.

      • Shingo
        October 6, 2009, 3:14 am


        Ultimately this comes down to a minor technicality. Iran’s parliament never ratified the additional protocol and Iran have never violated the safeguards agreement because none of their actions have prevented the IAEA from confirming the non diversion of nuclear material.

    • MRW
      October 5, 2009, 1:01 am

      v… is 1000% correct.

      • Citizen
        October 5, 2009, 7:17 am

        Ritter affirmed what v says here, and MRW dittoed, on Cspan late last week.

  2. Call Me Ishmael
    October 4, 2009, 11:48 pm

    “… one theory of the ‘67 War is that it began because Nasser was enraged that Israel was getting nukes, and took action, with disastrous consequences ….”

    Notice the careful wording, suggesting but not actually saying that Nasser began the 1967 war. It began with the IAF’s surprise attack on Egyptian and Syrian air forces while they were still on the ground, and while diplomats were working to walk everyone back from armed conflict. Similar in many respects to early Dec, 1941.

    • Chaos4700
      October 5, 2009, 1:22 am

      Yeah, I find that a bit frustrating and perplexing too. Nasser took action… by shoring up his border with Israel with a standing military force. Gee, yeah, because it’s not like Israel didn’t have an eye toward conquering and taking possession of the Sinai by force…

      Oh, and then of course Israel and her supporters tout the blockade of the Straits of Tiran as an “act of war.” Because it’s not like Israel had other port cities like Tel Aviv that were doing just fine — and then of course you could go six ways to Sunday comparing that hypocrisy to the siege of Gaza, because by that definition Israel broke the cease fire simply enforcing the siege even an hour longer after the agreement was forged.

      I even had an Israeli say to me once that the Straits belong to Israel.

      • Julian
        October 5, 2009, 9:10 am

        “Oh, and then of course Israel and her supporters tout the blockade of the Straits of Tiran as an “act of war.” Because it’s not like Israel had other port cities like Tel Aviv that were doing just fine”

        What nonsense. If the Cubans blockaded the port of New York or Miami or some port in Texas, would Obama say “what’s the big deal I have plenty of other ports”?
        No country would accept having a major port blockaded.
        Egypt made the threats. Expelled the UN peace keepers. “Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border[9] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags…”
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        It’s amusing how you Arabists try to change history.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 9:18 am

        Yeah, compare that to Gaza, Julian. Israel blocks all economic traffic. Heck, they do that to the West Bank too.

        Last time I checked, it was the Israeli army that attacked first with force — bombed air forces while they were on the ground — and Israel was the country that stole land through force of arms. Even the much vaunted Moshe Dayan confessed as much about how the Israelis provoked Syria as a pretext to grab land and acquifer in the Golan Heights.

        And while we’re talking about attacks on the US, why keep it in the hypothetical? What’s your explanation for the USS Liberty attack, incidentally, Julian?

      • potsherd
        October 5, 2009, 10:22 am

        Julian, look at a map. The Strait of Tiran is not “an Israeli port.” It is in Egyptian waters, between the Sinai coast and the island of Tiran, which is officially Saudi territory but controlled by Egypt. Israeli ship traffic from Eilat has to pass through this strait to reach the Red Sea.

        The question is whether the strait is Egyptian waters or international waters. Before 1956, this was in question. Egypt was within its rights to assert control over the strait as Egyptian waters, through which Israel had no right of passage. As such, this could not be an act of war.

        After the war, a UN commission decided that the strait was an international waterway, but Egypt never agred to this until the official peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, so the status of the strait was still in question and Egypt was arguably within its rights to assert control.

        In short, it was a matter for courts and negotiators, not a legitimate casus belli.

    • Shingo
      October 5, 2009, 4:45 am

      No kidding Chaos,

      In fact, Israel had been trying to goad Nasser into war since 1956.

      • Psychopathic god
        October 5, 2009, 9:42 am

        Israel had been trying to goad Nasser into war since 1956.

        Yes, and Israel had been working to develop nuclear arsenal since at least 1956.

        In “Foxbats over Dimona,” link to yalepress.yale.edu Israeli journalists outline complicity of USSR in ‘provoking’ 6 day war, but with same goal of “Osiraking” Israel’s nukes:

        Contrary to previous interpretations, Ginor and Remez’s book shows that the Six-Day War was the result of a joint Soviet-Arab gambit to provoke Israel into a preemptive attack. The authors reveal how the Soviets received a secret Israeli message indicating that Israel, despite its official ambiguity, was about to acquire nuclear weapons. Determined to destroy Israel’s nuclear program before it could produce an atomic bomb, the Soviets then began preparing for war–well before Moscow accused Israel of offensive intent, the overt trigger of the crisis.

        The 1967 war radically changed the shape and ambitions of the zionist project, and the 1967 war came about precisely because of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

        Conclusion: Nukes have been used by Israel for strategic purposes.

        but shhhh, don’t tell anybody.

  3. radii
    October 4, 2009, 11:58 pm

    Now is the critical juncture. With the Iran talks now bearing the potential of a real deal, we’ll see if Israel goes along or sabotages the process. Israel is after regional power and the U.S. and everyone else are a means to that end. We’ll see if the World’s Official Victims will submit to a nuclear inspection regime and an even playing field required for real lasting peace or if they manufacture some pretext for more war.

    • MRW
      October 5, 2009, 1:02 am

      World’s Official Victims… :-) … now if we could only come up with a good R-word between official and victim.

  4. syvanen
    October 5, 2009, 1:32 am

    Good catch Phil. This is an interesting story. Perhaps ElBareidi is bcoming a little more emboldended because he is leaving his official position at the IAEA. Whatever, we could be seeing more politcal pressure being placed on Israel to acknowedge and deal with their nuclear weapons progam. This could turn into a major new development against Israel, at least I hope so.

  5. Richard Witty
    October 5, 2009, 2:54 am

    And if inspection of Israeli nukes occurred, would you all shift to oppose the Iranian escalations?

    • syvanen
      October 5, 2009, 3:27 am

      Two problems here with this one sentence:

      1) “If inspection of Israel nukes occurred”. Why even raise this question since we all know that it will not happen. Obama just gave them insurance that it would not happen.

      2) What escalation are you even talking about? Outside of Israeli and war party propaganda inside the US, there is no escalation. Perhaps you could give us some specifics to support your thesis here.

    • Shingo
      October 5, 2009, 4:46 am

      “And if inspection of Israeli nukes occurred, would you all shift to oppose the Iranian escalations?”

      If it happens yes. As it turns out, there haven’t been any of the kind, for more than 300 years in fct, so it’s a thought experiment at this stage.

      • Richard Witty
        October 5, 2009, 5:56 am

        To say that Iran does not aggress is ludicrous.

        The relationship of funding, arming, training militias that actively target Israeli civilians, is aggression.

      • Shingo
        October 5, 2009, 7:24 am

        No it’s not ludicrous.

        Hamas are in the market for weapons and like the US and Israel, they have every right to make money from the demand for such weapons.

        Iran do not train Hamas and Israel are the ones that ctively target civilians. They just don’t happen to target Israeli civilians, which in your estimation, makes it acceptable.

        The US arm Israel and train Israel who actively target Palestinians. Israel had an relationship of funding, arming, training Fatah militias that actively target Palestinian civilians in Gaza in 2006.

      • Citizen
        October 5, 2009, 7:28 am

        Has Israel ever been the aggressor in your opinion, Mister Witty? If so, when and where? And has and does Israel ever aggressed in any of the ways you conclude
        Iran has done so? If so, when and where? Inquiring minds here wish to know
        the full nature of your sense of humor. Thanks.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 7:42 am

        Funny, Witty, you couldn’t care less about the fact that Israel does the same damn thing. And several things worse, like for instance widespread assassination campaigns.

      • Richard Witty
        October 5, 2009, 8:26 am

        We’re talking about Iran.

        To say that a country that explicitly targets another is not an aggressor is just ignorant, in the negative sense of the term (not “not knowing”).

        Currently, Hamas is focusing on BDS, based on the victimhood of Gazan civilians (that they put at risk), so they look innocent to the gullible.

        I am questioning your emphasis, in not seeking the support the moderates in each community that are capable of realizing peace (mutual consent), in favor of the more fanatic that thrive in conditions of stress and confusion (chaos).

        I do put likud in that category of thriving on stress, rather than on mutual decency.

        I am disappointed that Phil seems to emphasize the fanatic over the moderate, having known him for a long time.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 8:29 am

        “And if inspection of Israeli nukes occurred…”

        Remember typing that? So actually no, we are talking about Israel too. Unless you have another pseudo-intellectual dodge you want to try to sneak past us.

      • potsherd
        October 5, 2009, 10:25 am

        Witty, you are a broken record, playing the same line over and over.

        If the support of resistance groups is aggression, then Israel, which supports the MEK terrorist organization that operates within Iran, against Iran, is also “aggressing”. You, of course, will continue to ignore such inconvenient facts.

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 1:51 pm

        The relationship of funding, arming, training militias that actively target Israeli civilians, is aggression.

        Unsubstantiated hyperbole, and propaganda.

      • Shingo
        October 5, 2009, 2:52 pm

        Iran does not explicitly target any country. It arms Hamas becasue Hamsa are the the market for arms. Hebollah are known to use US made weapons, but does that mean the US support Hezbollah?

        So now you’re complaining that Hamas is focusing on BDS, which is pretty reasonable seeing as they are being subjects to a far for extreme versino of it themselves by Israel, and illegally so. Would you prefer Hama returned to firing rockets?

        Seeking the support the moderates in Israel is pointless because the so called moderates have been in power and were just as extreme and militant with their policies when it came to the Palestinians. Under the modertaes, the settlements expanded. Under the moderates, more land was stolen and Palestinians were massacred.

        Remembver, it was a sol called moderate that strated the war in Lebanon adn the Gaza massacre.

        We’re all disappointed that you emphasize wit the the fanatics as well as the so called moderates, seeing as they are one and the same.

      • Richard Witty
        October 5, 2009, 3:59 pm

        Do you really believe that Hamas is just a “buyer” on an open market?

      • Shingo
        October 5, 2009, 4:34 pm

        No, I don’t believe that Hamas is just a “buyer” on an open market, but nor they an Iranian proxy. Their policies, and goals exist in spite of Iran, not because of them.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 4:40 pm

        So how come Israel can arm itself with the best tanks, missiles, bombers, and incendiary weapons that American taxpayer money can buy, Witty, and you find the time to criticize Hamas for buying machine guns and man-fired rockets from Iran?

      • Shingo
        October 5, 2009, 5:07 pm

        I can tell you what the answer is going to be Chaos.

        Only Israel has the right to defend itself and by definition, any conflict between Hamas and Israel will always be Hamas’ fault.

        Also, when Israel targets civlians, they are really just trying to hit the terrorists using human shields, but when Hamas fire their rockets into Israel, they are targetting civilians.

        You can’t blame Richard for being so brainwashed, when the West are demanding that Hams be disarmed of those WWII era machine guns and man-fired rockets, while Israel continue to receive increasing amounts of those tanks, missiles, bombers, and incendiary weapons that American taxpayer provide.

    • potsherd
      October 5, 2009, 8:57 am

      “Iran has the right to defend itself.”

      Just because Israel’s nukes are inspected doesn’t mean they still aren’t a threat to Iran or any other nation Israel decides to be irritated with on any given day.

      Only if Israel is disarmed can the Mideast be safe.

    • James
      October 5, 2009, 10:54 am

      witty, would you answer a question in a relatively direct manner for me? do you find it hypocritical that iran is always being pressured with anything around nuclear power, but that israel is never under pressure on this same issue while having nuclear weapons???

      do you find that hypocritical?

      i and many others around the world do.. my impression of you is that you rubber stamp every position that israel holds to… i am curious if you are okay with this particular issue as it relates to israels opacity on nuclear weapons..

  6. Rehmat
    October 5, 2009, 5:58 am

    Zionist nukes are threat to the Middle East alone – but to the entire world community. In 2003 survey amongst 15 EU countries showed that 59% of the 500 participants from each of 15 EU countries – voted Israel to be the greatest threat to the world peace.

    Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei is a Muslim Egyptian nuclear scientist, who is considered as “anti-Semite” by the Zionist regime, which opposed his term extension as the head of UN nuclear wtchdog.

    No matter who demands about the opening of Israeli nuclear facilities for IAEA inspection – it’s going to meet the same fate as we just saw what happened to Goldstone Report’s schedule UNHR discussion – being postponed to March 2010.

    Obama, Sakozy, Brown, Bibi, etc. – all talk about “crippling sanctions” against Islamic Iran but not against N. Korea, India, Pakistan or Israel.

    Interestingly, a recent report prepared by the pro-Israel think tank in Washington DC, Centre for Strategic and International Studie (CSIS), published in the oldest Jewish daily in the US, FORWARD, titled Latest Study Supports Views That Iran Attack Unlikely to Work, quotes Zionist defense minister Ehud Barak: “Iranian nation is a collection of people held together by identity that includes the perception of being an empire from the dawn of history. Part of their nuclear pretensions has nothing to do with Israel, but with their place in the world and Orient. …..Here we are against far more more complex (than Iraqi nuclear reactor) sophiticated and extensive. Iranian don’t play backgammon, they play chess, and in fact they invented the game…..”

    link to rehmat1.wordpress.com

  7. America First
    October 5, 2009, 6:05 am

    Israel is the greatest threat to world peace, indeed a threat to the survival of the world:

    Israeli Professor:’We Could Destroy All European Capitals’

    An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.

    Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Creveld said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

    “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”

    Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that “collective deportation” was Israel’s only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.

    Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

    link to pakalert.wordpress.com

    • Shmuel
      October 5, 2009, 7:47 am

      Van Creveld is a well-known crank – except in matters pertaining to his own narrow field of study (military history, i believe) – and attention junkie. The real dangers Israel poses to world peace are quite sufficient, without worrying about the incoherent ramblings of a nut like Van Creveld.

      As for “the greatest threat to world peace”, I’d say capitalism, but that’s just my opinion. Israel’s pretty high up though.

    • Citizen
      October 5, 2009, 8:00 am

      Here’s a really astute observation and historical take on Bibi & Bibi’s Israel derived from his visit here with Obama and his
      performance the same week at the UN–I thought the same; it’s truly frightening:

      link to intifada-palestine.com

      It’s short, please read it. I would love to know if you were nodding your head in agreement reading it or fighting an itch to delete it.

      • Shmuel
        October 5, 2009, 8:17 am

        Citizen – A little nodding and no itching, but I didn’t find it particularly astute. The comparison of Iran to Fascist Italy is historically inaccurate (to Iran’s credit – Mussolini was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Africa and Europe), and the comparison of Bibi to Hitler is banal, inasmuch as the same could be said about any jingoistic egomaniacal ideologue. To the extent that I believe that there may be a “Samson Option”, I don’t think it will play out the way Sabrosky suggests – attacking Berlin, Washington and Moscow. The real dangers Israel poses are far more immediate and prosaic: involving the US (and its foolish allies) in a war in Iran, compromising energy supplies, upsetting economic and geopolitical balances of power, etc. For the Palestinians, the damage is of course ongoing and unbearable.

      • Citizen
        October 5, 2009, 8:44 am

        Thanks for your input, Shmuel. I agree the comparison of Iran to Fascist Italy is misleading historically in the way you
        say; but his oblique comparison of Mussolini as no match for Hitler, but more a match with the current Iranian president resonates–even though Mussolini actually held the full reins of power while the Iranian president does not, and Iran hasn’t sent out armies or its air force as Fascist Italy did. Unlike you I found
        the writer’s conjuring up and equating Hiter’s and Bibi’s respective deep emotional justifications for their public stance to the world very persuasive. The analogy
        is of two honest (and rascist) leaders with vast power to affect the whole world; I think it more banal to equate the parallels drawn with any tinpot jingoistic egomanical idologue, a dime a dozen. I do agree with you completely about how
        the Samson Option will actually play out, except I would add that aggregate of fallout could shoe horn in WW3; the economic fallout alone considering the
        double dip recession likely will have many unintended side effects here and

      • Shmuel
        October 5, 2009, 8:59 am

        Comparisons of Ahmedinejad to Hitler are of course completely ridiculous, but in a longstanding Zionist tradition, wonderfully described by Idith Zertal in Death and the Nation.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 9:09 am

        Especially now that it’s well known that Ahmedinejad comes from a Jewish family. In a sane world, people would be looking at the anti-Semite label that’s been slapped on him and saying, “WTF? So we were lied to about him?”

      • America First
        October 5, 2009, 9:40 am

        Is it well known? Or alleged?

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 9:47 am

        I suppose you have a point but everything I’ve heard about it is pretty credible. I haven’t heard whether Ahmedinejad himself has said anything about it but then… why would he? It isn’t exactly going to be a huge shocker to the people of Iran that there are Jews among them, after all. And everything Ahmedinejad has said has been very pointedly about Israel, not about Jews.

        The fact that it’s being treated as a scandal or a surprise or whatnot in the West is actually really quite funny to me. It reminds me of all of the mainstream incredulity regarding Bush’s claims about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when we “learned” (some of us already knew after all) that Bush and his cadre were big fat liars — “Gasp! You mean the secular military dictator wasn’t working with the Islamic fundamentalist rebel cells funded by one of his biggest oil industry competitors in the Middle East?!”

      • Psychopathic god
        October 5, 2009, 10:18 am

        Especially now that it’s well known that Ahmedinejad comes from a Jewish family. In a sane world, people would be looking at the anti-Semite label that’s been slapped on him and saying, “WTF? So we were lied to about him?”

        Chaos, you really need to expand your drinking menu; get off the Koolaid.
        The Ahmadinejad is a Jew story was carried by a UK rag, which got it from a Voice of America feed. James Glassman, a zionist and US State Department propagandist, creates disinformation for VOA.

        Here’s what Kasra Naji writes about Ahmadinejad’s parents in “Ahmadinejad: The Secret History of Iran’s Radical Leader:”

        Ahmadinejad’s surname used to be Sabaghian — meaning ‘dye-masters,’ the men that dyed woolen threads for hand-woven carpets and kelims. But according to Ali Agha, the president’s father changed the family name to Ahmadinejad — meaning ‘of the Ahmadi race,’ … Ahmadi, coming from Ahmad, is a popular Muslim name that derives from Hamd – ‘the praise of God.’… ‘Many people would change their names to something that would not betray their village background. I know people who, when they left for the city, changed their name from Kaffash [cobbler] to Pezeshkpour […medical practitioner…],’ said another distant relation.
        “Moving away from the poverty of village life was common in those days…”

        iirc, Yossi Melman makes much the same explanation in his, “Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran.” Melman, an Israeli journalist, pays more attention to Ahmadinejad’s mother’s descent from a family that bears a name indicating direct descent from Mohammed, which, Melman hypothesizes, is a source for Ahmadinejad’s piety.

        Please, Chaos, think critically before you spread manure.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 10:26 am

        Hey man, I heard it from a source that I trust. I already conceded it might be wrong. Anyway, I’m confused — Ahmedinejad being Jewish actually hurts the “He’s an anti-Semite!” Kool-Aid charge, it doesn’t help it. From what I’d heard, “Sabaghian” is a name of Persian Jewish lineage. Is that incorrect?

        And I’ll say it again — even if it were true, Ahmedinejad being from a Jewish family hurts Zionist rhetoric. It doesn’t help it, really.

      • Shmuel
        October 5, 2009, 10:34 am

        even if it were true, Ahmedinejad being from a Jewish family hurts Zionist rhetoric.

        Nothing hurts Zionist rhetoric. For example: “So that explains his virulent anti-Semitism. He has something to hide/prove/escape! There is no anti-Semite like someone trying to hide a Jewish past.”

        See how easy it is.

      • Psychopathic god
        October 5, 2009, 10:43 am

        from what I’ve read, the Jewish connection is that “sabaghian” means “weavers of JEWISH prayer shawls,” and that the suffix, -ghian, is JEWISH.

        A Jewish prayer shawl may, indeed, be woven by Jews and may be woven of threads dyed by ‘sabaghians,’ but what logic requires that only Jewish prayer shawls are woven by sabaghians, or that one must be Jewish if one weaves a prayer shawl that a Jew wears, or that the threads dyed by a Sabaghian can be used ONLY to weave a Jewish prayer shawl, and that one who dyes such threads MUST be Jewish?

        Full disclosure: I despise zionist propaganda and I consider this bit to be zionist propaganda to roil the Iranian/Ahmadinejad pot.
        Iranians have a special, protective feeling about “their Jews.” Many, many Iranians who strongly support Ahmadinejad’s efforts to protect Iran from subversion to predatory capitalists, are simultaneously deeply embarrassed by Ahmadinejad’s seeming insults to Iran’s cherished Jews, and yes, Iran DOES cherish its Jews.
        To float the notion that Ahmadinejad is a ‘murano,’ a ‘converso,’ is to make one more attempt to discredit Ahmadinejad in the eyes of his supporters.

        By the way, did you read the story in the New York Post that exploded the bombshell that Irving Kristol shredded his Roman Catholic baptismal certificate and changed his name from Stalin when he started writing for Jewish rags in the US?

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 1:56 pm

        Ahmadinejad was more than simply coming FROM a Jewish family, if the Telegraph or Times report is to be believed. He was BORN Jewish. The family converted when he was four years old. I found it interesting that a London-based Iranian Jew said that the suffix ‘jian’ indicates an Iranian Jewish family. His previous last name was Sabourjian.

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 2:09 pm

        So it’s Bill Stalin-Kristol? Ha.

        The Ahmadinejad as a Jew story points out something that I find Americans dont understand very well. Jews in Russia are no united by their religion. Russians stick together based on their village, or their area, or their town. Iranian Jews are often quoted saying I’m Iranian first, and Jewish second. The American attitude is not prevalent among Jews worldwide, which of course, is what Zionism was trying to instill.

        Robert Friedman wrote The Red Mafiya about how the Russian mob invaded America, specifically Little Odessa in Brooklyn. Friedman wrangled an interview with the top mob guy, whose name I forgot. (Been a while since I read the book.) Friedman let the mobster know he was Jewish to try and get the interview, since he knew Mr. Big was Jewish. The mobster was unimpressed. Friedman mentioned that his grandfather was Russian. Mr. Big said Oh yeah? Where from? Friedman named a small village. That was the same place Mr. Big came from. He got the interview; Mr. Big was ecstatic. Friedman wrote that Mr. Big explained that no one gives a shit whether you’re Jewish, Russian Orthodox, or Christian: what counts is that you come from the same place; that’s the connection, that’s the tie-in.

        Think of all the Israeli PMs and Irgun members that came from Bialystock.

      • Chaos4700
        October 5, 2009, 3:02 pm

        Yeah, you do raise a good point, again. You seem to be a lot better informed about the nature of that story and what the facts really are.

        I can also sort of see how this story could be leveraged by Zionist propagandists, but only in that theater of the absurd they seem to be fond of. But you’re right, and yeah, the way I’ve heard it framed is as Zionist propaganda.

        Which is silly and I’m still shocked people buy that — even if it doesn’t prove that Ahmedinejad has Jewish ancestry, it does still demonstrate handily that Jewish people are an integral part of Iranian society and that’s more to the point. You are doing the right thing by setting the record straight, one way or the other. Thanks!

        Regarding Irving Kristol, I don’t know anything about that but as a latent Catholic, I do find that account rather amusing and pathos-inspiring at the same time. I’m guessing he checked his Catholic sense of guilt at the door as well, heh.

    • Citizen
      October 5, 2009, 10:43 am

      Worse than capitalism, it’s crony capitalism, aka socialism for the wealthy elites around the world, domestically and internationally, i.e., corporate welfare, partnering with the big banking industry with its de facto axiom that casino gambling means we profit and you take the risk, as in the recent USA bank bailouts which do nothing but continue said status quo. The single vote offers Tweedlee or Tweedledum; I notice that Germany’s trying to wrestle with this situation now, and Germany is more socialistic than the USA, with Obama trying to catch up. Perhaps rather than referring to the evils of capitalism in theory, one might be more on target
      to consider the blended evils of indirect socialism which is welfare for the poor and corporate welfare for the rich–with the average actual salaried and small business income tax taxpayer holding the significantly proportionately biggest bag of fecal matter?

      • Shmuel
        October 5, 2009, 11:09 am

        I have no problem with redistribution of wealth per se, although socialism for the wealthy and sham free market for the rest of us really does take the cake. My main problem is with the accumulation of wealth through the excessive exploitation of scarce resources such as air, water, arable land, etc. – up to and including the biosphere as a whole. In this, capitalism (crony, welfare, smithian, keynesian, supply-side, trickle-down, whatever) is no worse than communism, except inasmuch as it may be more efficient at making our resources disappear. I singled out capitalism, because it seems to be here to stay; communism not so much. But as long as we’re accumulating, over-exploiting and digging our own graves, the more people who get to enjoy it the better. More welfare for the poor please. None for the rich. It’s also cheaper to cut out the thieving “job-creating” “economy-stimulating” middleman. Something tells me we’re not going to agree on this one, Citizen.

      • Citizen
        October 5, 2009, 12:20 pm

        Hi Shmuel, thanks for bothering to respond–I think the world of everyone here who gives their input–I’d love to meet any of them as I am surrounded by people who
        have no clue about the important issues discussed here on Phil’s blog. You live in Italy, and I in the USA. I don’t think your personal family history is the same as the average Italians, while I am sure mine is very definitely the same as most average Americans. That said, there is much to be pondered as to what either of us say, I like to think. If memory serves, you were in the IDF. I was a grunt in the US Army. I don’t know what socio-economic class you came from, nor where you are at now. I am
        from the lower middle class. I personally paid for all my higher education and hold a doctorate
        degree. And you? My problem with “spreading the wealth” as Obama told that
        jerk Joe The Plumber, is that redistribution of wealth programs, despite their
        best motives (let’s help those without bootstraps), always harbor a way to scam and milk the system. I don’t know how it is in Italy. Here, while on the one hand, I don’t begrudge governmental programs trying to help those born with the least to help themselves, I also know many scammers abuse the enlightened humanitarian system, and many good hard working folks who pay a disproportionate bill for that system are ignored and effectively penalized for being self-responsible.

        RE: “More welfare for the poor please. None for the rich. It’s also cheaper to cut out the thieving “job-creating” “economy-stimulating” middleman. Something tells me we’re not going to agree on this one, Citizen.”
        I agree. Let’s start there. But I hope you will be receptive to the fact that users
        and abusers included “the poor” as well as the rich and the skimming middleman
        brokering on either side the funneling of tax dollars.

      • Mooser
        October 5, 2009, 1:51 pm

        Isn’t that nice ? Citizen is inviting us all to a tea party!

        Yes sir, Citizen, for a poor family to get a dollar more in welfare or assistance is just as much a crime as any committed by plutocrats. Sure, that makes sense.
        And I’m sure a small percentage of Americans agrees with you.

      • tree
        October 5, 2009, 2:24 pm

        Mooser, I think this is why you are getting a bad reputation here. You put words in other people’s mouths so that they can more easily fit your stereotypes. Try listening, instead of leaping to stereotypical conclusions just so you can mock someone.

    • potsherd
      October 5, 2009, 2:49 pm

      So now we will see constant references in the MSM to “the Israeli threat”.

  8. Cheryl
    October 5, 2009, 7:03 am

    Yesterday, Scott Ritter was on C-Span and discussed the NY Times article of Oct. 5 describing the “laptop” that has shown up and is being used to substantiate Iranian nuclear ambitions by David Sanger of the Times – and foreign intelligence agencies.
    In addition, Faheed Zakaria had an excellent roundtable that included Roger Cohen…
    Israel and its nuclear arsenal was discussed on both…..

    • Shingo
      October 5, 2009, 7:26 am

      That would be the laptop that was provided by the politcial arms of the MEK, listed by the State Deaprtment as a terrorist orgnisation, but nevertheless who received support from the US as they set off bombs in Tehran.

      The MEK have also been exposed as a front for the Mossad.

      • Citizen
        October 5, 2009, 7:36 am

        Ritter said there’s no evidence the contents of the laptop originated from any Iranaian government source. He speculated that either Israel or the USA, his examples, could
        borrow from their own past records, rehash them, and produce this as technical evidence of Iran’s nuclear activities.

      • potsherd
        October 5, 2009, 9:03 am

        The activities of the MEK, as I have pointed out to Richard Witty, constitute “aggression” by Israel and the US against Iran, according to his own definition. Thus Iran has the right to arm itself against this aggression.

        In fact, according to Netanyahu’s own dictates wrt Gaza, Iran has the right to slaughter the Israeli population in “defending itself against terrorism” of this sort, and it would be wrong of anyone to object.

      • Psychopathic god
        October 5, 2009, 10:28 am

        Passage to Eilat was critical to Israel’s revenue stream: link to dailykos.com

        in 1951, Iran recognized the State of Israel and began economic and political relations on several fronts. Not least of these relations involved a steady supply of oil to the resources-poor Israel state.

        The Eliat-Ashkalon oil arrangement began in the early 1950s, using a tanker-to pipeline transit from Eilat to Be’er Sheva. The pipeline was owned by the Rothschilds, who had financed it. The arrangement carried on until after the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Suez Canal was closed.

        At that point, Shah Reza Pahlavi was persuaded by Israelis “to exploit the new situation and set up a joint and expanded oil initiative.” With the Suez Canal closed, transport of oil to Western Europe meant a long journey around the Cape of Good Hope. Iran and Israel agreed to form the Trans-Asiatic company, which loaded oil into tankers in the ports of Iran, sailed to Eilat, where they unloaded the cargo at a special terminal that was built for that purpose, and the oil transported in the pipeline to Ashkelon, shortening the trip and reducing costs significantly.

        The Trans-Asiatic company was jointly owned by the Iranian National Oil Company and the Israeli government, which gave the Iranian company an “exclusive franchise to transport and store the oil. Most of it was loaded onto tankers bound for Europe, and a small percentage was used for Israel’s energy economy.

        Trans-Asiatic acquired the Be’er Sheva pipeline from the Rothschilds and, by 1969, built another pipeline alongside it, as well as terminals at Ashkelon.

        Melman writes, “In its heyday, Trans-Asiatic was an economic empire with a turnover of billions of dollars. It established a subsidiary, the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC), which owned the two pipelines, and a storage container farm to store the oil in Ashkelon and Eilat. It purchased or leased a fleet of 30 huge tankers. In its successful years, about 54 million tons of oil were transported in its pipelines.”

        The lucrative arrangement fell apart when the Shah was replaced by Khomeini, who severed relations with Israel, including shipment of oil. To replace the oil supply, Israel negotiated with Egypt to ship oil along the same Eilat to Ashkelon to Haifa pipelines.

    • Oscar
      October 5, 2009, 7:52 am

      Sounds like a do-over of the “Niger yellowcake” scam for the MSM to regurgitate and spew out to the great unwashed masses whose taxpayer dollars and children’s lives will be devoted to more Israel-first misadventures in the Middle East.

      From The Guardian . . . link to guardian.co.uk

      However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

      “Most of it has turned out to be incorrect,” a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency’s investigations said. . .

      One particularly contentious issue was records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

      Tehran rejected the material as forged, and there are still reservations within the IAEA about its authenticity, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate in the agency. “First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don’t put it on laptops which can walk away,” one official said. “The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you’d have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer.

      What do they take us for? Idiots? Rubes? Sheep? Oh, yeah, I guess that about sums it up. . .

    • Oscar
      October 5, 2009, 7:55 am

      Hey, Cheryl, here’s Scott Ritter on C-Span. Scary stuff.

      • Cheryl
        October 5, 2009, 8:41 am

        thanks, Oscar.

        I just emailed “Morning Joe” and asked them to have Scott Ritter and Zakaria/Cohen on as a counter argument to David Sanger of the N.Y. Times.

        Zacharia is good. He had Reuel Marc Gerecht, neocon, on bambasting over Iran but had excellent counterweight in Richard Cohen. Anyone who has followed Iraq and the neocons knows that Gerecht has been a spokesperson for the Iraq invasion and now is pushing hard for hard measures against Iran. Follows is a list of the Project for A New American Century supporters and you will notice Gerecht’s name:

        William Kristol Ken Adelman Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett
        Ellen Bork Linda Chavez Eliot Cohen Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht rles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Donald Kagan Robert Kagan John Lehman Tod Lindberg Rich Lowry Clifford May Joshua Muravchik Martin Peretz
        Richard Perle Daniel Pipes Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Marshall Wittmann
        R. James Woolsey

        I wonder if Judith Miller’s mainstream work/position in the Times that supported the Project for New American Century/neocons/israel push for the Iraq invasion is being filled by David Sanger at the Times in the push to demonize Iran.

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 2:22 pm

        Thanks for the link, Oscar.

  9. America First
    October 5, 2009, 10:05 am

    The pressure mounts:

    GOP senators: US, not Israel, should attack Iran ‘if necessary’

    They also say a simple strike at the country’s nuclear capability wouldn’t be enough — the US would have to launch an “all-or-nothing” war against Iran with the aim of crippling the country’s military capabilities.

    “I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they’re not aligned now. It’s too much pressure to put on Israel,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

    link to rawstory.com

    • Citizen
      October 5, 2009, 10:27 am

      Graham, a US senator, apparently wasn’t worried about the pressure it would put on his own country. And those referenced GOP senators apparently never read The Art Of War, a book taught at West Point. Military solutions never solve political problems; they kick them down the road in the same ancient can. Why don’t our leaders learn from the fall of the USSR? Why repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, Iraq,
      and AfghaniPakistan, the historical grave of imperial superpowers–by attacking Iran?

    • potsherd
      October 5, 2009, 10:29 am

      This was the original goal of the neocons. Iraq was supposed to be a staging platform for the main event – war on Iran.

      • Citizen
        October 5, 2009, 10:49 am

        Yes, that’s true, potsherd. At first Israel wanted Uncle Sam to shock and awe Iran first, but came around quickly to take advantage of Shrub’s wish to get Iraq for
        trying to fuck with his Daddy, and also to exploit his bible resurrection–it was merely
        viewed as a change in who’s the first PNAC target. Which duck or turkey to shoot first.

  10. Mooser
    October 5, 2009, 10:23 am

    What a great discussion! I must try and not comment more often. Good stuff, and Witty disposed of early.

  11. Citizen
    October 5, 2009, 10:53 am

    Who’s a speed bump on the way to Truth’s cul-de-sac? Who’s a speed bump on the way to a dead end?

  12. Richard Witty
    October 5, 2009, 10:56 am

    The discussion though has not addressed the logic of my points, which is that the Iranian intentions are indicated (not known, but not confidently repudiated).

    And, that Iran has engaged in harrassment and aggression towards Israel through proxies.

    And, that Iran has never indicated any prospect of acceptance of Israel as Israel, and has committed to the hastening, even the charitable meaning of “dissolved from the pages of time”.

    Iran remains a geo-political concern, with a prospective time limit on addressing.

    Similar to Israeli settlement expansion surrounding Jerusalem remains a geo-political concern, with a prospective time limit on addressing.

    • potsherd
      October 5, 2009, 11:33 am

      Your points have been addressed and dismissed over and over, but you keep flogging the same dead horses and interaction with you is unproductive and boring.

    • Shingo
      October 5, 2009, 3:03 pm

      Correction Ricahrd,

      The “logic of your points” are empoty Hasbara talking points and have been debunked.

      Hamas and Hebollah came into existence without any involvement from Iran. Israel’s leaders only began insisting they were proxies of Iran, after the Iraq war, when Sharon’s government turned their attentino to Iran, whom they wanted the US to attack next.

      So you see, Iran does not engage in harrassment and aggression towards Israel through proxies, but Israel HAS admitted to activity (ie, terrorism) inside Iran. In fact, when the Russians moved into Georgia in 2008, they discovered Israeli air bases created to attack Iran.

      Israel has insisted on regime change in Tehran and Tahrna is doing the same with Israel, as in “dissolved from the pages of time”, yet you lament that Iran hasn’t prospected Israel as Israel. Firstly, you are wrong, they offered to in 2003, in their memo to Washintong whcih the Bush administration rejected. Secondly, it is irrelevant wheter Iran recognnizes Israel or not, and what’s mroe, Israel could care less. It is a talking point, nothing more.

      Iran remains a geo-political concern to Israel because they challegen Israel’s plans to dominate the region. Too bad. Iran were there first and are a bigger contry.

      YUou are right howver, that Israeli settlement expansion surrounding Jerusalem and all of the West Bank, remains a geo-political concern, with a prospective time limit on addressing.

      • Richard Witty
        October 5, 2009, 4:03 pm

        “Iran was there first and they are a bigger country” (Sorry to correct your grammar).

        Did you really mean what that implied?

  13. Mooser
    October 5, 2009, 11:32 am

    Oh, there’s Witty again, kvetching as usual. Say Witty, what exactly is it you Zionists thought having a state entailed? Sitting around taking in contributions while everyone else protected you? You made your Zionist bed, you are now lying in it.
    You know, pursuant to the discussion on “Jewish power” I looked up a few things about Jewish immigration and population in the US. If I were you, I’d make looking for help and support in the Christian Zionist community a top priority.

    • MRW
      October 5, 2009, 2:21 pm

      You make me laugh, Mooser.

      • Richard Witty
        October 5, 2009, 4:00 pm

        He makes me laugh as well.

    • MRW
      October 5, 2009, 4:03 pm

      Mooser, I meant in a ‘crack me up’ way. I read your stuff sometimes and I can see you at the keyboard having a helluva good time.

  14. Cheryl
    October 5, 2009, 11:33 am

    I failed to mention that “Morning Joe” suggested that Fareed Zakaria was cutting edge.
    I also failed to mention that Zakaria interviewed Judge Goldstone yesterday and has a link on his report on the Fareed Zakaria GPS website.
    Finally, Zakaria’s third panel member, a Mr. Ash, who I an unfamiliar with, had an article in the Guardian last week dealing with Iran and stating, “first, do no harm” – in direct contrast to the Senator’s harsh bomb, bomb rhetoric.

  15. Mooser
    October 5, 2009, 11:46 am

    Here’s some of those commie-type Jews:

    link to jfrej.org

    This is interesting, they seem to be what might be called “a-Zionist” but I only scanned the website. Very interesting figures on where the Jews who are coming to the US now are coming from, mostly, the Middle East. You would think they would just go straight to Israel.

  16. Mooser
    October 5, 2009, 11:55 am

    American Judaism, at this time, became both voluntaristic and pluralistic. In America a Jew’s faith was not registered with the state, as it was in most of Europe, and observance depended upon the individual. In a sense, there came to be as many Judaisms as there were Jews. Like so many of their Protestant counterparts, Jews resisted the hierarchical religious authority structures of Europe. No nationwide “chief rabbi” emerged and no religious organization wielded unchallenged authority. Instead, a spectrum of Jewish religious movements competed for adherents, each insisting that its strategy alone provided hope for American Judaism’s survival. Ultimately, of course, each strategy sought to balance between American norms and values and the sometimes conflicting demands of Jewish tradition–a balancing act familiar to any number of minority groups in the United States

    link to nationalhumanitiescenter.org

    Just wanted to try blockquote

    • potsherd
      October 5, 2009, 12:36 pm

      You got blockquote to work here! How?

      • Mooser
        October 5, 2009, 1:57 pm

        Potsherd, below the comment box is a list of permitted HTML. But you gotta type “blockquote” at the beginning (enclosed by “more than” and “less than” brackets) and then “/blockquote” (enclosed by rackets) at the end.

        Some of the other HTML noted there I am not familiar with, but you can use “h ref” for linked text and it looks like there is a strike-through feature and italics and bold and “strong” Looks like you can shift to “code” too. I’m not sure that’s good, if it’s what I think.

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 2:28 pm

        Tree told me how to block. Let me see if I can make it simpler than Mooser, who’s scratching his left ear with his right arm this AM. :-)

        I have to put the instructions in quotes so that it won’t block the text. So here goes:


        potsherd, copy the line above and take out ALL the quotes. That’s your blocking instruction. Replace TEXT with the text you want blocked.

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 2:32 pm

        Shit! I’ll try again.


        Now, substitute a < for each *
        Substitute a > for each **

      • potsherd
        October 5, 2009, 2:42 pm

        Well, that’s how I’ve always done it, but the instructions below seem to say something else.

      • MRW
        October 5, 2009, 4:00 pm

        Potsherd, I know. I screwed up following the coding below. Then tree told me that the old way works. And it does.

  17. Cheryl
    October 5, 2009, 11:59 am

    “Iran has engaged in harrassment and aggression towards Israel through proxies”

    This is a “pot calling the kettle black statement.” A U.S. citizen friend of mine with Mexican heritage told me that he went back to Mexico for the birth of his boys because he did not want them drafted into the U.S. army at some point. I asked why and he said, ” Because the U.S. is always at war.”

    As has been pointed out many times…..it is the U.S. and Israel that have a history of war-making and aggression on the international stage, not Iran. In addition, just as Iran internally has stomped on its activists, Israel has targeted, rubber-bulleted, tear-gassed and failed to investigate its actions against anti-occupation activists repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.

    This is the kettle calling the pot black, for sure!

    Goldstone wants an investigation of Gaza by the Israelis, (wink, wink, wink) but instead the Lobby is getting an investigation into Human Rights Watch Mideast Division. Isn’t it sweet. No credible Occupied Palestine investigations coming out of
    “democratic Israel” but no matter….the March Toward Iran is beginning. The Senate Drumrolls have sounded and soon Berman, Sherman and Ross-Lehtinen and friends on the House Foreign Affairs Committee will add their oil to the fire. Unbelievable.

    • Mooser
      October 5, 2009, 2:11 pm

      Whatever they do in Iran, we don’t pay for it. Everything they are able to do in Israel, they can do cause we (Americans) pay for it. That gives us a whole lot bigger chance of affecting events in Israel than in Iran.

  18. Richard Witty
    October 5, 2009, 12:49 pm

    The point is that there is a kettle there.

    In contrast to the denial of the concerns about Iran.

    The liberal perspectives sees, evaluates, and then chooses from multiple complex options.

    There is no necessity to adopt either/or. The presumption of “neo-con run up to war” is only a prospect among really negligently skilled decision-makers, and decision contributors.

    The denial of others rational concerns, uniquely leads to mediocre decisions, as we saw in Iraq, but we also saw among Hamas in December and then Israel in response.

    • Mooser
      October 5, 2009, 2:01 pm

      “The denial of others rational concerns, uniquely leads to mediocre decisions, as we saw in Iraq,”

      Jeez, Witty, how many times a day do you want to flush your credibility down the tiolet? Good thing you never fail to include the rational concerns of others in your conclusions, huh? And the War on Iraq as a “mediocre” decision? Heck, compared to WW1 a million or so dead is only “mediocre” so you have a point.

    • Shingo
      October 5, 2009, 3:06 pm

      “In contrast to the denial of the concerns about Iran.”

      Because the concernes about Iran are purely manufactured. There is no evidence of a nuclear program. If nucler wepoans concerns are the issue, then shouldn’t the world start with the countries that DO have nukes?

      Israel’s reposnse in Decemeber was not a response, but an instigatino of war escaltino. Israel had been itching for war with Hamas and finnalyl got it by breaking the ceasefire.

      • Richard Witty
        October 5, 2009, 4:06 pm

        Hamas initiated the state of war by shelling civilians first in Sderot, then escalating to Ashkelon (as Israel did not yet respond militarily), then escalating to Beersheba.

        Either Hamas thought, “we can escalate with impunity” or “we are goading them to respond militarily”.

        Any other options that you consider accurate?

      • Shingo
        October 5, 2009, 4:38 pm


        Israel declared war by blovckading Gaza and Israel initiated the state of war by breaking the ceasefire in November.

        Hamas thought that seeing a sticking to a ceasfire in no gurantee of staving off an unprovoked attack, they might as well fight back.

        That would tbe the one and only accuate option.

  19. javs
    October 5, 2009, 1:36 pm

    There is nothing complex about crimes against humanity and genocide as we have witnessed in ww2.
    However the facts are people that do not speak out and distance them selves from the rogue aparthied state that has never let atomic energy into the facility and developed the nukes illegally, would be in line with the WMD’s and sanctions placed immediately till they are dismantled completely. The very reason for the problems are directly connected to the problems here in the usa with the 20% of the three branches backing the aparthied rogue element in the middle east at the very least. With all these facts that play a part in the unstabilization of the world with the banks as we have already seen what happens when you piss off the so called elite they rob the masses as they have in the past. Religons in my view should be banned in completion from every government with the facts in place of what would become of the common good of all people because of a few % of the worlds populous whinning repeatedly for so many yearsw they are victims. The truth is we are all victims in one form or another when it comes to this rogue element whom has cost us our dignity as a country and put the world on a path of sure destruction. If you do not lie to your self. I apologize to ishmail as it was julian whom critized. I would ask people look in the mirror and ask your selves (truthfully) what have you done lately to distance your self and speak out against the insane tactics used to create this strategic position in the mid east and do you agree with the murder of inocent people…such as one example of the unborn being shot while in the womb and the mohammad kid being trapped in the cornner with his father and killed to test the cornner shot weapon of the odf, which had been denied and the murderers said, “how could we have killed him, do bullets turn cornners”.? Or Rachel C or the 18 million people no longer in the area due to being driven off by force since it begain. And lets not get started on defensible tacts by the ww2 gangs stern etc.. they are the equivilent of the hammas, and all other groups finding ANYWAY to stop the invasion and illegal actions. Abbass is not an elected official and never has had the interests of the people in mind to begin with, and who suffers …the masses. Yet lets see how the jewish backround of the iranian president is going to allow the next level of genocide to go unseen as the media covers it up and the hiarchy come up with a new story to play to the world as a reason why they do what they do. The facts are facts you can never hide them, so if you are on board with the terrorism of the rogue state and do not speak out against the actions and backing , you as a jew are guilty of the very same just as the driver for bank robber whom killed the teller. GUILTY no matter how you dress it up. So what have any of you done? the site here is an oportunity to gather people that do not stand for aparthied and what no association to genocide or murder. So lets gather everyone and march to the white house and let them know we are serious, show you are not just a blogger to waste time on line with sites like this…utilize what you have and get the insanity to stop so the world would be a better place for everyone of every color.

    • Mooser
      October 5, 2009, 2:08 pm

      Nah, javs, that doesn’t sound like fun. Let’s hang around here and flog the “jewish identity” for a while yet. I still wanna see how you (not you, javs) go from right-wing everything to anti-Zionism except through anti-semitism, but I’m not as smart as other people.

      I do not think the folks at Ron Paul’s tea party watching out for the poor stealing the shorts off our back is a good place to find anti-Zionists. We Jews had way to much to do with it. But that’s just me.

    • MRW
      October 5, 2009, 2:35 pm

      Hey, Javs, learn to use some paragraph breaks.

  20. MRW
    October 5, 2009, 2:48 pm

    Fareed Zakaria’s show on Iran yesterday:
    link to cnn.com

  21. MRW
    October 5, 2009, 3:11 pm

    Psychopathic God, do you have a link for this? I’ve tried to find the original and can’t. Was it wiped clean?

    By the way, did you read the story in the New York Post that exploded the bombshell that Irving Kristol shredded his Roman Catholic baptismal certificate and changed his name from Stalin when he started writing for Jewish rags in the US?

  22. VR
    October 5, 2009, 3:12 pm

    I guess there is some valid reason for the discussion of the push to attack Iran, that some are opposed, is valid as far as it goes. One has to keep in mind that you have two entities, the USA and Israel which have the state apparatus and intend to use it to attack Iran. So, unless we are going to find some way to strongly address these war mongering reprobates, so that it sends alarm bells off in Washington and Tel Aviv, what is the purpose?

    Unless these people in power feel they are going to be delivered to a court of law which says that are not above the law, a viable threat demanded by the people – they will just continue to rattle swords until they strike, because this is their purpose. We see how they skew “facts” and try to appeal to an emotion base, rather than reason. The assumption is that these asses own the world, and they do not – it is up to you to get out of this framing and tell them that this is the case till the foundations are shaken.

  23. DG
    October 5, 2009, 3:25 pm

    Yesterday, the head of IAEA called Israel’s nuclear weapons the “number one threat to the Middle East”. Today not a sigle U.S. newspaper covered his comments.

    • Kathleen
      October 5, 2009, 10:25 pm

      Not one. Also did you notice how much the liberal media covered the UN Goldstone report? Not a whisper out of Rachel Maddow, Keith etc. they helped bury that report

  24. Kathleen
    October 5, 2009, 9:02 pm

    Transcript of the IAEA Director Generals remarks at the Joint Press Conference with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran 4 October 2009

    link to iaea.org

  25. Kathleen
    October 5, 2009, 10:23 pm

    Have you seen this new site?
    Palestine note
    link to palestinenote.com

  26. potsherd
    October 6, 2009, 10:35 am

    Interesting. It seems that today a private plane entered the restricted airspace of Dimona, and the Isreali papers all reported on the incident, referring to the “nuclear reactor” there.

    It’s only Barack Obama who can’t seem to get the words out of his mouth.

Leave a Reply