Model For the Mumbai Assault: Mike's Place, Tel Aviv

You have to take Debka with a bucket of salt, but they often have some pretty good insights. The Mumbai operation bore some striking resemblances to the Mike's Place assault in Tel Aviv in 2003, which is now acknowledged to have been conceived by Al Qaeda. Based on the evidence, I am rejecting the calls by many pundits and experts that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with this attack.

Both attacks used British Pakistanis. Both attempted to attack Israelis and Americans. Both attempted to land the operatives by sea, seize a major hotel and take as many hostages as possible, while killing everyone in their path.

The Mike's Place attackers, Asif Muhammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif were supposed to attack the US Embassy, but that never came off. Both operations utilized attackers who were trained for long periods outside the country they were attacking. Hanif and Sharif were trained in Syria and the Gaza Strip.

In Gaza, their trainers were Hamas, so this really was a Hamas-Al Qaeda joint operation. The casualties were much fewer at Mike's Place - 3 dead and 60 wounded.

In May 2007, US forces captured Al Hadi al Iraq, an Al Qaeda operative, in Iraq. He confessed to having trained Hanif and Sharif, cementing the suspected AQ link.

In contrast, the Mumbai attackers utilized 30 attackers in teams of seven or more and attacked seven targets inside Mumbai. The locations to be attacked had been meticulously cased prior to the attacks, to the point of possibly setting up prior bases inside the Taj Majal Palace Hotel.

They were also in contact with handlers outside India (apparently in Pakistan) and seem to have had a support network inside Mumbai working with them during the operation.

Al Qaeda has advanced quite a bit in five years, from bomb vests to commando tactics, careful reconnaissance and attacking from third countries were hallmarks of both operations.

One of the terrorists' names has been released. He is Azzam Amir Kassab, age 21. Nothing more is known about him. He is one of the terrorists seen in a number of photos of the attack.

The terrorists used a very interesting cell structure. Each terrorist was linked to a handler outside of India. He only knew his handler. If caught, he could only give up one person, his handler, who has a code name and isn't even in India anyway.

With 30 attackers and 30 different handlers, the attackers probably met for the first time, like many of the 9-11 attackers, on the day of the attack.

This is an excellent use of the cell structure. In traditional cell structure, you only know the people in your cell. In a cell of three, three people know each other, possibly only by code names. If caught, they can maybe give up the members of their cell, but maybe not. Surely they can't give up anyone else.

At times, they are instructed to meet a courier or a messenger. They meet the person at the assigned place, transfer whatever needs to be transferred, and then part, never to meet again. If caught, there is no way to give up the messengers or couriers, because the cell members don't even know who they are.

I am quite certain that Al Qaeda was heavily involved in this attack. Other groups like SIMI or the Indian Mujaheddin (internal Indian Islamist terrorists) may have also been involved, but at a lesser level. The scale and the nature of the targets seems to rule out LeT or other Kashmiri separatists out of Pakistan, whatever their tenuous links to Al Qaeda.

Anyway, LeT is never shy about claiming responsibility, and they strongly condemned this attack in a statement. As Hamas is all about Palestine, LeT and JeM are all about Kashmir. What do they care about Americans, British and Israelis? Not much. That's Al Qeada's purview.

Since Al Qaeda has also declared total war on the Pakistani government, it makes little sense to blame the Pakistani regime for this attack. Both governments are being attacked by the same group.

The name Maulana Abdul Bari, an Indian Muslim based in Saudi Arabia, keeps coming up. He is suspected of bankrolling the attack. That makes perfect sense to me - Indian Muslims and Saudi Al Qaeda, with a British connection to boot. Saudi Arabia is after all, Al Qaeda's home territory, and traditionally, 80% of AQ's core were Saudis, though that may be changing in recent days.

Pundits and experts says that AQ is down to 100 or so members along the Pakistani-Afghan border, and is in such disarray that they are incapable of mounting any serious operation.

I disagree. Further, I feel that "macro-Al Qaeda" may have up to 70,000 "members and associates" worldwide. Keep in mind that when we discuss Al Qaeda, our theories about traditional hierarchical organizations or even "organizations" period go out the window.

Saudis and US: Dog and Tail

Excellent commenter Lafayette Sennacherib suggests that the Saudis are in fact clients of the US. I disagree.

LS:

You talk about 'the Saudis' as if they were independent operators; they're not - they wouldn't last a minute without US support, same too with the elites in Egypt and Jordan.

And most accounts suggest that Wahabbism is quite separate from the Saudi royal families; it's something they've made an accommodation with - they let them have their way in 'moral matters' to keep them quiet. I don't have the answers, but for 'Saudis' ultimately read ' US' elites - they have to do what they're told in the end. To what end, I don't know.

To which I respond:

Right, but what you mean when you say that they would not last a minute without US support is that the US for all intents and purposes is propping up an unpopular regime. It is unpopular because it is so pro-US! If it goes, you get radical Islam bigtime. Hamas X 10. You get more or less Al Qaeda in power in Arabia.

LS, you don't understand. You're like those Leftists who argue that the US dog wags the Israeli tail. Forget that. It's the Israeli dog wagging the US tail. The Israelis don't necessarily do what we want them to at all. But do we do what the Israelis want us to? You bet your sweet bippies.

If Israel is a colony of the US, then it is a very strange case of a colony actually controlling its colonizer in some important ways. That would surely go down in the annals of colonialism as a most strange transformation of colonial theory.

You don't understand. US power is what is keeping moderate regimes in power over there. That's good for the US, good for Israel and good for the War on Terror. In Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen - none of those places have free elections. Nor does Algeria or Mauritania.

There are scarcely free elections anywhere in Arabia. Truth is that no one in Arabia wants a pro-US regime. When you have free elections, you usually get of a radical anti-American regime of one sort or another. That's the bottom line. Hence, after the Hamas fiasco, the US is not in any hurry to promote free elections in the Arab World.

The Saudis do not have to dance to any kind of US tune. The US tells them to clean up their education system which is fomenting radical Salafist terror, the Saudis do little or nothing, then say they made good progress, and the US commends them in a fake report. That's how it goes.

The regime itself does not really promote terrorism per se, but they do in a roundabout way through their education system, state preachers and worldwide Wahhabi mosque funding.

The Saudis have us by the balls. By the oil balls. Furthermore, there is a complex alliance involved that the US elite is getting rich off of, and that alliance is not going to do anything to attack the Saudis.

The truth is that as long as Saudi Arabia, or any of the Gulf regimes, is a staunch US ally, the notion that the US is fighting any sort of a War on Terror is risible. How can we be fighting a Terror War when we are allied with those who are causing all the terrorism?

The people of the Kingdom are Wahhabi because this is what the people want. True, the people tire of Wahhabism, but they really don't know much else. The Royals are split. Some are pro-Wahhabi, and others are reformist. It's very complicated.

The game the regime has been playing since 1979 or so is Take Your Terrorism Elsewhere - Don't Target the Kingdom. Some even think that the royals support Sunni terrorism outside the Kingdom in order to kill off the young men who might make war on the Royals. That was the deal that the Family cut with bin Laden - Keep Your Terrorism Out of Arabia and We Will Not Bother You.

A secular culture like Syria or Lebanon or Libya does negligible damage to world's fabric, yet they are ferociously attacked in Washington and Jerusalem as the Terror Masters.

They are only demonized in that they are strongly anti-Israel and that those are the last countries in the region who have failed to become US allies. The lesson in Arabia is that you will become a US ally, or the US will try to destroy you in one way or another.

Further, the Iranian regime hardly sponsors terrorism anywhere other than in Palestine. They do support Hamas, it is true. They do want us out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, because we are using those nations as bases to threaten Iran with.

But if you look elsewhere in the world of terrorism for the hand of Iran, it is not to be found. In the world of Muslim terrorism, all hands tend to point in one way or another back to the Gulf. Not just Saudi Arabia, but the entire Gulf. The staunch US allies in the Gulf. The money, the ideology, the troops, the mosques - they all come from the Gulf. From private oil money in the Gulf.

And that has almost nothing to do with the US, except that we are willing to overlook it in favor of our alliances with all of the Gulf regimes.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Cavewomen and Wormboys

A fellow named Zsidozas comments on the Race, Gender and Masculinity/Femininity post. My comments follow:

Zsidozas comments: A personal story - as a White American male I've encountered much hostility from White females because I am not an effete and feminized White American male like so many of the others are these days. I am more aggressive, dominant, and masculine than the majority of White males for sure, but I try to temper this by my strong orientation toward reason, rationality, and learning.

So yeah, I've encountered problems with White women because many view me as an overly aggressive, pushy, and angry asshole / jerk / brute / prick / Viking / Neanderthal, of which I am not at all, but they only view me that way because I am quite a bit more masculine than most White men (who I agree are, on the whole, far too wimpy and resigned for their own good).

I am not a bodybuilder or football player or anything like that, so it's not like I am afflicted by the 'macho male complex' that men like that suffer from.

So I've noticed that many White women think of me as something a bit unnatural or strange and view me with some contempt and suspicion because I am not easily dominated and controlled like the rest of White men.

In fact, I'll argue and bicker with women (of whatever ethnicity) until we are all blue in the face if I believe something strongly as I'm not afraid to back down like so many modern men are -- and I usually win those arguments.

And when I do win those arguments, believe it or not I've had women get violent with me either playfully or for real, like they are trying to get back at me physically for 'beating them' mentally and emotionally in an argument when they are just so used to lording over modern men.

It seems as if many White women, if they date or marry White men as most do, actually sort-of want or prefer a push-over who they can easily control, manipulate, and dominate in many ways (though they still want the man to bring them home some money, of course).

I think this is a rather recent development and a major reason why gender relations are so screwed up in the modern Western White world, particularly in America.

A quick story: I was at a party with my girlfriend the other night that was mostly populated by a bunch of drunken lesbians and overly masculine (but straight) White females, along with their feminized male lackeys. And one of them, in a drunken and pilled-up stupor actually said to me and me girlfriend as we were talking to her [paraphrasing]: "I love to emasculate men. I just like it. It's fun. I do it all the time at work."

And she said it sort-of at me and my girlfriend, like almost a veiled insult toward me or something. I continued to laugh with her and joked around and such, but still I think it was like a veiled insult toward me because she recognized in me a man who refused to be emasculated and feminized like so many modern men.

So I laughed and joked (but was secretly disgusted toward her that she would actually take pleasure in mentally emasculating men and fucking with their egos).

Lame story, but I think it illustrates a decent point about the attitude of most modern White women.

Also, you didn't mention Semitic peoples here like Jews and Arabs. But just a thought: Jewish males are certainly very effeminate (as effeminate as many Asian men, often more), and Jewish females very masculine (maybe even as masculine as Black women).

Ditto with Arabs -- and maybe this is why Arab men are so severe toward their women, like they want to keep them in check or something? Most Jewish and Arab females have, I've noticed, many masculine physical traits like deep/husky voices and hairy bodies, while many Jewish/Arab men have many feminine traits like higher pitched voices and moodiness/high emotionality.

Many men in Arab countries also engage in some behaviors that are considered effeminate or even gayish here in The West like holding hands as they walk together and kissing each other a lot, but they don't think anything of it over there.

However, there is still something that is just intrinsically aggressive about both Jews and Arabs that I can't pin down yet, though I'm looking for reasons -- maybe it's their rather fanatical ethnocentrism? So, if possible, I'd like your thoughts on Semitics (however brief) as well if you don't mind.

Ok, first of all, I do not understand why women would hate an overly aggressive or masculine man, even in the feminized US. But I won't deny you the reality of your experiences. Around here, most of the White guys are pretty machoed out.

Now if you go over to San Francisco, it is a totally different story. The Northern California male is said to be so feminized that many people think that they are gay. Convsersely, the women are often said to be quite masculinized. I never heard this too much when I was in Southern California.

I do not know why this is, but for instance, my brother knows this older guy was paints his toenails like a woman. I heard that and freaked out. I said, "Is he gay?!" Because I think it sucks for a guy to paint his toenails. My brother answered, "No, he is just a Northern California male."

There are some others like that, including a guy well-known to both of us. I will note: "Sometime he acts like a total fag! What the Hell is the matter with him anyway?!" And then I will imitate his ridiculously faggy behavior. My brother responds that this guy is a Northern California male.

Now this guy hooked up with and later lived with a woman for a while who was quite masculine, and I'm not sure what kind of a relationship they had, but they did seem to be happy, so I was very, very happy for them and especially for him, as I have known him forever.

At one point, the relationship started ending, and I heard she was bi or lesbian or something and she had moved her girlfriend into the house with our friend.

Now, this could be fun if they guy got into the sex, but I do not think so. Last I heard she has living with her lez girlfriend.

There is another older guy close to us who has many extremely faggy characteristics: walks like a fag, talks like a fag, etc. I will say: "That guy acts gay!!" and someone will chide me, responding that he's been married five times.

He has some kind of weird relationship with his wife now where he acts all feminine or like a little boy or something, and she thinks it's really cute, and I guess afterwards they fuck like crazy. Whatever. I am happy for both of them though, because she has made a lifetime project out of being miserable, and the guy is at least getting laid, and I cheer that on in all males.

There is another one living in San Francisco married to someone close to us. Everyone (all my close relatives) insists that he acts gay but I do not think he does at all. I just think he acts like me. Hmmmm. But they are very happy together also, so I am happy for them too.

I do not know about Arabs. I dated an Arab woman once, a woman from Egypt who was part Black. She was quite submissive, not bossy or aggressive or anything like that. She was Muslim, but that never got in the way of sex. In fact, she was so incredible that I think I want another one of those Arab women!

I do not think that Arab women are bossy or domineering in their relationships with men, though some are. Saddam's Hussein's Dad was supposedly horribly pussy-whipped by his Mom. I suspect it is probably more common that one might think.

The Philippines has a reputation for being a very sexist place where the males are very macho and do not really treat women all that well. Like Arabs, they frequently beat their women. However, a Filipina I know told me that there is a saying called, "under the saya", which means that a Filipino man is basically pussy-whipped. Saya is skirt.

So he's under his wife's skirt and she controls him. I asked if this was common, and she said it was very common. Keep in mind that in the Philippines, the Arab World and Asia, the woman rules the home. The man just needs to keep out of there.

I read an interview with an Egyptian man and his sons living at home in Cairo. The living room was decorated in frilly pink feminine stuff and the interviewer asked this macho Arab husband if he liked it this way, and he said basically, "Well, it's her house and she can decorate it any way she wants to." I assume the males have some control over the way they want their particular inhabited spaces decorated.

In these places, often the woman controls all the money for the couple, and makes all decisions about household expenditures. My Mom told me a story about a Japanese couple who came to look at a house a friend of hers was selling. The seller asked the Japanese man if he was interested, and he said something like, "That decision is left up to her."

In other words, this poor oppressed Japanese woman actually gets decide what house they buy! It seems to me that these women are not as oppressed as we think that they are, and many Japanese and Arab women resent Westerners and feminists sticking their noses in Japanese or Arab culture and telling them that they are oppressed.

You're often going to get people's patriotic backs up when you do that. Better to let some folks negotiate their way to liberation by themselves.

Jews and Arabs are both highly emotional probably because that is a "Mediterraneanism". In other words, most of the folks in that part of the world tend to act that way.

Arab guys put their arms around each other because this is common in many parts of the world. I had a friend from China who was always trying to put his arm around me in public.

I see Mexican Indian farm workers in town who often walk around with their arms around each other, especially when drunk. I think it is an "Indianism", as you don't see the other Mexicans doing that. This male buddiness does not seem associated with homosexuality in these Indians and it is not in the Chinese.

The Arab World is quite complex. In the Levant and Mesopotamia, homosexuality is despised and treated very harshly, not uncommonly with death. In the Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, opportunistic or even preferential bisexuality is very common and in fact, the religious police often look the other way, as they are more concerned about men and women together! Stupid or what?!

In Egypt, there is fairly free and easy bisexuality among unmarried males, which they may continue after marriage. This is a lot more common in Nubia in Southern Egypt, where people are a lot Blacker, and there is actually a long tradition of that stuff.

In Cairo and in Morocco, many males will play the male role in homosexual sex with a "gay" male, who plays the female role. In many cultures, it's not considered gay to play the male role in gay sex. Most guys who do this are young unmarried males. This is what happens when you forbid young males with a stratospheric sex drive female outlets: they screw each other.

I don't find Arab males feminine at all. In fact, I find them ultra-macho.

The commenter asks about Jewish men and women. Well, I don't think Jewish guys have a reputation for being feminine so much as wimpy. Wimpy and oversexed at the same time! So that is not quite the same thing.

And there is the stereotype of the Jewish woman as neurotic, insecure (she hates her looks and longs to be a blond), controlling, addicted to cheap, tacky and gaudy clothing and jewelry, domineering, histrionic (drama queen), and in particular constantly badgering him to make more money.

There were horror stories by Jewish men about Jewish women dating all the way back 100 years ago to the early Jewish press on the East Coast of the US. In many ways, this stereotype has not changed. The Jewish guy is supposed to marry a Jewish girl, but he often resents their domineering nature, and the stereotype is he wants a blonde shiska. Jewish women, like Black women, complain that their men don't want them.

But most Jews do still marry their own. On the plus side, Jewish women can be very nurturing, and in my opinion, they can be real Stand By Your Man types. I had a Jewish girlfriend who everyone thought was a bitch. People thought she treated me like crap in public and would say, "I hate the way she talks to you!"

Well, in the relationship, she started out as a bitch sometimes, but I turned the tables on that pretty quickly!

I forgot her birthday, forgot our anniversary, got in a big fight with her on her birthday (The most evil, cruel, mean, horrible and insensitive thing I could have done!), calmly laughed in her face at her horrible insults, made her cry repeatedly, called her a bitch and a cunt and all sorts of other horrible names I have never called any woman, and this was one of the best relationships of my life.

She hated me at times, but she hated me for being a man. She called me cruel, mean, asshole, jerk, evil and wicked, and at the end she called me Hitler.

She would horribly insult me to my face. I would respond, "Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt. Shut up, you dumb bitch, etc., etc," real calm and assured-like.

After a few minutes of that, she would be blubbering like a little girl, "Oh, I adore you so much. Oh, I love you so much. I love you baby. Let's get married, etc. etc."

Oh man! Isn't love grand!

It's a horrible cliche, but a lot of these real bitchy types are really looking for a hard, masculine man to put them in their place and turn them into a feminine, blubbering little schoolgirl in love again. These bitches always go after wimpy guys, because they love to dominate them, or they think they love to dominate them, but that just doesn't seem to work, as it violates nature.

I don't like to be Mr. Advice Column on here, but at 50, it has occurred to me someone is going to wear the pants in a heterosexual relationship.

If you don't, she will.

If she suspects you have taken off the pants for a while, she will try to make a power grab to put the pants on herself. This must be stopped, often harshly, with profanities, harsh words, meanness, threats to leave, etc.

Usually she will back down completely and start bubbering and even whimpering apologetically and asking, "Are you mad? You're not mad, are you?" Assure you that you are not but issue an order that she is not to speak to you like that anymore, as you really, really hate it.

Women want to take control, but really a lot of times they hate it, because at the same time, I think that even masculinized Western women are disgusted by their vaginized metrosexual wormboy partners. You can wage cultural revolution and gender bend til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, I am convinced that you can't fool Mother Nature.

Of course we are products of our evolution. In many ways, we are also prisoners. < Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Benazir Bhutto: Pakistan's Cleopatra

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated February 5, 2008:

Via Joachim Martillo, we offer CIA: Mehsud behind Benazir killing? There's a lot of pretty interesting stuff here. When I wrote my post Benazir Bhutto Killed in Pakistan three weeks ago, I said that I thought that Al Qaeda did it. We still do not have a whole lot of evidence that this is true. I have now changed my mind; I think that the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence Agency) killed Bhutto.

But that is sort of like saying that Al Qaeda did it, since AQ, the Taliban and the ISI are all sort of interlocking entities in some ways. More precisely, the are individuals and even powerful factions inside the ISI that have very close ties with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I am certain that the ISI knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is most of the time and is just refusing to turn him in to the US.

The CIA blamed Baitullah Mehsud, a major Pakistani Taliban leader in South Waziristan, for the killing. But Mehsud himself is generally considered to be an ISI asset. The only evidence that the Pakistani government has against Mehsud is a phone call after she was killed. The call supposedly takes responsibility for the killing, but instead it is more congratulatory than anything else.

The Pakistani government says that at the time of the call, Mehsud could not have known about the killing, but that is ridiculous, since it was all over the TV screens of most of the nation by that time.

The Pakistani government called Scotland Yard in to determine the cause of death, but not, notably, to investigate who did it. The investigation proved that the Pakistani government lied after she was killed when they said she fell and hit her head on the shaft of her limousine cover.

Scotland Yard proved that she was killed by a gunshot, as was clear from some of the videos released later, which showed the gunman firing a gun and Bhutto's body jerking backwards right afterwards, whereupon she fell into the limo. That the Pakistani government deliberately lied about how she died is telling.

So is the fact that they immediately washed down the street afterwards, destroying all evidence, supposedly because it was a main street that got hit and it needed to be open for traffic immediately.

What garbage. I assure you that if Hilary Clinton of John McCain was hit by a closeup gunshot followed by a suicide bomber that killed 20 supporters on Madison Avenue in New York, that street would be shut down for a bit, possibly even days. The press would be dogging all over LE to not miss a thing as the conspiracy theories immediately sprouted all over the Internets.

So, she was shot several times by the shooter, apparently from only a 5-10 feet away. That right there suggests it in not Al Qaeda, since Al Qaeda usually does not use a single asset like that, or if they do, they have him blow himself up with a sui-bomb, destroying both evidence and the chance that he will be interrogated and spill.

A single shooter is more like the ISI - this is one of their favorite ways to kill people. Bhutto pretty much deserved to be killed anyway, but not by the ISI. She deserved to be killed by the supporters and relatives of her very own brother, whom Benazir had murdered because he was a threat to her feudal-like dictatorship at the head of her Pakistani People's Party.

Yes, in 1996 under Bhutto's reign, a shooter killed her own brother while he was surrounded by 200 Pakistani police and security forces in front to a home. By the way, all of the surrounding streets were sealed off by the same security guys, who of course had nothing to do with the killing.

Well, anyway, the shooter somehow penetrated the cordon blocks around the area, then mingled inconspicuously with army of 200 cops, then he shot Bhutto's brother and close range, and then, get this! He escaped! He escaped from a 200-cop crowd and made his getaway through the locked-down security cordon! I mean, these Pakistani killers are positive Houdinis.

Well, of course, Benazir, who hated her brother, denied having anything to do with the killing. Benazir is just as nasty as the Ptolemaic Greek dynasty that ruled Egypt, of which Cleopatra was a member. This glorious dynasty consisted of inbred and racially pure Macedonian Nazis.

The Afrocentric fools who say that Cleopatra was Blacks are silly - the Ptolemaic line guarded their Macedonianness better than Nazis guarded Germanness - and they hated all other races like good little Nazis too.

The Egyptian city Alexandria, of which the Macedonian Queen Cleopatra held sway as Queen of the Macedonian colony of Egypt, was a racially pure Macedonians-only city, and the despised Egyptian "niggers" were not allowed entry, or perhaps only as slaves.

So despised were the dark-skinned Egyptians that it was inconceivable that any Macedonian monarchical supremacist would father a child by one. It is true that in the declining days of the Egyptian Empire, say the last 100 years - imagine the collapse of Rome in the Lower Nile - Black, or actually Mulatto Nubians, ruled Egypt. But this is a far cry from the Black Egypt the Afrocentrists pitifully claim.

Cleopatra's Ptolemaics spent most of their time having wild incestuous sex with each other and then, Praying Mantis-like, killing their own brothers, sisters, Moms and Dads to grab the loot. This is who Cleopatra was! Nice person! an exhaustive review of the non-Blackness of Cleopatra via Black author Eugene Stovall, see here.

If you haven't noticed, this excursion was intended to obliquely compare these Ptolemaic animals with the various feudal clans (called politicians) that have ruled and poisoned Pakistan since its founding, and to compare Benazir to Cleopatra. Like the Ptolemaics they are addicted to offing the opposition - its positively a Pakistani pastime, like tea and cricket.

The only Ptolemaic thing I guess the Pakistani elite doesn't do is have tons of incestuous sex with each other, being good Muslims and all. Benazir has the equivalent of slaves in the debt peonage farmers on her feudal estate. And like Cleopatra, Benazir is being preposterously eulogized and virtually worshiped in her demise.

Immediately after the shots that killed Benazir, there was a suicide bombing to kill the shooter and destroy the evidence in the shooter and everything around him. This once again is more ISI style, as Al Qaeda usually doesn't do it this way.

Scotland Yard was only there to tell us that the Pakistani government lied about how she was killed, not to investigate who done it, because it's the Pakistani government that done it. Scotland Yard detectives, off the record of course, said that the Pakistani government, possibly the ISI, killed her. CIA guys are saying the same thing off the record.

The investigation of who done it will be done by Pakistan itself, which means they will never find the true authors of the crime. But it's kind of like asking OJ to find "the real killer" anyway.

Prior to this, the Pakistani government tried to kill her as soon as she got off the plane. Her welcome home rally on a major street in Karachi was hit by several simultaneous blasts, apparently suicide bombers and then multiple bomb cars or suicide bomb cars.

Once again the Houdinis and the most incompetent police on Earth were skillfully utilized by the would-be assassins. This attempt killed about 140 of Bhutto's supporters, a horrible crime, but I guess they deserved it for supporting her, right?

You think penetrating a mob of 200 cops takes skill? Forget it. In this attack the devious little assassins penetrated ~7000 security forces. These 7000 security forces were deliberately chosen from the dumbest classes of all, because all 7000 decided to go on dinner break simultaneously right before the killing!

Then someone screwed up and all of the lights "accidentally" went out. It was one darn thing after another. Then the bomb cars and sui-bomb dudes all went off one after the other.

Of course the government had absolutely nothing to do with this attempt either. These opposition candidates just have the darnedest luck! The Pakistani government first said it was those evil jihadi dudes that done it, then noted that there will be no investigation of the attempt. Why no investigation? Who knows, probably a practical joke of some sort. Wow, what a madcap bunch these Pakistani government guys are.

Right after the Bhutto killing, there was a serious attempt on the life of Nawaz Sharif, also running against Musharaff. The government had nothing to do with that either, of course.

What's clear is that the Pakistani government is trying to kill of lots of its most threatening opposition candidates, and with the article below showing how the CIA is outrageously supporting the Pakistani government in these nefarious deeds, the US is behind the project. Would anyone sell life insurance to any Pakistani opposition politician.

So, get this. The US is backing up the ISI-Al Qaeda-Taliban as they try to Final Solution all of the opposition candidates to Musharaff. Why? God knows. Probably another of those cases where the US just blindly supports an ally no matter what they do, because the alternative is considered to be so much worse.

It's said the US government supported Bhutto, but that is not really true. It's more like they wanted her to be some figurehead in Musharaff's dictatorship, but not to unseat him.

It's said that Bhutto is the champion of women's rights in Pakistan. Well, maybe today, but yesterday she was as bad as the Saudi monarchy. Under President Zia and Bhutto, there was an Islamization campaign, mostly to build up a fundamentalist guerrilla base to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980's.

This had the effect of littering Pakistan with idiotic madrassas that now churn out fundamentalist cretins by the busfull, ready to go fight for Osama bin Laden. It also set off the Sunni-Shia wars in Pakistan, which had been relatively quiescent before.

This is because Saudi Wahhabi preachers were brought in to teach Saudi Islamo-Nazism to the gullible ignoramuses in the "schools", where religion only was taught, all else being the work of the Devil and all.

As the Saudis are the main force in back of the mass slaughter of Shiites around the world that has been going on for decades now since the Iranian revolution, Shia-hatred was spread in these schools, morphed into the usual Sunni Shia-killing death squads, and Shia Sunni-killing death squads formed in retaliation.

As is the case in most of the Muslim World, Shia bodies piled up more than the reverse. The Pakistani government, mostly Sunni, has more or less supported the mass slaughter of Shia due to the common Sunni Nazi-like hatred of Shia Muslims.

During the Islamization campaign, a set of laws called Hudood Laws were put into place, which were horribly anti-woman. Women were imprisoned after they had been raped, a sort of an honor killing reaction cultivated by the Arab woman-hating, male chauvinist values of family honor that marinated the Islamic stew in Pakistan for centuries.

This is part of a larger cultural area infected with the negative aspect of Arab cultural values, possibly extending to what Carroll Quigley called the Pakistani-Peruvian Axis. It's more sensible to see this area as a crucible of Arab culture than as one of Islamic culture, as the two are not the equivalent. Pakistani feminists protested these evil laws, but Bhutto refused to amend them during her term. Some feminist.

Although the PPP was formed as a socialist and secular party and is a member of the Socialist International, that was mostly campaign fodder to get elected. Once they got in, they didn't do much of anything to redistribute wealth in this semi-feudal land, Benazir being a feudal lordess herself and all.

She also helped form the Taliban that took over Afghanistan and horrified the world. Under Taliban reign, Pakistan was one of only three countries on Earth that recognized the Taliban.

After she returned to Pakistan this year, this histrionic political actress had morphed into a fighter for secularism and her former Taliban buddies were now her worst enemies. All the socialist talk had been dropped long as per US demands during her administration of the 1990's.

So why was she killed? Well, because she said that several high-ranking members of the Pakistani government wanted her dead, and she pledged to go after the ISI's "jihadi asset" option. More to the point, Pakistani Islamic nationalists saw her as bringing the US into Pakistan in the form of a large US land invasion, from Afghanistan, of the Pakistani tribal territories in the West.

Along with this was the fear that USreal (the US and Israel joined at the hip) would concomitantly conspire to neuter Pakistan's prize atomic weapon arsenal. A US invasion of the Territories, not necessarily such a bad idea in theory, is deadly in terms of Pakistani Islamic nationalism - the public will not support such an affront to their sovereignty.

The neutering of the nuke option is also deadly to Pakistani nationalists in the military, as it castrates their best defense against the Indian enemy - the principal enemy around which most Pakistani foreign and military policy revolves. So Bhutto was seen as an agent of the US neoconservatives and probably Israel at a more remote level. A good argument then is that the Pakistani military itself had her killed.

Robert Fisk and Juan Cole (here, here and here ) have both suggested that the Pakistani government killed Bhutto, and that's expert testimony enough for me. An essential website for inside dope about Pakistan, especially the Al Qaeda-infested Western Territories, is here.

On January 18, dozens of Islamists were killed in battles right inside Dera Ismail Khan, a major city which is outside of the FATA agencies where the problems are worse and into the much more civilized NWFP districts.

A recent NY Times article talked about how the Tehrik-e-Taliban (Mehsud's grouping of all of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and allied Islamists in the West) now controls some of the outer suburbs in Peshawar itself, and stages one attack a week in this major Peshawar District city.

Here is a very nice copy of the Northwest Frontier Provinces and the Federally Administered Tribal Agencies. In FATA, the Pak Taliban now control the North Waziristan, South Waziristan, Mohmand and Bajour Agencies. They have de facto control over the Tank, Bannu, Swat, Dir and Shangla Districts in the NWFP. The Kyber, Orakzai and Kurram Agencies are threatened in the FATA.

In the NWFP, the Dera Ismail Khan, Larki Marwat, Karak, Hangu, Kohat, Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera, Mardan, Malakand, Chitral and Kohistan Districts are all threatened.

Click on the map for better resolution.

That the Pakistani Taliban are deep into these two major cities is terrifying, and indicates there is a real insurgency in Pakistan, somewhat akin to the Sendero Luminoso insurgency in the 1980's in Peru in intensity. There's been some very heavy fighting in the NWFP and especially South Waziristan Agency lately, with ~120 jihadis being killed on January 19 alone. Great up-to-date details of this war are on Roggio's site, Long War Journal - no one does it better.

Martillo's title below suggests that the CIA killed Bhutto. It's always a blast to accuse the CIA of killing someone, but in this case it's a bad call. The CIA had absolutely no sane reason to eliminate Benazir Bhutto. Recent anti-Semitic claims that nefarious US Jews called Zionist neoconservatives had Bhutto killed are even more absurd. As Martillo's piece notes, Bhutto was the neocons' best hope for Pakistan.

CIA: Mehsud Behind Benazir Killing?
The CIA Had More Reason!

by Joachim Martillo

The January 19, 2008 issue of the Boston Globe published a CIA claim that South Waziristan tribal leader, Baitullah Mehsud, who maintains strong ties to al-Qaeda and an alliance with the Taliban, was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The article is entitled CIA Says Pakistan Tribal Head Behind Assassination.

Because Neocons want the CIA to have a free hand to operate in South Waziristan fingering Mehsud serves the interests of at least some US government officials even if there are many reasons why assassinating a possible opponent of Pervez Musharraf or Nawaz Sharif is not obviously in the interests of either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

The politics of Pakistan and of the assassination of Benazir are no clearer today than they were when Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? appeared on Jan. 1, and the apparent attempt of Fatima Bhutto to reach out to other factions of her family (Fatima Bhutto: Farewell to Wadi Bua*) seems to have failed (Fatima Bhutto Breaks Her Silence, Questions Benazir's Will, Bilawal Being the PPP Chief).

Not only is the intra-family conflict deep and complex (The Other Bhutto), but there is also an Islamic sectarian aspect to the national politics of the Bhutto family, which has Shiite origins. (Zulfikar, which is Benazir's father's name, is the name of Ali's famous sword and is rarely found as a name among Sunni Muslims. Benazir was, in fact, half-Iranian through her mother.)

In majority Sunni Pakistan, the Bhutto's were almost forced into secularist politics, and naturally the Saudis favored Nawaz Sharif over Benazir.

In terms of her international politics, Benazir was directly involved with Neoliberals as Benazir and the Jews: A Love Story from The New York Jewish Week reports. She was also indirectly involved with Neoconservatives through Husain Haqqani, who served both as spokesman and also as top aide to her for over a decade.

Haqqani is an important figure at the Hudson Institute, which is a fanatic Neoconservative think-tank associated with racist ethnic Ashkenazi American ideologues and subversives like Norman "Bomb-Iran" Podhoretz. (See Poverty Fuels Extremism by Husain Haqqani [War on Terror in Pakistan].)

Notes

* Fatima was probably sincere. Sometimes it is hard to remember that the Bhutto clan are actually a real family.

From Daughter of Destiny, An Autobiography, by Benazir Bhutto, pp. 257-8.

The phone rings constantly from Los Angeles, London, Paris -- my mother's friends and relatives calling to congratulate her on my release [in 1984 from prison in Pakistan]. I wasn't ready to talk to anyone yet, and only spoke to Yasmin and Dr. Niazi in London. Ardeshir Zahedi, a friend of my parents and Iran's former ambassador to the United States, arrived with caviar.

My mother, Sunny, and I stayed up talking through the night. It all seemed so unbelievable. Yesterday I had been a prisoner. Today I was free, with my mother and sister. We were together. We were all alive.

Mir! A little brown-haired girl pulling at my coat! "Meet your niece, Fathi [Fatima]," Mir told me, standing in my mother's flat on my second day of freedom. Was my brother really standing in front of me? I saw his lips moving, heard my own voice responding. The noise of our reunion must have been deafening, but I can't remember a thing we said.

At twenty-nine, Mir looked so handsome, his dark eyes flashing one minute, gentling the next as he lifted his eighteen-month-old daughter to give me a kiss. "Wait till you see Shah," Mir laughed. Shah had been eighteen the last time I'd seen him, just a boy. Now he was twenty-five with a longed-for mustache.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

The Jews of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Lebanon

Updated January 31, 2008:

The standard Zionist line, repeatedly endlessly by Zionist propagandists to all who will listen, is that there are no Jews in "Arabia", or certainly none in Saudi Arabia.

Clearly, there are still Jews living in Yemen, which is a part of Arabia. In some ways, these very traditional Jews have it better than they have ever had it in Yemen, where traditionally, the life of a Jew was one most of us would consider to be difficult.

As a sign of changing times, although there are only 200 Jews left in Yemen, the ruling party recently nominated a Yemeni Jew to run on its platform as a parliamentarian representing the northern region.

This was a very controversial move in Yemen, and unfortunately ran up against the stumbling block of a regressive law that says that everyone running for office must be a Muslim.

Since one of the religious laws of the Yemeni Jews was that they were not allowed to serve in the army or government of the state (How is that for a dual loyalty problem?), this law meant nothing to the Yemeni Jews, and neither was it an issue under traditional Islamic rule, when non-Muslims were kept out of the military and probably discouraged from government office too anyway.

The fact that a Yemeni Jew considered running for office shows that the remaining Jews are giving up some of their strict, traditional religious rules. Some rules, however, remain. For instance, the Yemeni Jews refuse to eat with non-Jews, and intermarriage is strictly forbidden. The rule about eating was actually a normal practice for all pious European Jews up until about 1800 or so, a little-known fact.

Also, many Yemeni Jews both inside and outside Yemen continue the ancient Jewish practice of prostrating themselves for daily prayer, similar to what Muslims do in a mosque. European Jews generally only do this nowadays, if at all, during portions of certain prayers during the Jewish High Holidays. So, in some ways, the remaining Yemeni Jews are stuck in time.

The Yemeni Jews that remain are presently banned from certain occupations (probably more by traditional Muslim prejudice than by state law), allowed to live only in certain parts of towns, forbidden to serve in the military or government and have little interaction with their Muslim neighbors but unfortunately, it has always been that way in Yemen.

On the ban on serving in government or military, note above how this is possibly changing in the government aspect, and how this was a traditional Yemeni Jewish law for themselves anyway.

See here for a great webpage, Chayas, on the Yemeni Jews. The Yemeni Jews are some of the most religious Jews in the whole world, and have always been deeply religious.

For instance, on the daily prostration for prayer still practiced by Yemeni Jews, see this near-obsessive Chayas webpage, Did You Prostrate to God Today?, that endlessly plumbs all of the possible ins and outs of how to properly prostate oneself, the specific 12 steps required, the history of such prostration, religious debates about prostration, and on and on.

On the Chayas pages, there is a page on the traditional religious laws of the Yemeni Jews. One is stricken by how similar these laws are to those of an Islamic society:

• Men and women may not bathe together.


• Women may not bathe in the sea, even in a woman-only area, if there is a male lifeguard.


• Women may not bring boys older than 3 to the women's bathing beach.


• Women may not bathe in the sea where there are men and women present together.


• One must not look at a picture of a woman.


• A woman may not look into the home of an unmarried man.


• Women and girls over 6 years old may not ride bicycles because parts of their bodies that should be covered get exposed.


• All married women must wear head coverings.


• Married women must wear a head covering, even when alone in their own homes.
  

An excellent overview of the Yemeni Jews can be found here. On this Chayas page, we see some of the traditional difficulties in identity faced by many Yemeni and other Arab Jews. In one article on the page, the author proudly proclaims herself to be an Arab Jew. This is now a controversial position in Israel, where the Arab Jews are now referred to as Mizrachi Jews (actually Mizrachi covers all Jews of the Asian lands).

Sometimes the Mizrachi are subsumed into the category of Sephardic, though Sephardic traditionally refers to the Jews of Spain and Portugal, who later moved to Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Turkey and Latin America, with some moving to North Africa.

Nowadays, it is quite common for militant Israeli Arab Jews to demand to be called Mizrachis and to say that if anyone called them an Arab Jew, they might hit the person. This is clearly an outgrowth of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The Arab Jews were pretty much forced out of their lands by the creation of the state of Israel. Riots erupted across the Arab World and hundreds of Jews were killed amidst a general atmosphere of terror. Many left with little but the shirts on their backs. Many had most of their money confiscated upon leaving and were allowed to take few possessions.

Their homes, properties and money were in many cases confiscated by Arab governments. This is clearly an injustice but the Palestinians experienced a similar injustice, and the Arab Jews at least have the right to go back to their home countries, but almost none of them seem to be interested in doing so.

A few years ago, the son of Muammar Qaddafi, who is being groomed to replace the leader, asked the Libyan Jews to return to Libya. None of them took him up on his offer. This is a typical mindset of the Arab Jews, and this is the crucial difference between the Jewish and Palestinian refugees that lies at the core of the conflict.

The notion of "population transfers" - actually sickening, Nazi-like, super-racist episodes of ethnic cleansing - is frequently brought to the table during Middle East discussions, especially by liberal Zionist Jews. Pakistan and India, Turkey and Greece are mentioned, along with Israel and Palestine. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is equated with the largely voluntary flight of the Arab Jews.

The notion is that both populations fled, so the circle is squared and the conflict is over. Yet...the Arab Jews do not wish to go home! And those that do, just pack up and do so, as we shall see later on in this post. But the Palestinians, virtually alone amongst the world's refugees, are not allowed to return to their lands!

This is at the very root and heart of the conflict, and until there is resolution of this issue, I do not think that peace is possible. In a larger sense, it is deeply disturbing that liberal Zionist Jews, the most progressive of Zionists, casually and glibly equate Zionism with some of the worst horrors of the 20th Century, such as the mass slaughters that accompanied the creations of Turkey and Pakistan.

The flight of 800,000 Arab Jews from their lands was accomplished in part by Zionist terrorists, who, disguised as Arabs, killed Jews in Iraq with hand grenades and bombs in order to terrorize them into fleeing to Israel. The government of Israel cut a deal with the pro-British government of Iraq to deprive Iraqi Jews of their rights and property, to deprive them of employment and ultimately to confiscate their wealth.

All of this was cleverly done to facilitate the flight of Iraqi Jews to Israel. Upon arrival in Israel, 50% of the Iraqi Jews' money was immediately seized by Israeli authorities and was never given back. Arab Jews experienced pronounced racism from the Ashkenazi ruling class.

In fact, getting the Arab Jews into Israel was a necessity for the newfound Israeli state. 800,000 Arabs had been thrown off the land and there were not enough workers to work the fields and do manual work, despite decades of working class and back-to-the-land propagandizing by socialist Ashkenazi Zionists.

Even the terrible riots that swept the Arab World were complex. In many cases, especially in Iraq, local Arabs fought off Arabs who attacked the Jews and helped to hide the Jews from the mobs. In most cases, the number of Jews killed was in the scores. The usual Zionist transcription of this madness as "Arabs try to do Holocaust 2 on the Arabs" is false, as reality was more nuanced than that.

The Chayas article by Dr. Ella Habiba Shohat, a Professor of Cultural Studies and Women's Studies at CUNY-City University of New York, Reflections of an Arab (Iraqi) Jew is typical of the identity issues that many Arab Jews face.

She says that when her Iraqi Jewish parents came to Israel in the 1950's, they thought that the Ashkenazi European Jews were actually European Christians - this is how alien the Ashkenazi seemed to her Mizrachi parents.

In Israel nowadays, the political delineation, a line drawn with blood and guns, is "Arab versus Jew". For many Arab Jews, this makes no sense, as they see themselves as both. For centuries in the Arab World, despite Ashkenazi Zionist revisionist BS, there had been no such distinction. The only delineation was religious. People were either Jews, Muslims or Christians.

Modern Israel and the Diaspora Jewish community are hostile, to say the least, to the very notion of Arabness or Middle-Easternness outside of their Zionist primordialist nonsense.

This in spite of the fact that Israeli Jews now have adopted many Arabic words into their Hebrew, have added many Arabic dishes to their national cuisine (falafel is a national dish) and have adopted Arabic architecture to their homes and buildings. All while adopting a discourse of hatred for the very Arabs whose lands and homes they stole to make their gangster state.

All of the above is difficult for the Arab Jew. I remember reading a piece by a Yemeni Jew who went to Israel and never felt at home. At one point, he was living in a home in Israel and hired an Arab gardener who told him up front that he had used to own the home that the Yemeni Jew was now living in. The Yemeni Jew was so upset that he moved.

The Yemeni Jews never spoke Yiddish and know nothing of it. The women never wore wigs either, and the Yemeni Jews continue to disdain this common Ashkenazi Orthodox practice as heretical. If you go to their synagogue even now, the music sounds like it is coming from a mosque.

In opposition to what we call the Judeo-Christian tradition, the experience of the Arab Jews can only honestly be described, painful as it is for Zionists, as a Judeo-Muslim tradition.

In Israel, Arab Jewish women dye their hair blond to hide their hated Arabness. The men, suspected of being "Arabs", are arrested and beaten. The profound racism of the past has significantly diminished, but as recently as the 1970's the racism of Ashkenazis towards Mizrachis in Israel was as bald-faced and unselfconscious as one found in the US South in the 1960's.

The history of this naked racism has been systematically hidden from Americans by the Zionist Ashkenazi Jews who have plotted to dominate our media.

Their Gentile colleagues do not dare to run such an article, as they live in terror that the US Zionist (Jewish) Lobby would bombard them with hostile phone calls and letters to the editor, drown them with calls for resignation, stage demonstrations in front of the office, threaten advertiser boycotts and plot media campaigns of character assassination by Zionist fellow travelers.

Wherever their minds are at, media Gentiles know who signs the checks.

This situation of an ethnic lobby dominating a nation's media, then terrorizing the same media into de facto censorship, is profoundly undemocratic and hostile to (so-called) basic American values. Whether or not it is an innate value for US Jews with "zero-sum game" Middle Eastern tribal values of ethnic warfare and hyperethnocentrism is not important.

In the late 1800's, Karl Marx said that in 100 years, he predicted that America will be a Jewish country. And so it has come to be, for better and for worse.

European Jews term their movement from the Diaspora to Israel (in a gratuitous insult to the Palestinian natives) as an aliya or an ascent. For the Arab Jews, it has always been a yerida or descent.

In Shohat's excellent piece, she notes a common Mizrachi complaint - that what they see as their rich, wonderful history has been co-opted and revisionized by Ashkenazi Jews into the party-line Ashkenazi "pogrom and persecution" history of the Jews.

Interestingly, many Mizrachis vociferously object to this and see it as an invalidation of their culture. As Shohat protests:

The Jewish experience in the Muslim world has often been portrayed as an unending nightmare of oppression and humiliation. Although I in no way want to idealize that experience--there were occasional tensions, discriminations, even violence--on the whole, we lived quite comfortably within Muslim societies.

Our history simply cannot be discussed in European Jewish terminology. As Iraqi Jews, while retaining a communal identity, we were generally well integrated and indigenous to the country, forming an inseparable part of its social and cultural life. Thoroughly Arabized, we used Arabic even in hymns and religious ceremonies.

The liberal and secular trends of the 20th-century engendered an even stronger association of Iraqi Jews and Arab culture, which brought Jews into an extremely active arena in public and cultural life. Prominent Jewish writers, poets and scholars played a vital role in Arab culture, distinguishing themselves in Arabic-speaking theater, in music, as singers, composers, and players of traditional instruments.

In Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia, Jews became members of legislatures, of municipal councils, of the judiciary, and even occupied high economic positions. (The finance minister of Iraq in the '40s was Ishak Sasson, and in Egypt, Jamas Sanua--higher positions, ironically, than those our community had generally achieved within the Jewish state until the 1990s.)

Note that Shohat speaks positively of the tremendous achievements Mizrachi Jews made in the 20th Century Arab World before the creation of Israel. In typical Ashkenazi Zionist histories of Arab Jews one finds on the Internet, the entire 20th century histories of the Arab Jews of each Arab land is described only as a litany of woes, crimes, persecutions, killings, and general unpleasantness.

As Shohat notes, there is another proud history there, when in the 20th Century, Arab Jews reached the peak of power and influence in their societies, and more importantly, played profound roles in the modernization of their backward societies.

But I digress. This post was to be about the Jews of Arabia. As I noted above, Zionists love to talk about the fact that "there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia". At times, they also sometimes wallow in primordialism by ranting about how Mohammad supposedly killed and ethnically cleansed all of the Jews of Arabia in the 700's.

The Zionists who talk like this actually say that, as a response to these supposed crimes by Mohammad against the Arabian Jews, Zionists had a right to steal Arab Palestine from Arab Muslims in revenge! I kid you not. Now tell me that Zionism is not a form of insanity.

The fact is that standard history says that there have been no Jews in Arabia proper for centuries. It is true that Mohammad did fight wars against three tribes of Arabian Jews (who apparently had come to Arabia after the destruction of temples by the Romans 500-600 years before).

In one of these battles, the battle against the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza at the Battle of Kaybar, he executed hundreds of Jews after they surrendered, stole their lands and possessions and enslaved their women. In another war against the Banu Qaynuqa, Mohammad took their possessions and banished the tribe.

In the Battle of Kaybar, Mohammad took a Jewish slave woman, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as a bride. One Muslim tradition has it that a Banu Nadir woman, angry at what he did to her tribe, slowly poisoned Mohammad, from which he apparently died. This hadith is not very well-attested but is a favorite of Muslim anti-Semites.

The truth, as usual, is so much more complicated. It turns out that there were nine separate Jewish tribes in Arabia. Mohammad only had conflicts with three of these nine tribes. With the other six, the Banu Auf, Banu Harif, Banu Jusham, Banu Najjar, Banu Shutayba, Banu Sa'ida, Mohammad made peace and signed the Constitution of Medina with them, in which they were allowed to retain their Jewish religion.

Clearly, the ultranationalist Zionist notion that Mohammad killed all the Arabian Jewish men, enslaved all their women, stole all their stuff and ethnically cleansed them, is simply false.

After the recordings in the Koran, the trail of the Arabian Jews grows dim. We find one clue in the controversy over the apparently false hadith, in which Mohammad supposedly said on his deathbed, "There shall no other religion in Arabia".

This fake hadith is used by the Saudi ultrareactionaries to disallow the open practice of any non-Muslim religion in Arabia, to forbid the building of non-Muslim houses of worship, to mandate that all Saudi citizens must be Muslims, and to allow only Muslims to visit Mecca.

The hadith, probably written long after Mohammad died, is dubious for several reasons. For one, history tells us that Christians, and possibly Jews, lived in Arabia for at least 200 years after Mohammad. If Mohammad actually said this, why were non-Muslims allowed to reside in Arabia for 200 years after his death?

Furthermore, are we to believe that non-Muslims lived in Arabia the whole time during Mohammad's rule with his permission, yet Mohammad suddenly changed his mind on his deathbed and decided they had to leave, yet this was not enforced until 200 years later?

What we do know is that 200 years later, under the influence of this dubious hadith, apparently all Christians, and possibly any remaining Jews, were thrown out of Arabia.

Yet the history of Arabian Jews is more mysterious than even this poorly-attested history.

Saudi society is virulently anti-Semitic these days for various reasons. An example of this nasty anti-Semitism is a a fad in Saudi society to accuse various Saudis one does not like, especially members of the Saudi royal family whose commitment to Islam is suspect, of having Jewish ancestors.

Saudi history (mostly oral) is insistent that a number of Saudi tribes supposedly have Jewish origins. They all apparently converted long ago. Therefore, at the very least, a fair number of the ultra-Muslims of Saudi Arabia are actually converted Jews, as hard as it may be for either group to accept.

Now we find a shocking obscure gem of a web page on the Jews of Iraq from August 2001 that suggests that thousands of Saudi crypto-Jews exist to this very day. From the page:

Wow! What a fantastically historical site you have!! My name is Joseph ElHadef, and I live in NY. I am Greek, Hungarian, Egyptian, and Iraqui. In the article from Montefiore Hall the lecturer mentions that Mr. Dangoor spoke to a crypto Jew in Saudia Arabia, tell me more about this incident? I had two Kuwaiti friends at Hofstra University in NY and they both told me that there are STILL Jews in Kuwait? As well as Bahrain? Tell me more about the Saudi Jews!

Joseph ElHadef

Scribe:

A crypto Jewish couple from Saudi Arabia with their twelve children came to London a few years ago and visited the offices of the Exilarch’s Foundation, asking for help to obtain a visa to enable them to emigrate to Israel. However, the Israel Embassy in London turned down their application and they decided to travel to Jordan and move over to Israel clandestinely.

According to their evidence there are thousands of crypto Jews in Saudi Arabia who lead a separate existence from the main population. To our knowledge, there are no Jews living in Kuwait, but a number of Jewish families still live in Bahrain, mainly of Iraqi origin.

It looks like the Zionists who love to rave about "no Jews in Saudi Arabia" may need to reform those frothing rants in light of this suggestive new evidence that there at least 2,000 crypto-Jews still living in Saudi Arabia! At the least, I think these possible crypto-Jews of Saudi Arabia ought to be investigated by an intrepid, discreet reporter.

One more Zionist lie about Saudi Arabia ought to be disposed of, while we are at it. Zionists love to rail about how, supposedly, no Jews are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Along the same lines, some acknowledge that Jews and Christians are allowed in Saudi Arabia, but are not allowed to practice their religion, according to such august sources as the New York Times. These falsifications really need to be dealt with.

Without defending the fundamentalist cretins in the House of Saud, the fact is that there are quite a few Christians and even some Jews living in Saudi Arabia. None are citizens. All are immigrants working there for foreign companies. Prior to March 1, 2005, the Saudi Tourist Office website had a notice that Jews were not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. Never mind that many did anyway.

On March 1 of last year, that notice was removed along with a statement apologizing for any inconvenience it may have caused. And, as the nice Crossroads Arabia blog (written by a Western expat living in the Kingdom) notes, there are both observant Jews and observant Christians amongst the expat community, and both are permitted to practice their religions. They are not permitted to proselytize or hold public religious services.

However, foreign business and government offices have facilities that they use to hold religious services for their non-Muslim workers. Furthermore, many of these organizations have what are called "dual-use" employees - workers who also serve to lead these non-Muslim services.

As you can see in the comments on the Crossroads Arabia blog, a favorite Zionist line is that there are virtually no Jews left in the Arab World, while there was an 800,000 strong community before a certain s-tty little country came into existence. That the emergence of this stolen state had something to do with the loss of the Arab Jewish presence is not acknowledged.

The loss of the Arab Jews is used by Zionist super-racists to continuously bash the Arab World over the head. What is truly disturbing about this line, though, is the way in which many of these Jews left the Arab World. For instance, in Operation Magic Carpet in the early 1950's, virtually the entire 40,000-strong Yemeni Jewish community was airlifted out of Yemen.

Many of the Yemeni Jews claim that they were taken out virtually against their wills, that children were separated from parents, that they were rudely sprayed with disinfectant as soon as they landed in Israel and that they have been treated like crap in Israel ever since.

This has been a pattern. In the late 1980's, a Jewish community, the Chabani Jews, was discovered in the mountains on the disputed border of Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Although they were actually living in Saudi Arabia (I thought there were no Jews in Arabia!?), they were not citizens.

In contrast to the stereotype of the Jew as "rootless cosmopolitan", these Jews were living the life of the noble savage. They went barefoot in the desert and the men all carried long guns on their backs at all times to defend themselves in this dangerous, tribal region.

Upon learning of the existence of these Saudi Jews, Israel immediately went crazy and demanded that this small group of Jews had to go to Israel "for safety" right now.

Never mind that they had been running around in the desert without significant incident, living lives as normal as anyone else in the region lived, for as long as anyone could remember. They were promptly airlifted out to Israel, where I seriously doubt that they are all sitting on the boards of major Israeli corporations by now.

By 1990, towards the end of the Afghan-Soviet War, it was discovered that there were still a few Jews left in that forlorn land, mostly in Kabul, but a few in Herat. This was for the most part a community of Iranian Jews that moved to Afghanistan long ago and developed its own customs. They had weathered the war about as well as anyone, and apparently did not want to leave.

Israel immediately had an international conniption fit and demanded that all of these Jews had to leave Afghanistan and go to Israel right now. An airlift was organized and most of the baffled Jews took the bait and left. Only one Jew, Zebulon Simontev, remains.

It is important to note that when Israel "rescues" these communities that are usually not even in danger, they bribe them to come to Israel. They are often offered large cash payments, a free house, a free income for 5 years or more, etc. It is not surprising that many take the bait. In this manner the entire remaining Afghan Jewish community was decimated - by Israel!

Even after the Taliban took over, there were still 2 Jews remaining in Kabul, Zebulon Simontev and Isaac Levy. They had stayed to take care of the crumbling synagogue and the scrolls. What was interesting was that the Taliban, who we are continuously told are "Islamofascists" dedicated to exterminating all the Jews on Earth, did not even bother to kill these 2 Jews, although it would have been a trivial exercise.

In fact, they were allowed to live freely with no restrictions. They did get into problems with the Taliban because they were into fortune telling, which was illegal under the Taliban. Both of these Jews was jailed for a few weeks for this offense. These two Jews got on great with the Muslim neighbors, who were truly fond of them.

Wait! I thought all Afghans were "Islamofascist" exterminationists? Tragicomically, these two Jews, though the last remaining of their community, utterly despised each other, and spent most of their time fighting each other in various ways. Their constant fighting seems to have landed them a couple of Taliban jail terms too.

My point here is that whenever a Jewish community turns up in the Arab or Muslim World, Israel immediately races to "rescue" them with an airlift and massive bribes. In this manner have many of these Jewish communities been decimated in recent years.

Then, at the same time, Zionists have the most outrageous chutzpah to say, "There are no Jews left in the region!", and blame the poor Muslims and Arabs, when Israel is, nowadays anyway, one of the major reasons for that dearth.

Now, on to the Jews of Lebanon. I recently found a fascinating blog called The Jews of Lebanon! That was a very nice find. One very interesting article there says that 250 Jews had just returned from the Diaspora to Beirut on July 6, 2006, as they felt that the atmosphere was finally safe enough for them to return. Hooray!

It fascinating to note that only six days later, Israel launched a massive invasion of Lebanon that pretty much destroyed Lebanon. Although it seems insane to suggest such a thing, it is perfectly possible that one reason for the Israeli invasion was the return of the 250 Jews to Beirut. I realize that sounds crazy, but Israel is a very crazy country. Bear with me.

Israel is completely hostile to the notion that Jews can live peacefully anywhere in the Arab World and has engaged in repeated provocative behaviors seemingly intended to frighten Jews into leaving Arab lands. See my notes above about the murderous Israeli attacks on the Jews of Iraq and see below for a reference to the Israeli attacks on the Beirut synagogue during 1982.

Soon after Israel attacked Lebanon in July, the Jews of Lebanon blog posted a statement strongly condemning the attack. For this, apparently, they were attacked by a violent swarm of Zionist Jews ferociously assaulting them for being "traitors". The authors of the blog were so shocked by this assault that they made a post called Enough is Enough, telling the Zionist furies to buzz off.

The standard history of the Jews of Lebanon goes beyond the scope of this post and can be found here on the US-Israel site, among other places. The history on that webpage strangely starts at 1948, but I am sure that Jews have been in Lebanon for long before that.

Mitchell Bard's history on the US-Israel Zionist site, as you can see, is the standard Ashkenazi "pogrom and persecution" history of the Jews, grafted onto the experience of the Mizrachi Jews, in this case the Jews of Lebanon.

Note that, idiotically, on the US-Israel site, the webpage "Jews of Lebanon" is linked under the larger category, "Anti-Semitism", as if anti-Semitism was only salient fact of the Lebanese Jews' existence!

A close glance at The Jews of Lebanon blog shows that many of them probably reject this Ashkenazi mangling of their history. According to Bard's history, the population dropped from 12,000 in 1948 to less than 100 in 2004.

We also learn of some sad and awful cases where Hezbollah, in the insanity of the Lebanese Civil War, killed some Lebanese Jews simply for being Jewish. It is also interesting to note that during that war, Israel seems to have deliberately bombed one of the main synagogues in Beirut, apparently in order to help push the Lebanese Jews into fleeing, hopefully to Israel.

This is in line with standard Zionist practice.

Zionism assumes, adopting the dishonest line from the Jewish religious Haggadah, "Every generation, they rise up to kill us..." that no Jew in the Diaspora is ever safe, that Gentiles (even the most Judeophilic) are permanently afflicted with anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism is not understandable by humans except as some sort of bizarre infection of pure evil or utter insanity, and that the only safe place for any Jew is Israel.

Therefore, all Jews in the Diaspora must move to Israel as soon as possible. This is a bizarre formulation for a couple of reasons.

First of all, Zionism is possibly a stupid way to go about protecting the Jews. Is it really intelligent, if the Jews are always in danger of imminent extermination, to gather such a huge percentage of them into one tiny country, where they can be wiped out all the easier?

Second of all, Israel is now probably one of the most dangerous places on Earth to be a Jew.

If we take extreme liberties with the truth and refer to every attack on Israelis as a murderous or at least violent "anti-Semitic assault", there are probably about 13 violent anti-Semitic attempted homicides in and around Israel every single day at the moment. A number of them end up killing and hurting Jews or at least damaging or destroying their property.

Comparing this to the latest out-of-breath report by the ADL about anti-Semitic incidents in America is an exercise in comedy. If one Jew is killed in an anti-Semitic assault in the US in a given year, that is notable.

Anyway, back to Lebanon. On The Jews of Lebanon blog, there is a linked article from the super-Zionist hard rightwing Israeli Ynet website called, Beirut's Last Jews. This is a typical Israeli "pogrom and persecution" Zionist crapola sob story.

However, the article makes some interesting points, probably inadvertently. It notes that prior the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during the 1950's and 1960's, the Lebanese Jews had good relations with the other sects in Lebanon (to the extent any ethnic group has good relations with others in such a fractious and sick land).

What is particularly interesting are claims by Lebanese Jews that they had superb relations in particular with the Shiites of Lebanon.

As Israel bombarded and invaded Lebanon repeatedly through the 1970's and finally invaded en masse in 1982, all of that ended, the Shia radicalized, and Hezbollah was born. All of which portended ill for the Jews of Lebanon. The lesson here is clear. The more Israel attacked Lebanon, the worse things got for the Lebanese Jews.

And the despicable lie that pounds our ears night and day these days, with Iran and Lebanon richoceting off the news, that the Shia Muslims have always harbored, continue to harbor, and will always harbor genocidal hatred for Jews, based on the immutable texts of the Islamic religion, is exposed as the hate speech that it truly is.

See the execrable but interesting and erudite Andrew Bostom's Muhammad's Willing Executioners on Robert Spencer's disgusting and bigoted Jihad Watch site and Hezbollah's Creed: Jihadism and Jew Hatred on the disturbing Atlas Shrugs blog of a young, beautiful, bright, articulate New York neoconservative Jewish publisher named Pamela with clear dual loyalty issues, for two recent examples.

The hyperventilating, but well-done and well-written, blog Villagers With Torches by "neoconservative liberal" Jew and former civil rights activist Epaminondas is one continuous inciteful rant against Hezbollah and Iran, among other anti-Semitic entities real and fantasized, and a nonstop, in your face advertisement for the War With Iran that the dual loyalty crowd (Israeli Lobby) - vividly personified by Epaminondas - is currently shoving America headfirst into.

We know very well where the primary loyalties of Jews like Epaminondas lie, and it is not with the America of their birth. Instead, it lies with their tribal links to a vicious little vile racist state in the Levant.

For more, just listen to or read the nonstop incitement by imperialism and Zionism for an apocalyptic war of aggression against Shia Muslim Iran emanating from your TV or the weekly news magazines.>

Wendy Campbell Deconstructs Michael Moore: "Finding the Fault Lines in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'"

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here.

The following article is another in a series of articles written by one of my colleagues, Wendy Campbell. It was originally written on July 1, 2004 under the nom de plume "concerned American". It was rewritten on March 26, 2006. I am really pleased with this article. Like many angry anti-Zionists, Wendy has gotten caught up in the heat of her rhetoric in the past and has caught quite a bit of heat for that.

Just Google her name to see more. Even the Jerusalem Post called her a neo-Nazi and the British anti-Zionist activist Sue Blackwell went to the extreme of publically distancing herself from Wendy. The Wikipedia entry on Wendy refers to her as an anti-Semitic bigot. It also lists her among Wikipedia's BS List of Anti-Semitic People.

At best, Wendy has often been a lukewarm anti-Semite, one who has been manipulated into this cage by devious rhetors with more ignoble aims. At worst, I really do not think she knows what she is getting into. At least I hope she doesn't know what she is doing. If she does know what she is doing, then she is heading down a black path indeed.

At any rate, I am not aware that she has advocated harming Jews in general in any way, which is a reasonable definition of a dangerous anti-Semite. Nevertheless, she has in the past and continues in the present to make statements about World War 2 and the Holocaust that are nothing more than rehashes of the worst German pro-Nazi propaganda. Shame, shame, shame, shame.

It is an excellent truism that in human affairs we should not attribute to evil what is instead a product of incompetence (or, I would add, ignorance).

Almost all critical-Semites and anti-Zionists (myself included) are going to drift into anti-Semitism at times. Big deal.

Considering that our opponents, militant Zionist Jews, are almost all advocates of an openly racist philosophy, the occasional anti-Semitic utterance on our part hardly seems much of a sin. Despite their ultra-racism, our opponents are rewarded by full inclusion in our society, including access to the pinnacles of our economy and the deepest bowels of our government.

For us critics of militant Jewish behavior, on the other hand, it's often hard to make a living. In many workplaces, private, nonprofit or public sector, there is often a militant Jew somewhere in the background who has something to do with signing the checks. There is also the threat of the Jewish advertiser boycott.

After all, Jews, 1.8% of the US population, reportedly control 25% of the wealth in the country. If you are going to criticize militant Jews in the US, you may be relegated to working at Burger King.

I lost a number of advertisers soon after the publication of Wikipedia, Ziopedia or Judeopedia? The reason given was that "my site does not comply with the standards that the advertisers require". I assume these advertisers took exception to the critical-Semitism of that piece.

No matter what we say, our opponents will call us anti-Semites, bigots, haters, racists, Ku Klux Klansmen, Nazis, neo-Nazis, Jew-haters, terrorists, etc. Even the mild Xymphora is now coming in for attack.

Poor Juan Cole just had his most recent academic appointment to an Ivy League university torpedoed by corrupt Zionist Jewish furies, who play for keeps if they play at all. I am also acquainted with Juan Cole. Juan, to his credit, hasn't an anti-Semitic or even racist bone in his body. The corrupt and dishonest campaign against this man is a crime.

Nevertheless, I think we still need to watch the anti-Semitism, for our own consciences if for no other reason. Let the corrupt militant Zionists and those gullible enough to take their bait wallow in the mud puddles. There is a dignity to the high road.

It is never too late to rehabilitate a reputation, although many militant Jews would like to put a stake through your heart upon the first misstep in criticizing their special tribe and bury you for life, only releasing you if you crawl on the floor and abjectly kiss their feet in humiliation.

In this article, I feel that Wendy shows signs of maturing as an activist and an author. Here, she watches her words more carefully, and her rhetoric is calmer and more reasoned. She does a better job of avoiding the easy anti-Semitic cheap shots and instead chooses to row into the difficult waters of critical-Semitism.

It's hard to row your boat is such choppy waters, but I wish her luck on your journey nevertheless, should she choose to turn the wheel and drive on the high road, where the scenery is better anyway and there are fewer belligerent pedestrians and other drivers to get in your way.

On to the article!


I decided to re-visit this article that I had originally written immediately after I saw Michael Moore’s “daring” documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 when it first came out in July 2004. I have decided to update it because the issues are still timely and as of yet unresolved.

And on top of that, whenever I tell people I have made some political documentaries, they often ask me “Oh, like Michael Moore?”. I usually say, “Something like that, but much more daring. It’s actually much more politically hot. Much more relevant. Check out my website www.marwenmedia.com.”

Please note how many people are still under the impression that Michael Moore is somehow daring. It makes me laugh to think that people think that. Then again it also makes me angry. And it makes me sad. Finally, though, I do think that more people are starting to get the real picture Moore. And that makes me feel cautiously optimistic.

Michael Moore’s cowardice (and avarice) reveals itself in many ways, although he pretends to be your average person, and a good Christian on top of that. For example, Michael Moore himself, and many others, seem to be impressed with his “courage” to chase down and harass the aging Charlton Heston in his documentary Bowling for Columbine, because Heston was the figurehead for the National Rifle Association.

Hey, I’m not into guns myself. In fact, if any guy I have dated in the past has ever told me he has bought a gun, my first reaction was first to be alarmed and then to run the other direction. But the fact is, that in some situations, I feel that it is a citizen’s right to have a gun, especially in certain situations, such as, as one example, if you live out in the middle of the Wyoming wilderness.

Interesting side-notes: Do you realize that the massacre at Columbine would probably have been called a “hate-crime” if the criminals were Arab or Muslim, or even Christian Fundamentalists?

But if you do a Google-search, you will discover that the criminals who committed that massacre were of a certain ethnicity/religion that rarely, if ever, seems to be mentioned in connection with “hate-crimes”. Hint: it starts with a “J”. Ever wonder why some kinds of “hate-crimes” are worse than other “hate-crimes”?

[RL: Is it true that the Columbine killers were both Jewish?]

Ever wonder why magazines such as Vanity Fair will write a huge article about the alleged rape scandal at Duke and emphasize that the accused men were Christian, even to the point of printing a photo of the chapel at Duke in the article?

Yet they have chosen not to do a huge story of the young Jewish men who were guilty of burning many churches in the South earlier this year, and it is certain that they would NEVER include a photo of a synagogue?

[RL: Is it true that these arsonists were Jewish?]

In the same issue of Vanity Fair (June 2006) notice how they feature an in-depth article, The War They Wanted, by Craig Unger, who is obviously a Zionist and probably a Jew...

[RL: Unger is definitely a Jewish surname.]

...never once mentions the Israeli connection to the war “they wanted”? Certainly Vanity Fair has put its voluntary and obligatory blindfolds on with regards to that one, as is typical of the rest of Zionized US media.

Certainly Vanity Fair seems intent on countering the courageous and important paper about the Israel Lobby and its push for the war on Iraq, The Israel Lobby, written by Ivy League professors Mearshimer and Walt, which has been predictably uniformly ignored by Vanity Fair and the rest of the Zionized US media.

“They” are doing their best to make sure that the Israeli connection goes down into the Memory Hole. Typical, so typical.

What would have been a really courageous act is for Michael Moore to have chased down and harassed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (before he went to the hospital, of course) and asked him a few questions, or perhaps Elie Wiesel, whom many people accuse of complete and utter hypocrisy and even lying, since he does not have any tolerance for the human rights of Palestinians in their own ancestral homeland of Palestine.

No, rarely does anyone do that. Why? Do you really need you really ask? Have you not noticed that is not kosher to even legitimately question and verbally challenge some people of a certain religion/ethnicity? That to do so invites typical name-calling such as “anti-Semite”, “Nazi”, “Klan member” and such.

This is an intentional, systematized attempt to censor those who disagree with Zionists with regards to Palestinian human rights. Apparently it works with a lot of people, especially now that there is a Department of Anti-Semitism here in the US trying to make it a crime to criticize Israel and Zionism.

[RL: There is not really a Department of Anti-Semitism in the US. Condoleezza Rice has appointed a Special Envoy for Anti-Semitism, a Jewish man. He is to produce a report on worldwide anti-Semitism every year, for what purpose I do not know. Why the emphasis on this particular group, who, compared to other ethnic groups, suffers far less?

On the other hand, there is no evidence at all that this Department exists to criminalize criticism of Jews, though the fact that it was created in the first place is at best a waste of money and at worst downright spooky.]

They want to make the entire world a criticism-free zone with regards to Israel and Zionism, yet the rest of the world is a fair target, especially Muslims and Arabs. But note how it is even more than tolerable to criticize Bush, Christian Fundamentalism, the concept of God, Jesus, Islam, and corporations than Jews.

Let’s face it! Caterpillar bulldozers do not have minds of their own! Zionist Jews are the ones who are bulldozing Palestinian homes in order to chase them off their land so that the Zionist Jews get to take over the land for a “Greater Israel”.

Our politicians are giving Israel the money to terrorize the Palestinian people, billions of our tax dollars every single year, without conditions, and in fact, tacitly approving of Israel’s crimes against humanity.

Let’s get back to Moore’s film about 9/11.

Moore's film is misleading, smug and cowardly. He picks on the easy usual suspects (Arabs) and ignores the driving forces behind the so-called "War on Terror": Jewish Zionism (with the support of the Christian Zionists), Zionist Israel (the Jewish state of Israel) and the neoconservatives, who are largely Jewish Americans, or you could refer to them as Israeli-Americans.

[RL: I happen to think of the Sunni Takfiri Salafists of Al Qaeda and its many related groups, and its tens of millions of Muslim civilian sympathizers, as co-participants with the Neocon-Zionist Axis in this war.

I also think that Salafist-Takfiri Sunni Islam needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth, and I am not too worried about how to do it or how many of the enemy get killed in the process.]

Moore is like a politician who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. And he knows whom to please in order to get rich.

As a side note, Madonna apparently knows how to brown-nose too, with her gushing on about the Jewish cult of Kabbalah for example, on the Larry King Show and any show that will have her. As if she doesn’t have enough money already.

Sharon Stone also follows suit with similar politically correct gushing about certain people of a certain ethnicity/religion. It’s a great career move! No doubt about it! Especially in Hollywood! Especially for aging celebrities. Oh yeah!

Michael Moore’s documentary raises many interesting issues with regards to 9-11 and the Bush Administration, as well as the war on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Note: And now Iran and Syria are in the neocons' crosshairs. Syria exports no oil. Hello. By the way, the Democrats are just as bad these days. Note their silence when they should be pushing for the impeachment of Bush. They are almost all enablers, and should be forced to resign for allowing this war to happen as well as the continual erosion of our freedoms.

However, Fahrenheit 9/11 avoids many more important but politically hot questions.

Why does Moore focus only on the Saudis, yet never mentions the well-known role of Zionist Israel, Israeli spies and the Neoconservatives, who are mostly Zionist Jewish Americans (make that Israeli-Americans) as well as Zionist Christian Americans, in the war on Iraq?

Check out the most notorious of the neoconservatives' websites.

See how they called for an attack on Iraq even back in 1996, and how they “needed” a Pearl Harbor-style event “to happen” to “motivate” Americans to allow such a war, where Iraq would only be the beginning of endless war (the so-called “War on Terror”, when it really should be called the “War of Terror”), to achieve a Zionist-American empire.

This website is also known as “Project for New America” or PNAC (Pee-Nack) for short. I hope you have heard of it by now! By the way, the Neocons may have cleaned up their website by now...

[RL: I do not think so. These brazen fellows have always delighted in conspiring in plain sight for some reason, probably because Americans have been brainwashed into believing that all conspiracy theory is either racism or a symptom of mental illness.]

...but there is plenty of information about it on the Internet if you do a Google-search. I highly recommend it. If you want to preserve your constitutional rights, you owe it to yourself and this country.

Here are some more questions for you to ponder…

Why does Moore omit facts such as that bin Laden and Al Qaeda never even publicly claimed credit for 9-11?

[RL: I believe that bin Laden took credit for it in a controversial video. Also, a number of other top Al Qaeda members like Khalid Sheik Mohammad have confessed that they did it.]

Yes, apparently bin Laden stated publicly he was happy about 9-11, but so did former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu stated that he was happy about 9-11, since then Israel’s “war on terror” or more accurately, Israel’s racist ethnic cleansing campaign against indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries outside of Israel, would now be fought by Americans against Israel’s self-made enemies.

[RL: Netanyahu did not exactly say he was happy about 9-11, but he made some telling remarks that could be read that way by a careful reader. For that matter, Condi Rice admitted right away that 9-11 was "very useful" for the US. For US imperialism, that is.]

By the way, Israel’s enemies are not necessarily America’s enemies, especially if it weren’t for America’s unconditional support of Zionist Israel.

According to many sources on the Internet and elsewhere, 9-11 very well could have been an “inside job” in collusion with the Mossad, and for all we know, it could be true. It could have been what is known as a “false flag” operation.

[RL: Just for the record, I would like to say that I feel that 9-11 was 100% done by Al Qaeda. There is controversy whether the Mossad or Israeli elements had inside knowledge of the attack, but did not try to stop it. There is evidence for and against this theory, and I regard it as inconclusive.

But apparently unnamed Israelis in Ontario and Hamburg made millions of dollars via suspicious stock market trades based on apparent inside knowledge of the 9-11 plot. Why these Israelis have not yet been brought to justice is beyond me. I've lost the link about this insider-trading stuff, and if anyone who can find it, would you please email it to me?]

Why is it taboo to explore this possibility? Why is it that an Arab conspiracy nicknamed “Al Qaeda” is the only conspiracy that we Americans are allowed to consider? Don’t we live in a democratic country?

Ask yourself: Who has benefited most from the war on Iraq?

[RL: The qui bono game is a favorite of Arabs, Muslims and liberal and Leftist conspiracy theorists, but I am not impressed by it. First of all, it implies that armed groups never do stupid, self-destructive things. In fact, they do all the time.]

Certainly not the Saudis, who even had to back out of the Halliburton war profits as Moore’s film shows. Even the American corporations aren’t getting too much out of the deal. And Bush is getting bashed everywhere. The fact is that Israel has pushed for this war, and has to most to gain from it.

[RL: Although Israeli support was crucial for this war, I do not think that this war was all about Israel. In particular, I find it ridiculous the George Bush attacked Iraq solely to benefit Israel.

There were all sorts of reasons for this war, and while the Zionist aspect was very important, it is just more reductionism to say that it was the only factor. Complex political and military decisions by large states are rarely done for only one reason anyway.]

They even expect to get free oil from this war, with a pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel out of the deal. Do a Google search on “pipe-line from Iraq to Haifa, Israel”. The Israel-firster Neo-Conservatives are pushing for this as a “bonus” for Israel’s “support for the US war on Iraq!”

[RL: It is correct that while these head-in-the-clouds neocon clowns did indeed expect to be able to get an oil pipeline to Israel out of this war, that plan presently lies in the dust, or sand as it were, blown to bits along with 250,000 Iraqis. In the foreseeable future, that plan is about as likely to come back to life as those Iraqis are.]

Yet, not only is Moore too afraid to “bash” Israel for its covert, but hugely influential role in this imperial war, he’s afraid to even mention Zionist Israel’s and the neoconservatives’ roles in the Bush administration. Note that the Democrats these days are just as bad.

The furthest Moore goes out on this limb is to show a couple of cameos in the film of the top dog Neoconservative deputy of defense Paul Wolfowitz, without even naming him, or explaining who he is and who he represents (the Neoconservatives, and mostly Israel).

Please keep in mind that this war is all being financed with our tax dollars, without giving us a chance to vote on it, and the Zionized US media are deliberately keeping Americans in the dark about all this.

Why does Moore not mention that at least five of the so-called Saudi hijackers were cases of stolen identity? (Do a Google-search on “mistaken identity of 9-11 hijackers”.) While the American media under-reported this fact at the time, it was widely reported in foreign media, including BBC). Therefore it is a fact that we really do not know where all the hijackers came from or who they were.

[RL: That is right, but that does not mean that Al Qaeda did not do it.]

Why does Michael Moore never even mention the “dancing Israeli spies” and their suspicious behavior while videotaping the 9-11 WTC attacks and whooping it up? They were detained for a couple months by the FBI and then released on “visa violations”. (Do a Google-search on “dancing Israeli spies 9-11”).

There are many reports of Israeli spies who lived on the same block as the 9-11 terrorists and were engaged in suspicious activities during that time as well as recently, as a general Google search on “Israeli spies” will reveal.

Note how Michael Moore didn’t include any footage in his film from the now famous Fox News four-part series on Israeli spying in the US with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron, which was amazingly broadcast shortly after 9-11 happened, although it was deleted from their archives shortly after. Here is a link to a website that now allows you access to it.

Why does Michael Moore never mention in his film the fact that employees of Odigo, an Israeli-owned company that had offices in the WTC, were forewarned to leave the WTC offices a couple hours before the attacks

[RL: The problem with this analysis, which is the obvious source of the insane Arab, Muslim and anti-Semitic rumors of "6,000 Jews stayed home from work that day", is that it implies that Israel had foreknowledge of the attacks.

If that is so, why did they not warn the huge number of Jews who were working in the World Trade Center not to come to work that day? US Jews got absolutely devastated by 9-11; they were hammered far worse, proportionatetly, than any other ethnic group by that attack.

The number of Jews who were killed by 9-11 has not been tallied, but it is surely in the hundreds. Looking through the list of victims, I tried to count the Jewish surnames, but kept losing count - there were so many.

Why would Zionist Israel, nasty as it is, sacrifice hundreds of innocent US Jews in the carnage of the WTC, and only bother to warn a tiny handful of Israelis? The more I think about this supposed Israeli 9-11 plot, the more nuts it seems.]

(a fact confirmed in the esteemed Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and even, believe it or not, the Washington Post!)? Here's the story as printed in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:

Odigo says workers were warned of attack

By Yuval Dror

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.

Isn’t this incredible?

[RL: This interesting article has become fodder for anti-Zionists and anti-Semites who are intent on showing and proving that Israel had foreknowledge of the 9-11 plot. Unfortunately, not only does it do no such thing, but also this is not the only warning of the 9-11 plot before it occurred.

If you check out Michael Ruppert's 9-11 Timeline on his From the Wilderness webpage, you will see that there were actually many warnings of this plot before it occurred, from all over the world. I don't have time to list them all right now, but feel free to go to the website and check them out.

As far as why they were not acted on, note my comment below on how intelligence agencies get bucket loads of such reports all the time. Almost all of them turn out to be false alarms. Since the Odigo revelation was neither unusual nor unique, I feel it is improper and suspicious to emphasize it to the exclusion of all the other reports.]

Don’t you think someone in their offices might have at least called the building security? Isn’t that standard procedure when you get an anonymous e-mail like that? You know, if there is ever a bomb threat or similar threat made anywhere, you notify whoever is in charge and the police come and evacuate everyone from the building.

But no, this did not happen in the WTC on 9/11. Why not?

[RL: The threat was only received two hours prior, and intelligence agencies themselves, not to mention third parties, receive mountains of threats of attacks, including threats specific to time and place, just about every day in this country. Separating the wheat from the chaff is not so easy!]

This question goes unexplored in our Zionized US media. Somehow investigative journalism has gone the way of the dinosaur when it comes to anything having to do with 9-11 and Israel. I wonder why?

The fact is that the Zionized US media has been covering for Israel for decades, censoring at worst and downplaying at best anything negative about Israel and, in order to keep Americans blindly supporting the Jewish state, especially financially, and to stop all dissent against Israel. They apparently figure that ignorance is bliss.

Why does Michael Moore fail to explain how bin Laden was excommunicated from his own family and that the government of Saudi Arabia also not only permanently expelled bin Laden for his militant activities against the Saudi government, but also froze his bank accounts?

[RL: I would argue that blood runs deep, and many of bin Laden's family continue to have contacts with him despite this "excommunication", and some of them even support him. Furthermore, I feel that a number of prominent Saudi princes also support bin Laden, and he has deep support in the Saudi security forces.]

Why does Michael Moore not mention the reasons that bin Laden gave when answering the famous question, “Why do they hate us?”

[RL: Hope springs eternal, and liberal and Leftist optimists, including Andrew Cockburn of Counterpunch, continue to naively believe that Mr. bin Laden can be bought off at some point.

Whereas, if you study the Takfiri philosophy of Al Qaeda, to me it becomes clear that this war between us and AQ will end only with the defeat or marginalization of one side or the other, as their goals are non-negotiable from our point of view.]

By the way, it’s not “because they hate our freedom”? Helllloooo!

Bin Laden has many times stated that he and his colleagues consider the United States as the enemy of the Arab world because of the unconditional US support (financial, political and military) gives to the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Jewish state of Israel, as well as the continuing stationing of US troops on Saudi Arabia’s soil. The Arab world wants its freedom - from the Zio-American imperialists!

Do you really think the Arab world in Iraq or anywhere else wanted the new American crusade dubbed “The War on Terror”?

[RL: Yes, I am certain that Mr. bin Laden et al wanted it. After all, they deliberately provoked us into this conflict in order to "wake the sleeping Muslim masses", or to "deepen the contradictions", to use a Marxist revolutionary phrase.]

If anything, this has won Islamic militants even more supporters in the Arab world.

Have you noticed how it seems more and more like it’s the current US government that hates our freedoms? As in the Orwellian-named (like everything else these days with regards to whatever “our” government and media says) “Patriot Act”?

As in “our” government spying on American citizens? As in allowing certain kinds of crimes to be called “hate crimes” and others not (depending on your race, ethnicity or “religion”)? There are many more examples of complete and utter hypocrisy, but let’s move on…

Why does Michael Moore mention the bombing of the USS Cole by Al Qaeda but does not mention the massive bombing of the USS Liberty by the Israeli Air Force in 1967, which killed 34 US soldiers

[RL: Sailors?]

and wounded 120 more? This was also completely suppressed by our own government and media until recently. For the details, go to this website.

Why does Michael Moore focus only on the money that our government receives from Saudi Arabia?

Why does he fail to mention the billions of dollars that our US government gives to Israel every year in exchange for the financial political contributions from organized Zionist Jewish political committees and individuals, as well as the largely Zionist Jewish-owned and dominated US media, which, combined, can make or break any politician who fails to constantly pledge 120% allegiance to the “security” of Israel?

The US media completely dropped presidential candidate Howard Dean for even just suggesting that the US government should have a more “balanced” approach towards the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Why does Moore not mention that the Saudi Arabian government has pleaded with the American government to publicly release ALL of the pages of its findings on 9-11 that supposedly have “something to do with Saudi Arabia”?

[RL: I have no idea why the Saudis would do that. My information is that those missing pages implicate Saudis heavily in the 9-11 plot, and were redacted by corrupt US politicians who are on the Saudi oil payroll in one way or another.]

Certain people for their own reasons do not want this to come to light. Could it be because certain people want Americans to imagine the worst about Saudi Arabia and to then thereby serve as a convenient scapegoat for 9-11?

[RL: For the record, my opinion is that 9-11 was all about Saudi Arabia, and was designed that way by bin Laden himself. Bin Laden deliberately chose mostly Saudis to participate in the attacks, especially those from under-served regions like Asir.

He did this to shame and humiliate the Kingdom by putting a Saudi face on the attack. I do not have recent statistics, but a few years ago, Saudi dissidents estimated that 80% of Al Qaeda's cadres were Saudis. Al Qaeda is, for all practical purposes, a Saudi organization.]

Why does Michael Moore fail to show footage or photos of the many occasions that President Bush has stood in front of the Israeli flag with his hand over his heart in allegiance,

[RL: Excuse me? Exactly how many times has George Bush stood in front of an Israeli flag with his hand over his heart pledging allegiance? "Many" times?! Can anyone tell me?]

including at the 2004 AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) Conference where he got 22 standing ovations from Zionist Jews and their non-Jewish sycophants in the audience?

By the way, since then, AIPAC has been exposed and embarrassed by the arrest of two of its top brass for illegal spying on the US for Israel. Yet another story that has been downplayed in the complicit US media.

Why did Michael Moore fail to show President Bush calling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a “man of peace”, while the Israeli army continued to demolish entire sections of Palestinian cities as he spoke the words, killing scores of Palestinian civilians, as in the case of Jenin?

This gave Israel the green light to continue its massive campaign of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinian people. And it’s still happening today, despite the Gaza pull-out, which was mostly a publicity stunt to fool the American public in particular, but in truth, was designed to turn the Gaza Strip into one big open air prison, where the inmates are continually harassed, even killed, while being starved.

When it comes to the Israelis, it’s all a deceptive shell game. Meanwhile, they are continuing to aggressively steal more Palestinian land in the West Bank, unilaterally making new “borders” with their massive Apartheid Wall. Again, the Zionized US media puts a veil on this to deceive the American public.

Why does Michael Moore gratuitously show a rapid clip of someone being beheaded in Saudi Arabia, while ignoring scenes of Israeli depravity?

Why does he fail to show scenes such as the aftermath of an Israeli Air Force helicopter (courtesy of American taxpayers) dropping a one-ton bomb (again, courtesy of American taxpayers)...

[RL: I am almost certain that this bomb was dropped by a jet, and anyway, helicopters don't drop bombs.]

...in the middle of the night onto a crowded Palestinian apartment building, killing hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians, including women and children, in order to kill one Palestinian militant?

[RL: Actually, I believe that 13 civilians were killed in this attack, mostly relatives of the top militant. On the other hand, he was cynically surrounding himself with civilians everywhere he went at the time.]

Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon said publicly that he was pleased with the results of this murder spree.

Why does every Hollywood filmmaker, in addition to the US media, fail to address the unjust way in which Israel was created in the first place?

After WWI, Britain took over Palestine and made contradictory promises, promising a Jewish state to Eastern European Zionist Jews, and at the same time promising the native, indigenous Palestinians their own sovereign state of Palestine.

After WWII, Britain “gave” Palestine, which was Arab land, over to the United Nations.

The UN was made up of White European Christian countries, with influential Jewish politicians and bankers...

[RL: This is not true at all, though those were surely the most powerful nations in the organization. Even at this early date, probably the majority of UN states were in the Third World non-aligned block. The threats and bribes that the US and Britain engaged in to cajole and buy off non-Western opponents to the creation of Israel are legendary.]

...who then unilaterally decided that because of the Holocaust (which happened in Europe and the Palestinians had nothing to do with it), it was somehow “moral” and “necessary” to give away the Palestinians’ lands to Eastern European Zionist Jews for an ethnocentric Jewish state.

[RL: Though Ashkenazi were the majority of the Jews in Mandate territory, there were definitely many Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews in Palestine at this time.]

They never even talked about compensation to the displaced Palestinians,
[RL: Well, according to the UN plan, there were not supposed to be any displaced Palestinians. But the Israelis had other ideas.]

not that anyone should have to give up their land because they are not the “right” religion or ethnicity.

[RL: They never discussed compensation, because according to the UN resolution, which in my opinion was illegal anyway and violated the UN's own charter, no Palestinians were supposed to be displaced in the creation of this Jewish state.

Another resolution a year later demanded the return of all refugees to the places they fled from. Note that Israel has always thumbed its nose at this resolution.]

The war that Zionists began back in 1948 when Israel was created, by stealing Palestinian lands for a Jewish state, continues today due to unconditional support of the US government and with US taxpayers’ money.

Could it be that Michael Moore ignored the major role that Israel, Zionists, the US government, and specifically the neoconservatives, play in the War on “Terror” (As if “war” is not “terror”!?) because he would have a hard time getting it distributed by the Weinstein brothers of Miramax, or anyone else in Hollywood for that matter (like Mel Gibson with his The Passion)?

Could it be because Michael Moore’s agent is Ari Emmanuel, whose brother is none other than Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton advisor and current congressman from Illinois, who is reported to be a rabidly hyper supporter of Israel? Other rumors swirl around Rahm Emmanuel on the Internet as well. We’ll leave it for you to do your own Internet research on that. Just Google him and see what you come up with.

[RL: Rahm Emmanuel is one of the most powerful men in the Democratic Party. He is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. By the way, I have never heard of any sordid rumors about this master political manipulator. Can someone clue me in please?

I realize that such persons as Mr. Emmanuel are necessarily sleazeballs in order to survive in the 8th grade playground of US corrupt, hardball politics. However, Emmanuel is trying very hard to win back Congress as much as possible for the Democratic Party, so I'm not really interested in bashing him right now.]

Could it be that Michael Moore prefers to get rich rather than tell the whole truth? Why is it that he still continues to fail to address the more daring politically hot questions that have been left unasked and unanswered?

Could it be that Michael Moore is a useful and willing pawn for the Zionists, as well as a glutton for money and guilty of moral cowardice?

We must deal truthfully with all the issues involved in order to achieve justice and peace in this world. There must be equal rights for all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or gender in any country that our government supports, and that includes Israel. If segregation and apartheid were bad in the U.S. and in South Africa, then they are also bad in Israel.

Let’s remember The Golden Rule, rather than “The Gold Rules”.

By the way, I have a few movie recommendations for you that you may not have heard of (Gee, I wonder why?):

• The Last Mogul: The Life and Times of Lew Wasserman to get the true history of Hollywood, and see how very interconnected politics and media are. Also tellingly, one of Wasserman’s favorite mottoes was “Dress British, think Yiddish.” See how Lew Wasserman helped put Ronald Reagan into the office of US presidency. If it would not have been made by Jewish filmmaker Barry Avrich, I doubt very much that it would have gotten distributed. As it was, it got limited publicity and limited distribution.
• Jenin, Jenin and Gaza Strip, both available at this website. See the racist persecution your tax dollars are massively supporting.
• USS Liberty Survivors: Our Story available at our website. See how the history of our government’s protection of Israel despite its treacherous actions, and subsequent cover-up of such. Yes, the tail does wag the dog, and has been for decades.

We at Marwen Media also offer a few films you may be interested. They are available on our website:

• Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid
• Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism
  
• Rosa Remembers Palestine
• Syria: Land of Friendly People and Hidden Treasure

To reach Wendy Campbell, e-mail her at info@marwenmedia.com

Please note: There are Zionist Jewish activists in the US trying to make laws that forbid any criticism of Israel and Zionist politics.

[RL: I am sorry. Can someone please show me an example of how Jewish interests are trying to pass laws criminalizing criticism of Israel and Zionism? Am I missing something here?]

Please do your part to make sure that the Zionists do not succeed in infringing on our freedom of speech. Call your representatives today and demand that all funding for the development of the Department of Anti-Semitism be rescinded.

There must be no double standards and no infringements on our freedom of speech. We must not tolerate apartheid, land-stealing and ethnic-cleansing in the Jewish state of Israel. Palestinians deserve completely equal rights too. Demand that our government stop funding Israel’s war of terror on the Palestinian people!

Here is the toll-free number to Congress: 1-877-762-8762. Make the call today!

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.