Who Gets Totally Obliterated, Iran Or the US?

Norman Podhoretz, an impassioned cheerleader for war with Iran, reached heights of apocalyptic sang-froid scaled only by the criminally insane when he predicted the following scenario, in the event of a US attack on Iran: “It [Iran] would attack Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love-fest.”

But Hillary Clinton isn’t frightened, even as commentators from all over the political spectrum issue similar dire warnings. She told an ABC interviewer, “In the next 10 years, during which they [the Iranians] might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” The threat (which the Boston Globe called “foolish and dangerous” and the Saudi-based Arab News called the “foreign politics of the madhouse”) puts her in lockstep agreement with President Bush, who has pledged to “defend Israel, no ifs, ands, or buts.”

Mrs. Clinton is so desperate to play the tough guy card that she’s had herself photographed throwing shots and beers back with the boys. Now, with her nuclear threat, she proves that she’ll say anything, do anything in order to win what Ken Silverstein of Harper’s calls “the frenzied bidding war to be the most ‘pro-Israel.’” There’s no indication, as yet, that she’s ready to explain the monstrous consequences of a war with Iran to the American people.

William Lind, writing from the Center for Cultural Conservatism, fears the slaughter of US troops in Iraq, if we bomb Iran. Iranian regulars and Iraqi militias, grossly outnumbering US forces, could cut off US supply lines from Kuwait. “[W]e could lose the army now deployed in Iraq,” said Lind in an Antiwar.com piece. If that happens, “American power and prestige would never recover.” Consequences at home could be as ugly as those abroad. An attack on Iran would be an invitation to a retaliatory terrorist attack on American turf, and, as Pentagon Papers author Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, “if there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country, detention camps for middle-easterners and their…sympathizers, critics of the President’s policy and essentially the wiping-out of the Bill of Rights.”

Should the US risk existential defeat for Israel?

Clinton adviser Ann Lewis seems to think so. Lewis, President Clinton’s Director of Communications in the late nineties, is now an active member of Hillary’s campaign staff, and, in the event of a Clinton win, likely to follow her, in some capacity, back into the White House. Making Mrs. Clinton’s case for president at a United Jewish Communities debate in Washington, she recently made the astounding pronouncement that “[t]he role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.” And what are these “decisions that are made by the Israeli people?” A survey by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found “fully 71 percent of Israelis believe that the United States should launch a military attack on Iran if diplomatic efforts fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, according to a new poll.”

But Mrs. Lewis is not on record as to what responsibility, if any, Israel has here? Despite a decades-long propaganda campaign that paints Israel as an island of stability in an otherwise unstable corner of the world, this sixty year old state, without geographical borders or a constitution, doesn’t seem able or willing to enforce its own laws. Benjamin Netanyahu pledged recently that, in the event of his election to Prime Minister of Israel, he will disregard any peace deal made between current Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. So Israel would be selective in its choice of treaties to honor, but the US, as pledged by President George Bush and potential president Hillary Clinton, would go to war for Israel without reservation or qualification.

The moderate voice of President Abbas identifies Israel’s illegal settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as “the most important obstacle to the peace process.” Yet Israel has broadened its settlement construction so expansively (even as an ever-groveling US State Department “warns” against it) that, according to the Israeli group Peace Now “almost nothing is left of the [Annapolis peace conference] promise that Israel would freeze construction in the settlements.” Why should America risk everything for a so-called ally who cares so little for a genuine peace process?

No matter how many illegal settlements rise, no matter how cruel the collective punishment of innocents in Gaza, no matter how many broken promises on the “road map to peace,” and – most frighteningly – no matter how deadly the consequences to the US, Clinton would write Israel a blank check.

Pat Buchanan, that severe old lion of the Paleo Right, writes in a recent column, “In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval.” The Jewish Telegraph Agency, in a March 2007 piece, referred to the destruction of that same resolution: “It did not help AIPAC’s case for bipartisanship [at it’s annual convention] that the lobby this week successfully pressed for the removal of a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have required the president to get congressional approval for war against Iran.” In the same JTA piece, Representative Gary Ackerman brags, “you should get them [the Iranians] to know that maybe we’re as crazy as they think we are.”

Now Hillary Clinton has shown the world just how crazy she is.

Michael Nolan is a writer living in Massachusetts. His work has appeared in Antiwar.com, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice, Lew Rockwell.com, and the Vermont Guardian. He can be reached at: nolanmj@msn.com. Read other articles by Michael.

45 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Danny Ray said on May 1st, 2008 at 5:30am #

    Reading you article it becomes apparent that we would not retaliate on Iran if they attack Israel, due to the fact that it would be inconvenient for us. Would it be convenient to strike if Iran attacked France or Italy? Where do you draw the line on abandoning our allies? Whatever happened to Honor?

  2. D.R. Munro said on May 1st, 2008 at 6:15am #

    That is a good point Danny, but Israel is not just an ally. Israel and the US have a unique relationship, something we don’t have with France, Italy, or even the UK.

    Either way, this whole idea of Iran launching biological attacks on Israel is simply fear-mongering and propaganda. Everyone in the Middle-East, nay, the World knows that when you attack and declare war on Israel, you may as well declare war on the United States. Just ask HP how many dual-citizen Israelis occupy high-ranking seats in the Halls of Power.

    Also, Israel is the only nuclear country in the region. I don’t believe for a minute that Iran would risk nuclear retaliation (which Israel would surely perform) by a pre-emptive, non-nuclear strike on Tel Aviv.

    That said, and this being America, better buckle your seatbelts. It is nearly inevitable at this point, what with all this rehtoric being spewed for years, that war is coming. Maybe not even in the next five years, but it will come. King George drew his battle-lines when he declared his Axis of Evil.

  3. Michael Kenny said on May 1st, 2008 at 6:31am #

    The interesting thing is that a US attack on Iran at this point would actually suit Iran. The Iranians would have no need whatsoever to strike back. The attack would be perceived as a desperate, last ditch, kamikaze operation by the US neocons and their Israeli dog waggers, and with the world’s TV screens full of dead children and crying mothers, the Iranians could simply go to the Security Council (the UN is certainly not going to approve such an attack!) as the victims of unlawful agression.

  4. D.R. Munro said on May 1st, 2008 at 6:35am #

    You’re right, Michael. However, even if that is the case, and the UN condemns it as lawless aggression – the UN is in no position to determine what the United States can and can’t do. It simply doesn’t have the political power to force the US to adhere to its decrees. The attack would continue indefinitely, even if world opinion was severely against it.

    The only thing that would possibly force the United States out would be crippling trade embargos. And to be honest, Western Europe will never levy a trade embargo against the United States – at least not in this decade.

  5. Lloyd Rowsey said on May 1st, 2008 at 6:49am #

    There’s indigestion in the belly of the beast?

  6. Doug D. said on May 1st, 2008 at 7:05am #

    Not to be snarky about it, but…
    from Michael Kenny:
    “…and with the world’s TV screens full of dead children and crying mothers…”

    Except, I’d imagine, U.S. TV screens, if current “collateral damage” prevalence on American TV is any indication.

  7. Bizzy said on May 1st, 2008 at 7:39am #

    Not sure what Danny Ray is talking about here, under my comment … not sure that he’s even read the article.

    In the article, the author challenges the very question of having this grossly criminal settler state even as an “ally”. Why defend at all cost a country that disregards international law, ignores even the most weak attempts at peace with its neighbors, continues to expand it’s borders, constructs illegal open air prisons for palestinians, while submitting the people to countless atrocities and selective punishment?

    Iran doesn’t even have these capabilities currently … but if some country were to attack France or Italy or Canada, the circumstances would be very different because the nature and history of these countries is quite different. On what basis do we consider these countries to be “allies”.

    The problem is, in my view, that while our country CLAIMS to be allied with democracy and peace while in opposition to terrorism and autocracy … our affiliations and partnerships tell a different story. We form allies on the grounds of economic (capitalist) and military benefit (Saudi Arabia, China, Israel are all gross human rights violators but favored by the US government) … this is made even more clear when we see the kind of attacks endured by the deeply democratic country of Venezuela.

    The Israeli partnership is about military convenience, deep racism, and by now it’s become a thing of elite pop culture.

  8. mary said on May 1st, 2008 at 7:43am #

    And this evil heartless Zionist has this to say in the Jewish Chronicle (UK). She is obviously feeling blood thirsty, the one who is given endless airtime on the BBC, eg Moral Maze, Question Time etc., and who ‘writes’ for the Daily Mail and has her own website from which to spew out her hate.

    Now is the time to attack Iran
    By Melanie Phillips
    Everyone is waiting. In Israel, they are waiting for the 60th-anniversary celebrations to be over and for President Bush to have visited and returned home. Then, they say, the IDF will make its long-anticipated major incursion into Gaza. Then at last the problem of the ever-intensifying attacks by Hamas will be dealt with.

    Across the world, everyone is waiting for the interminable US presidential election to be over. Then, many believe, the paralysis over Iran will end. Then, they think, the prospect of a military strike on Tehran will either swiftly be realised or permanently be laid to rest (depending on who actually wins).

    And meanwhile the hallucinatory Middle East appeasement process meanders ever onwards, accompanied by dark rumblings about a secret backstairs sell-out Israel deal being cooked up between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas and enlivened by the Israel-phobic Jimmy Carter, fresh from paying homage at the tomb of Yasser Arafat, announcing the prospect of peace in our time with Hamas.

    But waiting comes with a heavy price tag. It provides alibis for putting off what needs to be done quickly; it results in the slaughter of yet more innocents; and it gives the advantage to the player for whom time is crucial. That player is Iran.

    The reason Israel hasn’t done what it needs to do in Gaza is not because of anniversaries or official visits. It is because of Gilad Shalit, the IDF soldier who is now in his twenty-second month of captivity by Hamas.

    Israel will not invade Gaza because of fears that Shalit will then be killed. Shalit is being used by Hamas as a hostage to prevent Israel from wiping it out. The result is that other Israelis are being relentlessly attacked and murdered. And the puppeteer pulling Hamas’s strings is Iran.

    The West tends to put the various Middle East conflicts into boxes marked “Israel-Palestinian dispute”, “Iraq”, “Lebanon”, “Hamas”, “al Qaida” and “Iranian nuclear threat”. The fact is, however, that all roads lead to Iran.

    Iran is simply the centre of strategic gravity in the region and in the war against the free world. It has encircled Israel through Hamas in Gaza and through Hizbollah in Lebanon, where it has also all but snuffed out the Lebanese democracy.

    In Iraq, Iran is the central player. The Petraeus surge may have been successful. And the Iraqis recently surprised many by deciding to fight the Iranian-backed supporters of Moqtada al Sadr in Basra, causing Iran to beat a strategic retreat. But the fact is that, in Iraq, Iran has suborned government, insurgent and religious leaders.

    As for al Qaida, the idea that Shi’ite Iran would never ally with Sunni terrorists is a lethal illusion. Iran has had working arrangements with al Qaida for years, as it has with other Sunni terror groups in their common cause against the West.

    And although the West may not realise it, Iran has spread there too. In Britain and Europe, it has a sleeping army composed of Hizbollah cells and Iranian intelligence which uses western Iranian embassies as explosives stores. If Iran is attacked, Tehran will respond by unleashing Iranian terror in the West.

    The prerequisite for stabilising all these hotspots — including “Israel/Palestine” — and dealing with global Islamic terror is regime change in

    Tehran. The question is how.

    Far, far more should already have been done. There should have been earlier and fiercer economic sanctions along with diplomatic estrangement. It is extraordinary that Britain still has diplomatic relations with Iran while (along with the US) it proscribes the PMOI, the principal opposition movement which is committed to human rights, as a terrorist organisation. The fact is that Iran declared war on the West in 1979 as soon as Ayatollah Khomeini came to power — the last great contribution made by President Jimmy Carter to world peace. Ever since, Iranian militias have been attacking Western interests; ever since, the West has refused to acknowledge this.

    People say war against Iran would turn a largely pro-western people against the West. But war need not mean carpet-bombing Tehran. It can and should mean targeted strikes on the regime and its principal interests.

    War should always be a last resort. But, as in the 1930s, the West once again has failed to take the appropriate intermediate steps. Such a failure of nerve makes war more likely, not less.

    As a result, the choice is not between war and peace. War with Iran is almost certainly inevitable. The choice is between war on our terms or on those laid down by Iran. The longer we wait, the more that choice is loaded against the defeat of this most lethal of all threats to the free world.

  9. The Institute said on May 1st, 2008 at 8:34am #

    Alright, we know Hil would push the button from a safe distance. But would she join Bubba in a trench? THAT’s the true measure of committment.


    Clinton enlists in Israel’s aid ; He’d ‘fight and die’ for Jewish state
    Stephen Dinan, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.:Aug 3, 2002. p. A01

    Abstract (Summary)
    “The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd at a fund- raising event for a Toronto Jewish charity Monday.

  10. hp said on May 1st, 2008 at 9:17am #

    The Soviets/Russians ‘eliminated’ approx. 15,000 – 20,000 nukes from their inventory. Iran has billions of dollars at their disposal.
    In this world of gangsterism, banksterism and lying cheating dealings, I find it relatively easy to believe that Iran has procured one, two, a dozen nukes. Saudi Arabia also.
    At this moment the US is in the midst of a complete accounting for of its approx. 10,000 – 12,000 nukes. Any bets as to discrepancies?
    I remember in 2001 Iran bought a half dozen nuclear capable long range cruise missiles (KH-55) from ‘private citizens’ of Ukraine. Unauthorized and illegal, but a done deal nonetheless. Rest assured though that these missiles were not armed with the 200 kiloton nukes they are made to carry. This ‘assurance’ was made by the same arms dealers who sold the missiles in the first place. Oh, OK….

  11. Chris Crass said on May 1st, 2008 at 9:17am #

    “…the Iranians could simply go to the Security Council” and promptly get vetoed. The UN is only useful to punish America’s “enemies.”
    I hope for the day the world wakes up and embargoes the US. Now that the manufacturing base of the US has been scrapped, the economy has self-destructed, and the armed forces are all tied up, what’s to stop it? The nuclear option holds no water, because you can’t sell the internet or whatever to ghosts.

  12. Woody said on May 1st, 2008 at 9:42am #

    Is anybody seriously going to start WW3 to defend a bunch of racists like the Israelis? If America does this, it can say goodbye to those few friends it has left. I run a personal boycott against Israeli and US products and related stuff, as do millions of others. This is growing, and the faster the better.

  13. joed said on May 1st, 2008 at 10:42am #

    HP is listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.
    iran seems to be one of the least agressive countries. but, Iran does have every right to defend its people and land. iran and its people are, in fact, friendly, kind, considerate to the peoples of the world. and you gotta’ respect’em fer standin’ up to the real terrorists; amerika and israel.

  14. hp said on May 1st, 2008 at 11:16am #

    joed, I don’t have a radio and don’t listen to Rush or the NPR.
    And who said anything about aggression?
    I simply brought to light an obscure fact that Iran procured, in 2001, a half dozen or so long range nuclear capable cruise missiles. Did you know this?
    Why do you presume to think for me or attempt to smear me with your rude and immature accusation?

  15. Arch Stanton said on May 1st, 2008 at 11:31am #

    “… the real terrorists; amerika and israel.”

    And quite spectacular terror states they are. But at this point, about all they have are ludicrous threats. They may be able obliterate Iran, they may be able obliterate Russia, they may be able to obliterate the planet, but so what? Assuming humanity is still a viable species after events spiral out of control (as they most certainly will) they won’t be in any better position than they are now–two hyper-violent tyrannical states bleeding their formal control of the planet from every orifice.

    There’s absolutely nothing they can do about the ineluctable loss of their hegemony except commit global suicide. I’d be willing to bet that fact is at the heart of their hebephrenic hysteria.

  16. catherine said on May 1st, 2008 at 11:37am #

    I run a personal boycott against Israeli and US products and related stuff, as do millions of others. This is growing, and the faster the better.

    Woody, do you have a website for the boycott, or can you recommend one? I’d like to know what to boycott. Thanks

  17. evie said on May 1st, 2008 at 11:45am #

    The US still makes “products”?

  18. Woody said on May 1st, 2008 at 12:06pm #

    Hi Catherine – the following are useful, otherwise google ‘boycott israel’ or similar.
    It’s not just Israeli products but brands that have investment links to Israel or sell there (e.g. Caterpillar). Extra problems for you girls because so many perfumes, toiletries, medicines and clothes brands are in volved. And try buying a computer without an Intel processor – it’s possible, I’ve just bought a laptop with an AMD, but that’s American.

  19. Edwin Pell said on May 1st, 2008 at 12:10pm #

    Israel is no ally. Israel is the enemy. Lets defend America.

  20. Woody said on May 1st, 2008 at 12:28pm #

    US firms wherever they happen to make things.

  21. mary said on May 1st, 2008 at 1:09pm #



    This website has been set up for two main purposes:
    – To help people who want to boycott produce from Israel and illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, by providing sources of information about companies, products etc.
    – To act as an educational resource… many people have not the foggiest idea of the war crimes, human rights abuses and flagrant breaches of international humanitarian law that are regularly committed by the Israeli Government and its armed forces (the IDF) in the what remains of Palestine. The many links on this page will lead you to valuable sources of information.

    Lest there be any doubt on the subject, this site is not anti-Jewish. Many of the sites linked to on this page are run by Jews and/or Israeli citizens who are at the forefront of efforts to secure peace and justice in the Middle East. We are opposed to the Likud Government that is in power in Israel today, however we are not anti-Israel, on the contrary, we believe that it is only through the delivery of peace and justice for all citizens of the region that Israel can prosper in the long term.

    As soon as Israel reaches a just peace with the Palestinian people within the framework of international law we will call an end to this boycott.”

  22. hp said on May 1st, 2008 at 1:13pm #

    Israe is as committed to peace as mosquitoes are committed to swamp draining.

  23. joed said on May 1st, 2008 at 1:46pm #

    Hi HP,
    i often say rude and immature remarks. most often to people that imply something about Iran. your implying that iran’s credibility is not worth much because the voucher sells black market nukes is really out there. iran is a wonderful country with wonderful people and culture. iranians had the courage to take back from amerika their country. this is courage that amerikans seem to lack in their own country.
    the “obscure fact” that you mention sounds to me like something that rush limbaugh would dream up and pass on as “fact”, and anyway, Iran has every right to defend its people and land against the real terrorists; amerika and israel.

  24. evie said on May 1st, 2008 at 1:52pm #

    “… ____ has every right to defend its people and land against …____”

    One size mantra fits all, just fill in the blanks.

  25. hp said on May 1st, 2008 at 2:00pm #

    You’re arguing with yourself, joed.
    I’m not making anything up.
    I’m not implying anything negative about Iran.
    I believe Iran has a right to self defense. Not only a right, but an obligation. Hence the KH-55 cruise missiles purchased from Ukraine in 2001.
    Saying someone sounds like Rush, as if this makes your case, is very weak and in this case, errant.
    Just the facts, joed.
    Look it up. It’s really not so obscure. Unless you want it to be.
    Don’t shoot the messenger.

  26. bozhidar balkas said on May 1st, 2008 at 4:19pm #

    sadly that alsomuch of christian and european world eggs on US/IOF to attack iran.
    iran has had time to buy a nuclear bomb. if it did acquire one or several, then the question arises can iran use them if atacked by nuclear weapons? surely, russians knows there is no more natinalism; no laws; there is now question of surviaval. and what cornerd ‘rat’ might do, nobody dares even talk about.
    this euro-khazaro-semitic people are holding us hostages; its dream, becoming our nightmare.
    iran can aslo close hormuz strait by sinking tankers.
    it’s just too risky to attack iran. it’s also cowardly/immoral/ilegal. thank u

  27. mary said on May 2nd, 2008 at 3:35am #

    This was in The Australian yesterday:

    “Who would have believed that 63 years later, hatred of Jews and Israelis would rear its ugly head in so many different places around the globe, provocatively and venomously, inciting hatred?” he said.

    The Jewish state’s elder statesman, President Shimon Peres, implored the world to stop the eruption of a nuclear war before it began, saying turning a blind eye to Hitler in the 1930s had been a grave mistake.

    “In my heart I am terrified when I recall there existed the possibility that Hitler might obtain a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    “A leader who destroyed masses with a weapon of mass destruction, combined. What would have been left of our world then?”


    Words cannot describe my contempt for Israeli politicians, here cynically using the holocaust for political purposes, while they themselves are committing a holocaust on the Palestinians and are provoking a similar fate for the Iranians.

  28. bozhidar balkas said on May 2nd, 2008 at 5:22am #

    i thank my devil that sephardim are not raping palestinian women. i think they are forbidden to do that because they are arabushim; i.e., vile, primitive, etc., in the eyes of blue-eyed euro-khazaro-semitic people.
    i wish i had more good news for u.

  29. Alex said on May 2nd, 2008 at 6:59am #

    I have no access to the halls of power. But, feel free to walk with me a moment…

    If you understand the rise and fall of Empires, or even played the game Civilization, Risk or even Chess, you will better understand the notion or why nations go to war. In other words, the world is one big chess board ‘the leaders’ are the chess masters and ‘the people’ are the chess pieces. The name of the game is to control the board. Thus, most of the world is actually color coded to be apart of one Empire or another either Russian, Anglo-American, Franco-German, China, etc. There are very few truly independant nations almost ever nation ‘belongs’ to an Empire.

    Now, given this Empire mindset, let’s see how our American leaders are playing the game in a place on the board called the Middle East. If you look at the main players, they are from the Anglo-American Empire – that is how the nations in the Middle East are color coded. There was a military white paper after WW2 that entailed the Anglo-American Empires plan on dominating the Middle East one piece or country at a time. The only countries that have yet to be dominated as per this military white paper are Syria, Iran and Southern Lebanon. Everything else went according to the plan in the white paper with the exception of ‘losing’ Iran in 1979 when the Iranians took back their country.

    Does this clear up any confusion as to the intend of American policy in the Middle East? How many countries does the Anglo-American Empire ‘control’?

  30. Alex said on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:14am #

    To Mary, thanks for your last post – my comments are below:

    The Jewish state’s elder statesman, President Shimon Peres, implored the world to stop the eruption of a nuclear war before it began, saying turning a blind eye to Hitler in the 1930s had been a grave mistake.

    “In my heart I am terrified when I recall there existed the possibility that Hitler might obtain a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    “A leader who destroyed masses with a weapon of mass destruction, combined. What would have been left of our world then?”


    Yes, I am VERY concerned that a young 60 year old Middle Eastern nation, with a very aggressive history has WMDs and nukes at that. I can only hope that the respectable President Shimon Peres will ensure the world that his country will not start or instigate in any way a nuclear holocaust. This hope includes that Hillary Clinton and Israeli radical-right leaders stop threatening to ‘wipe out’ Iran, a peaceful nation that has not attacked anyone in over 250 years.

  31. Tony S. said on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:35am #

    I’ve always thought about those 150,000 American troops in Iraq. If the United States bombs Iran, might as well write those 150,000 troops off as dead, because they will be.

  32. Shabnam said on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:56am #

    I don’t understand the reason behind mary’s “add to the discussion” post. This is not mary’s opinion rather a Zionist piece against Iran from ‘Jewish Chronicle’ which has been copied and pasted here to influence opinion. Don’t you think people can search for Zionist trash themselves? Or do you think Zionists don’t have enough propaganda platforms to neutralize the more balanced informative post of the
    “left.”? I don’t understand why does dissidentvoice post such a piece full of lies here? Mary could have simply given the site instead of full length article for propaganda purposes. Does “Mary” think readers of this site are so naïve to let this happens? This is against “add to the discussion.” spirit. Please don’t abuse it and we expose Zionists who pose as a “progressive Jew.”
    The Jewish Chronicle piece tries to keep the Zionist influence on American foreign policy intact using fears and propaganda tactics to wage another war in which Americans are actively involved in killing millions of innocent Iraqi, Somali, Pakistani, Afghani and many other peoples around the globe with their missiles Israeli style, “targeted assassination.” These atrocities should not and will not be easily forgotten and the victims definitely do the same when the opportunity arises. People of the world are fed up with the uncivilized actions and cooperation of the ignorant Americans, the racist Zionist Jews and their petty servants to kill millions of innocent people around the world and expect no reactions. People of the world are fed up with a foolish politician who is willing to obliterate more than 72 million Iranians to gain a few votes from the racist Zionists worst than fascists. Hillary thinks obliteration of Iranian people is a small price to pay to gain votes of those racists who designed and sold the destruction and massacre of Iraqi people during both administrations, Bush and Clinton, in which in the latter the Zionists pro Israel concentrated on strengthening US economic sanctions against Iran. In this pursuit, Martin Indyk, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an Israeli think tank, became instrumental. The rise of Martin Indyk to power in the Clinton Administration allowed him to carry on the policy of dual containment, which he took credit for devising, primarily by means of increasing sanctions against Iran and Iraq which caused more than 650,000 deaths in Iraq alone of whom majorities were children. This “small” price was worth it, the Zionist Secretary of States, Mad Albright told the world, to weaken both countries for the benefit of the apartheid state, not for the interest of American people, to set the stage for invasion and partition in these countries to create satellite state, such as “Kurdistan”, to help Israel to set the stage for Israel to expand its influence and power in the region with the help of the Kurdish terrorists as servants. The killing of Iraqi people was a small price to pay for the most pro Zionist administration, Clinton, to have full support of the Zionist lobby, the fifth column, on their side to help Hillary to be selected as servant of the Zionist for the senate from New York to support amendments beneficial to the Zionist interest such as Lieberman-Kyle amendment which labeled an army of a sovereign state, Iran, as a terrorist but leaves the apartheid state where is daily engaged in targeted assassination off the hook.
    Why the AIPAC GIRL should make such a stupid remarks which is not in the interest of the United States especially when the US gives more than $4 billions each year to Israel and Israel has a strong influence on US foreign policy?
    If Israel with advanced military equipments and several hundred, up to 600, bombs and strong financial support from wealthy Jews all over the world and strong political support from the “democratic” west including Sarkozy,Bernard Kouchner, Milliband and Bush can not defend herself against a country with no bomb, no arsenal matched with the Zionist’s weapons of mass destruction, WMD, no influence on the foreign policy of the empire, then why Hillary helps to transfer so many resources to an apartheid states to make her strong enough to have the upper hand to be engaged in daily killing of the indigenous population where these resources are urgently needed at home? How stupid one can get and expects to be elected? Now, it is very clear that to keep American population uninformed through shopping and breast augmentation or pines elongation is part of the deal to keep the status quo meaning constant supply of ignorant citizens for the implement- ation of the policy.
    Thus it is American responsibility to be informed and politically active to prevent another Zionist war with their active participation, otherwise they will face the consequences of their government’s policy if they choose to remain silent. People of the world will not sit idle against the war crimes committed by a hegemonic power, Zionist Lobby and its ignorant citizens trying to satisfy the Zionist Jew’s appetite for blood , “71 percent of Israelis believe that the United States should launch a military attack on Iran…” and majority of the Zionist Jews in the US who are actively engaged in selling an attack on Iran through a campaign of lies and misinformation to remove obstacles against “the greater Israel” to be erected on ruins and death bodies of Muslims all over the globe. People will defend themselves, if that means the destruction of their enemies to survive.

  33. mary said on May 2nd, 2008 at 9:36am #

    I put it that article to give you some idea of how much of this venom is being spewed out in the UK press and media by journalists and commentators sympathetic to Israel and by politicians of all shades and at all levels, many of whom belong to Friends of Israel lobby groups inside the Houses of Parliament. A supine and sleeping population here is absorbing these views and there is little evidence of opposition or resistance to them. I think we are entering an extremely dangerous time with the risk of conflagration.

  34. Shabnam said on May 2nd, 2008 at 12:48pm #


    Do you think readers of this site are that stupid not knowing what are the Zionists doing around the world? Do you think readers of this site are not aware of the Zionist advantages in holding so many platforms under their control for propaganda purposes?
    The media Mogul, Rupert Murdoch, is on Zionist’s side. Do you think people do not know what is said on the Zionist media including FOX? The conventional media in Western and other countries are committed to spread Zionist propaganda.
    You should be concerned about those limited platform remained stays for the alternative media and not to be used by the crypto Zionists. Majorities of the “left” in the west were under heavy influence of the Zionist “left” up to present and still are influent ional as “progressive” in the “peace” movements. Look at the neocon that all were from Trotskyite camp. While the “left” in the past was mainly under the Stalin umbrella in Iran now days are mainly under Trotskyite protection and have left the Zionst fight and in many cases have joined with Zionists, organization such as Kurdish Komoleh, the Communist workers party of Iran, the communist youth of Iran, the Hekmatist to fight on behalf of the Zionist against others and they have been accused of being in the pocket of Israel who receive funding from Israel.
    If you want to surprise the reader of this site, I think the following is more suited and that is the decision made by “anti apartheid” South African Jewish Nobel Laureate, Nadine Gordimer, who has decided to attend the International Writer’s Festival in Jerusalem next month, despite intense pressure to boycott the event. She likes Jean Paul Sartre, might be against the oppression and massacre of other group but when it comes to the Zionst apartheid state they fail to deliver.


  35. hp said on May 2nd, 2008 at 2:29pm #

    That reminds me of the “five dancing Israelis” arrested when caught filming the 911 events as they happened. Jumping up and down celebrating.
    Know who released them back home to Israel?
    Why none other than Federal Judge Michael Mukasey, now our US Attorney General.
    An Israeli citizen.
    There ought to be a law.

  36. hp said on May 2nd, 2008 at 2:41pm #

    “Evidence linking these Israelis to 911 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is classified.”

    “Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox news that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying…is considered career suicide.”

    All told, more than one hundred Israelis were arrested and sent back to Israel.
    No trial, no Guantanamo, no nothing.

  37. Giorgio said on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:47pm #

    “That reminds me of the “five dancing Israelis” arrested when caught filming the 911 events as they happened. Jumping up and down celebrating.”

    …and America and the world is already dancing to the zionist’s tune led by its cheerleader the present US government and Congress.


    Just an eye-opener for you: a few weeks ago I noticed on an European TV channel a documentary showing the HUGE underground bunkers the Israelis are building to “protect” them from a possible nuclear attack. A tunnel in it dwarfed in size a man walking along it. The fact mentioned about this was they kept absolutely secret its COST
    (generously, I presume, subsidized by the American tax-payer) and the DEPTH below surface of these structures. Now one does not need to be a genius to see that what can be used “preventively” can also be used “offensively”…with a relatively small population a significant number of them can be sheltered in these bunkers. Can you imagine the advantages in power wielding this can bring?
    OK, may be I’m overstreching the point…but DON’T underestimate these zionists: They smart, too smart, in fact, and very, very focussed… with personalities oozing out with loads and loads of chutzpath!!!


  38. Giorgio said on May 2nd, 2008 at 8:05pm #


    And may it LAST (as the Serfs of Zion), not for 100 years as McCain envisions, but for ONE THOUNSAND YEARS !!!

  39. denk said on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:47am #

    **Why defend at all cost a country that disregards international law, ignores even the most weak attempts at peace with its neighbors, continues to expand it’s borders, constructs illegal open air prisons for palestinians, while submitting the people to countless atrocities and selective punishment? **

    why — dont birds of the same feathers flock together ?

  40. hp said on May 3rd, 2008 at 8:07am #

    Denk, yes they do. This is often highlighted by their conspicuous silence.

  41. Mike McNiven said on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:57pm #

    Catherine, please see the following site too:


  42. denk said on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:26pm #

    **Denk, yes they do. This is often highlighted by their conspicuous silence.**

    me and you against the world

  43. Al said on May 4th, 2008 at 1:33pm #

    “The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd at a fund- raising event for a Toronto Jewish charity Monday.

    This from a draft dodger, who refused to fight for his own country.

  44. hp said on May 4th, 2008 at 3:10pm #

    ‘Evidence linking these Israelis to 911 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information.’

  45. Robert Bennett said on May 7th, 2008 at 9:26am #

    I fear any more “discussion” since the whole notion of the USA and UK being destroyed to save any one group is so filled with horror, how can anyone “discuss” this rationally? Our Anglo-American history does not
    allow this nightmare as a possibility…What has gone wrong here? Talk about the tail wagging the dog! “Discission” at this level is insane and treason against the American people and the UK.