Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 849 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)

Showing comments 849 - 801

  • Palestine stands for the larger divide in the Democratic party
    • "Dem establishment and outsiders need couples counseling if Clinton wants to win"

      I do think Clinton wants to win, and she would do whatever she can to make it happen, couples counseling included. However I don't want Clinton to win, whatever she may do to get it.

      I'm very sure Clinton means more war, death & destruction. Her top choices for defense are already in high gear to do war for regime change in Syria, calculating in a potential war against Russia as a side effect.

      link to

      I do think Trump is better for peace, he will get along with Russia and fight ISIS instead of doing war in cooperation with Al Qaeda to reach regime changes wanted by the Israeli lobby.

  • By stressing accused Orlando shooter's Muslim name, Trump can gain upper hand on Clinton -- Michael Oren
    • klm90046

      Of course, the US has ravaged countries before, including Yugoslavia and Iraq. However, 9/11 had a specific effect on the US - remember, a country that is easily moved in the right direction, as Netanyahu freely explained - quoting here from the article linked above:

      "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

      And as Wesley Clark explained in 2007 the plan was to push through wars on 7 countries in 5 years after 9/11:

      link to

      Following such a plan would have not been possible without 9/11, an catalyzing event like a "new Pearl Harbor." That further following this plan was delayed under Bush/Cheney until the Obama/Clinton took power, was only because the US was beaten up badly in Iraq, so the US needed time for recreation before getting other wars started like those on Libya and Syria. But then again, after those wars went awful, and so the war on Iran was called off for now with the Iran deal. However, 9/11 was the catalizing event that made this hyper aggressive US policy in the first decade of the new century possible.

      Howveer, now it's different. I don't think Orlando will catalyze more of this hyper aggressive US policy. Now the blame falls into the other direction, namely in direction of those supporting the hyper aggressive US policy - including the support of wahhabi terror groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS as US proxies to attack other countries.

    • I basically think Michael Oren is correct here.

      When leaving out the fact that the US media shows it's racism by hyping the loss of US blood while it takes muslim blood in the middle east for cheap, I think the basic assumption of Michael Oren is right. It was a bad day for Israel and Israel favorite horse Hillary.

      What's diffrent today from 9/11 is that 9/11 made the US public feel solidarity with Israel because of "islamic terrorism" and therefore 9/11 made it possible to start US wars against islamic countries like Iraq, what Israel wanted for long. However, this time it's different.

      Israeli ambassador Michael Oren is on the record saying Israel supports Sunni Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda because it wants secular arab strongman Assad down. DIA chief Michael Flynn is on the record saying the Obama-Clinton administration made a "willful decision" to allow the creation of the ISIS monster to weaken Assad, and his assertation is backed up by a FOIA document.

      So what's different this time from 9/11 is that this time much of the US public may not feel solidarity with Israel due to this terrorism, but blame Israel, the Israel lobby, their Saudi buddies and Israel's presidential horse Hillary Clinton for willfully supporting this kind of terrorism.

      I think that's a big differrence from 9/11 to now.

  • Top donor to Clinton super PAC is Haim Saban
    • Mooser

      “white supremacist agitprop”

      Oh, that's an easy one. Just look at this, Rense (white supremacist) quotes JTA (agitprop) regarding Soros and Israel:

      Soros Says Jews And Israel Cause Anti-Semitism

      link to

      So, seriously, it looks like George Soros is closer to BDS than to the Israeli Apartheid regime.

      That said, George Soros seems to be in lockstep with the Zionist Neocons as he is one of the main sponsors of war and terror in countries with friendly ties to Russia. He's supporting the terror war on Syria, including groups close to Al Qaeda, just as he supports the Nazi putsch in Ukraine. He was already a main guy behind the first putsch in Ukraine a decade ago, and similarly he backed other US made regime changes in eastern Europe to get democracy. Just when democracy doesn't bring bad relations with Russia, Soros starts to get very hostile with democratically elected governments like that in Hungary.

      So, to me it seems like just as it is with Brzezinski, Soros and his decades of mass murderous activities around the world seem not to be motivated by neocon-like love for everything Israel does, but by boundless hatred against Russia.

    • I wonder whether there is any chance to give the author of the mentioned Forbes article or Pulitzer or a medal for best reporting.

      Under the byline: Ivona Iacob, Contributor, I'm an intern with Forbes Opinion, there is her bio:

      I am a rising junior at Yale College, majoring in Ethics, Politics and Economics. There I write for the college newspaper Yale Daily News and work with the Alumni Affairs Office at the Yale Law School. I also tutor Introductory Microeconomics. I hail from Timisoara, Romania, where I graduated from a Mathematics-Computer Science High School. I am interested in human rights, immigration laws and politics and I intend to pursue a Law degree after college. I spent last summer in Paris, France studying Private Law & Contract Enforcement.

      This great women also has a Twitter account:

      link to

      But perhaps the best of all is the graph of Hillary's Top 20 donors used in that Forbes article - I wonder if she created it herself:

      link to

      I wonder if there will be rolling heads at Forbes now for something like "the obvious anti-semitism in that graph" - but I think she deserves a medal to put that graph on display at Forbes.

  • Front-page play for Israel battle shows that Israel has lost the Democratic Party base
    • Emory

      Interstingly, the New York Times chose to only identify the religious affiliation of Bernie Sanders (jewish - did a read the words "such a pity, we can't label him anti-semite" between the lines?) and his representative Keith Ellison (muslim - did a read the meaning "readers beware, he belongs to the enemy" between the lines?).

      Let me help the NYT to identify other people's religious affiliation mentioned in the NYT article.

      Cornel West, who attended baptist services in his youth ...
      James Zogby, who is the son of a ctholic immigrant from Lebanon ...

      Mrs Clinton, a methodist, whose daugther is married to a jewish banker and whose top four campaign donors are all rich jews...
      Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser, who is jewish, indicated ...
      Malcolm Hoenlein, who is jewish and executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said...
      ... said Robert Wexler, who is jewish, a former congressman from Florida and Clinton supporter, who heads an advocacy group financed by one of Mrs Clintons top donors, S. Daniel Abraham, who is jewish.

      And finally, of course, a disclaimer at the end of the article would have been good:

      Jason Horowitz and Maggie Haberman, who reported this story, are jewish. The publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., is the grandson of late New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, a jew. The New York Times officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President 2016.

      I have a good idea why the New York Times only writes about religious affiliation regarding Sanders and his supporters. Would the New York Times write about the religious affiliations in the HIllary Clinton campaign and in the New York Times, the reporting of the New York Times and Hillary's bid for president would both look like a sinister jewish cabal.

  • Sanders appoints Palestine advocates to committee drafting Democrat's 2016 platform
    • Good news. Hallelujah!

      May I ask my dear fellow commenters a little OT favor?

      It's about this election and media. My impression is that the "HuffPost pollster" manipulates it's charts to make Hillary look good. Besides RealClearPolitics the HuffPo Pollster is one of the major poll trackers and aggregate builders, so it's likely very influential on forming opinion. The web address is here:

      link to

      It seems to me the HuffPo people deliberately manipulate their charts in Hillary's favour with the "Smoothing" parameters. I will describe what I believe about how they do it in some steps comparing charts. Please try it yourself and tell me your opinion, whether I'm right.

      1st round: Look at the "2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton" chart, click on it to go on the detail page for Trump vs Clinton. While looking at the chart click on the "Customize this chart" button. Then select the "Less Smoothing" option. What I get as a result of selecting the "Less Smoothing option instead of the "Moderate Option" looks like a more "smoothed" chart. It may look like a random misfunction but to me it looks like the less smoothed chart looks better for Clinton.

      But now round 2: Look at the "2016 National Democratic Primary" chart, click on it to go on the detail page for Clinton vs Sanders. Now again, while looking at the chart click on the "Customize this chart" button (having javascript enabled in your browser). What I get by "Customize this chart" is that the chart changes to a more smoothed version, what more looks like that Sanders will soon overtake Clinton. When I select then the "Less Smoothing" option instead of "Moderate" I get the chart the Huffpo displays on it's start page.

      So, to me it looks like the Huffpo features the "Less Smoothing" option on it's start page calling it the "official chart" - and it looks better in both cases for Hillary. And somehow it seems to have produced an error in Clinton vs Sanders customize option.

      But it doesn't seem a random error to me, because in other charts it all works fine:

      Round 3: Go to HuffPo pollster start page, select "past primary races", then cgo to on "2016 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary" and click on "customize this chart", try change "smoothing" to "less smoothing" and all is perfect. Customize this chart starts with the official chart and the "less smoothing" option produces a chart which is less smooth. All fine - but the race is not important anymore, because it's finishes. But on important races like "Trump vs Clinton" or "Clinton vs Sanders" the HuffPo chart programm has mistakes - or hastily programmed default display options - benefitting Clinton.

      What do you think, am I right that this is a serious indication - or even proof - for an intentional attempt of HuffPo to make Hillary good by manipulating the HuffPo Pollster chart in a way that serves Hillary Clinton?

  • 'Clinton scares the generals' -- Democratic Party divides over foreign policy
    • Wow, I just noticed that the very liberal NYTimes - which has endorsed Hillary Clinton - has just run a hard hitting piece on Donald Trump's foreign policy that I missed.

      A guy billed as "counselor of the United States State Department from 2007 to 2009" Eliot A. Cohen hits hard on Trump's foreign policy concept and praises Hillary Clinton's because Donald Trump's foreign policy is similar to that of Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton's is much better. Quote:

      A Really Bad Deal for America

      Donald J. Trump can be seen as a talented demagogue, or as the manifestation of deep pathologies in the body politic, but he is also the bearer of ideas — crudely framed and sometimes incoherent, but ideas nonetheless. Nowhere is this more true than on foreign policy. ...

      Fundamentally, much of the difference between Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama reflects style rather than substance. ... Mr. Trump merely takes these views some steps further and decibels louder. ... Voters should examine Mr. Trump’s statements closely not just because of what they mean for the Republican Party, but what they imply for the two-generation-old American foreign policy consensus. ...

      On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is far better: She believes in the old consensus and will take tough lines on China and, increasingly, Russia. ... True, under pressure from her own left wing, she has backtracked on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a set of trade deals that supports American interests by creating a counterbalance to China and American values by protecting workers’ rights. But she might edge back toward supporting it, once in. ...

      So now we all know why Trump is so dangerous. He's almost like Barack Obama, just louder. Everybody should vote for Hillary, because there is a chance she'll didn't mean what she said against TPP under pressure from Sanders supporters and she "might edge back toward supporting it, once in."

      I have hardly ever heard such a passionate argument for Hillary Clinton, so I should think it should be distributed at the front doors of each rally and voting station where Sanders' supporters are to be met, to convince them with this hard hitting piece of the really liberal New York Times, that Donald Trump is dangerous and Hillary Clinton makes a eally good president.

      Or so.

    • pabelmont


      What I just remarked is that Hillary Clinton obviously believes she will manage to scare not only generals, but also voters. Look at this tweet of her today:

      "The threat that Donald Trump poses is so dramatic to our country, to our democracy." —Hillary on @CNN

      Source: link to

      If that's not fearmongering, what is?

      I also tend to believe that her mud wrestling like peddling womanzer stories against Trump will backfire spectucularly. I think people already know these things of Trump for a long time, it was already priced in into his bid long ago, soon after he started his bid. I think most of voters won't anything new in these attacks, except confirming their view that the Washington establishment is really against Trump - what is exactly why they vote for him.

      And then, if Clinton comes down to that level of mud wrestling, Trump is a grand master on that turf, like he now answered the NYT hit piece by declaring that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and self-declared feminist outsider Hillary enabled him doing so. All this mud slinging from Hillary on Trump just points to the fact that her record and her Wall Street designed policies are so unpopular with voters that she prefers to go with gossip and fearmongering after Trump instead of attacking him on policy.

      However, I'm not so negative about Trump regarding Israel as Philip seems to be. I see the recent invitation of Walt and Mearsheimer to the Koch brothers' event is a sign that big time changes are coming in the Republican party regarding Israel and Palestine. I'm quite sure that the mood of many nationalist Republican voters on Israel could switch quite quick against Israel if the Republican leadership changes their donor driven position on Israel and makes the Republican rank and file folks see what harm Israel has done to the US.

  • Sharansky disses American Jews for assimilating, then tells 'major donors' to universities to stop BDS
    • hophmi

      Yes, sure, it would be a good thing. Having Saudi Sheikhs replace rich Amercian jews to finance American education would not make a difference politically, since the Saudis and Israel work hand in glove politically and financially.

      link to

      But there would be one big positive effect to this: if the Saudis were financing American universities directly instead of giving their petro dollars first to rich Zionists to make them kosher, resistance against the Saudi Zionist axis of racists would surely be growing faster on campus and elsewhere.

    • I wonder whether Sharansky thought through what he told the audience.

      "calling on rich American Jews to stop giving money to universities where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is active"

      I think it could be a good thing if rich American jews - and Israel firsters - would stop giving money to universities where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is active. Money corrupts.

      And it would represent a great chance for the Koch brothers and their networks to step in instead. As it currently stands, the Kochs want to spend more on education. And they just did invite foreign policy experts to of their events whom the Israel lobby hates.

      Having the Kochs and their friends step in financing universities when rich American jews step out might present a chance for universities getting free from Zionist power structures at top.

  • How Eli Lake tricks readers so as to cast realists Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman as anti-semites
    • ritzl

      Thanks for the flowers, and yes, I see this as another sign that there is a fight going on between Big Oil (coming from Southern States) vs Big Zion (Wall Street, Hollywood). It looks less and less plausible for me that the Trump rise was just accidental, and in a way, the neocons are getting a similar grasp, and I think, that's behind the virulent article by Eli Lake.

      Remember, with oil at $50 much of the native US oil industry cannot exist for long, and we have $50 oil because the Saudi-Zionist axis wants to destroy Iran and Russia. That policy is extremely expensive for Big Oil, and makes it a compititor with the Saudi-Zionist axis, while it's interests in higher oil prices align with Russia.


      Great takedown of Eli Lake. Btw, I'ld prefer this pic of Eli Lake in a Begin shirt to this article:

      link to

  • Hillary Clinton supported Iraq war because of Israel, say Matthews and Landler
    • silamcuz

      I disagree. I am convinced that Hillary Clinton is a demonic spawn of Satan. I remember well, that it was her, who led US policy to destroy Libya, it was her who was responsible for spreading propaganda like Gaddafi bought "African mercenaries" which made the jihadi fanatics she supported slaughter all black popele they could find besides all other decent people they didn't like, it was Hillary Clinton who was responsible for spreading propaganda like Gaddafi ordered tons of viagra to enable Libyan soldiers rape women with which she incited mass rapings of women and mass killings in Libya. And for what did she incite and enable all this carnage? To please Israel, Saudi Arabia and to protect French colonial designs over Northern Africa? Or was it just pure bloodthirstiness of Hillary personally? Remember how Hillary Clinton was happy, after she managed to destroy a country and kill tens of thousands of innocent people, that she also managed to have her jihadi stooges killing the leader of that nation by sodomizing him with a knife:

      link to

      A similar sectarian carnage Hillary Clinton has also caused in Syria, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and that all the while the DIA was loudly warning her that her actions would create a jihady principality in East Syria and Western Iraq. But Hillary Clinton took - as DIA head Michael Flynn puts it - a "willful decision" to carry on with that disastrous policy anyway. And now, on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton promises she will order the US military to create an illegal "safe zone" for her jihadi friends in Syria, well knowing that attempting to this can only lead to more carnage and war with Iran and Russia.

      Hillary Clinton may have not always been that but with her recent actions, politically totally needless actions of war, mass murder, torture, and racial, misogynist and sectarian incitement, of her own choice, Hillary Clinton has proven to be a demonic spawn of Satan.

    • Eric

      I think Hillary has her own set of problems for the Neocons and their pressure group AIPAC. Many of her top donors are close to J Street, and to win the presidency, Hillary must accomodate Bernie and his supporters, who are also no big fans of AIPAC. But Trump is close to Americans for Prosperity and their southern Christian donor network, which all leaves the Neocons - since their candidates Rubio and Bush flopped - between two chairs.

    • MRW

      Yes, you're right that I exaggerated a bit. Freeman doesn't use the words "abdicating as world hegemon" but he says the "ability to transit the Middle East is essential to U.S. global power projection" and "decision to write off the region would be a decision to go out of business as a world power." That puts it different in less harsh words, but the reason Freeman gives for needed US involvement in the middle east is nevertheless U.S. global power projection, aiming at global US hegemony.

      That goal is not only nefarious for itself, but Freeman's statement is also plain wrong. Of course, the US can be a global power, can even keep being the global hegemon. without the ability to transit the Middle East. The US has two coasts from where it can project global power, to Asia, Europe and Africa without the ability to transit the Middle East. And it is this policy suggested by Freeman that is one of the roots of the disaster in the missle east. US presidents go there with something like good intentions - as far as projecting global power can be called good intentions - and the result is always disaster, because as long as the Israel lobby wields it's huge influence in the US it can't be different, because Israel sees disaster in the middle east as in Israel's best interest, so as the Muslims there can't unite in peace which could lead to a serious challenge for Israel.

      And that's also true for the second policy proposal of Freeman which I harshly criticized. Freeman says: "Stop trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The states and borders that have been shattered can’t now be restored. ... the United States should focus on working with partners in the region to ensure that the restructuring of the region’s borders does as little harm as possible to U.S. and allied interests." That's exactly what the Israel lobby and the neocons want, because giving up the states is a recipe for endless war in the middle east, especially when it's done by the US, where the Israel lobby has such huge influence. To achieve peace, and to diminish the ability of the Israel lobby to foment sectarian and ethnic strife in the muslim world, the opposite policy is neccessary: accept the authority of governments inside their state borders. Stop sponsoring separatist and ethnic movements, like KRG in Iraq, "Sunni insurgency" in Syria, Sunni "people's comitees" in Yemen, Christian militia in Lebenon etc. And that's also the way Israel and the Israel lobby will come under pressure, not the other way around as Chas Freeman proposes it.

      That said, I like Chas Freeman, because he is not afraid to speak his mind in front of the Zionist mafia, and much of what he proposes is quite fine, but I think the two points I lined out here are big fat mistakes Freeman makes. And sadly, Freeman's policy proposal including these two big mistakes seems to me similar to what Donald Trump is up to.

    • Harry

      The current order - or better: disorder - in the middle east is a product of a Saudi-Israeli joint venture. The Saudis bring into this backwarded & catastrophic joint venture an extremist ideology - wahhabism, or more precise takfirsm, like Chas Freeman calls it - and tons of oil money, while the Israelis bring into that joint venture political clout in Washington. Both are readily being helped by Turkey. ISIS, but not only ISIS, is a case in point.

      The Nineveh-Anbar insurgency 2013/2014 which gave to ISIS was driven from Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan - that's where the leaders of this insurgency met, where there propagandists were based and from where the coordination was done. This was only possible as a collaboration of the Israeli/Saudi/Turkish forces of that joint venture I described above. DIA-head lieutenant general Michael Flynn confirmed as much indirectly in 2015 when he told the public - based on a FOIA released document - that the creation of the ISIS caliphate was a "willful decision" by powerful parts of the US government. We all know today, HRC and her very pro-Israel guys and gals were the faction in the US government behind it.

      WIth other powerful wahhabi/takfiri terror groups from Afghanistan over Libya to Yemen it's pretty much the same: the Saudis run the show and Israel firsters in the US government enable them. So, that offers a way out: target the Saudis, and target the Israel lobby by this, who has a hard time of defending their Saudi wahhabi allies. We currently see that tactic - target the Saudis to hit the Israel lobby - employed against the neocons/neoliberal Israel firsters in the US with initiatives like 28 pages and Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

      Very funny to see that Israel-firster Lindsey Graham was initially for the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act before he understood that the real target of that would become Israel so he put the act on hold now.

    • MRW

      I think Chas Freeman gives a realistic and well-written description of the state of affairs in MENA.

      But then he starts to drift off the mark and to dangerous ideas like the US must be strongly involved in the MENA region because not being involved would mean abdicating as world hegemon. That idea explains not what is at stake in MENA for the U.S., but it is one of the major ingredients that led to the disastrous state of affairs. It is even more important to reject this misjudgement by Chas Freeman as he correctly describes that unconditional US support for Israel must be changed to enable the US to do something good instead of bad in MENA, but offers no way how to defeat the Israel lobby in the US. And baring a defeat of the reigning power of the Israel lobby in the US, no US involvement in MENA would be a lot better for all than US involvement.

      Combined with the second major misjudgement of Chas Freeman, that the US should support the abandonment of the Sykes-Picot borders, his advise will create more US induced desaster in MENA. The Sykes-Picot borders have many critics, and rightly so, because their are an odious colonial legacy. But redefining these borders, thereby breaking up the states they define, is a recipe to ensure decades of more war fighting for where the new borders shall be drawn. That would serve no one's interest except Israel's - because Israel would gleeful enforce it's hasbara theme then, that all the arabs and muslims are unable to live together in peace and Israel is the only peaceful country in the middle east. So, Chas Freeman's policy idea of breaking up the Sykes Picot borders would not only lead to more desaster, it would also not contribute to defeating the Israel lobby, which he agrees is a neccessity, but enforce and enable it to gain even more power.

    • Eric

      To me it looks more like that Trump is a stealth candidate of the largely rightwing christian donor network of the Koch brothers, with Corey Lewandowski being the key connection. I believe Americans for Prosperity had a huge role in making Trump the nominee. I know, Charles Koch said, he'ld maybe vote for Hillary instead of Trump, but I think that's just another trick.

      Not that I neccessarily prefer white right racists to zionist racists, but if I'm right that would explain why the neocons fought him so hard. Now that they lost, the Neocons try to come onboard of the Trump ship, that's how I'ld explain Adelson's endorsement and the rumor that Adelson will donate big to Trump.

    • Remembering the remarks of JJ Goldberg at JStreet with reference to opensecrets, that Dems get almost all their big money from jews, here's a quick check of the list of Opensecrets' list of Hillary's top donors 2016 - just going around in German alternative media:

      link to

      1. Soros Fund Management ($7,039,900) - company of infamous jewish hedge fund billionaire George Soros

      2. Euclidean Capital ($7,002,700) - family office of jewish hedge fund billionaire James Harris Simons

      3. Paloma Partners ($4,007,900) - alias of jewish billionaire finance investor S. Donald Sussman

      4. Laborers Union ($4,000,886) - union with large investments in Israel, in 2002 it's boss Terence O’Sullivan was to be honored by Israeli bonds sellers with a tribute dinner

      5. Saban Capital Group ($3,532,171) - company of jewish-israeli Hollywood billionaire Haim Saban

      6. Pritzker Group ($2,814,309) - company of jewish billionaire family Pritzker

      7. Women's Self Worth Foundation ($2,502,700) - foundation of Haim Saban's wife Cheryl Saban

      8. Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation ($2,502,700) - foundation of jewish billionaire banker Herbert Sandler & family

      9. Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action ($2,151,025) - finance vehicle of Hillary Clinton dominated by donations from jewish billionaires

      10. Dreamworks SKG ($2,013,500) - company of rich jewish Hollywood stars Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg

      And so goes it on and on. No 11, is jewish media owner Fred Eychaner, no 12 is the company of jewish hedge fund billionaire James Harris Simons and so on.

      via: Parteibuch - the billionaires behind Hillary Clinton

      link to

      Maybe Hillary's foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine has to do something with her donors?

  • Zionism threatens to bring anti-semitism full-circle
    • Jonathan,

      excuse me to repeat myself. Please have a look at what Rabbi Felix Goldmann - a prominent liberal German Rabbi and figher against anti-semitism wrote about Zionism - in 1913. I'm almost sure you may find some of his insights as revealing as I do. I translated these his sentences here on Mondo Weiss into English a couple of years ago. They guide me still today:

      If the “racial” moment has acquired a meaning in which nothing counts of everything else, merits, virtues, striving and disposition, if the Jew is outlawed, if you want to depress him into a pariah position, so it is a success, the national belief, the chauvinistic racial madness of our times, has won in diligent work.

      And this chauvinist, national racist madness is the theoretical basis, the spiritual soil of Zionism! That’s where it borrowed the specific features of it’s being and it’s effectiveness! Even the utterance of this undeniable and undisputed fact contains the most damning criticism of this pseudo messianic movement. With all clarity the consequences must be imagined of what it must mean for the nature and manifestations of Zionism that it grew up on the same marsh soil as the racial anti-Semitism, this scourge, which we Jews are suffering under so horrible. And it’s always the same water, may it now be called Aryan anti-Semitic, or may it now be colored Jewish-national that comes from the same poisoned wells, and no staining of the world can make it a healthy drink.

      Those were the words of Rabbi Goldmann in 1913. He published them in a small booklet on Zionism under the pseudonym of Anti-Zionist Comitee Berlin, because he feared retribution from powerful zionists, who, as he says in this booklet, never fight an argument sincerely, but always attack the person making the case ad hominem.

      Frankfurt on Main University has now put his booklet as scan online:

      link to

      The information that Rabbi Felix Goldmann is the athor of that anonymous booklet is sourced by well-reputed German researcher Matthias Hambrock:

      link to

      To me it looks pretty much as Rabbi Felix Goldmann has understood the nature of zionism and our current discussion more than a hundred years ago - and better than most of us do now.

      Have a look!

  • 'Either Assad or we'll burn the country' - An excerpt from 'Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War'
    • Mooser

      Endorsement or no endorsement, words can have consequences.

      Peddling lies like these here contributes to encouraging terrorists in Syria to commit more acts of false-flag-terror there.

      US-paid terrorist supervisor Raed Fares and his gang, among them Hadi Al Abdallah, moved from Kafranbel to Aleppo and committed a couple of days ago some false flag terror attacks there designed for western audience. And they were a success, many western media and some parts of UNO fell for them. Other terrorists in Homs then slaughtered some Allawi civilians for motives what they called revenge for the false flag terror Raed and Hadi did in Aleppo while blaming it on the Syrian army.

      Peddling lies of false flag terror attacks and engaging in massacre marketing - like RYK does it - is a major part of what keeps the bloodshed in Syria going. In his story here he even fails to mention that the insurgents' boss responsible for the FSA attack on Damascus was no other than Zahran Alloush. That's the infamous Saudi sponsored sectarian hate preacher who commanded the FSA in Damascus, later rebranded it as Islam army, which had one of the few chemical warfare units insurgents had in Syria.

  • If it had been up to Hillary Clinton, there would be no Iran Deal
    • That all looks to me like the guys at the NYT - or those who pay for the content - think they've done enough dovish PR for Clinton to beat Sanders, so now the put out hawkish PR to prepare her for the match against Trump.

  • Sy Hersh's 'forbidden statement': Sanders's liberation from NY Jewish money could change US foreign policy
    • I'm not so sure, yet, that the balance of power is changing.

      It may still come out to be just a flash in the pan.

      Eg: Maryland senator Barbara Mikulski - who backed Obama's Iran deal - retires, Donna Edwards lost the race for that seat against the Israel lobby. So, to me it looks like the Israel lobby just got stronger.

      Bernie Sanders mounts a fine insurgent campaign against Wall Street and the Israel lobby, but he's 300 delegates behind. So, if Wall Street and the Israel lobby manage to install their horse Hillary at the white house, how much will be left of the current uprising against the Zionist war lobby?

      Will the campaign of Bernie Sanders transform into a movement, bringing about change after the election even if HIllary will be president, or will it dim out? And even worse can be imagined of Trump's insurgent campaign: even if it may stay it may become a new powerful part of the Zionist war lobby.

  • Trump and the war for 'Western Values'
    • Frankie

      What you call "the glaring disconnect" I'ld call room to maneuver. I called it "very fine foreign policy speech" because it allows Trump to really go anyway he likes.

      A case in point: look again what he said on Iran. Trump didn't promise to cancel the Iran deal - he just said it was a bad deal. Remember, earlier he said it's a bad deal, but it's a deal what cannot just be undone, because Iran already got most of it's benefit - the money unfreeze - and so he will enforce it, strictly. And then look what Trump promised in his foreign policy speech regarding Iran: he promised, repeatedly and in strong terms, he will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But that's absolutely no problem for Iran, because Iran doesn't build a nuke anyway. Than look what Trump didn't speak about regarding Iran: missiles. Promises to prevent Iran strengthening it's missile capabilities would have been the hot topic, the Israel lobby would have wanted to hear, and lot's of trouble with Iran guaranteed because Iran won't give up it's missile programm - but Trump just "forgot" it. So, this is a case in point, regarding Iran Trump made a populist Republican speech, and of course he can go Israel's way with this, but he didn't let himself down to promises regarding Iran that would have him be boxed in by the Israel lobby.

      Another example: Syria. Trump just had no word for Assad, no bad one, no good one. But he had a lot of stuff in his speech regarding not using military force to spread democracy, radical Islam as the enemy, genocide against Christians, taking a hard look at some of these people there, standing to allies and making friends with old enemies. Trump can go anywhere from this: with this position, he could as President even claim - with good reason - that Putin, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran are the protectors of Christians against a genocide committed by Clinton-Saudi-Turkish backed Al Qaeda terrorists and make friends with Putin, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran to defeat them. And at least regarding Putin he promised he intends to try to do so. Of couse, he also could go Israel's way instead.

      More revealing topics like Ukraine, Afghanistan and Yemen Trump just didn't mention, so here he preserved room to maneuver, too.

      So, Trump made a populist speech, that of course included pandering to Israel, but in specifics of what he promised the Israel lobby nothing. Instead he specifically went after NATO and free trade - holy grails for the Israel lobby. It's easy to see why the Israel lobby and their surrogates may be upset with that speech - it sounded in large parts like a declaration of war on core policies the Israel lobby prescribed America in the last decades.

      But as I said above, of course you could be right that it's all a trick, and in the end Trump could turn out to be a man of the Israel lobby, and his tricky speeches just to be cleverly made to fool voters. It's quite intransparent and Trump has no political record. That's why I looked for more information about the record of his known prominent backer Senator Jeff Sessions.

    • ritzl

      Thank's a lot for your assessment of Jeff Sessions. Your description does sound like I am dead wrong with Sessions being the brain behind Trump. And Im very sure you know much more about Sessions than I do. My basic assumption was that Jeff Sessions si Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces for about two decades, so - even if he would be dumb - he must have learned something about great power politics there. And the whole thinking behind Trump's foreign policy speech would fit to me to a southener, nationalist military guy, who decided to rewrite US foreign policy dogma because the old ones badly failed.

      Then there seems to be, what I suspect a connection to hard rightwing southern movements, say Birchers, the Klan, you name it. As is well known, Trump's father was once arrested for protesting for the Klan in New York - and now the former Klan chief is backing him. It also strikes me that the balance sheet of Trump's business seems to be clean like a freshly pampered baby back. To me it looks like that someone has put lot's of money into Trump's business years ago to make it "clean" for a "self-funded" presidential bid today. I suspect some rightwing business tycoons from the south, be them Birchers, Klansmen or whatever, could have done this to mount a well-prepared insurgency against the "Wall Street Jews" for the control of America, could they?

      But then, there is also this strange situation that neither Adelson nor the Koch brothers seem to have donated big this year, so far. Hadn't the Koch's ties to the Birchers? It's all quite dubious to me, who's really behind the Trump campaign, but I do not a second believe his success is a lucky punch - I strongly believe, there is a lot of long term planning, strategy and money behind his bid.

      In the end I would not even be very much surprised, if, the day after he was elected president, Trump appears on stage with Adelson, the Koch brothers and Netanyahu, praising them as his most reliable associates for decades, and making clear that his apparent "insurgent" campaign was just a show to make unsatisfied voters pick a Republican president. Trump easily could do so: hasn't he said he's the greatest friend of Israel of all? And hasn't Corey Lewandowski worked for the Koch's before coming to Trump?

      It's just all very intransparent with the Trump campaign, and I totally agree with you, unless you're an absolute insider there's no chance to know.

      However, what to expect from Hillary is clear: she never met a war she didn't like and she's fully owned and paid for by Wall Street.

    • ritzl

      No, I have no link.

      My impression is that Jeff Sessions leads a southern insurgency against the whole US foreign policy establishment, especially the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks - and Donald Trump is the frontman providing the insurgency with a liberal face more acceptable to northern & coastal voters.

      I just saw and analyzed Trump's amazingly intelligent foreign policy speech - and came to the conclusion that Jeff Sessions is likely the brain behind that. If you know Jeff Sessions, do you agree that that could have been his speech?

      In general I tend to see in Trump's campaign success far more than a lucky punch. Trump's campaign looks to me like a very well planned, well funded and well organized insurgency - much, much smarter than what the eye meets at first glance. The dumb face Trump makes to that seemes to me a trick, like a message to the zionist media - like c'mon, deal me in, I can't win anyway, I just want to give the Republican presidential race a bit colour & enhance my brand recognition, I got my knowledge on politics "from the shows" etc.

      Like we have here some skilled billard players coming to a table in a bar, pretending they don't even know how to hold the cue stick, alcohol smells from their mouths, and then they say, c'mon, 100 or 200 bucks, I will take it as money for a lesson from you, etc. And whoever will fall for that trap and put a 100 or 200 bucks on the table has already lost, because in fact they are very, very skilled professionals, just playing dumb to find people to play against them. People only realize that after the game is over and they lost without a chance.

      Now see "dumb Trump" - he entered the race with at least two water carriers whose function was unknown to the rest of the field (Christie & Carson), he picked endorsements that mattered - like the one from Sessions in Alabama, he had Bush humiliated, Rubio punched out of the ring, he's 400 delegates in front, Cruz is hardly standing anymore, Kasich just hanging on because not doing so would transfer his Ohio delegates to Trump - oh - and he wants people to believe he got his knowledge about politics "from the shows."

    • Wilson,

      I find it interesting how different interpretations of the very same speech can be. I think it was a very fine foreign policy speech, which I think was likely written by Jeff Sessions and I understand why the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks are screaming like hell.

      Trump said:

      "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs."

      So, I see that as a foreign policy statement and may read into this that the nation-state is the opposite of a global empire. It's that idea of different nations coming together to get along together, that gave the UN it's name: United Nations. Trump hinted he will leave WTO, NATO and NAFTA, if he cannot a better deal for the nation "United States of America" there. Fine.

      Trump also said:

      "Finally, I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread “universal values” that not everyone shares, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions."

      I read this as a foreign policy statement and may read it as that Trump wants that the US will lead in the world by setting a good example of living up to Western values in the U.S. and the western world instead of doing military interventions to spread universal values around the globe. That interpretation fits into waht Trump said a few minutes before these lines:

      "We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

      It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy."

      I read into this that Trump is fine with other nations having no western values like democracy, freedom, capitalism, individualism, secular rule of law and so on. In Trump's world it's other nations own business if they want or want not to implement western values, the United States shall not push them to do so, and especially with military force when they don't want. The only way Trump lines out to encourage other nations to do reforms in direction of more western values is by setting a good example and thereby show others how fine western values are. But the whole imperial US regime change business, democracy promotion and so on he wants gone.

      And finally, Trumps ultimate message in one sentence:

      "America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration."

      I bet the whole cabal of Israel-firsters in U.S. power circles and their echo chambers had almost dropped their coffee cups in panic for this statement.

      It sets the U.S. on a major confrontational course with Israel, because it's a promise that "Israel first" policies no longer will be accepted. It's just this way - putting the Nation State first - that allowed Russia and China to sideline the Israel lobby in their countries.

      And Jeff Sessions made in the Senate another point: when 83 Senators just wrote a letter to Obama, that he shall give even more aid to Israel than that what he planned as an increase, Jeff Sessions was one of only 3 Republican senators who didn't sign the letter.

  • 'NYT' exposes Clinton as most hawkish candidate when it's too late for readers to choose
    • "So why are we learning this now?"

      Call me naive, but as far as I understand how free media works I'ld pose the question more like this:

      Assuming the information in this article was available earlier, who may have paid for that it was put on hold until after the NYC primary?

  • 'Forward' columnist and Emily's List leader relate 'gigantic,' 'shocking' role of Jewish Democratic donors
    • JWalters

      I looked at it again. What I think now is that if someone active in hedge fund business had
      foreknowledge of falling oil prices - say because he would know - say that Sec Kerry asking the Saudis to increase oil output and crash the market - he could have earned a lot of money by betting on falling oil prices. What could have been won by such foreknowledge would be definitely more than $75m spent by Tom Steyer on Democrats in the 2014 election cycle.

      So, in result, I find it more plausible that coming oil market ops had leaked than that's a story of Aipac or pacific vs atlatic business interests.

    • JWalters

      I largely agree with your lines. This is a very fine article on a very relevant discussion to give some ordinary people, non-insiders, a hint to a better understanding of what's going on behind the scenes in the spheres of high power.

      My imagination about whether there is someone more powerful "behind" the "jewish industries" who gives instructions whom to donate to and whom not to donate to, is that there may be competing business interests that reflect the ideological split inside the "folks being with candidates" - as Stephanie put it, meaning the jewish mega donor class.

      For example, when I look up for the 2014 election cycle, I find the mega top donor of democrats and of all donors is a guy called Tom Steyer living in California. According to he gave $75 million in the 2014 election cycle to democrats, multiple times more than anyone else. See yourself:

      link to

      So who is Tom Steyer? It's a hedge fund manager with jewish family roots. Than I looked up his name and business in Wikipedia. What struck me, was that Wikipedia listed some past busniess of him in Eastern Asia, Indonesia, to be exact. I have no idea if has has still Eastern Asia business, but if one once has Eastern Asia business and it goes well in a mega market growing fast, I would not be surprised if such business continues.

      So, my question regarding an ideological split in the jewish donor community would be whether there is also a split in business interests, for example between those having more business ties over the atlantic and those having more business ties over the pacific. I came to this idea because of the US "pivot to Asia" policy adopted about five years ago, that seems to be disliked by Israel, but that seems to have serious money behind it.

      Let me put that in a very direct question: does the US foreign policy prescribed by AIPAC damage very serious business interests of a part of the (jewish or non-jewish) mega rich donor class? And if so, whom does it damage?

  • The New York Times fails to fact-check Clinton's propaganda on Gaza
    • Update:

      Seems like State Department spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby just disputed Bibi's claim over the occupied Golan, and not only he:

      link to

      But I still didn't hear much of a response from US presidential contenders or US mass media to Bibi's assertition.

    • lysias

      I can only answer a bandolero in Berlin.

      As a Chinese saying goes: Cherchez La Femme!

      Andrej Holm was released, and afterwards nothing happened. The woman with him is Anne Roth, co-founder of Indymedia Germany, where all criticism of Israel is forbidden.

      Disclaimer: I've met the couple besides online - in real life - only once in my life. But that - together with all the online - was quite sobering for me regarding Andre and Anne.

    • There is one more recent event I'ld be looking a statement of US media and politicians: Netanyahu just held a cabinet meeting in the occupied Golan.

      CNN reports: Israel will never return the Golan Heights to Syria, says Benjamin Netanyahu

      link to

      Netanyahu contradicts hereby longstanding positions of the UN security council, the US and the EU.

      Germany has just rejected Netanyahu's claim, but where is the reaction from the US? Obama, Clinton, Sanders anyone?

      People of the Golan seem not all that happy with the Israeli occupation:

      link to

      In my oppinion, Israel's desire to finally get the Golan forever was and is a major driver for the support of Israel & the Israel lobby for regime change in Syria.

  • 'Any legislation having to do with Middle East has to be vetted and approved by AIPAC' -- Tom DeLay
    • Thanks, Phil.

      It's approximitely like I thought it is, but that quote I didn't know.

      Great, and enligthening, article.

  • Democratic debate: Is Netanyahu welcome at White House on Day 1 or an arrogant, deceptive asshole?
    • After Abe Foxman and Ronald S. Lauder called on Bernie Sanders to fire Simone Zimmerman, Bernie Sanders just suspended her to investigate her.

      So sad.

      I had the impression that hiring Simone Zimmerman could be a defining moment of Sanders' campaign. It was clearly a sign that he was willing to take on the lobby, and it was clear to me it would be a fight to the bloody end. And now that: Sanders' spells out his capitulation.

      What the hell is Bernie Sanders doing?

      If he didn't want to walk the walk with Simone Zimmerman it made absolutely no sense to hire her. And by suspending her he likely won't bring back even one voter who left him for hiring her, but he shows that he is disengaging with the young progressive voters Simone Zimmerman represents when coming under pressure. It's hard for me to understand theses moves of Sanders anything different than as a folly.

  • Israel demands correction from Sanders: it killed only 532 Palestinian children in summer 2014
    • Kay

      Pretty good interview by Bernie Sanders. I think with that punch line Bernie can win the argument.

      It looks to me a bit as if he took a page from Trump's playbook here:

      1. When attacking the zionist mainstream then first exagerate, but go in the right direction, that will give you a whole lot of media attention, how "outrageous" the remark was
      2. Let the zionist mainstream media spill the beans regarding the facts
      3. Row back on the first agenda setting remark, but at the same time double down with a more moderate punchline in the same direction as the first remark.
      4. The result is getting a lot of attention and win the argument against the mainstream media

  • What if Bernie Sanders had delivered his speech at AIPAC!?
    • The only major problem I see with Bernie is that he is 300+ delegates behind.

      I'ld love to see him taking the presidency, but will he reach it given the toxic US people who love loudmouths pandering to the same groups of influential people they deeply despise?

  • Read the speech Bernie Sanders planned to give to AIPAC
  • 'Do we get to win this time?': Trump foreign policy appeal based on revenge for Iraq War failure
    • amigo

      "Trump fellates multiple zionist donkeys."

      LOL. The best line I read so far to summarize Trump's performance as a Bibi imitator. It made my day.

  • Trump 'has no business being president' because he would be 'neutral' to Israel -- Clinton tells AIPAC
    • Roger Stone on AIPAC Speech: 'This Is the New Trump'

      Donald Trump's speech Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) showed voters what he will look like as the campaign continues, columnist Roger Stone tells Newsmax TV. ... "He has always said that he is an unabashed supporter of Israel," Stone said. "He fleshed it out. This is the new Trump." ...

      The speech was the first since his campaign began where Trump worked from a written speech, and Stone said that was important because Trump was talking substantive policy issues. ...

      Stone warned of "Trojan horse delegates" he said who are falsely claiming to be Trump supporters, but would vote against him on procedural matters, including rules changes that would rob Trump of the nomination.

      "The Republican establishment, many of whom wear a second hat as lobbyists, will never throw in the towel," Stone said. ...

      link to

    • Mooser

      Trump's AIPAC speech from A-Z sounded as if he was Netanyahu running for US President.

      Read a rough transcript here.

      link to

      In short:

      Good evening. I speak to you today as a lifelong supporter and true friend of Israel. ... My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. ... When I am president, I will adopt a strategy that focuses on three things when it comes to Iran. First, we will stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. ... Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. ... In Gaza, Iran is supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad – and in the West Bank they are openly offering Palestinians $7,000 per terror attack and $30,000 for every Palestinian terrorist’s home that’s been destroyed. ... Secondly, we will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network. ... Third, at the very least, we must hold Iran accountable by restructuring the terms of the previous deal. ... The United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It’s not a friend to freedom. It’s not a friend even to the United States of America, where as all know, it has its home. And it surely isn’t a friend to Israel. With President Obama in his final year, discussions have been swirling about an attempt to bring a security council resolution on the terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and Palestine. Let me be clear: An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete disaster. The United States must oppose this resolution and use the power of our veto. Why? Because that’s not how you make a deal. ... A deal that imposes conditions on Israel and the Palestinian Authority will do nothing to bring peace. It will only further delegitimize Israel and it would reward Palestinian terrorism, because every day they are stabbing Israelis – and even Americans. ... You don’t reward that behavior, you confront it! It’s not up the United Nations to impose a solution. When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish state. You see, I know about deal-making – that’s what I do. ... When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on Day One. I will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately. I have known him for many years and we will be able to work closely together to help bring stability and peace to Israel and to the entire region. ... Meanwhile, every single day, you have rampant incitement and children being taught to hate Israel and hate the Jews. ... In Palestinian textbooks and mosques, you’ve got a culture of hatred that has been fermenting there for years, and if we want to achieve peace, they’ve got to end this indoctrination of hatred. There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists. Israel does not pay its children to stab random Palestinians. ... Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas, and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it’s a very difficult situation but when the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That’s what will happen when I’m president. We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. They must come to the table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel and they must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish State and it will forever exist as a Jewish State. Thank you very much, its been a great honor to be with you.

      Just see Trump's AIPAC speech here:

      link to

    • Trumps speech to AIPAC jsut ended.

      It was a mixture of pandering to Israel and declarations of war on Iran, the UN and Palestinians. Sounding like Netanyahu's second voice Trump got standing ovation multiple times during his speech.

      Compared to that even Hillary looked pro-Palestinian.

  • 'NYT' finally mentions 'Goliath' -- in rightwing ad smearing Max Blumenthal
    • Maybe I don't get it: unsuccessful Republican House candidate Shmuley Boteach pays an ad attacking Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, threatening not to support her. It sounds to me a bit ridiculous: why should she expect Republican support anyway?

      But anyway, I would have a question for Mr Boteach: is that ad to be taken as a sign for his official ensorsement of Donald Trump will soon come forward?

    • Ossinev

      "It is reported"

      Is there a source for this assertion? To me it looks fake, and Google seems not to know it neither.

  • Why is AIPAC legitimating Donald Trump's bigotry?
    • I think there have spoken more ugly people at AIPAC already than Trump.

      Even open racists like Netanyahu spoke there.

      Regarding Abe Foxman, I find him ridiculous: he supports all the racism & fascism in Palestine, and now he suddenly feels disturbed by Trump due to fascism? Who would believe that?

      The matter of all the fuzz is, that Trump said he going to be neutral on Israel/Palestine and will work with Putin and Assad to defeat Israel's Al Qaeda allies. That's what the whole anger is about.

      Oh, and I see, moderate Republican candidate Ted Cruz with his moderate advisors like Elliott Abrams and Frank Gaffney is no problem at all for people like Abe Foxman. And neither are serial war of aggression perpetraitors like Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy is breath-taking.

  • As Trump heads to AIPAC, Netanyahu stands to benefit
    • Yoav

      While the people in the United States and the entire world remain dumbfounded and distracted by Trump’s obscene and at times comical vulgarity, Netanyahu and his messianic counterparts can quietly continue to commit further crimes against Palestinians on route toward the fruition of their fantasy of Greater Israel.

      I don't think that argument holds water. Whenever it happens that the neocons' & Israel firster grip on the Republican party is loosened, it's clear that there will be lot's of screaming and punching. that can't be different because the neocons are responsible for this hyper-aggressive fighting style, and it's clear they would not go down without a fight. Nevertheless, freeing Palestine can't happen without a victory over the neocons. And, there is more foreign policy speaking for Trump, namely that Trump attacks Israel's allies like Saudi Arabia, while arguing for partnering with Russia despite Israel's wishes to the contrary.

      Your criticism that AIPAC with the invitation of Trump doesn't maintain a civilized veneer I would think other way round: it's good that the humanitarian veil of AIPAC is lifted.

  • Rubio's defeat means the downfall of neoconservatives
    • kalithea

      "Will Trump bring up ... he’ll be tougher than she is with America’s enemies."

      I think the point that Trump will bring up is who are America's allies and enemies. Let me exaggerate a bit here for clarity.

      I assume Trump will keep running the line that Al Qaeda, ISIS & their main backer Saudi Arabia are America's enemies, while Putin's Russia & Assad's Syria are protectors of Christianity and countries America can partner with, so to say allies in the fight vs Al Qaeda.

      In contrast to this, Hillary will say Saudi Arabia is an ally of America and Putin's Russia & Assad's Syria are dictator's, meaning enemies of America, while she will agree with Trump that Al Qaeda & ISIS are enemies of America.

      Trump, who seems to be advised by Michael Flynn, will call out Clinton to be a backer of Al Qaeda, ISIS and a paid puppet of Al Qaeda's chief sponsor Saudi Arabia. Michael Flynn has already explained that in 2012 a wilfull decision was taken by US government to support Al Qaeda, and a document is out proving that the US government knew what it was doing. Maybe Trump will label Hillary even as Al Qaeda's chief operative in America, to make the punchline. America, you have the choice: will you vote for the Al Qaeda-Hillary-Saudi gang, or will you vote for me, Trump, and your military fighting against Al Qaeda to keep us safe? Trump will also likely to bring up that Hillary is such a big advocate for womens' rights, that she is proud to take money from Saudi Arabia, to promote their Saudi version of womens' rights. Trump's punchline will be that Hillary's declared fight for womens' rights is a total fraud since she protects at the same time the enslavement of women by Saudi Arabia.

      Hillary in turn will accuse Trump to be cozy with dictators and strongmen like Putin and Assad because he himself is such a guy, too.

      My best guess is that Trump will win that argument, and the Israel lobby will be largely silent on this attack on their Saudi allies, because leading Israeli figures openly advocated teaming up with Al Qaeda in Syria, so they will have a hard time to prevent the connection of Israel and Al Qaeda to be widely discussed in the US public.

  • Protesting Trump on Shabbat
    • "The people of Chicago had told Trump that his divisive politics were not welcome in their city."

      The people of Chicago? Isn't that the people who elected the ultra-zionist Rahm Emanuel to be their mayor?

      As Trump is loathed by the zionist establishment I smell a rat here.

  • Another instance of Israel lobby influence in this election no candidate will bring up
    • blah chick

      Well, that thing I have asked myself, too. But Kasich is insanely pro-Israel. Have a look what JNS wrote a month ago:

      Within Ohio’s sizable and influential Jewish community, the 63-year-old Kasich has relationships that span decades. Howie Beigelman—executive director of the public affairs arm of the Ohio Jewish Communities (OJC), which represents the state’s Jewish Federations—said Kasich has a “deeply personal” relationship with Ohio Jewry and praised the governor for his advocacy on the construction of the state’s official Holocaust memorial.

      “His vision led to the building of Ohio’s Holocaust and Liberator’s Memorial on the statehouse ground, which is, even among the few public memorials in state capitals, one-of-a-kind in size, central location, stark beauty, and in its message of honoring both the Nazi’s victims as well as our veterans,” Beigelman told

      On the other hand, Kasich garnered some Jewish communal criticism for promoting stereotypes through a comment he made at last December’s Republican Jewish Coalition presidential candidates forum, where he shared advice he once received from his mother.

      “She said, ‘Johnny, if you want to look for a really good friend, get somebody who’s Jewish,’” Kasich told the audience.

      “And you know why she said that?” he continued. “She said, ‘No matter what happens to you, your friend, your Jewish friend, will stick by your side and fight right with you and stand by you.’”

      Rather than those comments, Kasich adviser Kastan focuses on the governor’s record with Ohio’s Jewish community, which he called “exemplary.”

      “With a 100-percent AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) rating during his time in Congress, he was the ‘go to’ member of the Ohio Congressional delegation on matters concerning Israel and the Jewish community,” Kastan told

      ... Beth El Congregation’s Grundfast questioned the significance of Kasich’s pro-Israel position.

      “Every politician is pro-Israel. That doesn’t mean very much to me. They can’t not be pro-Israel. If anybody wants to criticize [Israel], they’ll be thrown under the bus….Barack Obama tried to do that and he’s been skewered by many people. I’m sure [Kasich] is as pro-Israel as all the other candidates have to be,” said the rabbi. ...

      Source: link to

      What is that jewish friendship stuff Kasich sticks to talking about?

      Look, what David Wasserman at FiveThirtyEight says about the presidential candidacy of John Kasich:

      Kasich May Have Cut Off Rubio’s Path To The Nomination

      ... Just how much has Kasich cost Rubio? The answer could be up to 91 delegates, even though Kasich has won just 27 so far and has a much less plausible path forward than Rubio.

      As the two most mainstream Republicans remaining in the race, Rubio and Kasich draw similar profiles of support. ... it’s hard to deny their supporters’ overlap on the map ...

      But even adding just a third of Kasich supporters would have made a huge difference for Rubio on Tuesday night: He might have won Virginia, hit the viability threshold in Vermont and beaten out Cruz for second place in far more Southern congressional districts, earning him dozens more delegates and changing the complexion of the race. Instead, Rubio is left to wonder “what if.” ...

      Source: link to

      So, to sum it up: John Kasich split the vote of the darlings of the establishment and the Israel lobby (Rubio, Bush) and thereby he likely propeled Trump - or maybe, very maybe Cruz - to the nomination.

      So my question is: Has there happened something bad to John Kasich's friendship with the jewish community? Maybe something happened at his last re-election as governeur of Ohio? Or something private?

      What Kasich did is very odd - in effect he's advancing Trump's candidacy by splitting the establishment vote.

    • Page: 8
  • Speak softly and act like a big dick
  • Romney echoes neocons: Trump will lead U.S. 'into the abyss'
    • echinococcus

      I disagree. The record of war and peace of Bernie Sanders is actually very good. He always disagreed with war when it mattered.

      Regarding talk on war and peace both Trump and Sanders have some stains - which is easy to explain and possibly to excuse by lot's of pressure of the neocon war party and their liberal interventionist sidekicks. Both are talking no matter what a lot better than the war party.

      The main difference I see between Trump and Sanders is that Trump leads with some 80 delegates while Sanders trails with a couple of hundred delegates. If - big if - that would change and Sanders would lead, I'ld happily support Bernie for President versus The Donald.

    • yonah fredman

      "He is better than Hillary on the issues of I-P and regime change. Does that make up for all his faults?"

      What could be more important than the question of war and peace?

      I think the question of war and peace - "regime change" as you call it - is by far the most important question of all regarding a future US Commander in Chief. Clinton's record here is abysmal - and what Trump says in that regard sounds a lot better than what Clinton says. She all but promised war on Russia - calling it a "no fly zone" against Russian aircraft operating on sound legal grounds in Syria. Trump instead wants to get along with Putin.

    • The Trump campaign just put a well-written foreign policy statement on it's website, saying Senator Jeff Sessions will become Chairman of Mr. Trump’s National Security Advisory Committee, and outlining Trump's foreign policy:

      ... We need to understand the limits of our ability to intervene successfully in other nations. It is time for a healthy dose of foreign policy realism. In the Middle East, this means forming partnerships based on shared interests, not merely overthrowing regimes in the dangerous attempt to plant democracies. ... A national-interest foreign policy, combined with a military second to none, stands in contrast to interventionist ideas that could enmesh us further in the region's chaos. After over a decade of war and conflict, this country has a host of smart, experienced, and proven leaders. That wisdom must be sought. These meetings will be the beginning of a process that Mr. Trump has called for and which he believes must result in a clear and realistic bipartisan global strategy that will guide our nation for years to come.

      Source: link to

      Clever move, good statement. I think that's what all the fuzz is about. The Israel lobby must be mad as hell with this.

      Trump has with one person he enlisted and one statement given a lot of substance to his foreign policy position and he is clearly going to run to the left of Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, though he can easily bill that non-interventionism as "truely conservative."

  • As Trump takes on the neocons, Kristol likens him to Hitler
    • More Neocons say they'll vote for Clinton: Neocons declare war on Trump

      link to

      And 60 Israel firsters wrote an open letter saying effectively they don't like Trump's America first foreign policy:

      link to

      Funny to see most of them soon on board of Hillary's democratic Israel first ship.

  • Neocon savages Christie for failing 'months and months of careful coaching' by foreign policy experts
    • Here is one more quote from Trump, just yesterday, when he got the endorsement from Senator Jeff Sessions:

      The events of history have aligned to give the people this fleeting chance to bust up the oligarchy – to take back control from the ‘Masters of the Universe’ return it to the good and decent and patriotic citizens of the United States.”


      link to

      Jeff Sessions had used the term ‘Masters of the Universe’ a couple of years ago singling out Mark Zuckerberg to be one of them.

      I doubt Trump's intention "to bust up the oligarchy" and "to take back control from the ‘Masters of the Universe’" will go down well with the Israel lobby. Those guys could well think Trump uses these terms to target them.

    • Philip Weiss

      I don't think the neocons are panicked about Trump's "anti-interventionist foreign policy ideas."

      I think the neocons are panicked that Trump may intervene against Israel's best friends - the Saudis & their Al Qaeda proxies, thereby seriously weakening Israel.

      Have a look at this:

      Trump: “Secret Papers” May Link 9/11 to Saudi Arabia

      ... Donald Trump this week indirectly referred to 28 classified pages said to link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks. ... Trump’s implied promise to declassify 28 pages from a 2002 joint congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11 sets him apart from the remaining Republican and Democratic presidential aspirants, filling a gap created when Rand Paul suspended his campaign. ... When asked about the 28 pages last summer, Jeb Bush said he’d never heard of them. This month, asked if he would like to see the 28 pages his brother classified, Bush sarcastically replied, “Yeah, I’d like to see ’em. You got ’em?” Among the many who would like to “see ’em”: 9/11 family members and survivors whose lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been imperiled by what former Senator Bob Graham calls a “pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11, by all of the agencies of the federal government, which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.” ...

      link to

      I think things like these may explain a great deal of why neocons are panicking over Trump, and I have some imagination why that may be so.

      link to

  • Trump's refusal to name a 'good guy and a bad guy' in conflict is 'anti-Israel,' says Rubio
    • Harry

      Great news. It means Trump starts succeeding to clean the GOP from the neocons and Israel firsters. Now Bernie needs to achieve the same for the Dems and the neocons and Israel firsters would have to make up their own party to stay in the business.

      That would be great fun, to see them needing to campaign with their own party for Israel, wars for Israel and more wars for Israel.

  • The list of foreign policy experts Bernie Sanders should be consulting
    • rookie_b

      "Bandero, again, you are overemphasizing the power of the President"

      Sorry for me being so naive to think the benevolent Commander in Chief Barack Obama is responsible for the orders to wage illegal wars of aggression he issued. Now I know that the MIC is Commander in Chief and his CEO - what was his name - gives the orders to the armed forces of the United States.

      "Also, you being a Trump supporter makes it much harder to take any of your points seriously."

      Whom you are going to hit by shooting the messenger? As you may have noticed I support Bernie, and you, my "communist" comrade? Do you support Hillary came saw died Clinton, who also poses as a great Obama supporter, or are you just trolling to keep progressive people away from voting?

    • rugal_b

      Of course I can blame Obama for his decisions and not excuse it by saying his DNA makes him being a stupid and murderous thug, so what we got is the best he managed.

      So, Obama has some 10k maybe 100k or more people killed with his stupid war on Libya, It was his decision to do this. He had lot's of political cover, if he didn't want to do this. By doing this he pushed lage parts of Africa deep into chaos for many years to come, and he killed a serious African attempt to get rid of colonialism. Obama later said himself, it was a mistake, just like Jeb now says it was a mistake by GWB to invade Iraq. Should I praise him for that?

      The same for Syria and Yemen. It was Obama's decision to execute GWBs MEPI plans there to wage wars of wahhabi terror against these countries and to destroy them by doing so. In Ukraine, Obama didn't support wahhabis, but he instead supported Nazis to destroy that country. Where a bit courage could have done good, like in Bahrain or Israel, Obama sponsored wahhabi and zionist crackdowns. In Afghanistan Obama killed lot's of people with a stupid surge. All that he did while he successful managed to destroy the peace movement in the western world, too.

      So, now it may you surprise that in the end I also may see Obama's presidency in a positive light - so you may preach to the converted if you try to convince me how much good Obama has done. His Iran deal was just great - he sabotaged a long-standng effort from the Israeli lobby to wage a war of aggression against Iran. Also to his credit he let Pakistan go into the SCO. Obama also did a bit to expose israel as a regime unwilling to do peace. Good things.

      But to me the main question is: will Obama manage to pass the torch of the good things he started in his 2nd term to his successor? To me it looks like he tries. However, here only success counts, because if he doesn't manage to do it, all the start of good things Obama did would likely sum up as nothing - while the hundreds of thousands of dead of the bad things he did will stay in the book.

    • Mooser

      Yes, true, regarding the movement of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem Trump folded. First he said he won't do it, then he said he would do it just like all other Republican candidates. Remember: the Republican electorate loves Israel a lot. Will Trump fold on other positions, too? I don't know. But the rest of the Republican field was already from the start in the bag of the Israel lobby, while Trump obviously tries to fight back. I think it's a very good thing if the Israel lobby cannot take the Republican lane for granted anymore - due to Trump. Would I support Bernie against Trump? Likely, though Bernie is a PEP - progressive except Palestine. Who is more likely to fold to the Israel lobby and will use the US military in the service of more wars of aggressive for Israeli designs, Bernie or the Donald? Frankly, I don't know yet.


      "Obama, who is arguably the greatest person that have graced American politics"

      I'm just not sure, if you mean this sarcastic. If so, you should have added, that Obama "is arguably the greatest person that have graced American politics" just after GWB. GWB killed a million or so people in senseless wars of aggression for Israeli designs, Obama's counter is so far only at about 400.000. But there is still hope Obama can catch up.

      That said, Obama did a very good thing with the Iran deal, while GWB did a very good thing with overstretching and thereby breaking the US empire.

    • Nevada Ned

      Yes, I watched Trump bearding the lion in his den.

      I was very skeptical how Trump would do in Greenville. I mean everyone a bit informed knew that Leslie Moonves - the host of the show in Greenville - is a grandnephew of the prominent zionist war criminal David Ben-Gurion. And - I think - everyone understood that Les and his CBS crew would stack all the cards they have against Trump, the only Republican who is not owned by the RJC, from questions to to audience selection. Would Trump fold in the lion's den and parrot the line of the Israel lobby?

      Trump did not fold - he was great, defended his proposed partnership with Putin, and he attacked Bush over 9/11. It was well worth watching. Read an answer of Trump to Bush:

      MR. DONALD TRUMP: Call me a genius, I like him so far. I have to tell you. Let me just tell you this. Jeb is so wrong. Jeb is absolutely so– (BOOING) that’s– just so you understand, you know what that is? That’s Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists talking. Look– (AUDIENCE REACTION) let me just tell you something. Jeb– Jeb is so wrong.

      You’ve gotta fight ISIS first. You fight ISIS first. Right now you have Russia, you have Iran, you have them with Assad and you have them with Syria. You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock ’em out, you have to knock ’em off strong.

      You decide what to do after. You can’t fight two wars at one time. If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years. And we haven’t won anything. We’ve spent $5 trillion in the Middle East (CHEERING) because of thinking like that. (APPLAUSE) We’ve spent five– (BELL)

      JOHN DICKERSON: All right.

      MR. DONALD TRUMP: –with Lindsey Graham, Lindsey Graham, who backed him, who had zero on his polls. Let me just tell you something, we’ve said– (AUDIENCE REACTION) we’ve spent– we’ve spent– I only tell the truth, lobbyists. We’ve spent $5 trillion all over the m– we have to rebuild our country, we have to rebuild our infrastructure. You listen to that, you’re gonna be–

      JOHN DICKERSON: All right–

      MR. DONALD TRUMP: –there for another 15–(OVERTALK)

      Trump was taking the Israel lobby bull by the horns. Special interests, lobbyists, $5 trillion spent for senseless wars in ME, hard to miss whom Trump engaged with these lines.

      See the toughest lines between minute 16 and 30.

      link to

      And CBS? Close to the end they gave Israel's darling Rubio a question what clearly looked scripted (the one close to the end he answered with that he wants to inspire people like Reagan).

      After that debate I sympathise with Trump ever more than before. And neocon Bill Kristol hates him even more than before

      link to

      So, let's hope voters honor Trump's open fight against the lobby.

    • Zbig Brzezinski not neither.

      He's a fanatic hater of Russia and war proponent as long as the war may weaken Russia.

    • One more name to add to the list:

      Bill Blum

      link to

    • One very important name to add to the list:

      Ray McGovern

      link to

    • And Sarah Leah Whitson neither.

      HRW is a neocon propaganda machine.

  • Define 'establishment candidate': Rubio and Clinton both love Netanyahu
  • Michael Bloomberg has been a fervent supporter of Israel, to a point
    • Wasn't Bloomberg the NY mayor who successfully managed to keep all the inside stuff under the rug regarding 9/11?

      I mean, I would list that as his biggest accomplishment. What did Bloomberg say about the "28 pages" when he was mayor, and what does he say now?

      His current announcement of a "possible" campaign seems to me just a gimmick from Hillary campaign, making the point that Bernie is not a "serious" candidate, so the serious guy called Bloomberg would have to step in if Bernie did well in the primary. So, yes, that's what I think, what it is: a PR stunt of Hillary and her Wall Street backers.

      PS: Read the NYT: ... said Mr. Rendell, a close ally of Mrs. Clinton’s ... Jennifer Palmieri, a top Clinton aide, told allies that she believed Mr. Bloomberg would only run if Mr. Sanders won ...

      Lot's of Clinton sources.

  • Clinton baits Sanders over 'destruction of Israel'
    • Annie

      Yes, I do think that if - big if - Bernie wins both Iowa and NH then Hillary is toast. So fast.

      Hillary's campaign is dependent on the perception that she will win the presidency. That is for voters who think she's is most promising option to get a democrat into the white house, as well as for donors and media betting on Hillary as the winning horse. If she loses both Iowa and NH, the notion that she's a winner has no credibility anymore. Bernie looks like a winner, media and papers will be full of Bernie the winner and Hillary the loser titles, and some big donors will hold back their money to her, because won't want to bet on a losing horse. After Super Tuesday, which she isn't likely to win if she can't neither win conservative Iowa or progressive NH, she may then well throw the towel.

      The opposite is also true. If Hillary manages to win both Iowa and NH, Bernie is likely toast. She can message then to voters: get real, Bernie is a nice guy, but flock to me, and quick, because we'll have to defeat the GOP, and I'm the one to do it, and will likely succeed with that message.

      Just if each of Bernie and Hillary win one of Iowa & NH, I'ld expect a longer Democratic primary race.

    • It looks like Bernie has answered to Hillary:

      A Hawk or a Dove?


      “Secretary Clinton claims credit for what she calls the ‘diplomacy that keeps us out of war.’ But slick television ads can’t hide her hawkish record.

      “As a senator, she voted in 2002 for the war in Iraq, one of the worst foreign policy blunders in modern American history. As a House member, Sanders voted against the war and led opposition to the Bush-Cheney military fiasco. ...

      “With Sen. Sanders, putting a priority on diplomacy is part of his record, not just his rhetoric.”

      link to

    • Annie

      Yes, I understand that. And I believe, wouldn't it be that Bernie Sanders was jewish, the attack line would all along been that he who argues for better relations with Iran, something what Israel dislikes, must be an anti-semite. And, against any non-jewish candidate that may have destroyed his candicacy.

      However, Bernie Sanders is jewish. And my imagination is that Hillary takes a big risk with this attack-line on Bernie that he isn't enough pro-Israel, or one may say, it implies, she attacks him with the line that he isn't pro-jewish enough, but she is. I think that's a major mistake from her side because she opened up a fight on a ground where Bernie has a significant advantage: he is jewish. It's like if John McCain would accuse Obama he isn't black enough, it's ridiculous, and therefore he couldn't win that one, never ever. So my expectation is that Bernie hits back, and hard, and nails Hillary on this. I'm sure if he plays this well she can't win this argument. Even though it's clear that the major jewish organisations like AIPAC will support Hillary against Bernie he can get her down on this.

      That said, I believe, if Bernie manages to nail Hillary over Israel and Iran in substance and about who is more "pro-jewish" in emotion, he may win Iowa and NH, and if that happens, Hillary is as good as done. The time for this would be right now, and this may be the only realistic shot Bernie gets.

      I wish very much for this to happen because Hillary for her serial crimes of mass murderous aggressive wars for Israel belongs into a jail and not into any office anymore.

    • Interesting to see how Bernie will shoot back, and I strongly believe he should.

      I'm already waiting for the moment when the Clinton campaign calls Bernie Sanders openly an anti-semite who wants to destroy Israel, for what proof is in his desire to mormalize relations with Iran. If she does so, I'm convinced major jewish organisations will join the accusation and Clinton will say that this is further proof that Sanders surely was just another anti-semite.

      Would be interesting to see how that would play out.

  • A Response to Ben Norton on silence over war in Yemen
  • How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    • Nu'man Abd al-Wahid & Mondo Weiss team

      Thanks a lot for this article. It's a very interesting piece of historical research and, I think, very relevant to understand the background of what's going on nowadays.

  • Sophisticated Orientalism in the New York Times
    • I disagree with both, the NYTs and the WaPos explanation for the Saudi-Iranian spat.

      For the Saudi execution of Sheikh Nimr, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that there was no much Saudi calculus behind it, but just blind sectarian rage, and maybe also a desire of revenge for the killing of Saudi-backed militant leader Zahran Alloush in an airstrike near Damascus.

      Regarding the underlining world view, I do believe that the Saudi rulers indeed view todays political world according to the orientalist view of a Sunni-Shia struggle dating back from the 7th century. This world view transpires all their arguments and behaviour, for example when the Saudis accuse Iran of meddling in foreign countries, especially majority Sunni arab countries like Syria, while completely ignoring their own meddling their and the fact that Syria and Iran already had a mutual defense treaty long before the war in Syria started. The same is basically true regarding the Saudi behaviour in Yemen, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon and elsewhere: the Saudis back wahhabi-Sunnis, no matter what kind of terrorists they are, as a matter to fight against Shia.

      But the other side, Iran and friends, have a totally different view on these conflicts. They view these conflicts as a political struggle - resistance against imperialism and imperialist zionist and wahhabi terror, and for liberation from global US-zionist supremacy -, where all sects, religions, and ethnicities, Shia, Sunni, Christians, Jews, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, and whoever. That's why many Hezbollah fighters for example wear Christian crosses in their battles, why Iran and Hezbollah always supported Hamas, PIJ, and even the Muslim Brotherhood.

      Both, the NYT and the WaPo disinform their readers on this.

  • Trump calls out Clinton for her support for Israel's separation wall
    • I second that.

      Hillary is the known evil that will bring death to 100s of 1000s if not millions, many millions of people or all of humanity. In 2011 she needed only 11 seconds to convince me once and for all she's a mad psychopath and a great danger to humanity whose only further role in human life should be to sit safely in a prison and the keys thrown away:

      link to

      In 2012 she reinforced this my view in a few seconds:

      link to

      Now Hillary Clinton is calling for a "no-fly zone" against Russia in Syria, which can be seen, if she follows through, as a safe recipe for a nuclear WWIII, just like Adelson and his Zionist mafia guys demanded it - when he said he would throw a nuclear bomb on Iran to say he's serious.

      Whatever ills Trump has, and I agree he has many, it can hardly be worse than what a President Hillay Clinton would be.

  • Obama wiretapped a cunning and dishonest foreign leader, for the sake of world peace
    • I never thought I would ever agree on anything with Rubio, but here I agree with Rubio's first quoted sentence:

      “We spy on everyone,” Rubio told

      I think that is the simple and whole truth in the story: the US spies on everyone. And everybody should know that in the post Snowden era. The US listens to the phone of Merkel, to the fax machines of the EU and the UN, to the email and phone calls of everyone, to whatever communication the US can get it's fingers on, be it sensible or not.

      This time though, I agree, the spying may had helped to reach a good result, ie to outmanover Bibi in his sabotage of the Iran deal.

      Btw: Happy new year to everyone here.

  • Marco Rubio should thank Lindsey Graham (for eating enough lox to 'sink a battleship')
    • RoHa

      Can S400 shoot down a Patriot before that Patriot hits a plane?

      Yes, they can, but that would depend a lot on the exact setup of locations. In the current setup in northern Syria it would not seem to be possible, since the Patriots would be stationed a lot closer to the jihadi controlled border zones were the Russian jets are flying their combat missions than the S-400 deep in Latakia.

      The logical Russian military response to Patriot launches from Turkey against Russian jets in Syria would be to destroy the Patriot launchers in Turkey, for example using the capable Iskander ground to ground missiles, which were designed to overcome air defense systems.

      link to

      The logical NATO response to that would be to try to destroy the Iskander launchers. At latest at that point we would be in the full escalatory logic of a full scale NATO-Russia conflagration where NATO and Russia shoot each other in their territories with various types of heavy weapons - and everyone knows that both military sides calculate that in such a conflict the side using nuclear weapons first has a better chance of surviving. That's why Christie's stated intention of shooting Russian planes in Syria down is so utterly irresponsible.

      link to

      A good question would be in that scenario whether the US military would start a war on Russia if ordered to do so by a neocon president, or whether the US military command would prefer to stage a coup in the US instead to prevent the extermination of all humanity.

    • RoHa

      I have been paying attention to Trump's talking about foreign policy in the ME. Since he's talking freely and he seems to like to promise whatever the audience wants to hear, there has been over the months some contradictiory stuff regarding how much US military he wants in the ME what one may bill as giving him space to do whatever he wants if he's president. But outstanding are his remarks that:

      - radical Islam is the enemy of the US
      - Trump would be good in cutting deals with Putin as "strong leaders" would have respect for each other
      - it's fine when Putin bombs ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria as they are also the enemy of the US
      - Trump welcomes Putin taking nice about him, and so he does about Putin
      - Assad is preferable in power than radical Islam
      - toppling "dictators" like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad was and is "foolish"
      - occupying ME countries like Iraq was far too expensive, cost trillions, won nothing.

      None of the candidates promising a no-fly-zone over (parts of) Syria (Clinton, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina) has said how to do it, but the logical way would be, as demanded by, among others, John McCain, to station US Patriot missiles in Turkey along the Syrian border and then use them to threaten to shoot into Syrian air space. (Obama had some Patriots missiles stationed at the Turkish-Syrian border, but pulled them out a couple of months ago.)

      While others like Clinton didn't explicitely say what to they would do if Russian jets fly into that "no fly zone" in Syria as they do today, Christie said in the GOP debate explicitely he would shoot down any Russian jet to show the Russians that America is serious. Rand Paul responded to that immediately by saying that people who want to vote for WWIII would have found their candidate in Christie.

    • Philip


      Milbank’s Washington Post “Oy vey” column, by the way, is filled with Yiddish phrases and sayings.

      Did you notice that Dana Milbank seems to have no idea of Yiddish language and to have just googled the phrases he used? And neither seems to have anybody else at the Wapo any idea of Yiddish.

      You see it here at the end of his WaPo article:

      Du kannst nicht auf meinem rucken pishen unt mir sagen class es regen ist.

      While you can google the phrase and it has multiple entries:

      link to

      But it seems to me that it has a typo from scanning it from a book: "class" needs to be "dass" to make sense. At least I would think that as a German, and Yiddish is very much like German.

      Twitter user Mark A.R. Kleiman seems to have a better understanding of Yiddish and did correct the mistake while quoting Milbank:

      link to

    • I agree with this. Non-interventionist principles are more likely to be found in Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul than in Trump.

      Trump is by no means an isolationist or non-interventionist, quite the opposite, he argues for a strong military and it's hard to see that he would not use it.

      The difference is, that Trump argues for a partnership with Russia - and Assad's Syria - to destroy jihadi terrorists, while the neocons and their stooges want a confrontation against Russia and violent regime change in Syria.

      Chris Christie was the most rabid exponent of that in the GOP debate, saying he would do an illegal no fly zone over Syria and shoot down Russian jets over Syria to start a war with Russia. The other neocon darlings are not far behind, advocating from a no fly zone (Clinton, Rubio and company) against Russia over Syria up to punching Russia on the nose.

      That - the question on whose side to intervene - is the main difference between the neocon darlings and Trump, not isolationsm or interventionsim.

  • Sanders warns U.S. against 'quagmire' of 'perpetual warfare' in Mideast for 20, 30 years
    • JWalters

      Many people talk about America’s foreign policy as if America is a monolith. But it’s a split personality.

      Seymour Hersh has just written a bit more on the "split personality" that the US is - suggesting the sabotage of the Israel lobby's and Hillary's wet dream of regime change in Syria was not the work of Obama, but his military chiefs did it on their own:

      Military to Military

      Money quote:

      ... ‘If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,’ Flynn told me. ‘We understood Isis’s long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.’ The DIA’s reporting, he said, ‘got enormous pushback’ from the Obama administration. ‘I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.’ ...

      I think that's a must read. And, of course, as everybody knows that Hillary was one of the biggest supporters of regime change in Syria by arming ISIS, Al Qaeda and the likes, that should be the major line of attack against Hillary. But, sadly, Bernie seems too feckless to mount a serious attack on Hillary for this, he's just too nice.

      So, we likely have to wait for The Donald to go ballistic against Clinton for her support of Al Qaeda & Co in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. Trump already started a bit of that, but that could become much more aggressive as soon as Hillary will be his major enemy:

      link to

  • What would Prophet Mohammad do to Trump?
    • lysias

      I think the Saudis knew what there were doing with that PR announcement just in time for the Republican primaries debate on CNN.

      Kasich refered to that fictional Saudi coalition in the debate, outling his strategy, and Rubio and Bush also built their case on a fictional Sunni coalition - just as the one announced by the Saudis a day before the debate. So the announcement was a boon to the men of the Israel lobby in the primary debate - and that's what it likely was - and is - intended for: helping the Israel lobby in it's fight against Trump.

      Meanwhile Sam Husseini - communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy - has put up a very interesting article:

      In Defense of the Rise of Trump

      ... The New York Times recently purported to grade the veracity of presidential candidates. Of course by their accounting, Trump was off the scales lying. But he recently said the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State "killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity....The Middle East is a total disaster under her." Now, I think that's pretty accurate, though U.S. policy in my view may be more Machiavellian than stupid, but the remark is a breath of fresh air on the national stage.

      But I've not seen anyone fact check that, because that's not an argument much of establishment media wants to have. Of course, a few sentences later Trump talks about the attack on the CIA station in Benghazi, causing Salon to dismiss him as embracing "conspiracies," which is likely all many people hear.

      Shouldn't someone who at times articulates truly inconvenient truths be noted as breaking politically correct taboos? Trump says such truths -- like at the Las Vegas debate about U.S. wars:

      We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now.

      Which I think is a stronger critique of military spending than we've heard from Bernie Sanders of late.

      But Trump -- or Rand Paul's -- remarks about U.S. policies of regime change and bombings are often unexamined. ...


      link to

      That's why the Israel lobby hates Trump, and the Saudis are trying to help the Israel lobby to have one of their men (Rubio, Bush, Kasich or Christie) win the nomination, so that they can lead the US to fight more wars for Israel - and for Saudi Arabia.

      Btw: it was Sam Husseini who made me see that the Saudi announcement of the Sunni anti-terror coalition seemed to have a connection to the GOP debate on CNN.

  • Trump and Netanyahu call it off
    • Eva

      I think a lot of Trump supporters see it this way: Trump is out to destroy the establishment, which hardly means anything other than The Lobby. And the establishment guys, party big whigs, RJC mega donors etc - read The Lobby - know it and they try to do anything possible to stop Trump:

      link to

      However, they seem to have a problem: their usual attack line - he's the new Hitler, secret Hillary agent, or whatever - does not work on Trump:

      link to

      The lobby is starting to become desparate over Trump. Only 51 days left until Iowa and Trump still shows no sign of going down.

  • To atone for mispronouncing Hamas, Carson hires Netanyahu adviser and announces Israel trip
    • Please forgive me, but I cannot hold back this:

      Sounds like Ben Carson is trying to transplant a brain into himself. But it looks like he has not made a clever choice regarding the donor of his brain implant, and so Trump is the only one who will further gain from this failed neurosurgeon operation.

  • 'When were they radicalized?' is not the right question
    • Dear Rev. Graylan

      while I generelly agree with the line of your article, I think you got this point wrong:

      There would be no fertile ground to recruit from if people felt the processes were fair and just rather than exploited by a few nations and corporations at the expense of everyone else.

      While I agree that a less fertile ground for radicalization would be certainly a good thing, I think such a fertile ground for radicalisation is not the only thing what drives radicalization. So, I think, the question ‘When were they radicalized?’is legit, but it is not sufficient because it overlooks the conditions creating the fertile ground.

      So, in result, when I hear two US immigrants from Pakistan were radicalized for violent jihadi terrorism, and the question appears what may have caused this radicalization and when did it occur, I think it would be important not to dismiss the question.

      A good article to start the discussion on answering the question regarding the when and how of the radicalisation may be: From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad, Wapo, March 23, 2002:

      link to

      So, the US government freely distributed lot's of radical Saudi wahhabi jihadi textbooks in Pakistani elementary schools, paid for by US taxpayers, with the intent of transforming the recipients, their children and their communities into radical wahhabi jihadis hell-bent on killing "infidels." Well, it worked, Rizwan and Tashfeen did just what the US-paid textbooks were freely distributed for: radicalizing people for wahhabi jihad to kill other people.

      Though this is, of course, not the whole story, I don't think this question and answer should be ignored.

  • 'Absolute scum' -- Trump's frightening speech
    • lysias

      Latest (3-7/12/2015) national polling from Morning Consult sees Trump at 41%, followed by Carson 12% and Rubio 10%. See here page 12:

      link to

      Instead of weakening as expected after he took the Republican lead in summer, Trump is still getting stronger and stronger. Of course, he could still fold, but with each week passing seeing him getting stronger instead of weaker it seems more and more likely he will make it to the nomination.

      And then, in this poll I found one more interesting clue: if Hillary gets the Democrat nomination, which seems likely given her 20-30% lead over Bernie, the Morning Consult poll has Trump beating Hillary by 45 to 40% in the election (Page 14).

      First that sounded a bit weird to me, but then I found an interesting figure on page 10: Hillary has with 43% the highest percentage of all presidential candidates seen as "Very Unfavorabe" - something which I could imagine meaning Trump will become President. And yes, given a choice between Hillary and Trump, I could imagine many people voting not for Trump, but against Hillary. Trump has the benefit of nobody knowing what he really will do if he is President, but Hillary is just unbearable, the known evil.

    • lysias

      "Cruz is now opposing regime change in Syria"

      I know. After he saw how well Trump did with that he also came out with that idea. It looks to me just like as Hillary came out in support for the Iran deal when she didn't see any other choice anymore. But I still believe Cruz is a puppet of the lobby - and even the first choice of Adelson's wife.

      However, I also believe that Cruz's turn to support this position of Trump may become very crucial in the race for the Republican nomination. Due to this switch in Cruz' positions towards Trump, I think, when Cruz throws the towel, and I'm pretty sure that will happen after Super Tuesday at latest, the chance is good that a good chunk of Cruz supporters switches to Trump. That may push Trump directly to win the nomination against Rubio and make the lobby weep.

    • Emory

      Cynthia McKinney would make a better one.

      I couldn't agree more - Cynthia McKinney is smart, honest and fearless. She spoke out against the wars of aggression the mafia wanted and for Palestine, and therefore her political career was killed by the mafia. I couldn't imagine of a better US president. And close behind her comes Dennis Kucinich, who would also make a great US president.

      And then there comes nothing for a long time. What I can see today is a bunch of criminals, idiots and sell-outs, all of them a great danger for the whole world. Compared to the rest of the field even a kitchen-fascist like Trump, who rejects a no-fly-zone against Russia and doesn't support regime change to hit Iran in Syria, looks like the lesser evil to me than the rest.

      Bernie comes even behind Trump to me because he supports a greater role for the wahhabi terror regime of Saudi Arabia, what I do think is not only a hit in the face of liberal values, but also a great danger for humanity. However, I could change my mind, if Bernie would decisively come out against Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC takfiri terror regimes.

      The rest of the field, from Hillary over Cruz to Rubio, I just see as puppets of Bibi's Zionist apartheid regime, which is in my opinion the main root cause for most of the current wars and devastation of the world, including America.

    • Phil

      You may call me the devil's advocate or not like me for this comment, but I find this statement of Trump you criticized fine:

      Some of the media’s terrific, but most of it, 70 percent 75 percent is absolute dishonest– absolute scum. Remember that, Scum, scum. They’re totally dishonest people.

      The only criticism I have with this statement is that Trump downplays the evilness of the media with this statement. In my opinion, the figure of 75 percent of media to be absolute dishonest and absolute scum is far too low. I think 95% would be a much more honest estimation for the part of media which is absolute dishonest and absolute scum.

      Let me explain:

      In my opinion all media who support war lies resulting in wars of aggression with huge numbers of casualties are absolute dishonest and absolute scum.

      So, in my opinion, all mass media which - against better knowledge or what had to be known - supported among others Golf of Tonkin lies, supported the lie of Afghan wahhabi "freedom fighters", the story of babies thrown out of incubators, the lie of the fabricated Horseshoe plan, the WMD lies on Iraq, the genocide lies against Syria, the revolution for freedom lies against Libya or one of the many other lies that led to millions of people being killed are justifiedly called absolute dishonest and absolute scum. My impression is the percentage of media fulfilling this criterion is much higher than 75%. Of course there may be more appropriate legal terms for the crimes they did, for example those which were used when Julius Streicher met justice, but I find the collaquial words "absolute dishonest and absolute scum" to describe the current affairs in media quite fitting.

      Do you think the dishonesty of Judy Miller was an execption? I don't.

  • The double standard for white and Muslim shooters
    • Eoin

      While I agree to your point that there is a lot of public bigotry involved when a shooter is a Muslim and the differences in opinion making are striking, I don't think the media would respect the privacy of a white christian shooter. I think the media in general doesn't respect any privacy at all.

      The difference with the media going into the rooms where the shooter lived, I would see as that the Farooks' apartment was rented and given back to the landlord directly after the shooting, and the landlord then invited the media into it while Adam Lanza lived in a house that was owned by his familiy, so there was no landlord who could have invited the media into it.

      Weeks later, as a bank aquired the house of the Lanza family to have it destroyed, the media hysteria was already gone. But I would be quite sure, had there been a landlord opening the doors of Lanza's home to the media soon after the shooting, the media would have behaved not much better regarding the privacy of the family as they did with Farook. The media has just no ethics, whatever the case.

  • Trump wasn't anti-Semitic
    • Lysias

      "I think it was the San Bernardino shootings that pushed support for Trump so high."

      That's definitely not the case. The poll was taken before the San Bernardino shootings, just published now.

      "A few more of those, and he will win."

      That may, or may not, be true.

    • NeoCons like Adelson must be shocked by the latest polls. It seems Trump is unbeatable in the Republican camp:

      CNN/ORC Poll: Trump alone at the top again

      Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points. ...

      link to

  • Top Israel advocate uses San Bernardino killings to attack Islam
    • Annie

      There is not only the tea party radicalization, but the radicalization occurs on all sides, christian turn into rabid evangelists or white supremacists, jews turn into rabid zionists and Sunni muslims may turn into rabid wahhabis. That isn't to say that this is not a problem of Shia muslims, as a short look into the Shia history, like Khomeini's rule in Iran, or the Badr militia, aka Shia death squads, in Iraq show. When radical people from different factions bumo into each other, violence is a logical consequence. That violence happens on local stage, but also globally, think of Palestine, the Iraq invasion, bombing Libya or the international proxy war on Syria to weaken Iran and Shia. More wars and violence occur, and the cycle that war generates extremism and extremism generates wars gets more traction again.

      Radicalization of the population and of the institutions of a state is a typical by-product of war. The US is at war with whomever since god knows how long, and since GWB especially. Pakistan is more or less at war with India as long as it exists, and at war with Afghanistan since about four decades. And brutally treating other peoples leads usually some time later at brutally treating the own people. Saudi Arabia, of course, is brutalizing it's own people even since before it was formed, and, thanks to many petrodollars, spreading it's radical ideology worldwide.

      I'm not sure you heard of the Palestian poet Ashraf Fayadh. As even Reuters reported two weeks ago, a Saudi appeals court just convicted him to death for "cursing God, Islam's Prophet Mohammad and Saudi Arabia, and the contents of a poetry book he had written years earlier."

      link to

      Radicalized people, and that is the majority there, completely agree with such a punishment for the offense allegedly commited by Ashraf Fayadh. Of course, the heaviest charge there, as the wahhabi zealots see it, is the alleged cursing the prophet, because "Allah shows mercy." So to me it's absolutely no surprise, when people who are indoctrinated in such a way, meet someone like the radcial zionist who liked to engage in hatespeech on islam and all what's sacred for muslims, that may lead to bloodshed. There are radicals on both sides, and on other sides as well.

      Pakistan was a gross recipient of Saudi petrodollars and ideology since the late 70s. The local brand of wahhabism is called there Deobandi, and these deobandi people have little differences with the wahhabi zealots. Stephen Schwartz put some light on the Deobandi, and has also an opinion piece on the San Bernadino shootings:

      link to

      Btw: thanks for outlining the Twitter account of the zionist zealot. This tweet of him I find bringing the whole story to the point. He tweeted:

      @LeastServant Nov 23

      Well, because of such radical positions of christian and zionist zealots, the law abiding American, who seems to have been a wahhabi muslim zealot, had no problem to legally buy the AR-15 assault rifle he used to kill him. And to what this killing will likely lead is just one thing: hatred, extremism and violence spreads further.

    • Annie

      "can you imagine having to work around a flaming racist like this?"

      Well, Farooq did, for years. And that's probably what happened: the devout Zionist spreading his "Islam is a violent death and rape cult message" on work, too, many colleagues more or less agreed, but the devout muslim Farooq got very angry - though he didn't show it. Farooq and his devout muslim wife followed a kind of radical wahhabi brand of Islam like it is common in Saudi Arabia and, since it spread from Saudi Arabia there, too, also in Pakistan and they married in the most holy mosque of Mecca. Farooq was a law abiding citizen, his brother served in the US navy and he himself had a typical American hobby: "target practice" - likely including with an AR-15 assault rifle which is legal to buy in California.

      But some day he couldn't bear the slurs of the devout Zionist anymore, and maybe also the nods or laughter of his collegues to that. His wife likely also read what kind of slurs the devout zionist spread on Facebook and elsewhere, and felt evenly upset. And then that turned into violence.

      The San Bernadino shooting looks to me in it's causes quite similar to the violence that happened after US soldiers decided to burn holy Quran books in the garbage in Kabul some time ago:

      link to

  • Taking on jihadists without taking on racism is a lost battle
    • @Jackdaw

      Whom you wanna fool here with your neo-fascist trolling and gross falsification of history?

      You may have noticed or not, but Hitler, not Strasser, was the leader of the Nazi movement in Germany. A month after Strasser hold his socialist-like speech, Hitler killed Strasser.

    • Jackdaw

      Are you a fascist?

      The reason why I ask is that for some time it was quite common for German neo-fascists and likeminded people to declare that Hitler and the NSDAP were not rightwing fascists, but leftwing socialists, so their closeness to all evil Hitler wasn't all to obvious. I'm pretty much convinced the extreme rightwing ideologue Jonah Goldberg knows this and he copied his rethoric backed up with selctively misquoting Nazis to make them appear left from German neo-fascists.

      His 1927 quote from the elder Strasser brother, who together with his younger brother was leading a lefty NSDAP party wing in Berlin while Hitler ruled in Munich, Jonah Goldberg likely got from the German historian Kurt Gossweiler. Kurt Gossweiler, in the very same article and book, also quotes Hitler in secret background talks with capitalists 1926, explained such rhetoric as Nazis calling themselves socialists:

      In Geheimgesprächen mit seinen kapitalistischen Sponsoren erläuterte Hitler den Sinn solch radikaler Nazi-Sprüche am 28. Februar 1926 vor Hamburger Bankiers, Werftdirektoren und Großkaufleuten, deren Hamburger Nationalclub von 1919 ihn eingeladen hatte. Originalton Hitler: ”Diese breite, sture Masse, die vernarrt, verbohrt für den Marxismus kämpft, ist die einzige Waffe für die Bewegung, die den Marxismus brechen will....Wenn eine Bewegung aber an die breite Masse appellieren will, in der Erkenntnis, dass man nur mit ihr allein das machen kann, tritt das große Recht in Erscheinung, dass dann jedes Mittel zu verantworten ist, das zum Ziel führt.

      Source: link to

      Your Strasser quote from 1927, which neither Goldberg nor you bothered to source, was likely taken from the same Gossweiler article.

      So what is it in English, what Hitler told the industrialists in secret background talks? Paraphrased translation. The stupid masses fight for marxism, but we are the movement to destroy marxism. Since the masses want marxism, we can only destroy it when we use marxist rethoric.

      Bother Strasser brothers got eventually seriously in conflict with Hitler, because Hitler hated socialism. The younger declared then: Socialists now leave the NSDAP. He founded the black front to resist Hitler, and his elder brother supported him. Hitler eventually managed to kill the elder Strasser brother in the night of the long knifes.

    • Jackdaw

      Michel Aflaq, another co-founder of Ba’athism, espoused the twin ideologies of Nationalism and Socialism.
      Nationalism+Socialism=National Socialism.

      That part of your comments says all about your intentions.

      Can it be that you have never heard that the Nazis were not a socalists, but fascists who were bitterly opposed to socialism? I don't think so. So I think your comment is nothing as an attempt to insert Nazi were it's not inside, simply because you don't like the Baath, a secular arab anti-colonalist movement, and your intend is to propagandize against it.

      And the same goes for Bernard Lewis, which you quoted above: as the US tanks were rolling into Iraq, a war he wanted because he thought his beloved racist Israel would benefit, he declared the ruling party of Iraq to be defacto Nazi and communist, a contradiction in itself, but a good slur to make US people to support the stupid war on Iraq.

    • Eva
      While I haven't read the book and the article mentioned above, I disagree with your notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is simply "socially and religiously conservative Sunni Islam movement, but it is neither violent not fundamentalist in its outlook."

      I think that's too simplistic. The character of the Muslim Brotherhood takes quite different forms depending on location and time. In some places and some time, say Tunisia's Ehnada, the Brotherhood is a peaceful conservative movement. But that's not everywhere and everytime the same.

      In Syria, for example, the Brotherhood was and still is mostly a terrorist tool on the service of the Saudis, the West and Israel to foment chaos. Unforgetten is for example the infamous Brotherhood's Aleppo Artillery School massacre 1979.

      link to

      And today the Brotherhood's Ahrar Al Sham is also much more a terrorist organisation than a "socially and religiously conservative Sunni Islam movement."

      Also, the distinction between the Brotherhood and Wahhabi extremists is not always as sharp as you suggest. In Yemen, for example, the Brotherhood and the wahhabi extremists are quite close to each other. For example, the infamous Wahhabi Al Qaeda terrorist school "Iman University" in Sanaa was run by the boss of the Brotherhood:

      link to

      With Hamas in Palestine, one may well say, that it is now a conservative movement, but that was not always so. At the time when it was built the Brotherhood in Palestine was extreme and supported by Shabak, to divide Palestinians and thereby weaken the lefty PLO, and the Brotherhood wilfully played that game with the Shabak.

      In Egypt the matter is not so simple neither. Besides, that the Egyptian Brotherhood broght up characters like Al Qaeda boss Zawahiri, who went to Afghanistan together with the Saudi Wahhabis, Morsi was also an extremist and terror sponsor when he supported calls for a sectarian jihad against Shia and Allawite in Syria.

      So, all in all, I would call the Muslim Brotherhood in total more a very mixed bag than anything else. There are elements of a conservative movement inside it, but there are also outright sectarian terrorist forces in it, and everything in between these extremes is also present. And, of course, the west - and Israel, through the decades, supported the most extreme elements of the Brotherhood.

  • Kagan pushed regime change in Iraq, now says US must get over 'trauma' and do Syria
    • Rusty Pipes

      From what heard, Donald Trump said they were celebrating in New Jersey.

      Have you ever seen a clip of "Palestinians celebrating (something entirely unrelated) on 9/11" in "New Jersey" other than the "dancing Israelis"? I didn't.

      I'm just waiting for that Trump claims that a radical Muslim head of state said:

      We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq" and further that he added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

      The Zionist lobby would go mad. Of course everyone knows that it was not a "radical Muslim head of state" who said this, but Netanyahu:

      link to

      But if Trump would say such a thing, what would the lobby say? Shall the lobby say the guy who made that outrageous assertion was not a "radical Muslim head of state" as Trump says, but Netanyahu? For me that's hard to imagine. Hence, the lobby has got a problem with such assertions.

    • Kay

      While Bibi's stooges of the ADL were upset about this comment of Trump, I liked the comment. I think it brings Bibi and his lobby into the defensive. I think many people see this comment as a reference to the so called "Dancing Israelis" - who many people suspect to be Mossad agents posing as Arabs celebrating 9/11 in realtime in New Jersey.

      link to

      Of course, Bibi and his lobby don't want to say what is really behind this story, so they came into the defensive while condeming it.

    • If it was not so serious, I think the best way to handle this essay of Kagan would be The Onion to reprint it. It's a sick joke, and for sure, Kagan knows it.

      The fun is already starting at the beginning when Kagan says the crisis in Syria caused France and Germany to ally with Russia. Of course, anyone with a bit of knowledge understands, that it was the Kaganist war on Iraq which made France and Germany ally with Russia. Everyone remembers "French fries" being renamed "Freedom fries" as France didn't join the Kaganist war on Iraq, and of course, who could deny, that Schroeder went to align with Russia and China after Washington was angry with him for not joining the Kaganist war on Iraq. And so on and so on. According to Kagan, the "liberal" world order - where the Zionist lobby rules - was defended back then by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and now it should be defended by- of course - troops of the great "liberal" power of Saudi Arabia in Syria.

      And, then, of course, 10.000 to 20.000 US troops will do the job to re-occupy Iraq - supporting local forces under the command of Qassem Suleimani of course - and while liberating Mosul these sparse US troops will be so bored to have time to also occupy Syria, according to Kagan. of course. And, of course, this time, Qassem Suleimani will run away from the battlefield as soon as he hears US troops are coming instead of sending the commander of the US troops an SMS declaring that he is in charge for the region, acccording to Kagan, of course.

      I can't wait for Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton to pick up this Kaganist war plan just for having their Presidential amibitions destroyed by The Onion, or if the Onion is too zionist to do it, then by Putin, Khamenei and Soleimani.

  • The only way to take on ISIS is to take on Wahhabi doctrine
    • Harry

      Putin is well aware that the west was and is employing Saudi Wahhabi tools to destroy Russia and it's friends. Putin knows that the US and the Saudis did that in Afghanistan, leading to the largest desaster of the 20th century - in Putins words. And later the west tried that in Bosnya, Chechnya, the CIS states of Central Asia and so on. But Russia, under Putin has learned, to deal with that specific enemy. The US-Saudi advance into Chechnya was crushed under Putin.

      Of course, Putin has still some good cards to play in Syria. So far, Putin offers the West to compromise on Syria, keeping the "totally moderate" (Lavrovs words) President Assad in power. However, it doesn't need to stay so. Maxim Suchkov just explained in Al Monitor, what maybe called Plan B for Syria, a Chechen style solution:

      Finally, the Chechen case offers experience in political transition after a years-long bloody conflict. Engaging those who can be engaged and marginalizing those who cannot — through local means and players rather than outsiders — could be the basis for the ultimate “Chechenization” of the Syrian conflict discussed among Russian experts and decision-makers. The approach surely is not flawless, and those who seek to pull the rug out from under that policy will find enough reason to do so. Neither can it be merely copy and pasted; it must be adjusted for local specificity.

      Source: link to

      That would likely be accompied by a Russian push to join the west to oust moderate President Assad. But instead of getting a western-backed zionist-wahhabi puppet, like the west hopes, Russia would then push for someone not so moderate as President Assad to become ruler of Syria.

      Suheil Al Hassan, for example, is a popular hero in Syria, and if Russia and Iran back him instead of Assad, he may well be elected as President of Syria:

      link to

      So, that would be a different compromise, which Russia could go for if the West insists on not supporting Plan A, ie Assad to remain President. The West, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would get it's regime change in Syria they worked so hard for, but the result would likely not please them. I'm sure, Suheil Al Hassan could become a good friend of Ramzan Kadirov.

    • Harry

      Al Qaeda and other wahhabi terror outfits like ISIS are not the by-product of "the redirection" of war efforts against the axis of resistance. They are the spearhead, the battering ram, deployed in wilfull western decisions to attack any more or less secular society disliked by Israel and Saudi Arabia and their backers in the west. And the same went on with ISIS. The rise of ISIS was not an accident, it was a willful US policy decision:

      link to

    • Samer

      While I totally disagree with your suggestion that giving "heavier" weapons to "rebels" in Syria - which almost all are linked to Al Qaeda and their wahhabi doctrine - or starting an air war against the Syrian air and air defense forces and the forces of Syria's partners including Iran and Russia - what you call a "no fly zone" - would have brought anything else than even more death and destruction to please the Sauds and Tel Aviv, I completely agree that the extremist Saudi doctrine of wahhabism is, besides the zionist regime allied with the Sauds, the a real important source of many problems of the arab world and far beyond.

      A couple of months ago I tried to promote this blog article, but few wanted to listen. Quote:

      What the mass media hide about the Charlie Hebdo terror attack: Wahhabism, Takfirism, and Saudi Arabia

      ... The core of the central theme of the global terror complex that is regularly hidden by the mass media of the ‘Community of Western values’ as thoroughly as possible, can be described with three expressions: Wahhabism, Takfirism, and Saudi Arabia.

      Almost all terrorists responsible for global terror, who refer to Sunni Islam, from the Taliban in Afghanistan over Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, Hefazat-e-Islam in Bangladesh, East Turkestan Movement in China, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, the Caucasus Emirate in Russia, Jundallah in Iran, al-Shabaab in Somalia, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in Egypt, Ansar al-Sharia – and earlier also LIFG – in Libya, Ansar Dine in Mali and other countries in North Africa, Boko Haram in Nigeria and neighboring countries, ISIS in Iraq and Syria up to Al Qaeda, including its offshoots such as the Syrian Nusra front, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula AQAP and al Qaeda in the Maghreb – and many more smaller terrorist groups than mentioned above operating in various countries are of Wahhabi nature, but to list them all would be beyond the scope here – are based generally on the same ideology: Wahhabism. Virtually all deadly terrorist attacks in recent years with – how the Western media call it – “Islamic background” were committed by perpetrators who adhere to the ideology of Wahhabism, including the most spectacular terrorist attacks such as 9/11 in 2001 in the United States, the attack on the Moscow Dubrovka theater in 2002, Madrid in 2004, 7/7 2005 in London, the Westgate shopping mall attack in Kenya in 2013, the attack on the Jewish Museum of Belgium in 2014 and now the Charlie Hebdo-terrorist attack in Paris. All of these terrorist attacks were committed by offenders who follow the same ideology: Wahhabism. ...

      Without going further into the detailed mechanisms of selective reporting here, it can be said without doubt that the terror committed by Wahhabi ideologues constitutes the very vast majority of global terrorism, and that the overwhelming number of victims of the Wahhabi terror are not Westerners, but Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries. ... All in all there are also no doubts where the center is, from the where the world is flooded with the ideology of Wahhabism. It is Saudi Arabia, the country where Wahhabism is the state religion. Since decades the oil superpower Saudi Arabia supports the global spread of Wahhabism With hundreds of billions of petrodollars. And wherever it succeeds to spread Wahhabism, there one can find earlier or later terrorism driven by the inhuman doctrines of contemporary Wahhabism. ...

      The big question now is whether the population of the western countries will continue this concealment of the whole truth by their politicians and media, or whether they will now demand so loudly answers and solutions on the topic of Wahhabism, takfirism and Saudi Arabia from their elites that the media and elites cannot longer afford to ignore tackling this crucial matter.


      link to

      There are lot's of background information and links in that article, and it is also naming and shaming western and Israeli complicity in spreading wahhabism.

  • Israel isn't worried about ISIS
    • Less than a week after the 20th Oct, 2015, ie the day the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies released it's above quoted report describing the axis of resistance as a bigger threat compared to ISIS, Israel got a bit of trouble on it's demarcation line with the Syrian Golan. Since the Yarmouk martyr brigades allegdly pleadge allegiance to ISIS both, Nusra and ISIS terrorists, seem to operate in that area, and both seemed to be supported by the IDF. But suddenly, on the night of Oct 26th, 2015, there were reports of serious shooting and a hell of Israeli aircrafts operating in the area near that demarcation line:

      link to

      And, suddenly and surprisingly, on the evening of that very same Sunday at the end of October, the Netanyahu cabinet officially declared ISIS, Nusra and Abdullah Azzam Brigades to be "illegal terror organizations."

      link to

      To me it looks pretty much like the IDF somehow burned it's own fingers on that day at the end of October 2015 with it's support for ISIS and Nusra in Syria, but Israel doesn't want to say what really happened that day.

  • ISIS as a fascist movement
    • Kris

      Yes, it is anti-semitism. The ISIS people see the world in a sectarian way. They see their terror as war of true muslims (ie wahhabi-salafis) against heretics (Shia), sahwat (rival wahhabi jihadi groups, apostates, Sunnis not following their Wahhabi perversion of Islam), infidels (eg Yezides), and jews and christians and vice versa. They don't distinguish between Zionists and non-Zionists. They just wage "war" - terror - against "the jews". And they neither distinguish between French Christian Imperialists or French Christian Non-Imperialists, they just attack French Crusaders, meaning anyone French, and so on.

    • Stephen

      While I completely agree with you that ISIS is a truely fascist movement in islamic garb, I think you are wrong about the Wahhabi movement. The Wahhabi movement has the very same ideology as ISIS has and it's just as fascism in Islamic garb as ISIS is. In fact ISIS just copied it's ideology from the classical teachings of the Saudi wahhabi movement as it's taught common children in Saudi wahhabi schools.

      By the way: ISIS is not al-Dawlah al-islamiyah fil-‘Iraq wal-Suriya, but al-Dawlah al-islamiyah fil-‘Iraq wa-sh Sham, therefore the arabic acronym Daesh.

  • West's war against terrorism is Israel's war, Chuck Schumer says
    • Atlantaiconoclast

      Yes, of course. How'ld the average Amercian feel about Israel when he knew the information above indicating that Israel is not an enemy but an ally of Al Qaeda? And, furthermore, how would they feel if this information would be set in relation to the following? Quote:

      Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel

      According to Ma'ariv, Netanyahu said Israel is 'benefiting from attack' as it 'swung American public opinion.'

      ... "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

      link to

      It's just too monsterous for the average American pal or guy to even contemplate it. I could go on and on.

      The facts are all out in the open, but the problem is that they don't reach the people. Regarding the war on Iraq the fact that it was based on lies is even widely known, but it still doesn't have a big effect, because those responsible managed to spin it for good. Ever since the 19th century, then Operation Mockingbird, or Stratcom like it's called now, crucial information is out in the open, but it doesn't reach the people or it has no or little effect because the people fall victim of the spin doctors.

      link to

      That's a - or the - main barrier to break for real change.

    • Time to remember this:

      Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?

      ... To the surprise of some observers, Israel began voicing a preference for Al-Qaeda’s militants over the relatively secular Assad government, which was viewed as the protectors of Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other Syrian minorities terrified of the Saudi-backed Sunni extremists.

      In September 2013, in one of the most explicit expressions of Israel’s views, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

      “The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in an interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ...

      link to

  • Israel wants $5 billion a year in military aid from the US
    • Let me add one news item here, as per Xinhua:

      U.S. calls comments by Netanyahu's new media chief "troubling and offensive"

      WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 (Xinhua) -- The United States believes comments made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new media chief to be "troubling and offensive," U.S. State Department said Thursday.

      "We obviously expect government officials from any country, especially our closest allies, to speak respectfully and truthfully about senior U.S. government officials," State Department spokesman John Kirby said at a daily news briefing.

      Soon after Netanyahu announced Ran Baratz's appointment as his chief spokesman late Wednesday, old posts on social media Facebook and other website surfaced that Baratz has accused U.S. President Barack Obama of anti-Semitism.

      Baratz has said Secretary John Kerry had the mental abilities of a 12-year-old and he also suggested his own country's president was "a marginal figure," according to Israeli media reports. ...

      link to

  • The US spends $35 billion on foreign aid . . . but where does the money really go?
    • While I appreciate the map highlighting economic aid to Israel for military purposes, I nevertheless think the map is grossly misleading regarding the money not covered and regarding the purpose of the money covered.

      Take Syria for example. US spending on Syria is much more than the claimed 155M. It's well known that the defense department had a 500M programm for military aid for Syrian "rebels" wanting to fight ISIS and furthermore a 1B programme of the CIA for "rebels" trying to overthrow the government. Furthermore, the US pays hundreds of millions to Syrian refugess in neighboring countries.

      All of this, and the aid to Egypt and Jordan too, is not paid for the interests of the US, but to advance the interests of Israel. So, my point, much more than the money billed for Israel is really spent for Israel. 3B looks quite moderate in comparison to what the US really pays to advance Israel's interests.,

  • Despite global disgust, Netanyahu doubles down on claim that Hitler got idea of Final Solution from a Palestinian
    • First German State TV news "ARD Tagesschau" published an article harshly critical with Netanyahus Holocaust comments.

      In short, the ARD first says the leader of Yad Vashem says Netanyahu is simply wrong, because the Holocaust started before Hitler met Amin al-Husseini. The British Guardian has this argument, too:

      Among those questioning Netanyahu’s interpretation of history was Prof Dan Michman, the head of the Institute of Holocaust Research at Bar-Ilan University and head of the International Institute for Holocaust Research at Yad Vashem. He said that while Hitler did indeed meet the mufti, this happened after the Final Solution began.

      Yad Vashem’s chief historian, Prof Dina Porat, told the Israeli news website Ynet that Netanyahu’s claims were incorrect: “You cannot say that it was the mufti who gave Hitler the idea to kill or burn Jews. It’s not true. Their meeting occurred after a series of events that point to this.”

      Further the ARD quotes the German government spokesman rejecting Netanyahus false claims. And then the ARD quotes the Israeli historian Moshe Zimmermann calling Netanyahu a Holocaust denier, who does so as a dirty trick to blame arabs for the Holocaust. Strong stuff, I never before heard German state TV criticizing an Israeli leader as a Holocaust denier.

      Vor seinem Abflug hat der israelische Ministerpräsident noch ein ganz anderes Diskussionsthema hinterlassen. Kurz zusammengefasst: Die Muslime seien schuld am Holocaust. Netanyahu sagte vor den 1700 Delegierten des Zionistischen Weltkongresses, der damalige Großmufti von Jerusalem habe Adolf Hitler erst zum Massenmord an den europäischen Juden gebracht.

      Zitat von Regierungssprecher Steffen Seibert

      "Ich kann für die Bundesregierung sagen, dass wir Deutsche insgesamt die Entstehungsgeschichte des mörderischen Rassenwahns der Nationalsozialisten, der in den Zivilisationsbruch der Shoah führte, sehr genau kennen. (...) Ich sehe keinen Grund, dass wir unser Geschichtsbild in irgendeiner Weise ändern. Wir wissen um die ureigene deutsche Verantwortung an diesen Menschheitsverbrechen."

      Dafür bekommt er Widerspruch von der Leiterin der Holocaust-Gedenkstätte Jad Vaschem in Jerusalem. Netanyahus Äußerung sei schlicht falsch, ein Treffen Hitlers mit Großmufti Haj Amin al-Husseini habe viel später stattgefunden. Auch der israelische Historiker Moshe Zimmermann ist empört: "Damit reiht sich Netanyahu in eine lange Reihe von Holocaust-Leugnern ein. Er tut etwas Unerhörtes. Er schiebt die Verantwortung Nazi-Deutschlands für die Shoa, für die Vernichtung der Juden, dem Mufti und der arabischen Welt zu. Das ist ein mieser Trick, mit dem er die arabische Welt anschwärzt."

      Source: link to

      Also the ARD quotes Isaac Herzog who said that Netanyahu as son of a historian must know history better, so the ARD implies intentional lying about the Holocaust on Netanyahu's side.

  • Netanyahu did everything but use the 'n-word' against Obama to stop the Iran Deal -- Susan Rice
    • What I find interesting is that nobody, not Politico, not the New York Times, which just runs a hit piece on Susan Rice based on the Politico story, and not even Mondo Weiss, reports a single fact that makes the partisanship of Dennis Ross clear:

      Dennis Ross is a co-founder of AIPACS spin-off WINEP and is currently listed with WINEP as "the William Davidson Distinguished Fellow and counselor at The Washington Institute."

      link to

  • Hey Jews, listen up, Netanyahu is your leader!
    • Seeing Netanyahu, the self-claimed "leader" of the Jewish world, talking about the Thousand Year Reich at the UN, I can't resist this comment:

      The expression "Netanyahu, the leader of the jewish world" gets a different meaning when instead of the English word "leader" the German translation for "leader" is used.

  • 'Third intifada was launched,' Palestinian law student posted before carrying out fatal attack in Jerusalem
    • Joke of the day: Jordan, the steward of the Muslim holy site, has said that it is mulling recalling its ambassador from Israel.

      As if King Playstation would ever do anything what his Las Vegas masters dislike.

      If it would be for real, Jordan would be shipping weapons and fighters for the liberation of Palestine instead of targetting the resistance in Syria.

  • To condemn, or not to condemn
    • It seems the death of these two settlers is not an isolated incident.

      Al Manar - the Lebanese TV close to Hezbollah - reports today:

      Islamic Jihad: Intifada 3 Has Begun, Harming Al-Aqsa a Red Line

      The Islamic Jihad resistance group has claimed responsibility for sending the 19-year-old Arab martyr who murdered two Israelis and wounded two others in a stabbing attack in Jerusalem's Old City on Saturday night. ...

      "We are at the start of a true intifada," wrote Islamic Jihad in an announcement. "The situation is at the breaking point - this isn't a storm in a teacup. Today (Prime Minister Binyamin) Netanyahu is reaping what he sowed. The Palestinian people have spoken - harming Al-Aqsa is a red line."

      Hamas welcomed the brave attack and called for additional operations. Hamas spokesperson Hussam Bardan called the attack an act of heroism, and said, "we support every attack of this type."

      link to

      Palestinain Islamic Jihad is of course, that's well-known, especially supported by Iran.

    • zaid

      See my responses to you comment above:

      link to

    • Annie

      Thank you for the detail. My comment, though an answer to zaid, it was also a reaction to the article of Avram Meitner, who wrote:

      Yes, these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities, and are protected as civilians under international humanitarian law. This is important, because it is the same protection that Palestinian civilians should also enjoy.

      So, IOF officers can now claim a status as civilian and one should not disagree? I doubt.

      And Avram Meitner further wrote:

      The slaughter of Eitan and Naama Henkin is terrorism in the same way that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Gaza is terrorism. Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.

      My comment (an exercise of "tit for tat" on how Israel "condemns" Palestinian deaths) shall be seen in light of these words from Avram Meitner, especially "oppose both equally." So I condemned equally, so I do not need to "accept that" I am "led by primitive tribalism rather than principles." Ha!

      And if I did not condemn I am led by "primitive tribalism rather than principles" - and in reality, I have to confess, that's true. I'm clearly biased, always sympathizing with the weak whereever they are. I'm off the opinion that there is a problem in rule-based equality. As Anatole France once said: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

      Whether it's politically clever to not condemn such an incident would be a different question for me. Politically I would advise to show compassion not seen by Israelis in similar cases and to make a difference thereby.

    • If the guy is a member of an enemy force (IDF) taking part in unlawful hostile activity (occupation of foreign territory) he might be a combatant. Furthermore AFAIK nobody knows who killed that IDF officer and the woman next to him, and why, it may well have not been an act of combat, but a simple dispute over other things, and it may well have been done by settlers, since everybody knows what kind of violent folks these settlers are, often they kill just for the fun of killing.

      So, what I would do is not to condemn but to express "deep concern" about the risk of escalation, ask relevant bodies of Palestine to investigate the incident, and condemn the IDF for launching in response to the incident an illegal manhunt in Palestine.

      So, then, if it turns out that it was a Palestinian force who killed that IDF officer, I'ld also ask if there exists a valid ceasefire. Seems the Oslo accords provide one.

      So, if the facts turn out this way I'ld suggest everybody to condemn the breach of the ceasefire by the killing of the IDF officer and the illegel IDF manhunt in Palestine, to deplore the collateral damage next to the killing of the IDF officer, and urge all parties to respect the ceasefire in the future and also urge the illegal occupying power to end the occupation to stop the existence of the conditions for these situations to happen.

      Is this enough condemnation?

  • Netanyahu's 44 seconds of silence at UN are being widely mocked -- 'pathetic,' 'creepy'
    • When Netanyahu would use another time silence making such a face, I would find it a fine idea, if someone would be there who said loudly:

      America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction.They won’t get in our way.

      And somebody else might say:

      We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. It swung American public opinion in our favor.

      Banners put up with these words might also be useful.

      I hope these words aren't anti-semitic?

  • The Obama administration needs to own up to the quagmire in Syria
    • echinococcus

      Yes, the claimed ignorance of Louis - while working for his alleged class enemy - is breathtaking. He doesn't even mind that many of the people organising the fake revolutions he and his alleged class enemies support have admitted in front of the camera what they are doing

      link to

    • Donald

      PS: And, btw, yes, I know some serious human rights violations by some former Nusra Front guys who defected to the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor after being routed by ISIS, and the Syrian army has both hands full to do with stopping them with that violations against ISIS fighters, but don't expect to read about this in reports by the UN HR council.

    • Donald

      Sadly, the UN Human Rights Council is, just like AI, HRW and the ICC, a body almost totally under the control of those countries who wage war on Syria, especially by spreading inciting lies. Currently it's led by Saudi Arabia. So, quite logically, Syria doesn't let them into the country.

      The result are lot's of reports, which seem to be done by running around refugee camps in Turkey & Jordan, asking people: "Anyone here to tell us a torture story helping us to get a no-fly-zone on Syria?" And lot's of people tell them then the blue from the sky and they write it in their reports at face value. In 2011/2012 I helped to debunk the nonsense in these reports, but not anymore: they are so obviously baseless and unverifyable propaganda, that I don't think it's worth my time anymore.

      If you don't know people in Syria, to get an idea what's really going on, I would suggest to read reports of more independent reporters like Lizzie Phelan, Eva Bartlett or even Franklin Lamb.

      Though, sometimes, I make still fun with the Zionist PR operative Kenneth Roth, who, among other things, claims Gaza to be in Syria:

      link to

    • lproyect

      If you'ld read my comments above you'ld see that my source for the content of Presidential Study Directive 11 is not Global Research’s Anthony Carlucci, but David Ignatius, who is close to the CIA. See the main link I gave for my assertion here again

      link to

    • a4tech

      Yes, there are elements of real terrorism in Syria. And, together with a bunch of mercenaries paid and equipped by zionist and wahhabi enemies of Syria, they gave themselves hundreds of fancyful names like Free Syrian Army, Islamic Movement of the Freeman of Sham, Army of Conquest, Islamic Front, Victory Front or Islamic State.

      And if you want to have an American analogy, the comparison with peaceful black people in the US is completely wrong, because the black people in the US demand equality instead of racism, they do it not with terrorist means and they are not paid and equipped by enemies of the US. A much better US analogy would be to compare the sectarian "revolution" of the "armed Syrian opposition" with a US "revolution" led by white power groups and the US militia movement demanding an end to the corrupt jewish regime and their black collaborateurs in Washington. And that movement for the rights of "white Christians" against the jewish oppression would then by spearheaded by terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. While they fight for power, refusing any dialogue with the "jewish regime" they would of course not chant "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave" - like the Syrian "revolutionaries" celebrated it, but something like "Blacks to Africa, Jews to the Gallows." Would such a bunch of racist and sectarian terrorists and their followers be able to do a successful "revolution" in the US? Of course not, even if they were gioven lot's of weapons from Russia and China, because the US people would not accept it.

      And that's exactly what happened in Syria to the bunch of foreign backed sectarian terrorists claiming to do a "revolution" while singing "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave." These bunch of terrorists and traitors bet that the US, Israel, Turkey,the Sauds and other leading imperial powers would help them to victory, so that they wouldn't be held responsible for all their crimes and terrorists acts, but they grossly miscalulated, because a clear majority of the Syrian people didn't accept their claimed revolution, which had no other tangible objectives than to deliver the independence of Syria to foreign powers aligned with Israel and to wallow themselves in their sectarianism.

      What do you think, why the so-called Syrian revolution failed? I tell you why: these sectarian terrorists, foreign agents and their fellows calling themselves letter soups like FSA; SNC and so on got plenty of support like money, weapons and media power from the enemies of Syria, who are much more rich and powerful countries than the friends of Syria, but they still failed their task of regime change, because they lacked the support of the Syrian people, becauss they had no worthy ideals, just wanting power betting on foreign backed violence and terrorism.

    • a4tech


      Your ignorance of the government opponents' crimes of terrorism against the Syrian people and their crime of collaborating with imperial war on Syria speak for itself, but these facts won't go away by your ignorance.

      And the justification of these crimes you gave - in your terms: "overrepresentation of certain communities in the powerful positions" - is not only sectarianism in the service of imperialists but also the main reason why your neocon-wahhabi likeminds lose their war on Syria, because a clear majority of the Syrian people rejects this.

      Do you have any idea how miserable you sound?

    • gamal

      "... minority Alawites was put onto power by a foreign force ..."

      This whole discourse of Sunni versus Allawites is sectarian from A to Z. And that's what always was the real colonial plot: to devide the people along sects, races, ethinics etc. Divide and rule.

      The simple fact is that there is no a monolithic bloc "Allawites" versus a monolithic bloc "Sunnis." If one would believe that then the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad (Allawite) is currently at war with his wife (Sunni), his defense minister (Sunni), his foreign minister (Sunni) and so on. Of course, that's gross nonsense, like the whole theory of an Allawite versus Sunni war. The colonialists, their heirs and their stooges try to portray it that way to create more bloodshed, but it's not the truth.

      What is true however is that some prominent members of quite privileged clans in Syria wanted more power, and to achieve this, they aligned with NATO, GCC and Israel and started lot's of bloodshed. Read for example the Wikipedia article on the Atassi family:

      link to

      IThe family was not marginalized, quite the opposite. However, one finds quite a lot of people of that family in leading positions aligned with NATO-GCC countries trying to do bloody regime change in Syria.

    • Btw, just in, Israel continues to fire on Syrian army positions:

      Israel strikes Syria military posts after errant rocket hit its territory 2015-09-28 03:55:24

      JERUSALEM/DAMASCUS, Sept. 27 (Xinhua) -- The Israeli army said Sunday night that it fired artillery into Syria in response to an errant projectile that hit earlier the Golan Heights, in a second such incident in two days.

      Earlier this evening, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported that a rocket landed in an open field in the northern Golan Heights. No injuries or damages were reported.

      The rocket was launched from the war-torn Syria and "was due to the internal fighting in Syria," a military statement said. ...

      link to

    • Annie

      From what I know from people in Syria Syria's policy is good treatment to prisoners and no torture. I'm also told that like in all 3rd world countries the fight against tortue is and was never easy and there are some a**holes working as interrogators who use dirty tricks when they deal with people they don't like, like pushing someone stairs down and then say it was the prisoners own fault. It's hard to go against such behaviour as inquiries, and many political or terror related trials, are generally not public due to fear of revealing valuable intel information for Israel by doing so. Sometimes, tribal and clan structures also prevent an improvement in the situation regarding torture, but generally, the situation is not that bad. If a prisoner dies (except for lawful execution of capital punishment) or is seriously harmed, the responsible offial will be in serious trouble.

      However, the situation with Maher Arar and a couple of other guys thought to be related to Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhodd was likely different. Syria feared at that time very much to be invaded by the US, and strange as it was, US intel people sent suspects there to be imprisoned and treated badly in the name of gathering info on Al Qaeda, while other Bush administration officials wanted to wage war on Syria. So, in that specific time, treating these prisoners badly was seen by Syria as a means to avert a full scale US attack on Syria on behalf of Israel. Of course, that made all a mockery of the noble goals of fighting against to torture.

      Seymour Hersh had pinned around that time when Maher Arar and some of his acquaintances with Afghanistan experience were held in Syria a long article about US intel coop with Syria, which sheds some light into that dark chapter of history:

      link to

      I know and understand that Maher Arar hates Syria for that experience, and I hope he was not too badly hurt to be able to continue his life.

    • Annie

      The main question is: are these torture reports true at all or are they the usual false-flag-massacre fairy tales spread by Israeli- NATO- and GCC-backed terrorists?

      The so-called opposition group invented virtually thousands of such false-flag-torture-and-massacre fairy tales, often backing it's claims up by videos of people tortured and killed by themselves in most cruel ways. These false reports in the style of the incubator baby lies - a meme CNN and the opposition also used - were a major method of warfare by the foreign backed terrorists in the first years of the war. These stories lack basic logic as the Syrian government had, of course, absolutely no interest in torturing people to make them even more angry as they were.

      One of the first big successes for the terrorists was the false torture story of Hamza Al Khateeb. SANA reported a much more likely story of these events, but many people in the west chose not to listen to SANA:

      link to

      It was a time when Hillary Clinton and the US state department called the world for saving the blogging "gay girl in Damascus" - which was later revealed as a hoax from Tom MacMaster blogging from Scotland.

    • I think this is a huge story: Donald Trump breaks ranks with the Israel lobby on Syria. As per the Washington Post:

      Donald Trump: Let Russia fight the Islamic State in Syria

      Donald Trump accused his Republican presidential rivals on Friday night of wanting to "start World War III over Syria," and suggested that the United States should instead let Russia deal with the problem. ...

      Trump then used a child-like voice to imitate those who have questioned the depth of his global expertise. He switched to a deeply serious voice to imitate his rivals who have provided details: "If I'm president, I will engage the sixth fleet. I will do this, I will do that, I will attack Russia and Syria."

      "This is what they say," Trump said. "They want to start World War III over Syria. Give me a break. You know, Russia wants to get ISIS, right? We want to get ISIS. Russia is in Syria — maybe we should let them do it? Let them do it." ...

      link to

      Of course, that's exactly what Russia, Iran and Syria want, and what the Israel lobby hates. If the US pulls away from Syria, it means the resistance has won, and Israel and the neocons hate. Obama has now cover from the top Republican Presidential contender to drop out, to drop regime change policy on Syria and to let Russia help the Syrian government fight ISIS.

      Remember, the Forward recently reported: Donald Trump's Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans

    • The Pentagon just confirmed, Friday evening, of course, that their newly US-trained anti-ISIS-fighters gave a part of their US-supplied eqipment to Al Qaeda:

      U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave equipment to Nusra - U.S. military

      To me that looks pretty much like that that's "game over" for any further US plans to train and arm more "moderate rebels" in Syria.

    • Tectonic shift continuing:

      German vice chancellor Gabriel calls for end of sanctions against Russia: "one cannot sanction Russia on the one hand and ask for cooperation (on other issues like Syria) on the other hand.

      A better relation with Russia starts with a new German-Russian gaspipeline and ends with removing the sanctions."

      link to

    • Philip Gordon, special assistant to the president and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region from 2013–15, lays out how the White House policy change on Syria may be sold:

      It’s Time to Rethink Syria

    • David

      "If Obama is at war with Netanyahu, why the hell doesn’t he fight?"

      Obama does fight Netanyahu, even very serious, didn't you remark his epic battle against Netanyahu over the Iran deal?

      Obama's fight against Netanyahu is not easy because Netanyahu owns more than half of the US Congress and Netanyahu and the pro-Israel crazies have also lot's of support from the US media, the US public and rich money bags.

    • Annie

      Regarding the deadly stampede near Mecca: At the hajj huge numbers of people, this year about two million, come together on very limited space. It's a tough logistical challenge to ensure there are no stampedes for such an event. Obviously, Saudi Arabia didn't manage this challenge well, once again. The result will likely be that the image of the Saudi king as the self-declared "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" takes a hit in the Muslim world.

      Iranian media also spread the rumor that a motorcade of the king's son, deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, was the reason for crucial roads being blocked, so the crowd got stuck and the deadly stampede occured. I don't give much on such a rumor, because the Iranians dislike the Salmans for their anti-Iranian hatred and anti-Shia sectarianism, but if such a rumor would turn out to be true, the stampede could also lead to serious political consequences in Saudi Arabia.

    • Annie

      Thanks a lot again for taking so much time to read what I wrote.

      My view on geopolitics was sharped a lot by doing the Net News Global site for a couple of years, thereby scanning through literally hundreds of alternative or non-western media items from all over the world each day. The most important what I learned is that the western media is an unbelievable shame, and very often the opposite is true of what the media is trying to tell. But that's not all.The most scary thing is that there exist global situations where media from non-western countries like Russia and Iran go along with false western narratives, and then there is a very scary phenomen I'ld call something like a global media blackout on some topics. The other side of the story of the war against Libya was such a case.

      Currently an almost complete blackout is on what's happening in south western Saudi Arabia close to the Yemen border, only Yemeni, Iranian and Hezbollah media report on that. The Saudi war on Yemen is going on badly from a Saudi point of view, and the Yemeni army - supported by the Houthis - makes inroads in Saudi Arabia. Here for example is the latest report from Yemen's "Houthi TV" Al Masirah, reporting from Saudi Arabia:

      link to

      One doesn't need to understand Arabic to understand that this is a major story, but there is total western media silence on that the Saudi forces are losing battle after battle on the ground inside Saudi Arabia. But this important story is totally suppressed in almost all media.

    • Annie

      "i guess i mean, when you left who is writing for this site now?"

      It's a secret, the writers/editors of nocheinparteibuch don't reveal their name.

    • Annie

      I'm speechless. nocheinparteibuch has no imprint, I guess it's intentional, so all cease & desist letter, injunctions and lawsuits go to the wordpress Bloghoster Automattic. :-)

      At Automattic they seem to know how & have enough resources to deal with such folks, just as they have proven to be able to fight off all DDoS attacks. DDoS attacks seem now quite commonplace to suppress unwanted information, wikileaks had problems with huge DDoS attacks, the Syrian news agency SANA was shot down with DDoS for many weeks and even RT was out sometimes for a couple of hours. Automattic even managed to keep the grep on the State Dept Files for "strictly protect" online:

      link to

    • Annie

      In the sixth and last comment of this series, let me put up two links on who is really ruling Sanaa at the moment. It's a guy called Jalal Al-Rowaishan. Jalal Al-Rowaishan an officer of the Special Security Forces of the Interior Ministry, very well trained and equipped paramilitary forces that were supplied with western military aid for the fight against Al Qaeda. Jalal Al-Rowaishan was named minister of interior by Hadi, and he fights against al Qaeda to this day, while Hadi (and by extension the US) is now with Al Qaeda in Yemen, though the US still kills some Al Qaeda ops with drone strikes in Yemen.

      Here are the names of the de facto ruling council in Sanaa:

      link to

      There are two changes in the list to reality now: AFAIK Dr. Ali Hassan Al-Ahmadi rejected his post in this Supreme Security Committee, while the council leader Maj. Gen. Mahmoud al-Subeihi defected to Hadi in March. He was replaced by Jalal Al-Rowaishan on March 9:

      link to

      So the de facto government in Sanaa is neither dominated by Houthis nor is it forces loyal to Ali Saleh. What it is is a broad military junta, stuffed with lot's of officers of different security branches, many of the trained and equipped by the US in the name of fighting against Al Qaeda. I have a very hard time to believe, that such a council of US-trained officers could be formed without backing by the US. And, what's also fact, is that while that council was already in charge, it coordinated well with US forces in Yemen's Al Anad airbase in the fight against Al Qaeda and other MB/Salafi militias which now described by the UN envoy as President Hadi's forces.

    • Annie

      A big thanks for offering me so mcuh of your time. Regarding Yemen, here are some very important links regarding whom the Saudis fight in Yemen with and against. The first is a Reuters interview from April 1, 2015, with Hadi's foreign minister in Riyad where he admits that the Houthis are only few and lightly armed, and that the real enemy of the Saudis are he armed forces of Yemen - almost all of them - whom he describes as loyal to Saleh, a claim I doubt:

      ... "The main thing now is if Ali Abdullah Saleh forces stop fighting with them, I think they (the Houthis) will start to retreat. Our main problem now is not the Houthis. They are few, they have only light weapons," Abdulla said. ... Although the only forces in Aden still loyal to the Saudi-backed Hadi are from local militias, some parts of the army continue to back him elsewhere including the eastern province of Hadramawt and near Marib, he said.


      link to

      So, basically Hadi's foreign minister in Riyadh confirmed that all the armed forces of Yemen, except "some parts of the army" in "the eastern province of Hadramawt and near Marib" back the "Houthi government" in Sanaa.

      As a leaked email (sent at the beginning of September 2015) from Special Envoy for Yemen of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, to Under Secretary General Jeffrey Feltman (the US neocon once responsible for MEPI I mentioned already above) shows, the situation that Hadi and the Saudis have almost none of Yemen's official military (and paramilitary) on their side, has not changed:

      ... The instability and violence which have plagued Aden following its capture is likely also a source of concern. The mostly pro-independence Hiraak fighters are unwilling to cooperate fully with the GoY in attempts to expand northward. This leaves the coalition dependent on ground troops from Islah, Salafi and AQAP related groups, which UAE is reluctant to support. ...


      link to

      So Hadi (GoY) and the Saudi-GCC coalition are supported on the ground in Yemen by militias from the Southern Separatist movement Hirak, the party of Yemen's Muslim Brotherhood Islah, Wahhabi Salafi militias and Al Qaeda (AQAP). US-trained units of Yemen's army or US-trained Yemen's paramilitary forces of the Interior ministry (Special Security Forces) are not in the list of forces fighting side by side with the Saudis in Yemen, but Al Qaeda is fighting side by side with the Saudis backed by the US. And that's not Houthi or Iranian propaganda, but that's what the UN special envoy says, who was installed according to Saudi wishes after his predecessor left post because the Saudis didn't like him.

    • Annie

      Here's my answer part 4:

      ... and if he (Obama) empowered the Houthis in Yemen why is he now supporting SA killing so many of them? ..

      Of course, on the why I can only speculate. I'm not in his head. However, that Obama empowered the Houthis, is, I think, a hard fact.

      The Houthis are a quite strong militia in north-western Yemen, but they are far not strong enough to be the real power brokers of Yemen. The real power broker are the Yemen armed forces, who are a multitude more in numbers than Houthis and much better equipped.

      And the elite forces in Yemen are almost all US trained, and of those they all back the so-called Houthi "revolution", though in reality, the commander of the revolution forces is the interior minister, who presides over the US- and EU-trained Special Security Forces (SSF). The US and EU trained these forces to fight against Al Qaeda. And, in collaboration with the Houthis, they were quite successful in doing that. These SSF are in number about as much as the Yemen army. In Southern Yemen, as they came under pressure from Saudi backed Al Qaeda forces in March, they all fled to the Anad airbase, which was also the base of the US forces. When the Saudis made clear in March they are gonna fly bomb runs to support Hadi's legitimacy (an euphemism for supporting Al Qaeda) the US troops in Yemen pulled out - however, it's clear that the US knows very well what's going on, because the US forces were under combined Saudi-Al-Qaeda-attacks, defending the base together with Yemen army brigades and SSF who are now billed as Houthis. If you want I can look up the brigade numbers. US policy to align Yemen's army and US trained SSF with Houthis in fighting Al Qaeda made perfectly sense, because the Houthis were the only capable group in Yemen who were really opposed to Al Qaeda and all it's surrogates.

      So, now, what do I think why the US currently and publicly backs the Saudi-Al-Qaeda alliance in Yemen, while, of course, in reality Obama does almost nothing for that backing? I think Obama is trying to let the Sauds go into a bloody swamp in Yemen where the don't find an exit alone anymore. When the Saudis are deep enough in that swamp that they are unable to help themselves he'll either ask for lot's of favors from the Saudis, or crush the Saudi regime, whatever him pleases more at that time.

      And, before you may ask, oh, yes, I do think, it's deeply cynical by Obama to do nothing seeing thousands of Yemenis literally slaughtered by Saudi air attacks to get the Zionist-Wahhabi forces at their balls, but I do think that's what'S going on.

    • Annie (answer part 3)

      Regarding the abdication of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani from the throne of Qatar, which happened a few days before Morsi was taken down in Egypt, I basically know two stories.

      Al Manar reported Obama took him down by threatening to impose sanctions on Qatars money for supporting Al Qaeda:

      The decision made by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani to cede power in Qatar was not a personal decision to be justified by ‘health reasons' suffered by the man who plays serious roles in recent years, whether at the Arab level or at the international level, Lebanese Assafir daily reported Thursday. ... Some of those who have had access to the details of US decision summarized the message delivered by the presidential envoy to Sheikh Hamad as follows: ... “You have one specific choice, either we impose seizure over your money around the world, or you leave your position for one of your sons that we name to be the ruler after you.” ... When the Emir tried to discuss the matter, the special envoy replied:
      “I’m not authorized to negotiate with you, but I've come to inform you about our decision.”

      link to

      The New York Times reported the 61 year old ruler of Qatar suddenly resigned in the middle of a terror war on Syria because he loves to see the youth ruling:

      “He’s been working on this for the past three years,” the official said, adding: “He thinks this is a good time for the younger generation to take over. The emir himself was very young when he came to power 18 years ago, and he wants to continue that.”

      link to

      And in a way, for people with some understanding the NYT may have even ackowledged in the very same article that the US had some trouble with him leading him to step down:

      ... while it is allied with Washington, it has also raised the West’s ire by financing radical Islamist rebels in various arenas. ...

    • Annie

      Now a 2nd comment dealing with "Presidential Study Directive 11" (PSD 11).

      I just tried to google it and it seems to me extreme rightwing outlets flooded Google with obvious anti-muslim garbage regarding Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11."

      So let me introduce two serious links regarding Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" here.

      1st: David Ignatius from March 4, 2011: "Obama's Calculated Gamble" at

      President Obama has been so low-key in his pronouncements about events in Egypt and Libya that it’s easy to miss the extent of the shift in U.S. strategy. .. The roots of the policy shift go back to Obama's first days in office and his feeling that America's relationship with the Arab world was broken. Though Obama seemed to be accommodating the region's authoritarian leaders, in August 2010, he issued Presidential Study Directive 11, asking agencies to prepare for change. This document cited "evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region's regimes" and warned that "the region is entering a critical period of transition." The president asked his advisers to "manage these risks by demonstrating to the people of the Middle East and North Africa the gradual but real prospect of greater political openness and improved governance. ...

      link to

      As you may know David Ignatius is seen by some people as something as the inofficial spokesperson of the CIA. Wikipedia bills David Ignatius as someone who's quite close to the CIA:

      Ignatius's coverage of the CIA has been criticized as being defensive and overly positive. Melvin A. Goodman, a 42-year CIA veteran, Johns Hopkins professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, has called Ignatius "the mainstream media’s apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency," citing as examples Ignatius's criticism of the Obama administration for investigating the CIA's role in the use of torture in interrogations during the Iraq War, and his charitable defense of the agency's motivations for outsourcing such activities to private contractors. Columnist Glenn Greenwald has levied similar criticism against Ignatius.

      I think David Ignatius would be more aptly described as an Israeli hasbara operative with close connections to the CIA and his paper, the Washington Post, as the leading Neocon hasbara outfit in the world. The Washington Post, where David Ignatius' article was first published, and where I read it under that title changed the title after a couple of days. It seems someone complained about the title. Now the Washington Post has the article under the title "Obama’s low-key strategy for the Middle East". You may google it.

      The NY Times also reported about Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" although usually not mentioning it by name, just calling it a report, but obviously meaning the same:

      By MARK LANDLERFEB. 16, 2011

      WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered his advisers last August to produce a secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that without sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday.

      link to

      Their also exist an official US statement saying more or less that while Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" is secret in detail, it's real, but the rightwing spammers flooded google so I can't find it anymore.

      My point is that Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" dates to August 2010, however the Arab Spring started just in December 2010. How could he have known that allegedly big surprise months before it happened? I think the only plausible answer is that Obama ordered that surprise himself. And when one looks at all the MEPI protagonists name by name and teir roles country by country it becomes very clear that the Arab Spring was prepared with MEPI.

    • Annie

      As I believe that whenever I put more than two links two sources in a comment that leads me to te spam filter let me answer you with a couple of comments backing up what I said with serious sources one topic after the other. I hope you don't mind if I mention in these comments sometimes myself and my own history.

      First of all, I think, Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" is an important key to understand what's called the Arab spring. To understand the significance of Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" - which in it's full content is still secret as far as I know - I think it's neccessary to know that George W. Bush's administration created a State Department program called "Middle East Partnership Initiative" - in short MEPI - and what it basically contains.

      Let me quote some phrases from the current Wikipedia Article on "Middle East Partnership Initiative" that you may find interesting:

      The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) is a U.S. State Department program that supports organizations and individuals in their efforts to promote political, economic, and social reform in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

      ... In 2002, Elizabeth Cheney, known as Liz, and daughter of Vice-President Dick Cheney, was appointed U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs and tasked with supervising MEPI. Cheney explained that under MEPI, the US administration funded programs as diverse as training Arab journalists to revising current teaching methods from rote learning to more child-oriented teaching methods. Additionally, MEPI supported countries seeking to sign Free Trade Agreements with the United States to meet President Bush’s goal to establish a joint Middle East Free Trade zone by 2013.

      ... MEPI is located within the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S. State Department. In addition to its Washington, D.C. headquarters, MEPI has regional offices in the MENA region.

      ... MEPI’s gradual, “bottom-up” public diplomacy approach is a process to create conditions where the pressure for change will come from Arabs themselves. A rapid transition to democracy risks destabilizing autocratic regimes and unintentionally empowering anti-U.S. Islamists who would exploit their position to oppose the existing regime. ...

      If you don't know MEPI, google the Wikipedia Article on "Middle East Partnership Initiative" yourself, I'ld deem it very important to understand what was going on. I could hardly describe better the forces unleashed by the events called the "Arab Spring." Of course, in 2010/2011 the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S. State Department was led by no other than Jeffrey Feltman, a leading neocon operative who is particularly well known in Lebanon. If you don't know him, he's famous, google him, he's now Dep Sec Gen at the UN.

      link to

      After the regime change in Tunisia, billed as a revolution but in reality a US-backed putsch, former Bush operatives took credit. And then came the putsch in Egypt, openly billed as putsch, and with an US aircraft carrier off the Egypt coast to enforce it. However, most people were so euphorized by "Change" - may I say Regime Change - in the arab world that they didn't notice this reality. Gaddafi noticed, btw, and spoke out.

      MEPI has managed to tool many people who wanted for better for the interests of the lobby, many of them "grassroot activists" from the left wing. To see how it worked - and likely recognize some popular names you heard in regard to the so-called arab spring - I suggest a blog article from a strange anonymous German blog called Noch ein Parteibuch "Another Parteibuch" called "How US-led regime change warriors train and misuse bloggers for their dirty games":

      link to

      Personal disclosure: Many people in Germany know me, now editor of Net News Global, as blogger at Mein Parteibuch, who has given up that blog because in Germany it's the way that there exist lawyers who promise their wealthy clients - not without reason - that they are able to take down anything published they don't like, and I had received about two letters from such lawyers per week, some strong zionists, and quite expensive, at least for those who received their letters and lawsuits, so I closed the blog. One of these lawyers, Gravenreuth, who battled me, killed himself when he was exposed as a fraudster winning his lawsuits with lies afterwards, but that didn't help me much. His friend, a leading Mossad op in Berlin, who regularly contacted me to spy on me, of course without telling me his affiliation, closed his shop in Berlin about the same time. But that didn't help me and it helped me neither that I defeated a lawsuit of the current vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel. There came always more and more lawsuits each weak, I guess in English it's called lawfare.

      Somehow some anonymous poeple, whom I tell every judge in the world I don't know much about, first pubished articles on a Malaysian hosted blog that was DDoSed down, and now publish articles in the spirit of Mein Parteibuch at an anonymous WordPress blog called

      So, however, I had some alarm signals more than other bloggers which didn't make such experiences. As I saw the "Arab Spring" unleash, I was first quite happy, that all that activism meant really a difference, and though I saw GWBush operatives had their fingers in regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt, it took some weeks longer before I understood that the Arab Spring was not grassroots, but US policy. It was when I first read about Obama's PSD 11, issued in August 2010.

      And that's for the next comment here.

    • lysias

      Yes, the Brotherhood worked for Israeli interests. It wasn't clear for quite some time how the Brotherhood government in Egypt would play out, but in it's last days it unmasked itself clearly as working for Israeli interests, whether they did it consciously or not.

      The main point here is that the Brotherhood called for a sectarian war Sunni against Shia. Mursi himself in his last days as president of Egypt stood on a stage in a large crowded stadium directly after preacers called for war on Shia, thereby endorsing it. There could not be more benefit to Israel than calling for jihad on Shia. That is exactly what Israel wants: Muslims killing MUslims for sectarian reasons. And all the while looking for Israel to be the power making the winner. To underline his view Morsi also decided to close the embassy of Syria, instead of closing the embasy of Israel.

      And also, the World Muslim League led by Qaradawi, which seemed to act like Mursi's superior, has close relations to Israel's best buddy in the region, the Saudis. Qaradawi also called for war on Shia, thereby pleasing Israel.

      The Brotherhood coming out as a force working for Israel's interests was surprising to many, Iran, and many others, including to me. Some others were not so surprised, like the Syrian government, who saw the Brotherhood long as Israeli proxies, and similar goes for Gaddafi's followers or the Houthis. The background is that the Qatari backers of the Brotherhood had always a very close, but hidden connection to the Israel lobby, mainly through the City of London. Some say even, the inofficial, but real seat of Qatar's government is London. Today, I think, Al Jazeera's connection to the Brotherhood and the Israel lobby is quite clear, as lot's of their analysis providers and honored discussion guests were from the Israel lobby in recent years.

      Sisi instead is, despite depending on Saudi money, quite close to Russia, and he has also developed, though unofficially, quite good relations to Syria, I think. Of course, one may say, OK, the Brotherhood is so large that it has several wings, some, as the Syrian wing, are quite close to Israel, but others, as Hamas, quite distanced, really fighting Israel. It's true. But it doesn't change the fact that the wing working for Israeli interests proved the stronger one, in Syria, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Libya, and so on - except in Palestine.

      Turkey though remains to be seen. Where Turkey's Brotherhood wing led by Erdogan really stands we will see in the future, but Erdogan's war on Syria suggests he's also doing Israel's bidding. If he finally leads Turkey out of NATO into SCO that may prove me wrong however.

    • Annie

      What I think what's missing here is the US presidential election 2012. To me it looks like the history of Obama's presidency is quite different. What I think is:

      After Obama failed in 2010 to get a two state solution or even a settlement stop from Netanyahu he unleashed the so-called Arab Spring with his "Presidential Study Directive 11." The Arab spring was prepared by GWB under the MEPI programme, but Obama's calculus was that it will empower the Muslim Brotherhood in large parts of the arab world in a democratic way, and that the Muslim Brotherhood will be as fiercely opposed to Israel as Hamas is, thereby bringing pressure on Israel.

      However, things did not work out as desired, and Obama made cruel mistakes in Libya. Obama likely saw Gaddafi's Libya as an obstacle to empowering MB and jihadi elements opposed to Israel and crushed Gaddafi therefore. However, as it only turned out later, the Muslim Brotherhood was a Qatari proxy working for Israeli interests, as well as Al Qaeda was a Saudi and GCC proxy force, with Hamas being a lonely execption in it's true opposition to Israel.

      As it was understood in 2012 that the Muslim Brotherhood & the jihadis were in the end proxies of Netanyahu it was too late for Obama to stop the war on Syria, because he was in an election cycle and very much dependent on the goodwill of at least some parts of the israel lobby to have a chance to get re-elected.

      After his re-election Obama understood that not the Muslim Brotherhood, but Iran and liberals are the main powers opposed to Israel, and he moved to strengthen them in a systematic manner. Obama did invest huge political capital to rehabilitate Iran with the nuke deal, he helped Sisi, who is in his core a liberal follower of Nasser, to replace Mursi, he pushed the Qatari ruler and Al Qaeda backer from his throne and he empowered the Houthis in Yemen by greenlighting the alliance of US-equipped Yemeni anti-terror forces with them.

      Now, after the Iran deal is completed, Obama works to get Israel and Israel's MB and Al Qaeda stooges defeated in Syria, and then that will be hopefully followed by action to defeat the Saudis in Yemen, and the jihadis in Libya. Meanwhile Obama helped to defeat Israel's stooge Jonathan Goodwill in Nigeria and encouraged Pakistan to join the SCO. Netanyahu tried a distraction, putting a wedge between the US, EU and Russia, by empowering Nazis in Ukraine, but to no avail, Obama & Putin proceed to change the world in a strategic way to the displeasure of Netanyahu and it's stooges.

      Hopefully, Obama also manages to pass the baton to crash Bibi and the Neocons to his successor.

  • Ad targeting Sen. Bennet says Iran wants to nuke the world's children
    • ritzl

      I disagree. The aim of such BS is not directly to win over people. The aim is to make poeple who say stupid things like "the Iran deal endangers US security" look sensible, so people could and would vote for them.

      That's the way this BS works. Oh, yes, I do believe it works. Just see all the commercials for over-prized products - they are so over the top that some find it hard to believe they work, but they do.

Showing comments 849 - 801