LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS

THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


February 21, 2012

The State Dept has embraced the Islamist Agenda at home and abroad

What this means is that the Obama administration has made a strategic decision to join forces with the Islamists rather than fight them. This policy has serious implications for America at home and abroad. It also has serious implications for Israel. It means that America will restrain Israel from besting the Islamists and will favour the Islamists over Israel. It is no accident that the Islamists are now in power in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt or that the The US has fully embraced Islamist Erdogan of Turkey and is supporting the advent of the MB in Syria. Nothing could be more ominous. Ted Belman

A note from Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson:

    Please take the time to read this very important story written by a courageous Egyptian liberal intellectual about the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood lobbies in Washington and the Obama Administration’s secret collaboration with these pro-terrorist, anti-Western, anti-women, anti-American and anti-Semitic organizations. This is one of the most important articles I have read in years.

    It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed “offensive.” The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered “offensive” but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered “anti-Islam” by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

    The February 8 FBI meeting was the culmination of a series of unpublicized directives issued in the last three months by top FBI officials to all its field offices to immediately recall and withdraw any presentation or curricula on Islam throughout the entire FBI. In fact, according to informed sources and undisclosed documents, the FBI directive was instigated by radical Muslim groups in the US who had repeatedly met with top officials of the Obama Administration to complain, among other things, that the mere usage of the term of “radical Islam” in FBI curricula was “offensive” and ‘racist.” And thus, directives went out by Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Mueller to censor all such material. Included in the material destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were power-points and articles that defined jihad as “holy war” or presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization bent on taking over the world—a major tenant that the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly stated for decades.

    During the next several months, the IPT will be releasing a series of major investigative reports revealing the secret infiltration by and collaboration with radical Islamic organizations by the Obama administration that has spread to the National Security Council, the Dept of Justice, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, the CIA and the State Department as well as local law enforcement.

Islamist Lobbies’ Washington War on Arab and Muslim Liberals

by Essam Abdallah
The Cutting Edge News

The most dramatic oppression of the region’s civil societies and the Arab Spring is not by means of weapons, or in the Middle East. It is not led by Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Saleh, or Assad. It is led by the powerful Islamist lobbies in Washington DC. People may find my words curious if not provocative. But my arguments are sharp and well understood by many Arab and middle eastern liberals and freedom fighters. Indeed, we in the region, who are struggling for real democracy, not for the one time election type of democracy have been asking ourselves since January 2011 as the winds of Arab spring started blowing, why isn’t the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?

Months into the Arab Spring, we realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians, those who are claiming they will be brought to power via the votes of the people. Well, it is not quite so.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Nahda of Tunisia, the Justice Party of Morocco and the Islamist militias in Libya’s Transitional National Council have been systematically supported by Washington at the expense of real liberal and secular forces. We saw day by day how the White House guided carefully the statements and the actions of the US and the State Department followed through to give all the chances to the Islamists and almost no chances to the secular and revolutionary youth. We will come back to detail these diplomatic and financial maneuvers which are giving victory to the fundamentalists while the seculars and progressives are going to be smashed by the forthcoming regimes.

In the US, there are interests that determine foreign policy. And there are lobbies that put pressure to get their objectives met in foreign policy. One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby, which has been in action for many years. This lobby has secured many operatives inside the Administration and has been successful in directing US policy towards the Arab world. Among leading advisors sympathetic to the Ikhwan is Daliah Mogahed (Mujahid) and her associate, Georgetown Professor John Esposito. Just as shocking, there is also a pro-Iranian lobby that has been influencing US policy towards Iran and Hezbollah in the region.

One of the most important activities of the Islamist lobby in the US is the waging of political and media wars on the liberal Arabs and Middle Eastern figures and groups in America. This battlefield is among the most important in influencing Washington’s policies in the Arab world. If you strike at the liberal and democratic Middle Eastern groups in Washington who are trying to gain support for civil societies in the region, you actually win a major battle. You will be able to influence the resources of the US Government to support the Islamists in the Middle East and not the weak democrats. This huge war waged by the Islamist lobbies in America started at the end of the Cold war and continued all the way till the Arab spring. The two main forces of this lobby are the Muslim Brotherhood fronts and the Iranian fronts. According to research available in the US, the Ikhwan fronts such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), led by Hamas supporter Nihad Awad, as well as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, and others waged their political war to block the representatives of Arab liberals and Muslim moderates from making their case to the American public. The Iranian lobby, exemplified by the National Iranian American Committee (NIAC), led by Trita Parsi, has been hitting at Iranian exiles.

Since the 1990s CAIR and its allies have attacked Copts, Southern Sudanese, Lebanese, Syrian reformers, Assyrians and Chaldeans, and Muslim dissidents in the United States. The Ikhwan of America demonized any publication, book, article, or interview in the national media or local press raising the issue of secular freedoms in the Middle East. The Islamists wanted to eliminate the liberal cause in the Arab world and replace it with the cause of the Islamists. What is also shocking is that CAIR and its allies stood by the oppressive regimes and visited them, claiming they speak on behalf of the peoples. CAIR and the Brotherhood fronts in America destroyed systematically every project that would have defended the seculars and liberals originating from the Middle East. The notorious and well-funded Islamists of the US allowed no book, documentary, or show on the liberals in Arab civil societies to see the light.

Thanks to this powerful lobbying campaign, the American public was not given a chance to learn about the deep feelings on the youth in the region. Americans were led to believe that all Muslims, all Arabs and all Middle Easterners were a strange species of humans who cannot appreciate freedom. Instead, the American Islamists, helped by apologists on the petrodollars payrolls, convinced the mainstream media that the Arab world has authoritarians and Islamists only.

Dr Shawki Karas, president of the American Coptic Association, told me in the late 1990s how he was harassed by Islamist activists for speaking up against the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He was threatened with losing his job at the college where he taught. Reverend Keith Roderick, who has assembled a coalition of more than 50 group rights from the Muslim world, was severely attacked by the Islamists and was threatened to be removed from his church position. Muslim American leaders who are conservative and secular, such as Dr Zuhdi Jasser, were crucified by CAIR and the Brotherhood for daring to challenge the Party line of the Isl.amists in America and claiming that the Jihadists are the problem in the region. Muslim liberal dissidents such as Somali Ayan Hirsi Ali, Saudi Ali al Yammi, Syrian Farid Ghadri, Iranian Manda Ervin, and many others were trashed by the Islamist lobbies to block them from defending the causes of secular liberty in the US. Egyptian liberals as well as seculars and democracy activists from Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and other countries have been attacked by CAIR and allies. The pro-Iranian lobby targeted most Iranian-American groups and tried to discredit them, particularly with the rise of the Green Revolution in Iran. By smearing the Muslim liberal exiles, the Islamists were trying to destroy their causes in the mother countries. In the 1990s and the years that followed 9/11 the region’s dictators supported the efforts by Islamist lobbies to crush the liberal exiles. The Mubarak, Bashir, Gaddafi, Assad, and Khomeinist regimes fully supported the so-called Islamophobia campaign waged by CAIR and its Iranian counterpart NIAC against dissidents for calling for secular democracy in the region. The dissidents were accused of being pro-Western by both the Islamists and the dictators.

The Islamist lobbies also severely attacked members of the US Congress such as Democrats Tom Lantos, who has since passed away, Eliot Engel, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, and Joe Lieberman as well as Republicans Frank Wolfe, Chris Smith, Trent Franks, John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Sam Brownback for their efforts in passing legislative acts in support for democracy and liberty in the Middle East. CAIR and NIAC heavily savaged President Bush’s speeches on Freedom Forward in the Middle East, deploying all the resources they had to block US support to liberal democrats in the region. Islamist lobbies in Washington are directly responsible for killing any initiative in the US Government to support Darfur, southern Sudan, Lebanon, the Kurds, liberal women in the Muslim world, and true democrats in the Arab world and Muslim Africa.

In the think tank world, CAIR and its allies aggressively attacked scholars who raised the issue of persecution against seculars or minorities in the Arab world and Iran. Among those attacked were Nina Shea and Paul Marshal from the Hudson Institute and the founder of an anti-slavery group, Dr Charles Jacobs, who was exposing the Sudan regime for its atrocities.

Last but not least is the Islamists’ relentless campaign to stirke at top scholars who advise Government and appear in the media to push for democratic liberation in the region. The vast and vicious attacks leveled against Professor Walid Phares—initially by CAIR’s Nihad Awad and then widened by pro-Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood operatives online—has revealed to Arab and Middle Eastern liberal and seculars how ferocious is the battle for the Middle East in the US.

Phares’s books, particularly the latest one, The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East (2010), hit the Islamist agenda hard by predicting the civil society revolts in the Middle East and then predicting how the Islamists would try to control them. Phares was attacked by an army of Jihadist militia online like no author since Samuel Huntington in the 1990s.

As a freedom activist from the Middle East, Mustafa Geha, wrote, Phares is a hero to Muslim liberals. Along with dissidents, lawmakers, experts, and human rights activists, Phares is a force driving for a strategic change in US foreign policy towards supporting secular democracies in the region.

This explains why the Islamists of America are fighting the battle for the forthcoming regimes with all the means they have.

Dr. Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who teaches at Ain Shams University and writes for the leading Arab liberal publication Elaph.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 10:07 am | 44 Comments »



44 Responses to The State Dept has embraced the Islamist Agenda at home and abroad

  1. Ted That is a great position that you have taken up especially on Assad. We do not have to agree with Assad or drop guard one inch, but the Muslim Brotherhood must be stopped

  2. Laura says:

    We have a subversive administration in the White House undermining American interests. This column starkly reveals who really wields power in Washington. And it certainly is not the the Israel/Jewish lobby, contrary to popular perception, a myth fed by the likes of Jew-hating skunks such as walt and mearsheimer. The myth of an omnipotent Jewish/Israel lobby leading the US government by the nose is created for the purpose of distracting public attention from the real insidious jihad/muslim brotherhood forces directing our foreign policy. Their money and power to shape American Mideast policies dwarf that of AIPAC.

  3. jrob says:

    The US State Department has always been a naziphilic organization, and it has merely come out of the closet since 9/11 (which is odd, since there was a slaughter of US civilians that day, carried out by the people who have the primary loyalty of the US State Department)…

  4. JRob

    I rate the main dangers to the Jews as from 4 sources, and number 4 is often overlooked! See what you think on http://4international.me/2012/02/19/threat-from-bomb-grows-defend-israel-from-us-government-and-iran/

    Your point re 9-11 is well made and the intro by Ted Emerson and Laura is most welcome as is the analysis by Essam Abdallah

    At the same time there is a major weakness at the centre of this very welcome
    Essam Abdallah analysis of the situation re the Arab Spring and it is something that actually Trotskyist Strategy and Tactics can solve, inside the context of an overall analysis of the situation, and as always I walk side by side with Patriots like Ted and others, but Trotskyism maintains its independent perspective.

  5. bernard ross says:

    The question is why? Possibly one of 2 reasons: Obama’s biological father was a muslim, he was raised a muslim in Indonesia by his step father and muslim apostates are marked for death by muslims.(is he an apostate or a muslim soldier for jihad?). a second reason is control of populations. Muslim Brotherhood has shown that it can control its subjects and can retain power once gained. It has cultlike characteristics that enable control and self sacrifice. The subjects will do anything they are told. In a world which regularly needs to liquidate consuming, but unproductive mouths, this ability becomes paramount. Such a govt can easily send its unproductive males as cannon fodder to war. Perhaps control and stability(inc. controlled wars) are considered desirable. Perhaps it is just money and power: a redrawing of investments. In any case there are obvious deals under the table that are resulting in a consistent behavior of intentionally empowering the MB. what are these deals and what is their purpose? I doubt it will be good for jews or Israel as these deals usually need red herrings and scapegoats.

  6. bernard ross says:

    On your site it suddenly struck me how important these phrases are in a cult which creates robot drones of its followers; the repetition of these mantras must have effect:

    THE KEY IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE FATIHAH
    “In the course of praying the requisite five prayers a day, an observant Muslim will recite the Fatihah, the first surah of the Qur’an and the most common prayer in Islam, seventeen times. The final two verses of the Fatihah ask Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians.”

  7. My friends, this “new” Obamunist development was telegraphed a year ago when his head of the CIA (!!) pretended not to understand that the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization with a public 80-year-history of advancing Islamic supremicism. How did CIA chief Clapper describe them before Congress?: “Secular.” WTF??!!!!

  8. yamit82 says:

    It’s too easy and I believe simplistic to only blame the State Dept… thereby absolving presidents.

    Bush on direct orders allowed many Saudis to flee and had the FBI cover up all documentation.

    Not only did Reagan meet with the Taliban in 1985 but he said this about them:

    “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” See Photo Here

  9. Catarin says:

    Why doesn’t someone straight out ask Obama about this issue? It seems he’s playing community organizer at the moment, trying to bring Muslim entities into his fold. That’s one way to prevent war. The American people are solidly behind the Jews, and I believe Obama puts the Jews first in line for U.S. help. I know Obama can’t make progress without allowing Muslims to have a say, but I guarantee you, if one of these Muslim groups stepped out of line, the U.S. government would come down on them harshly. They just arrested a man who had been under U.S. surveillance for a year, a Moroccan Muslim, who wanted to bomb the U.S. capitol. Bye bye terrorist. So yes, Obama seems to be working on a better relationship with Muslims, but not at the expense of Jews.

    Italy has informed the Vatican it will have to start paying taxes on some of its hundreds of properties in Italy. Not on churches, but on associated properties. The Vatican has agreed. It seems the present leadership is unpopular with Italian Catholics. There is disagreement on how to handle matters in the top echelon. It was just made public there was an attempt on Pope Benedict’s life, with some wanting to keep it private and others wanting to publicize it. I think U.S. Bishops have been out of line on the issue of birth control because it is first and last what a woman decides is right for her. With the recent scandals about sexually abuse priests, I think they are desperate to find a way to reassert their authority, but they have caused another big mess.

  10. Linda Rivera says:

    yamit82,

    One president after another has utterly betrayed America and our ally, Israel. Both democrat and republican presidents. The horrifying truth certainly appears to be that Muslim terrorists and American leaders, plus other Western leaders are working TOGETHER to rule America and the world. Islam is highly favored over all other religions by U.S. and Western leaders. Judaism and Christianity is despised and HATED.

  11. yamit82 says:

    You missed the most relevant source and reason

    It’s an Immutable Law “Esau Hates Jacob”

    “…Two nations (“geim/goyim”) are in your womb, and two races/governments/regimes (“le-umim”) will separate from your bowels; and one race/government/regime shall be more powerful than the other (“ule-om mi-leom ye-amutz”) ; and the greater one will serve the younger (“ve-rav ya-avod tzair”)” (Genesis 25, v. 23)

  12. BlandOatmeal says:

    “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” See Photo Here

    That was a real treasure, Yamit :-) It was worth a repeat posting.

    As for the “Esau” stuff, Esau’s descendants became Jews during the reign of the Jewish priest-king John Hyrcanus. They are your ancestors.

  13. Joseph G Whitson says:

    Obama and his hand-picked Administration have embraced the world
    wide Islamic Agenda. WHY? Because Obama was recruited for his current
    job years ago. Obama is and has been a devout Muslim since childhood.
    His Islamic Agenda has not been hidden–just not reported by his media
    outlets. Same is true for his Socialist Agenda to destroy America as we
    know it. Both Agendas are known but NOT REPORTED. These two destructive
    forces are well entrenched in Washington and America sits by–fat-dumb–
    and happy. Is this because of FEAR and APATHY or combination of both?
    America has one chance to correct the course–The 2012 Elections.
    By the way, where are the PULPITS in this?

  14. Isabella says:

    This certainly is yet another reason why Obama has seized upon every possible occurance to keep America dependent on foreign oil. Cancelling Keystone and placing holds on our FL Gulf production may not be for green or renewable fuel at all, it is to keep as many dollars as possible going into his brothers Islamic coffers. Destroying America from the inside.

  15. dweller says:

    “Not only did Reagan meet with the Taliban in 1985 but he said this about them: ‘These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers’.”

    Those were various representatives of mujahedeen groups that Reagan met with — not “Taliban.”

    In 1985, there was no Taliban.

    And if we had stayed after the Russians were defeated there

    — there never would have BEEN a Taliban govt.

  16. Catarin says:

    No. Obama is not a Muslim. He was raised as a Christian by his mother and grandparents from the very beginning. His stepfather may have been Muslim but he did not control the religion Obama learned. He kind of had a nervous breakdown when the family moved to Indonesia. Obama saw his real father only a few times, who had by then renounced Islam.

    You act like the U.S. government is guilty of treason. I don’t believe that. There would be whistle blowers coming out of the woodwork if something was amiss.

    Dweller, I threw out that material as I recalled it. I don’t care if you don’t believe it. The comment about the girl in her 20s firing people is she was too dumb and inexperienced to know she was being used. You’re right, it was federal attorneys she fired. It’s usually not a good idea to screw over attorneys. They get you back.

  17. bernard ross says:

    Yamit, are you saying Esau is Islam?

  18. jrob says:

    I do tend to absolve presidents to some extent, as in my opinion they are mere figurehead personifications of the same, repeated State Department/CIA fascism.

  19. jrob says:

    Felix,

    Interestingly, I don’t think there’s ever been a time or place in recent history where those with the political and media power to call themselves ‘lefties’ or ‘progressives’ supported anything other than Jewhate (and the associated racism and anti civil rights bigotry).

    The ‘left’ today supports the US government and its legislated racism (aka ‘affirmative action’), its antisemitic shrinkage of Israel, and its infliction of Islamic subjugation just as those calling themselves ‘progressive lefties’ have always done.

    As best as I can tell, the ‘left’ is constantly using the big-lie technique to say that ‘we of the new left are really hip and progressive!, and we oppose the policies of the left of 50 years ago!, even though we advocate the exact same policies today!’.

    Like FGW says: this big lie renders most people clouded, confused, unable to think straight.

  20. jrob says:

    The CIA is an Arabist, naziphilic organization, and all of its statements about ‘moderate Muslim nazis’ should be accepted as the lies that they are.

    The CIA and State Department have known for years that the koran is very useful for imperialistic conquest and domination.

    The Old Testament? Not so much.

  21. yamit82 says:

    Those were various representatives of mujahedeen groups that Reagan met with — not “Taliban.”

    A distinction without a difference. They are the same!!! Both a creation of Zbigniew Brzezinski Al’qaeda’s founding father. Adviser to both Carter, Reagan and Obama. Destroying the Soviet Union and Russia were and still are his overriding raison d’etre by any means including using Radical Muslims as his weapon.

    Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    You will do anything and say anything to defend that Jew Hating slime (Reagan). The truth is not slander in case you thought to remind me again.

  22. yamit82 says:

    And if we had stayed after the Russians were defeated there

    — there never would have BEEN a Taliban govt.

    What kind of a Mystic are you? Christian- Fascist- Imperialist?

  23. david frankel says:

    WHAT DO YOU EXPECET FROM A MUSLIM TERRORIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

  24. Joseph G Whitson says:

    D. Frankel–You are correct!! He was selected and groomed for,”THIS MISSION,”
    early on by “his handles” who funded and directed his rise through the political
    mine fields. Lets hope the “VOTERS” can pick up on this before November. His Islamic
    Agenda alone would destroy this country–combined with the Socialist Agenda he’s
    pushing, America has little chance without a Sudden Awakening.

  25. yamit82 says:

    bernard ross says:
    February 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Yamit, are you saying Esau is Islam?

    No Edom is Babylon, and Rome, or Christianity= The West:… Today led by America!

    Ishmael=Arabs=Islam

    In Genesis 28:9 the Bible tells us that “Esau went to Ishmael and married Machlath daughter of Abraham’s son Ishmael.” Esau’s intention in marrying Ishmael’s daughter was not that simple. The Midrash explains, that Esau’s plan was to ensnare Ishmael in a plot: “You – Esau said to Ishmael – kill your brother Isaac. I will kill my brother Jacob. Then we will become one nation and remain sole heirs to Abraham and inherit the entire land! Ishmael refused: ‘Am I then like Cain who killed his brother?! No, I will not do as you suggest.’” Esau’s intention was to then kill Ishmael, and he would remain the sole heir. When Esau sees that Ishmael declines from joining him in the plot against Isaac and Jacob, he refuses to go to the ‘chupah’ and abandons his bride and his own wedding! Only to return 23 years later (after Ishmael’s death) to go through with the marriage.

    This strange wedding – among all the other aspects of the tense relationship between Ishmael, Isaac, Esau and Jacob – plants the seeds of the interactions and battles that their children would encounter through the ages. Just imagine the psychological implications of Esau’s encounter with Ishmael on his wedding day!

    The entire history of confrontation between the Arab-Muslim, Western/Christian and Jewish worlds can be understood by tracing back to the roots of their conflict in Biblical times, the battles between Ishmael (father of the Arab/Muslim world), Esau (father of the Christian/Western world) and Jacob (father of the Jews)

  26. MZ says:

    Not only did Reagan meet with the Taliban in 1985 but he said this about them:

    “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” See Photo Here

    That’s him meeting with the Mujahideen. The Taliban didn’t come to power until 1996.

  27. Linda Rivera says:

    To Catarin,

    Why do you say Obama is a Christian? Everything Obama does is to advance global Islamic conquest. Obama even said he was a Muslim. On youtube:

    Obama: “My Muslim Faith”

  28. dweller says:

    Your irresponsibility knows no bounds.

    “Those [in the photo] were various representatives of mujahedeen groups that Reagan met with — not ‘Taliban’. In 1985, there was no Taliban.”

    “A distinction without a difference.”

    HORSESHIT, Yamit. A distinction with a humongous difference.

    “They are the same!!!”

    Only in your twisted fantasies.

    “[They are...b]oth a creation of Zbigniew Brzezinski…Al’qaeda’s founding father.”

    Neither Taliban NOR mujahedeen — nor al-Qaeda — was Brzezinski’s creation.

    Keep it up, bubbbeleh, you’re already 0-for-6, and we’re just getting started here.

    “Destroying the Soviet Union and Russia were and still are [Bzrezinski's] overriding raison d’etre by any means including using Radical Muslims as his weapon.”

    Good boy! First (mostly) accurate statement you’ve made in this matter.

    But then, you know what they say about a broken clock.

    On the other hand, for much of the 80′s, there were few (if any) “radical muslims” in the fight; mostly locals.

    “Radicals” began coming later — and in still greater numbers especially after we left (nothing to prevent them).

    “Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.”

    I told you: that’s horseshit.

    What’s more, that whole second paragraph in your post [Feb 20, 5:55 pm] is not your own writing, Yamit; it’s plagiarised verbatim without quotation marks or attribution (or even so much as a link)

    — and can be found on at least half-a-dozen websites throughout the blogosphere.

    Fact: Reagan’s term of office was 1981-1988.

    Fact: There was no Taliban until at least 1994.

    “Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan.”

    A proxy war, yes; but DC did not fund the ‘islamist’ groups during RR’s admin.

    As mujahedeen, those funded were certainly muslim, but not ‘islamist’.

    “Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service.”

    The only “sophisticated weaponry” of any significance or quantity were Stingers.

    “Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander …”

    OBL was never a mujahedeen commander, let alone, a ‘prominent’ one.

    The only thing that ever brought him to prominence was a hefty BANKROLL.

    “Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.”

    This one remark alone contains so many errors, one hardly knows where to start with it.

    RR made no decision to continue the war after the Soviets left.

    Whom would he have “continued” it against, once the USSR was outa there?

    On the other hand, as I already told you:

    “If we had stayed after the Russians were defeated, there never would have BEEN a Taliban govt.”

    To that I now add:
    Nor would there ever have been an OBL “ascendancy.”

    The following commentary comes from the “Political Inquirer” blogsite:

    PM, on September 13, 2010 at 9:58 am said:

    That [photo(same one you posted above, Yamit)] isn’t the Taliban or al Qaeda.

    The Taliban and al Qaeda didn’t exist in 1985. These were mujahideen, so there is a difference.

    Although many mujahideen were as brutal as the Taliban and some had ties to what became al Qaeda, others were very different, such as [those led by] Ahmad Shah Massoud and Abdul Haq.

    The Taliban was a creature of Pakistani intelligence and Deobandi/Wahhabi religious indoctrination – with the U.S. looking the other way and sometimes sending aid.

    Al Qaeda grew out of Arab fighters that went to Afghanistan – with CIA and Saudi involvement – and only formally came together as an organization under bin Laden in response to the First Gulf War in 1991.

    Saying that these people were Taliban (or al Qaeda) paints every Afghan political organization with a broad brush and delegitimizes their right to self-determination.

    Not that this absolves the Reagan administration from indirect complicity in the formation of these groups, but the CIA and the George Bush 41/Bill Clinton administrations (along with Benazir Bhutto) supported hardline Islamists after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in order to destabilize the pro-Soviet government of Mohammed Najibullah.

    The whole “Ronald-Reagan-is-the-devil” bent these days absolves too many other people from responsibility, paints every Afghan organization as a hardline Islamist group and lumps together the Taliban & al Qaeda with groups that have actually have opposed both the Taliban and al Qaeda even when the U.S. [post Reagan] was content to accept Taliban control in Afghanistan all through the 1990s.

    Posting items that lump together the mujahideen, al Qaeda and the Taliban as one is really irresponsible.

    “You will do anything and say anything to defend that Jew Hating slime (Reagan).”

    I will do anything that can be done in an honorable way

    — that will keep the likes of you from getting away with dishonestly sliming the memory of a better man than you; that’s my DUTY in this matter, PARTICULARLY as a Jew.

    But then, I’ve also had occasion to defend PresentCompany from the SAME sliming by others.

    All in all, Yamit, my conscience is clean

    — squeaky clean.

    I wonder if you can say the same.

    “The truth is not slander…”

    Of course — but how would YOU know the difference?

    “What kind of a Mystic are you? Christian- Fascist- Imperialist?”

    Oh, all of the above, for sure.

    — Aren’t we all?

  29. bernard ross says:

    Dweller, I do not wish to come between your discussion with Yamit however a couple of statements from your political inquirer blog raised my eyebrows.
    “Saying that these people were Taliban (or al Qaeda) paints every Afghan political organization with a broad brush and delegitimizes their right to self-determination.”
    This comment appears to relegate the determination of a fact subject to its consequences (e.g.; delegitimization=falsehood) Perhaps there are cases where there is not a legitimate right to self determination as in mental incapacity and criminal behavior.

    “The Taliban was a creature of Pakistani intelligence and Deobandi/Wahhabi religious indoctrination – ..”
    “Al Qaeda grew out of Arab fighters that went to Afghanistan – with CIA and Saudi involvement –……”

    Wahhabi and Saudi occupy the same political axis. The saudi/wahhabi connection appears to run both throughout muslim terrorism and with the US state dept. This appears to go back before the 1950′s. Therefore, in the case of both the Al quaeda and the Taliban there is a Saudi connection. There is also a strong paki and saudi connection. It appears that the saudis organized and/or financed both AQ and T and that this is also connected with the US. It would certainly appear that they are all connected. Even now as the Saudis “battle” Al quaeda they are also organizing them to fight in syria and lebanon for the sunni and the US still has a strong working open and clandestine relationship with the saudis on this issue also. One has to wonder what has really been going on?

  30. jrob says:

    The “right to self-determination” line is a hallmark of the US’s post WWII Captive Nation propaganda program, whereby covertly (and somewhat overtly if one keeps his eyes open) supported Axis allied nazis, emigres, and fascists are touted by the US government as having a natural ‘right to self-determination’.

    This lives on of course as one US administration after another emphasizes the right of subservient Muslim gangster regimes to ‘self determination’. Not surprisingly, the Jews have no such right, and the Jewish ‘occupiers’ and ‘settlers’ are impeding the rights of the PLO.

    The US ‘looking the other way’ is also a hallmark of defense/deflection of US support for jihadist mercenaries.

    I don’t always agree with Yamit, but I do agree that regardless of the various agitprop labels used in Western media (al quaeda, taliban, mujahedin, Arab springers, etc.), I only see the consistency of one administration after another supporting anti-secular, pro jihadist policy. The ‘republican’ presidents support this policy, as do the ‘democratic’ ones, although this policy seems to get a stronger marketing push when a ‘democrat’ is in office.

  31. yamit82 says:

    Saying it ain’t so Joe doesn’t cut it. You have no credibility without supplying sources which refute my statements, Rather than spending time and effort trying to find my attribution which could be millions according to Google why don’t you spend the same time and effort finding sources that support your own opinions. I doubt you can find any but the balls in your court put up or shut up you supercilious prig.

    I can supply the sourced confirmation re: Your Jew-hating slime-ball idol and also that of Brzezinski who was supplying and training the Mujahedin at least 6 months before the Soviet invasion. His plan according to his book was to entice the Russians to invade in-order to create their version of Vietnam. He is proud that it worked and helped to bring the USSR down.

  32. yamit82 says:

    Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

    documents shows that Reagan also played a major role in bringing on the terrorist war that followed—specifically, in abetting the rise of Osama Bin Laden.

    Once again, the story concerns the fascinating relationship between Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

    Gorbachev took the helm as the reform-minded general-secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985. Within months, he had decided privately to pull Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. One of his predecessors, Leonid Brezhnev,* had invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and the move was proving a disaster. Tens of thousands of Soviet troops had died; military morale was crumbling; popular protest—unheard of, till then, in Communist Russia—was rising. Part of the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was due to the fact that the Reagan administration was feeding billions of dollars in arms to Afghanistan’s Islamic resistance. Reagan and, even more, his intensely ideological CIA director, William Casey, saw the battle for Afghanistan as a titanic struggle in the war between Eastern tyranny and Western freedom. (Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had started assisting the resistance, but with not nearly the same largess or ambition.)

    Reagan’s Osama Connection
    How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin.
    By Fred Kaplan

    Posted Thursday, June 10, 2004

    Quote From the book titled, “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski:

    “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)

    Brzezinski likens geopolitics and the globalist strategies to moving pieces on a chessboard. What he fails to properly address is that it is the “Pawns” who are being played. These “Pawns” are the millions of human beings who have died as a result of formulated wars and secret agendas to create a global imperial power structure, with America at its apex.

  33. dweller says:

    “’Saying that these people were Taliban (or al Qaeda) paints every Afghan political organization with a broad brush and delegitimizes their right to self-determination.’

    “This comment [above] appears to relegate the determination of a fact subject to its consequences (e.g.; delegitimization=falsehood).

    “Perhaps there are cases where there is not a legitimate right to self determination as in mental incapacity and criminal behavior.”

    Well, of course there are such cases, Bernard.

    (Case-in-point: the Pali’s.)

    However, I don’t think it was the cited blogger’s intention — in referring [above] to “their” right to self-determination — to suggest that all claims to self-determination are legitimate.

    Nor do I see any reason to conclude that it was [that blogger] “PM”‘s view that “every Afghan political organization” had (or was asserting) such a ‘right.’

    In fact — notwithstanding the sloppy diction & syntax connected with the placement of the antecedent, “their” — it seems clear enough that it was PM’s intention here to reference the Afghan People’s right to self-determination (particularly in relation to the struggle with USSR).

    “Wahhabi and Saudi occupy the same political axis. The saudi/wahhabi connection appears to run both throughout muslim terrorism and with the US state dept. This appears to go back before the 1950?s.”

    Well, strictly speaking, the Sa’ud-Wahab connection goes back, maybe 150 years (or more).

    But invariably the US State Dept bureaucracy seems to lurk never far from earshot, an eminence grise that has held our Executive Branch in a tight grip since the Wilson Admin.

    “One has to wonder what has really been going on?”

    What indeed?

    I seriously doubt that it will ever be possible for Israel (or actually ANY little country; cf Taiwan, etc) to seriously trust the intentions of the Exec. Branch until the Arabist, Foggy Bottom bureaucracy is given the long-overdue “enema” it needs. One man’s opinion, to be sure.

    “I do not wish to come between your discussion with Yamit…”

    I realized that, Bernard; that’s why I was happy to address your concerns. What you must understand, however, is that the “discussion” to which you refer is not in fact about “Afghanistan” (except in a superficial sense). If you do a bit of exploring in the archives of Israpundit, it will become quickly apparent that the present exchange was really about Yamit’s hatred for Reagan. That little discourse (which continues) merely provides another pretext for the animus.

  34. dweller says:

    “Saying it ain’t so Joe doesn’t cut it.”

    You could profit from occasionally taking your own counsel. . . .

    “You have no credibility without supplying sources which refute my statements…”

    How so? — nothing that YOU’VE offerred even refutes (let alone, disproves) any of mine.

    Climb down from your horse, yahnkele; the unaccustomed height is apparently distorting your view of the ground & its proportions (especially, it seems, in relation to yourself).

    “[D]ocuments shows that Reagan also played a major role in bringing on the terrorist war that followed…”

    Show me the documents; I’ll have a look at them.

    From what documents I have seen (and so far as I’ve been able to tell), the only ‘role’ RR played in “bringing on the terrorist war that followed” was that of pulling out after the USSR withdrew, instead of staying-on to help the Afghans rebuild.

    It’s always a mistake to permit the creation of a power vacuum whenever a major player withdraws.

    — In geopolitics, as in physics (to say nothing of metaphysics), nature abhors a vacuum.

    “Part of the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was due to the fact that the Reagan administration was feeding billions of dollars in arms to Afghanistan’s Islamic resistance.”

    So?

    The idea was, first & foremost, to destroy the USSR & win the ColdWar. That’s why he was unwilling to do a deal w/ Gorbachev in re Afghanistan.

    RR’s overall, world-wide “battle plan” vis-a-vis the Soviets was “We win, they lose.” — It succeeded. (You got a problem with that?)

    Hence, the ’80′s struggle in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, etc.

    SUBSEQUENT administrations [Bush 41 & Clinton] returned to Afghanistan, to destabilize Najibullah, but they were clueless in understanding that the demise of the USSR was bound to make possible the rise of Islamism — so they weren’t on the lookout for it and thus had no problem getting into bed with the jihadis.

  35. dweller says:

    “Rather than spending time and effort trying to find my attribution…”

    I didn’t try to find any ‘attribution.’ However, I doubted that the text was the sort of thing you would yourself have written. So I went hunting.

    Took very little time — seconds, actually — to find that it was located in lots of places (not that this absolves you of withholding that fact in the first place).

    “…why don’t you spend the same time and effort finding sources that support your own opinions… [?]“

    Like yourself, shmendrick?

    And here I was, thinking the idea is to start with sources — and move to opinions.

    Not begin with the opinions, and then find excuses to hold them. . . .

    Somebody might characterize THAT as having an axe to grind — but that wouldn’t be the M.O. of PresentCompany, I’m sure.

    But I’m digressing. Back on-point:

    Opinions are based on the working together of both fact AND reasoning.

    Most of the facts that I’ve asserted are broadly & generally accepted — and in any case, they do not directly or implicitly impugn anybody’s character.

    If you challenge any fact that I’ve asserted, I’ll consider it.

    So far, however, you haven’t.

    My REASONING, however, is another matter: no way will you accept that — because you don’t WANT to.

    Nothing I can do about that.

    “[T]he ball’s in your court…”

    So you say.

    On the other hand, as you also state,
    “Saying it [is or] ain’t so Joe doesn’t cut it.”

    “I can supply the sourced confirmation re: Your Jew-hating slime-ball idol…”

    So supply it; I’m waiting.

    For the record, however: Unlike yourself, I don’t HAVE idols.

    And nothing you have ever YET ‘provided’ has shown Reagan to be a ‘Jew-hater’ OR a ‘slime-ball’ OR an ‘idol.’

    (What you have thus far adduced in that respect has shown us FAR more about yourself than it could ever show about him.)

    “… and also that of Brzezinski who was supplying and training the Mujahedin at least 6 months before the Soviet invasion. His plan according to his book was to entice the Russians to invade in-order to create their version of Vietnam. He is proud that it worked and helped to bring the USSR down.

    Zbig has never been much more than a self-important & self-promoting blowhard — dead-set on showing the world just how ‘big’ he is/was.

    If you choose to take seriously anything about that stupendously stale fart, then by-all-means, be my guest.

  36. Wallace Brand says:

    Catarin, He may be a Christian, but is he a Jeremiah Wright, Trinity Church Christian and also a Black Liberation Theology Christian?

  37. Wallace Brand says:

    The foregoing comments show there is much division between the left and the right, but the gist of the article here is that the Islamists are successful in persuading the US government that they represent the entire Muslim community when they do not. I have also read they have done the same in the UK and UK policy has also relied on that premise.

    The question is how we can change that situation. Some above say it is hopeless to try. I am not so sure of that.

  38. Joseph G Whitson says:

    WE ARE AT WAR!! Obama declared in 2008,” I will Destroy America.”
    I will replace your Christian Faith with Islam–You will worship my god
    Allah. I will also shred your Constitution and introduce the Socialist
    policies Soros and I have agreed upon. These policies will forever change
    America from a free market economy into a “Nanny State” of total dependence
    on Big Government for EVERYTHING. But, first we need an Economic Implosion
    that will destroy the Middle Class and share the wealth with my Islamic brothers
    to level the playing field with that of All the Middle East Islamic Countries. We
    will cause CHOAS in the Streets by using My Occupy Wall Street gangs to keep
    The Tea Party people in line. With my media in control, the voters will still be
    looking for a hand-out and will be too fearful to stand up and resist.
    In 2008 America thought The Fundamental Changes were to increase opportunity and
    prosperity in a free society. Obama’s Agenda is totally different from 2008. What
    he says and what does are opposite and are by design or hasn’t that been obvious to
    you yet.
    Who is protecting our Constitution? Who responds and goes into action when it is
    violated? Congress-Justice System-Courts–ALL have been silent since Obama and his
    Administration started shredding it. America is going down fast with only nine months
    left to right the ship. A SHIP HALF SUNK-IS SUNK. We’re now sitting dead in the water
    waiting to be finished off by Obama’s Socialist and Islamic Agendas. Deadlock by design.
    WE THE PEOPLE can get it done in Nov. if not before. Obama and his entire Administration
    should have been impeached-arrested-fitted in orange jump suits with silver bracelets
    and sent to GITMO waiting trial for treason and execution two years ago.

  39. yamit82 says:

    Whew!! Now tell us what you really think Whitson.

    Everything you said above and more was also said about FDR and his ‘New Deal’

  40. yamit82 says:

    And here I was, thinking the idea is to start with sources — and move to opinions.

    State your opinion along with relevant sources if any in support. You usually back up your opinion with other unsupported opinions. Lots of arcane information with no sourced links to credible sources to support your usually subjective opinions and doubtful accuracy of facts that you submit.

    Somebody might characterize THAT as having an axe to grind — but that wouldn’t be the M.O. of PresentCompany, I’m sure.

    I have no personal axes to grind and I even kinda like you.

    Opinions are based on the working together of both fact AND reasoning.

    Most of the facts that I’ve asserted are broadly & generally accepted — and in any case, they do not directly or implicitly impugn anybody’s character.

    If you challenge any fact that I’ve asserted, I’ll consider it.

    So far, however, you haven’t.

    If your facts are inaccurate,biased or incomplete then logically your reasoning will be fallacious. If one premise of a syllogism is off so will the conclusion. I do not accept the concept of ‘broadly & generally accepted’ facts if I disagree with your “reasoned conclusions”

    For the record, however: Unlike yourself, I don’t HAVE idols.

    Jesus? You know, the dude with the Mexican name.

    And nothing you have ever YET ‘provided’ has shown Reagan to be a ‘Jew-hater’ OR a ‘slime-ball’ OR an ‘idol.’

    I have, you just stubbornly refuse to accept it. That says more about you than me.

    (

    What you have thus far adduced in that respect has shown us FAR more about yourself than it could ever show about him.)

    Zbig has never been much more than a self-important & self-promoting blowhard — dead-set on showing the world just how ‘big’ he is/was.

    If you choose to take seriously anything about that stupendously stale fart, then by-all-means, be my guest.

    He may be all that and more but I give him more credit for psychopathic and sociopathic American policy inputs than you seem to. This guy has elevatd his personal demons and hatreds to a level only matched in our time to kissinger.

  41. bernard ross says:

    thanks, dweller: re the 50 years I meant regarding the US state Dept; definitely yes the saudi wahhabi compact goes back much further. The Saudi/wahhabi axis appears to be behind a lot of islamic terrorism and that relationship appears not to be a problem with the US. I believe it is possible that things are done through saudi wahabi channels with the knowledge and agreement of the US. I also believe that there is likely to be an old boys network of state and CIA that are working all sorts of deals with the saudis. Even now perhaps the saudis actually control Al quaeda as they apparently did in Iraq and now syria. Therefore it is not impossible that even 9-11 has a us saudi connection.

  42. dweller says:

    “I have no personal axes to grind… “

    Hogwash. Look at what you wrote:

    “…why don’t you spend the same time and effort finding sources that support your own opinions… [?]“

    When you think in terms of beginning with an ‘opinion’ and then seeking sources to back you up

    — instead of formulating an opinion as the end-product

    (even to the point of advocating that somebody else take the same tack)

    — then you DO have an axe to grind.

    It means you didn’t begin with an open mind, but began with a prejudiced one; you PREJUDGED, that’s what the word means. Re-read my last post [thread 17], you missed the point entirely.

    “…and I even kinda like you.”

    Sometimes; sometimes not.

    In any case, irrelevant to whether you have axes to grind.

    What you ‘kinda like’ about me is the FOIL that I provide

    — when you feel like jousting, dueling, matching wits

    pissing for distance.

    “If one premise of a syllogism is off so will the conclusion.

    If you can find instances of my using syllogistic argumentation, then bring it. (This should be good.)

    “I do not accept the concept of ‘broadly & generally accepted’ facts if I disagree with your ‘reasoned conclusions’.”

    Again, you missed the point in the remark. Read the whole sentence — not just the part about broadly accepted facts:

    “Most of the facts that I’ve asserted are broadly & generally accepted — and in any case, they do not directly or implicitly impugn anybody’s character.

    There’s a world of difference when somebody’s good name is at stake.

    “I can supply the sourced confirmation re: Your Jew-hating slime-ball idol…”

    “So supply it; I’m waiting. For the record, however: Unlike yourself, I don’t HAVE idols.”

    “Jesus? You know, the dude with the Mexican name”.

    He had no idols, and neither do I.

    “And nothing you have ever YET ‘provided’ has shown Reagan to be a ‘Jew-hater’ OR a ‘slime-ball’ OR an ‘idol’.”

    “I have, you just stubbornly refuse to accept it.”

    The only efforts you have EVER made have turned out to be spurious; sources that don’t check out; ‘facts’ that turn out not to be facts.
    Facts are stubborn things.

    They don’t support your claims

    or those of YOUR idol, Francisco Gil-White.

    I’ve shown you why and HOW — in myriad posts all over this site.

    Talk about “back[ing] up your opinion with other unsupported opinions”! — whew. . . .

    His claims are simply not supported by his own data.
    He’s wrong about Reagan in re Jews.

    He’s wrong about Reagan in re Israel.

    He’s wrong about Reagan in re Nazis.

    He’s ALSO wrong about Reagan in re other things too, not even pertinent to matters Jewish.

    But you began with FGW’s opinions — very poorly founded ones — because they reinforce your own; you WANTED to believe them, so you were sloppy in checking them out.

    Classic testimony to a mind with an axe to grind

    — yours

    and his.

  43. Joseph G Whitson says:

    YaMit82,
    What I really think is that G. Soros is not heavily invested in the
    Electronic Voting Machine Business because he needs the money. Is this
    his “Ace In The Hole” to steal the 2012 election for Obama? He can’t set
    the machines until the Republicans pick a horse to run against The Anointed
    One.Obama can’t win on his record. Stealing the election is his best option.

  44. david frankel says:

    obama is a muslim S O B A RACISIST A BEGOT AND A NAZI

Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 19,310
  • Last 7 days: 145,386
  • Last 30 days: 341,769
  • Online now: 72
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments

  • Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic (195)

    • yamit82: @ honeybee: I love your imagery do you photo them???? I would or at...

    • yamit82: dweller Said: — a 10-minute video takes 10 minutes to watch, and I...

    • honeybee: @ yamit82: Doe outsides my back door ,eat the flower sprouts. She...

    • honeybee: @ yamit82: you amaze me, where in the world do you learn all this...

    • yamit82: dweller Said: — If you have a point to make, then make it in your...

  • Obama Plans to Return Looted Jewish Artifacts To Iraq (22)

    • CuriousAmerican: @ honeybee: The Zuni of NM are attempting re-confiscated...

    • CuriousAmerican: honeybee@ honeybee: The Zuni of NM are attempting...

    • dove: @ CuriousAmerican: matter-of-fact Ah yes….you do seem to be...

    • CuriousAmerican: Dove I certainly understand how you took CA’s comment. He...

    • honeybee: SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said: Will that happen I shall sabotage the...

  • Crimea, Ukraine and the Agony of Impotence (Part II) (2)

    • CuriousAmerican: None of this would have happened if Obama had not shown...

    • ppksky: It could be that one of the reasons that the Russian Federation will...

  • There is No Authentic Right in Israel (37)

    • dove: @ AbbaGuutuu: Being a warmonger, greedy and racist are not something...

    • honeybee: @ AbbaGuutuu: I stand with Yamit82.

    • AbbaGuutuu: yamit82 Said: Not lies, Jews were warmongers, are greedy and very...

    • AbbaGuutuu: Bear Klein Said: The over focus on labels right, not so right,...

    • AbbaGuutuu: honeybee Said: Non aggression that’s what I was taught. But then...

  • Steve Goldberg: The Only Viable Option (7)

    • honeybee: @ Ted Belman: So glad everything is returning to better than normal.

    • ppksky: These proposals are more good news out of Israel. At this point, it...

    • ArnoldHarris: @ Ted Belman: Thanks, Ted. That will be a great help. What is...

Sponsor

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Site Membership



Google Site Search

Editor

    Ted Belman

    tbelman3-at-gmail.com

Mission

    News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

Polls

Will Israel attack Iran

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

RECOMMENDED BOOKS




Tolerism2

Iran islam

Sharing

mandate4

Daily Archives

April 2014
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Selected Israpundit Articles

Sponsors

Miscellaneous Info

    All Politic Sites