Jesus, do these people pirouette down the street looking for Jews trying to sneak up on them?
Narrator: As has been mentioned before, one of the regular methods of Zionist propaganda is to use Jewish characters in films to present the idea that Zionism and the [Jewish] religion are one and the same.
Iranian film director Masoud Deh-Namaki: They are shrewd, because they do not reveal all their thoughts. As I've said before, they deal with the subconsciousness of the viewer. Later, they use these ideas in more substantial contexts, such as articles and serious films. The viewer, who is exposed to these ideas from a young age, does not need any explanation, because subconsciously, he has already absorbed these ideas. Ahhhhhh. So subtle I never even picked up on it. Please continue...
Iranian documentary filmmaker Mohammad-Reza Khosaravi-Far: In order to highlight the oppression [of the Jews] and to make it more interesting, these people have begun to make comedy films. A striking example of such films is "Meet the Parents." In this film, they tried, using the comedy genre, to make the viewer not merely understand, but become convinced of this oppression and the holocaust, and of how much the Jews suffered hardships in the 1940s and 1950s. It's as plain as the nose on your face...INFIDEL!
Deh-Namaki: The nuclear weapons of [the Israelis] remain unused in their arsenals. Instead, they conquer the world with cameras, negatives, and frames. And you better pray every night to your moon god that it stays that way.
Narrator: It is no coincidence that when the legitimacy of the Zionist regime is in crisis, one of the familiar Hollywood characters – the honest, clumsy Jewish citizen – is portrayed once again. The appearance of this citizen in "Meet the Parents" reflects the desire of a kind, peace-loving person to marry into a genteel American family. This symbolizes the extent to which the Zionist regime needs the Western fundamentalist regimes. Wonder what they thought of DeNiro as the retired CIA borderline psycho?
Iranian documentary filmmaker Reza Eskandar: [In such films] the character of the Jew is always praised and glorified. The Jew is always depicted as a positive and trustworthy person. Even if, by chance, he is involved is something wrong, it is only because he was pursuing a very lofty goal, and not because he was a bad man by nature. Well, that's because our Zionist Puppet Masters demand it.
Narrator: "Meet the Parents" is one of Hollywood's comedies produced in recent years, which includes humoristic scenes, and take bold jibes at traditional American society. At the same time, however, it cunningly tries to arouse the viewer's compassion and sympathy toward Zionist beliefs. Now "Schindler's List" they liked. Not the way it ended, but the way it started.
#1
Great article. Can't wait for him to tackle The Matrix trilogy - should be great.
Schindler's List highlights the dark joo-magic to brainwash Schindler and save the joos from the holocost, which of course the holocost never happened. That was first explored in Desperately Seeking Susan..see how susan sounds like zion? Madonna is relentlessly hunted down and bewitched into converting into a joooo.
Independence Day, Goldblum's character is obviously a massod computers expert posing as a mass media slusser and saves the world from the masses of 'aliens which come from beyond the moon' (btw, notice the jooo lie depicting the American flag on the moon, more lies!!1!). Quite shrewd indeed.
Don't even get him started on Tora! Tora! Tora! or Airplane 2.
#2
There were a lot of Muslim protests over Independence Day, because at the end, it depicted Arab and Jewish military pilots coordinating to fight the aliens.
The scene was removed before the movie was shown in the ME.
#2
The best counter to this I saw elsewhere was for someone to loudly proclaim that this proves the BBC *wants* Christians to murder Muslims, because the BBC is racist and hates Muslims.
Which would raise shrieking denials of Dhimmitude from BBC spokesmen. Haw haw.
After almost six weeks of a constant Obama lead, generally in the five- to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen's daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat's lead? Part of the slippage is Obama's fault and part is McCain's gain.
Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate -- who we don't really yet know very well -- reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:
After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.
From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama's breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain's. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama's shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the "black Bill Clinton," a turnaround of the "first black president" moniker that had been pinned on Bill.
Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue -- oil drilling -- exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we "cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices" begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.
The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don't see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.
Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of "gradual adjustment" to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change. Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.
If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go? Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn't need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama's obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.
#2
True dat, bigjim-ky. The more he talks, the more he digs himself deeper into holes and sticks his feet in his mouth and the more people will not like him. Keep him off the prepared speech and teleprompter, and he is toast.
#3
This is extraordinarily bad news for Obama. At this point in every presidential race since Nixon-McGovern, the Democrat had about a 15 point lead, win or lose.
#4
And worse for Obambi is the fact that the polling numbers are not being weighted for the known 5% social acceptance errors - people who say they will vote for Obambi because it is politically incorrect not to do so. I think that when all is said and done, the true Election Day polling numbers are going to be startling to the left, considering how well McCain is going to do in what is supposed to be true Blue states.
#2
It probably is just words. Little man needs to keep the homefolks about the evil external force so that he can keep a grip on them. Politics with the purpose of self preservation. Very popular stuff.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/16/2008 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It makes me laugh cynically whenever I hear someone proclaim that we should not whup some tyranny because it might be overthrown by a bunch of whiny college undergraduates in a revolution.
They can never imagine that the reason they are tyrannies in the first place is precisely because they have eliminated any serious competition and that even they know that the whiny undergraduates couldn't find their collective butts with a road map and a flashlight.
#5
Shouldn't take them too lightly. Their conventional arms may be shoddy, but they have reasonable access to soft targets and they've got a bunch of ready-made useful idiots in the Shi'ite south of Iraq.
Posted by: Herb Thrairt5186 ||
07/16/2008 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yeah, but those guys seem to divided loyalties. When it would cause their clan more trouble than the mullahs are worth. They only work from one paycheck to the next.
Al Queda may be a Jewish organization and Osama bin Laden may be Jewish. And I might be an Irish Methodist named Hop Ching.
These are the two points I will try to make in this essay. This is not an attempt to foist blame on the Jews, to victimize them or scapegoat them, something that has occurred throughout history. It is not intended to be an attack on Jews or an exercise in anti-Semitism. It is however, intended to raise questions. We can then form our own conclusions based on these questions and their purported answers and we can be the ones foisting blame on the Jews, victimizing them and scapegoating them.
If indeed my contention is correct, that bin Laden is Jewish and al Queda is a Jewish organization, then it is also true that some conclusions can be drawn about Jews in general and about the religion, the ideology, and the social structure of Judaism vis-Ã -vis or from the perspective of non-Jews, especially about world Jewry as an organized social and political phenomenon which revolves around the modern-day nation-state of Israel, a country physically situated in the Middle East. It also says something about a social milieu that would allow such a phenomenon to occur within Judaism and world Jewry, again from a non-Jewish perspective. "If I'm wrong, on the other hand, it simply means I'm a dipshit."
This is by no means intended to be all-inclusive. It is intended to equip non-Jews and Jews with a realistic perspective on the realm of the possible as well as provide a convincing argument that much of what is possible here in fact exists.
This is by no means intended to be all-inclusive. It is intended to equip non-Jews and Jews with a realistic perspective on the realm of the possible as well as provide a convincing argument that much of what is possible here in fact exists. This will no doubt be read, interpreted, and analyzed by Jews and non-Jews alike. Thus, what may prove to be a persuasive argument to some may well also fail to resonate entirely with others.
"If you're a dipshit, you'll find it persuasive. If not, you'll discard it with the other trash."
Nor is this simply an exercise in rhetoric. I have written this piece to attempt to provide insight into the social ills of our present time. Caveat lector. The reader beware.
I've actually come to the conclusion that these people lack the gene for feeling stoopid.
Much of the material for these conclusions was drawn from two books written by former counterterrorism security chief Richard A. Clarke. The two books are entitled Against All Enemies and The Scorpion's Gate. I have also drawn from several other sources including Worse Than Watergate, by John W. Dean, III, The Two Faces of Islam, by Stephen Schwartz, and Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll.
The Living Are Here
In a book, audiocassette and video by Ayn Rand entitled We the Living, [link] the author captures the indomitable will to survive of the Jewish people [link] in the title, and then in a series of books, attempts to codify this "will" into her own philosophy, called Objectivism [link]. This came about in the aftermath of the Nazi Holocaust of World War II, when Jews in Europe were systematically rounded up and slaughtered by Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. One of the reactions to this event is a slogan we've all heard, "Never Again." Never again would the Jews be slaughtered in such a fashion.
I'd call that the voice of sweet reason, myself.
But this is not the only by-product of the Holocaust. In my personal experience, it has also engendered a desire for revenge. My guess is that this occurs both on a conscious and an unconscious level, among many Jews, especially prominent Jews in the United States.
"This desire for revenge is visible to trained observers, though the untrained layman may miss it entirely.
Where does the anger go?
To Peshawar?
In contrast to the Christian and Muslim teaching of "forgive and forget," the Jewish mantra in this case is "never forget."
I try to go for "Never forgive, never forget, never 'understand,'" but then, I'm an agnostic, so my opinion doesn't count, certainly not in al-Andaluz.
But that still does not answer the question, "Where does the anger go?"
Nurse! Give him an enema!
While not forgetting, the task of the Jewish philosopher is to "enjoy" and to "live life to the fullest," "--L'chai-em!" The existence of Jews today is thus celebrated by the phrase "We the living," or the phrase, "The living are here."
"This is in contrast to the Christian and Muslim concept of 'them the dead,' or the phrase 'The dead are there.'"
But the phrase "the living are here" is a declaration that can be made in several different languages.
In fact, it can be made in any languge except Belgian.
Putting aside the question of how many languages there are today on this planet,
... and separation of 'language' from 'dialect' from 'mumbling' from 'Urdu'...
the principal languages of the Jewish people are relatively few. In addition to the principal world languages of English, French, German, Russian, Spanish, and Latin (now a "dead" language),
I confess. I killed it.
one notices a prominence of Yiddish, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Aramaic in Jewish cultural history today.
Jewish speakers of Vep, Yoruba, or any of the Athabaskan-descended languages are pretty rare. That fact is probably significant, especially if you're into numerology.
So when we say, "The living are here," or "We the living," we can say this in one or all of these languages or a combination thereof, and this can still be a contemporary proclamation of Jewish existence in the world today.
I'm assuming that sentence makes some sense to somebody. It goes right by me.
Thus, for example, we might combine Hebrew and German in making the same utterance. Hebrew is of course the language of Israel. German is the language from which the survivors of the Holocaust emerged. Thus, the Hebrew-German combination makes the declaration, "The living are here," all that much stronger.
"Is very fonny in Rossian!"
It is to say, in other words, "We, who are the children of Israel, and who have emerged out of the persecution of Nazi Germany, have once again emerged triumphant and steadfast, and we are here to claim what is rightfully ours, both as ordained by God and wrested with our own hands, in spite of Nazi Germany. We claim the right to be here --both in Israel and in Germany --and anywhere else we choose to be. We have conquered our adversaries. We will survive. And not even Nazi Germany can stop us!" This would be a strong statement, especially when made in German, because it also carries with it the tacit declaration, "In your face, Germany!"
Yeah! in Ihrem Gesicht, Deutschland! Oder etwas wie das.
So if the statement, "the living are here" were translated into a combination of Hebrew and German, what would it look like? What would the utterance be?
Incomprehensible to native Urdu speakers?
Upon visiting the public library and consulting a Hebrew-English dictionary, I learned that "al chai" (pronounced "al-khai") could mean "the" plus "living," or, "the living" in Hebrew. I also learned that "da" translates "are here" in German. Thus, the phrase "The living are here" would be "al chai da."
Upon visiting the public library and consulting a Hebrew-English dictionary, I learned that "al chai" (pronounced "al-khai") could mean "the" plus "living," or, "the living" in Hebrew. I also learned that "da" translates "are here" in German. Thus, the phrase "The living are here" would be "al chai da."
It makes no sense, but it would be something like that, though more likely "l'chai hier", which wouldn't suit the author's theory. It does, however, sound vaguely like le highchair, which would seem to be a reference partly in English and partly in Francaise to a baby, that is, to youth, to the young at heart, and finally to Jimmy Durante, who did have a big nose but wasn't Jewish... Where was I? Oh. Here....
Al Queda is also written "al-Qaida (Dean, Schwartz), which carries with it the same pronunciation as "al chai da." Thus, depending on how you pronounce it, al Queda can mean "The living are here."
I think Al Queda is the fellow who owns the landscaping company that did the elementary school. I dunno if he's Jewish or not. I don't think he's a terrorist.
My thesis is that al Queda, or al-Qaida (Dean, Schwartz) is a phrase that has a double meaning.
"Maybe triple! Or even quadruple!"
On the one hand, the meaning of the phrase "al Queda" is the conventionally understood meaning. It is a terrorist organization that is responsible for the September 11 attacks --or so we were told --and Osama bin laden is its head. It means "the foundation" in Arabic. This al Queda of course represents an international underground network of Arab Muslims who are involved in a jihad, or holy war, against the United States, Israel, and their allies. Or so we are told.
"Naturally, we're being lied to!"
In reality, however, this is only partly true and it is only part of the story. The name al Queda is a recruiting tool. Yes, it is used to convey the name of an organization that in Arabic means "the foundation." But it is what the phrase does that is important, not what it means. This phrase is used to induce, entice, and suborn young Arab Muslim males into joining a jihad and engaging in acts of terrorism. Both the phrase and the organization thus succeed in channeling hatred into violence --organized violence.
"The Indians of Central America when discovered by the men of al-Andaluz were Hebrew speakers, remnants of the ten lost tribes. Honest. I ain't makin' that up! But some of them spoke Welsh."
According to Richard A. Clarke in Against All Enemies, this al Queda is a Jewish organization created and operated by Jews loyal to Israel. It engenders and then manipulates and channels this hatred in young Arab Muslim males and then directs it against targets of its own choosing in the form of violence. Clarke argues that Wahhabi Islam was begun by Arab Jews and has been nourished, fostered, and promoted by the house of Saud since the 1700's.
According to Richard A. Clarke in Against All Enemies, this al Queda is a Jewish organization created and operated by Jews loyal to Israel. This al Queda recruits, tempts, engenders hatred in, and then uses Arab Muslims.
"Being the world's simplest people, they do as their told."
It engenders and then manipulates and channels this hatred in young Arab Muslim males and then directs it against targets of its own choosing in the form of violence. It uses religion --Wahhabi Islam, an aberrant form of Islam rejected by 90% of the Muslim world, to accomplish this end. Clarke argues that Wahhabi Islam was begun by Arab Jews and has been nourished, fostered, and promoted by the house of Saud since the 1700's.
I haven't read the book. Going by that statement, I don't want to.
Clarke suggests that the Sauds are actually Jews living in Saudi Arabia under complete secrecy and under the cover of being nominally and outwardly Arab. Although it might sound like a contradiction in terms, Clarke also suggests that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian Jew. So is Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Intelligence, Saudi Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and Bandar's father, the Saudi Minister of Defense, as described in Richard A. Clarke's books, Against All Enemies and The Scorpion's Gate .
Clarke suggests that the Sauds are actually Jews living in Saudi Arabia under complete secrecy and under the cover of being nominally and outwardly Arab.
"All those moustaches? They're false. Even the ones on the women."
Although it might sound like a contradiction in terms, Clarke also suggests that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian Jew. So is Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Intelligence, Saudi Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and Bandar's father, the Saudi Minister of Defense, as described in Richard A. Clarke's books, Against All Enemies and The Scorpion's Gate.
"Da" is Roossian for "yes," and "chai" is the word for "tea." So we could be considering "all the tea, yes, indeed!"
Clarke implies that this "al Chai da" could possibly be the Israeli Mossad's answer to anti-Israeli Arab terrorism. Instead of running away from or fighting Arab terrorism, the strategy here is to "take the bull by the horns," to re-channel it, and control it. This strategy is to lead others into temptation, a notion that would be considered un-Christian because it conflicts with the part of the Lord's Prayer which says, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, Amen."
But he's talking about Jews, who don't pay any attention to the Lord's Prayer.
But let's not forget that the Jews are not Christian and Israel is not a Christian nation.
I just said that, didn't I? Is this guy being paid by the word? Which word?
Since the Lord's Prayer assumes that Jesus is Lord, and Jews do not, there is no conflict.
That makes sense. Kinda. Sorta. In an Islamic kinda way. I guess.
This is something most contemporary Christians and so-called Christians fail to realize.
I always make the effort to realize three illogical things before breakfast every morning, except when we're having pancakes.
In rabbinical teaching, (rabbinical law), it is not considered immoral or contrary to God's laws to lead someone else into temptation --especially when that "someone" is your adversary. The teaching is simple and clear: If you're against me, I'll take you down --any way I can. Period. The craftiest way is to use someone else's energy against him, like in Tai-Chi.
Now we're getting to the meat of his argument: Rabbinacal Tai Chi masters! Damn them! That explains so much!
In this way, it is possible to lead someone to bring himself down rather than to have to resort to bringing someone else down yourself.
So what he's saying is, if I learn Rabbinical Tai Chi, and I set fire to myself, he's the one's gonna burn to the ground? Kewl!
The best part about doing it this way is, this method escapes the attention of the public view. To all appearances, you didn't do anything; --they did it to themselves.
That's why nobody can find any proof.
In this way, the purpose of al Queda is to use the hatred of Arabs toward Israel against themselves in such a way that they bring themselves down.
A little off the top there, Occam...
Thus, al Queda leads others into temptation and then uses or re-channels their hatred to kill others who are enemies of al Queda's choosing. It uses the hatred of others (Arab Muslims) to induce or suborn them to kill and carry out acts of terrorism, and this killing is thereby done to serve those who control the organization --or think they control the organization. At least, that was the purpose of the organization when it was created.
All is illusion. In fact, you only think you're reading this. You're actually not even reading. You've been drinking. You've been drinking for a very long time. That's why you can't remember anything. But when you wake up you'll be mostly sober, though you'll have a really bad headache. But it won't really be a headache. You only think you've been drinking. That wasn't gin, you know...
When was al Queda created and how did it come about?
To whit, why was it born?
Ah, that is another question, which I shall get to in a moment. But first, I wanted to show that there are two meanings of the phrase al Queda.
"One of them is 'khaderd,' the Egyptian word meaning 'to eat fat.'"
This is the first: Al Queda is the terrorist organization behind the September 11 attacks. Or so we've been told.
"But by whom? That is the question, is it not? At least I think it's the question. Have I been drinking? Or is that another question?"
The second and less well-known meaning of al Queda is "al-chai da," The living are here. It is a proclamation of the indomitable Jewish spirit, from Abraham to post-Nazi Germany, and then to say "In your face, Germany!" This phrase holds a special significance when understood to mean, "The living are here" for contemporary Jews. Many uneducated Jews, however, have no clue of this meaning.
I certainly don't, and I'm not even Jewish...
The difficulty for Jews is that this meaning of the phrase can only be taught in a cult of secrecy.
But we know the Secret Handshake. Life hasn't been the same for us Illuminati since the Blacks discovered it. Now we see it every football game, if we're not watching the cheerleaders.
That certainly puts a damper on "spreading the word" to other Jews, especially to those who do not believe Jews need to live in secrecy. But for many Jews, living in secrecy is no big deal. Jews have been doing it for thousands of years for fear of persecution. And Saudi Arabian Jews (not a contradiction in terms) still live in secrecy today.
Really super deep cover, in fact...
To one extent or another, Jews live in secrecy everywhere, for the more Orthodox one's views, (if one is Jewish), the more one lives at a variance with the prevailing views of society as a whole, except in Israel.
They still have discos there, so you can be yourself.
As the world becomes more Orthodox, however, this of course is changing.
There are secret disco dance clubs in every major city in the world now, each playing Blondie and Donna Summer and the Commodores each and every night to men and women wearing polyester as they give vent to their inner selves.
Osama bin Laden: The Saudi Arabian Jew?
Immediately after the September 11 attacks, President Bush let Osama bin Laden get away (along with over a hundred of his immediate relatives --all Saudi Arabian.) How is this possible? (See Fahrenheit 9/11).
President Bush then gave Osama bin Laden a two-months head start before going after him by invading and bombing Afghanistan. How is this possible? (See Richard Clarke's' recorded CNN interview on Fahrenheit 9/11).
At some point in the "hunt for al Queda," President Bush adopted the attitude that he really didn't give that much thought to Osama bin Laden or his whereabouts or apprehending him. Instead, the President insisted that, "He's been marginalized." How is this possible? (Fahrenheit 9/11). How is it possible that the man who is the head of a terrorist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks can somehow no longer be on the mind of a "war president?" (Fahrenheit 9/11). How is it possible that the President, the nation's top law enforcement officer, can no longer feel it is important enough to keep this in the forefront of his mind? It is utterly incredible, but this is not only possible but actually the case.
The question then becomes, what motivations would George W. Bush have for doing these things? There are many. But few have managed to attract the public notice. The most logical explanation for President George W. Bush's behavior with respect to these questions is: Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush were working together.
Now it is worthwhile to take a look at how al Queda originated and when it came into being. As Clarke explains in Against All Enemies, Osama bin Laden and his original "Army of Arabs" came into being when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan in 1986. At the time, they were called by various names: the Afghan Arabs, the Afghan warriors, the Afghan freedom fighters, the Afghan resistance movement, and the mujahedeen (or "muj" for short). They were armed by the CIA to repel the Soviets.
Richard A. Clarke, under the direction of several prominent American Jews loyal to Israel in high positions of the United States government during the Reagan administration and assisted by then-Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, armed Osama bin Laden and his "Army of Arabs." (See Clarke, Against All Enemies). At the time, Richard A. Clarke was working in the State Department under the direction of Leslie Gelb and Morton Abramowitz. In the Department of Defense, Richard Perle and Caspar Weinberger were the decision-makers. Willam Casey was the head of the CIA. In Against All Enemies, Clarke describes how the United States government under the direction of these individuals, provided Osama bin Laden and his mujahedeen fighters with Stingers, U.S.-made shoulder-launched infrared seeking anti-aircraft missiles. Clarke says this tipped the scales in favor of the mujahedeen. The missiles were used to shoot down Soviet attack helicopters that were terrorizing the mujahedeen.
Clarke makes a conclusive case in Against All Enemies that the only way for these four prominent American Jews in the federal government at the time --Gelb, Abramowitz, Perle, and Weinberger --to have covertly equipped an "Army of Arabs" with Stinger missiles --is if the entire operation of mujahedeen fighters --the "Army of Arabs" --was run by Jews. The person at the top of the mujahedeen organization was Osama bin Laden. In the 1980's, prominent American Jews were obsessed with Arabs. Israel was deathly afraid of them. My thesis here is that in this scenario, there is "no way in hell" that Leslie Gelb, Morton Abramowitz, Richard Perle, and Caspar Weinberger would have armed an "Army of Arabs" unless the Jews were in complete control of the entire operation.
Richard A. Clarke reveals in his book Against All Enemies that the idea for putting Osama bin Laden in charge as well as creating an "Army of Arabs" came from Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Turki Al-Faisal. Since the idea came from Prince Turki, in this scenario, Prince Turki would have also had to have been Jewish, and a Jew loyal to Israel.
At the conclusion of the "Arab Afghan War," the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and his Arab Afghan freedom fighters (the mujahedeen) made off with the remaining Stingers under the cover of an explosion at the munitions site that "shook the nearby city of Rawalpindi for hours."(My emphasis added -See Clarke, page 50, Against All Enemies). Clarke cautions the reader at the beginning of Against All Enemies by saying, "The close reader will note..." (Page xii.), but this also alerts the reader to the fact that he has concealed juicy details within the text that require a close reading to be fully understood. Obviously, if it was an explosion, it would not have "shook the nearby city of Rawalpindi for hours." Clarke is careful to reveal facts that were reported --as they were reported. This protects him from the accusation of divulging classified material. The only explanation for ground-shaking to have occurred for hours is either a) there was an unusually long earthquake, or b) this shaking of the ground was caused by heavy trucks that were used to transport the artillery --including the Stingers. Clarke says on page 50 "some were not accounted for." The only entity capable of making off with this cache of artillery in heavy trucks was the Soviets. The only logical explanation for this is that the KGB was behind it. Clarke says, "I could never prove that Soviet KGB had ordered these two acts... but I knew in my bones they had." (Page 50). Two things. First, he all but says it was the Soviets. Second, he provides himself with an "out" by saying, "I knew in my bones." This is an expression, but it can't be taken literally for obvious reasons. (The locus of human knowledge is the brain, not one's bones.)
This passage in Against All Enemies also contains a reference to U.S. Ambassador Arnold L. Raphel, who, along with the "military ruler of Pakistan" was killed in an "unexplained aircraft crash" immediately following the explosion that "shook the nearby city of Rawalpindi for hours." Clarke explains this in The Scorpion's Gate. He reveals by inference that the CIA retaliated against Arnold Raphel and the Pakistani ruler for the theft of the munitions dump, especially the Stingers. That means the CIA determined that they were also involved. Now we have Arnold Raphel, a very Jewish name, involved in the disappearance of the remaining Stingers. We have the KGB involvement. We have the military ruler of Pakistan involved. Here is my analysis on that: According to Clarke's scenario, The KGB also had to have been controlled by Jews loyal to Israel, who aided the Jewish-controlled mujahedeen in making off with the weapons. The military ruler of Pakistan also had to be Jewish, and a Jew loyal to Israel. The CIA, smelling betrayal, assassinated both the military ruler of Pakistan and Ambassador Arnold Raphel in retaliation, as Clarke says in Against All Enemies.
Clarke reveals later in Against All Enemies how the Stingers turned up in Somalia and were used to shoot down a U.S. attack helicopter in the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident. By then, bin Laden was helping Somali warlord Farah Aideed. The implication or suggestion here is that Farah Aideed was also a Jew loyal to Israel, pretending to be Muslim.
This article starring:
Ayn Rand
Prince Bandar
Prince Turki Al-Faisal
Richard A. Clarke
Posted by: john frum ||
07/16/2008 07:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
My first thought was YJCMTSU, but obviously you can. Whatever he's been smoking was laced with something mighty strong.
As a bonus: the Christian and Muslim teaching of "forgive and forget,"
#4
But this is not the only by-product of the Holocaust. In my personal experience, it has also engendered a desire for revenge.
As an aside, one somewhat common conspiracy theory among the french nationalists (judging from comments on the main blog of the family) is that the ongoing mass immigration from the third world into western countries & the islamization of Europe is a plot hatched by the jooooooooooos to exact revenge for the holocaust; alternatively, it's the americans, to torpedo the old continent (or both, I guess, possibly). Anyway, it's either that, or free-market ideology & capitalism, can't be anything else, there must be scapegoats (and chavez and putin and am-in-a-jihad are swell guys, nationalist leaders swimming against the Empire rising tide).
#7
I think I get it. I'm my own mother and I'm about to give birth, but I've got to kill myself to keep that from happening. Am I close? Diseased minds know no limits.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/16/2008 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If I'm my own grampaw, I think I'll take myself fishing so I have one of those senior moments I'll treasure for the rest of my life.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/16/2008 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Might just be me, but I think this guy has a problem with "Jews". Also interesting to see that he didn't have the stones to put his name on this opus.
Smart thinking. The Mossad is everywhere.
And, yes, I would very much like to sample whatever he's smoking, injecting, or snorting.
These guys are just not co-terminous with the same reality as you and me. On the plus side, the claim of Al-Q being jewish means that we have won. I think.
Posted by: N guard ||
07/16/2008 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The author does indeed raise questions--confirming the author is a certified loon--and makes me wonder about Clarke, Dean, and the others if their writings led him to this!
However, I draw some very different conclusions from his points. Satanism is said to be the mirror image of Christianity, utilizing similar words and concepts in an attempt to deceive with a very good counterfeit of the original. The Bible utilizes double entendres, anagrams, and other literary devices to poke fun at the mockery of God. I'd say Bin Laden and Al Qaida are clearly satanic and the use of the name COULD be a mockery of Judaism.
Oh, and Fred's comment, "The Indians of Central America when discovered by the men of al-Andaluz were Hebrew speakers, remnants of the ten lost tribes. Honest. I ain't makin' that up! But some of them spoke Welsh." makes more sense than the author! Following his type of convoluted logic, if you can: The Lost Tribe of Dan, affiliated with the coastal Sea-faring Phoenicians, are said to have traveled with them to distant lands, intermixing with the peoples such as the De-Danaan of Ireland and those of Dan-mark. The dark-haired Black Irish are descendents of the Spanish/Moorish conquest of Eire. The red haired Irish are said to be descendents of the Vikings. Could it be they are related to the ruddy-faced Jewish David? St. Patrick, a captured slave and sailor, converted the indigenous pagans in the land he was exiled to. Makes sense to me if the Irish/Welsh were forced into sailor slavery and sent to the New World!
#20
I would say this is more evidence that Al Queda has lost the war for the hearts and minds of Muslims and they are the weak horse and everyone knows it.
He is conflicted. As a Muslim child he would have been taught that Muslims are good, peaceful people. He has been taught that Jews are bad people. He has also been taught that Muslims are rulers. They are conquerors. This is the reward from Allah. As a non-Arab Muslim in the era of petro-dollars, he has looked towards Arabia for inspiration.. an Arab must be an especially good Muslim. Just like the prophet and his companions.
He is confronted with Al-Qaeda. This seeks to destroy his state (Pakistan) which he has been taught is a homeland for Muslims. This organization is responsible for killing, strife, etc - many bad things. They have been unable to defeat the infidels. How then could they be Muslim? After all, Muslims are good people. Muslims are victorious people. Allah blesses good Muslims with victory. OBL clearly hasn't been blessed.
Hence, they must really be Jews.
"Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert's worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil."
- VS Naipaul
Posted by: john frum ||
07/16/2008 21:07 Comments ||
Top||
#22
and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Dick Morris
Al Queda may be a Jewish organization and Osama bin Laden may be Jewish.
