Brian Koontz on the other hand raises an interesting pt, before going off into Mindreading. Yes, it may seem logical that the Iranians would think as Koontz describes — but that is pure speculation, & the Iranians deny it.

Mucho Props to Dr Shahid Alam, very knowledgeable article, I’ll have to go see his website.

The other day a friend & I were talking about the Zionist strategy, the well-debunked conspiracy to rule the world, what the real aims of those who adhere to Zionism might be, the contradiction between Zionist values and purely Capitalist “bottomline” motivations, between Herzl’s vision and Karl Marx’s “Accumulate Accumulate, that is Mose & the Prophets”.
We disagreed on several mostly minor pts, but seemed to “reach consensus” that the Vision being pursued now might have seemed so ambitious, so remote, in Herzl’s day, even in Ben Gurion’s, as to not be worth talking about & best not mentioned. But said Vision would seem to be one that took the British Empire as the model: a tiny southern half of a small island in control of all the world worth controlling.
In the days when most of the globe was Anglo-Saxon pink, a large swath was Ottoman green. If the Israelis/ZPC/Lobby can con Bush or successor into bombing Iran into the stone age, little would stand in the way of turning said swath Dodger Blue… At least that seems to be the vision that keeps the fanatics united: a pot of Blue at the end of the rainbow, & they don’t mean Durban. Knock off Iran, extend the Kosher Kruzade to Pakistan, then on to Indonesia where all the goodies are.

Did not the USA achieve primacy on the world stage NOT by challenging its predecessor, but by becoming the British Empire’s top ally?
Shalom Shalom, onward & upward, no end in sight is there.

Michael Kenny is camouflaged troll. I admit he is good in sophistry.
Do not waste any time or energy rebutting his good but appartent sophistry.

That’s crazy. Many countries have gone to the UN as victims of the aggression of the American state, and that’s all that happens – they end up being victims of the American state who have paid a visit to the UN. Iran is much more powerful in all ways than most of those countries but to say a massive possibly nuclear attack “suits them perfectly”, regardless of whether you’re talking about the Iranian state or the Iranian people, is wrong. The Iranian state made serious peace overtures to the Bush Administration in 2003, before deducing rationally that this administration could not be reasoned with and they had better get going on a nuclear program ASAP to protect themselves.

The Iranian state saw what happened to Iraq precisely because Saddam Hussein *did not* have weapons of mass destruction. They don’t want the same thing to happen to their country.

On the other hand, Professor Alam is perfectly right to say that Europe wanted to see the last of the Jews, who, as an alien people on other’s people’s land, just didn’t fit into Europe’s territorial monoculture and the development of nationalism in 19th century Europe exacerbated that. Indeed, the reason why there is no significant hatred of Jews feeling in modern Europe is that the great mass of Europeans don’t see any Jews to hate! Here again, the antics of the US Israel Lobby are slowly changing things but so far mostly at the level of the elite. What would really change things would be if Israel collapsed suddenly, causing large numbers of Jews to flood back into Europe. It is to avoid that that European leaders pussyfoot so much around Israel. They would like to see Israel wither away slowly, with the Jews “seeping” towards New York, or somewhere or anywhere but not back into Europe!

Nobody here sees Europe as being in any kind of a “partnership” with the Jews (not even the Jews, who see us as being under their thumb, not their partners!), and certainly not an irreversible one. Europe’s difficulty in “ditching” the Jews stems from the US stranglehold on the world economy and the Lobby’s stranglehold on US politics, and the former is easier to break than the latter. US military power begat the economic power which begat the political power. But US military power is now destroyed, which is why the dollar is falling apart, and that is slowly but surely depriving the US of its political power. The US is like a crazed psychopath, armed to the teeth, but whom everybody can see is running out of ammunition.

The theory that the Jews did a deal with Britain and France to use their international connections to keep Russia in the war (Kerensky was Jewish!) and get the US to join (there’s no “more fully” in this case, that was WWII) is one I hadn’t heard but it certainly is plausible. The post-WWI theory was that Jews in the world of Viennese industry and finance egged Austria to attack Serbia in the belief that it would be a short war, like all other European wars since Waterloo, and that they would make a packet of money financing it and replacing lost war material. That too is plausible and, indeed, both could well be true.

Professor Alam’s final question is much too pessimistic! He assumes that US/Israel will be successful in any attack on Iran and that it will be for history to judge. No way! An attack on Iran would instantly and irreversibly discredit both the US and Israel, which is why I don’t think they’ll do it. Indeed, it would suit the Iranians perfectly if they were attacked! All they would have to do is go to the UN as the victim of aggression. The US would have to veto the Security Council resolution condemning it and Israel, thus shooting themselves in the other foot. Europe would not support them for fear of terrorism and the same fear would push Europeans to want the US out of the NATO bases. Those bases are simply a pretext for keeping forces and military supplies near to Israel. Losing them would be a disaster and Iran isn’t worth the price! Heads, Iran wins, tails, the US loses!