THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, December 29, 2006


Over at Webdiary, Will Howard wants to know who Bob Wall is accusing of being ‘dishonest and abusive’ and who Bob Wall is saying is a “…self-confessed apologist for Israel”.[1] The choice is between Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff; one is one and one is the other. But which one is which?

Now this is a really tough one! Both are apologists for Israel’s disgraceful behaviour and both are dishonest and abusive. But let’s try and whittle it down.

The disgusting and outrageously callous Pahoff is famed for his comments regarding the death of an elderly Islamic spiritual leader who was murdered by the Israeli government:

“I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss, ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.”[2]

Pahoff makes it perfectly clear where he stands with regard to Israel’s criminal actions.

There are numerous posts here at this blog (just do a search for ‘Will Howard’ on this blog) which document his lies and deceit. There is, for example, his classic piece of hoodwinking at Webdiary where he asserted that the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies, an Israeli think-tank staffed with ex-IDF senior officers and ex-Israeli intelligence officers was ‘non-partisan’ in its deliberations about Iran and its so-called nuclear ambitions. There are, of course, many other proven instances of his lies.

Will Howard is the most apalling liar and deciever so the upshot is, as I said; both are ‘dishonest and abusive’ and both are ‘Israeli apologists’.

Take your pick!

[1] Will Howard, ‘Come out with it’, comment at Webdiary, 29 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 29 December 2006.
[2] Geoff Pahoff, Comment at Harry Heidelberg’s blog, 13 July 2006. Available online: Accessed 19 July 2006.


Paul Gray, the Australian neoconservative and neo-fascist who supports illegally invading nations based on lies and who continues to support the notion that the West should violently foist Western-style ‘democracy’ on to peoples with total disregard as to whether they actually want it or not, has now come out and said by inference that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, sometimes known as ‘Aunty’, should be more anti-Islam. The title of his piece in The Australian says it all: ‘Aunty’s anti-Western bias is a dangerous political tool: Ignorant and ideologically biased ABC staff need re-educating’.[1]

The reality is that ABC staff generally are able to demonstrate that they are the least ignorant of most of Australia’s TV current affairs programs commentators and interviewers and are, moreover, able to provide the most analytical coverage of world events, something the commercial stations are unable to do. As for ‘ideological bias’, if by that Gray means that the bias is against war, lies, Western state-terrorism, invasion of sovereign nations that are not a threat to the rest of the world, is biased against nations colonising lands that aren’t theirs or interfering and intervening in the affairs of other nations governments because ‘we’ think our way is somehow better than ‘theirs’, then so the ABC should remain bias. One has only to read Gray’s article to realise that the alternative as Gray would wish it is anti-Islam, pro war and the imposition of so-called Western democracy by force upon the Islamic world. War, war and more war.

How’s this for arrogance: “…the problem reveals itself as coming from the same source: the spiritual and metaphysical rootlessness of the tertiary-educated Australian middle class.
I have always contended that dealing with this problem at its roots will require nothing less than the complete philosophical re-education of those ABC staff members engaged in intellectual tasks.”

‘The complete philosophical re-education?!’ One has to ask; to what? Fascism is the only alternative this arrogant hypocritical warmonger has in mind.

[1] Paul Gray, ‘Aunty’s anti-Western bias is a dangerous political tool: Ignorant and ideologically biased ABC staff need re-educating’, The Australian, 28 December 2006. Available online:,20867,20979039-7583,00.html Accessed 29 December 2006.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006


Just a quick one today about a couple of stories that caught my eye in The New York Times that summed up once again the arrogance and hypocrisy that underscores the US and their allies attitude towards the nations they have invaded and now occupy. The first article is headlined: ‘U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks’[1] in which it says:

“The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces. Evidence also emerged that some detainees had been involved in shipments of weapons to illegal armed groups in Iraq.”

First off, they are only ‘illegal’ as far as the US and their Iraqi puppets are concerned. Never mind, however, that the US and the Coalition of the Killing’s invasion of Iraq was itself illegal and that, therefore, they are in Iraq illegally themselves and that the killing they have undertaken since the invasion is also illegal. And why shouldn’t Middle East nations become allies in order to defeat a common enemy that has invaded one and threatened another – the Americans forget that it is they that are the foreigners in a country that doesn’t want them there.

The second article is headlined ‘Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan’.[2] The hypocrisy here is exposed with this paragraph:

“The rise of Hezbollah, with Iran's support, has demonstrated the extent of Tehran's sway in Lebanon, and the American toppling of Saddam Hussein has allowed it to expand its influence in Iraq. Iran has been making inroads into Afghanistan, as well. During the tumultuous 1980s and '90s, Iran shipped money and arms to groups fighting first the Soviet occupation and later the Taliban government. But since the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban in 2001, Iran has taken advantage of the central government's weakness to pursue a more nuanced strategy: part reconstruction, part education and part propaganda.”

The Americans it seems are arrogant enough to forget that Afghanistan is Iran’s neighbour and the construction work they do in Afghanistan is far more welcome than the destruction the Americans seem only to bring. And, again, why should the people of Lebanon not look to Iran for support in order to defeat their common enemies; the US and right-wing Israeli Zionism. After all, does not the US ship arms and money to Israel?

One day the Americans are going to wake up and realise that they have nothing to offer the people of the Middle East or anywhere else they go if all they bring with them is death and destruction accompanied by their arrogance and hypocrisy.

[1] Sabrina Tavernise, ‘U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks’, The New York Times, 27 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 27 December 2006.
[2] David Rhode, ‘Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan’, The New York Times, 27 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 27 December 2006.

Thursday, December 21, 2006


In The Australian on 19 December 2006, Owen Harries, a noted Australian neoconservative, asks what the future of the Bush doctrine will be. “Does failure on its first outing spell an early grave for it? Does it mean that it will have been but a passing episode in the history of US foreign policy? As 9/11 recedes into history, and as George W. Bush’s period in office draws to an end, are we witnessing the end of what the Bush doctrine stood for?” [1]

Given the lies that were told that initiated the invasion of Iraq, the horrendous loss of life since (over half a million dead and rising daily), the anarchy that now exists in Iraq and through much of the Middle East, the squalor that the Iraqi people now have to endure, the squandering of billions of dollars of taxpayers money (predominately the American taxpayer), the thousands of dead and injured American soldiers, the continued threat of more war against other Middle East nations such as Iran, Syria and possibly even Saudi Arabia, it would be nice to think that the answer to Owen Harries questions would be a resounding ‘Yes!’

Unfortunately, according to Harries, it is unlikely to be. “Not necessarily”, Harries proclaims, “For the doctrine represents two enduring and fundamental features of the situation - one structural, the other cultural - that will not disappear when the Iraq venture ends: the global hegemony of the US and American exceptionalism.”

Fortunately for the rest of the world Harries is wrong. Time and again American hegemony has proved ultimately to have been an illusion and the concept of ‘American exceptionalism’ is nothing more than arrogant wishful thinking that exists only in the minds of neoconservatives who seem to think that the ‘American Way’ is the answer to all of the worlds woes based on the historical experience that America itself has evolved from. (We’ll come back to that ridiculous furphy in a moment.)

That’s not to say, of course, that American hegemony doesn’t exist; just that it is very much overrated particularly in the context that Harries assumes.

One often reads of the US as being the only ‘superpower’ left (after the demise of the USSR) but in reality other superpowers are still around; ones that the US would not want to tangle with such as Russia and China. If hegemony means influence, then, yes, the US has lots of it. There are many nations around the world that ‘benefit’ from American ‘influence’ – especially economically. But when it comes to military grunt most nations these days realise that the US is not all it’s cracked up to be and Iraq is a classic example.

While the US has had its successes militarily over very small nations (like Grenada, Panama, etc.), it has, despite its military might, been unable to prevail in many of the conflicts it has been involved in directly since WWII. Despite terrible losses on both sides, North Korea still exists. Despite supporting an invasion of a small Caribbean island on its doorstep, Fidel Castro’s Cuba still exists. Despite the deaths of over 50,000 American and allied soldiers and well over a million or two others dead, Vietnam is still a communist nation. And, regardless of what the neoconservatives would have the world believe, America did not actually defeat the USSR in the ‘Cold War’ – it was simply able to survive longer; the bottom line is: the US did not militarily prevail over the USSR and to suggest otherwise is purely delusional.

And now we have Iraq. In a nutshell it was the neoconservative’s faith in the illusion of US military hegemony combined with their belief in the myth of American exceptionalism that has been America’s downfall in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s ‘shock and awe’ turned out to be fizzer. America’s technical military know-how with laser-guided bombs and missiles fired from the most sophisticated aircraft has failed to subdue a people that simply do not want the Americans there and are living in an Iraq that is now far, far worse than it was when Saddam was in power.[2] The Americans are now in a situation where they cannot win unless they use overwhelming firepower across virtually the entire nation which would entail the deaths of extremely large numbers of innocent Iraqis as it did when the Americans tried (and failed) a similar stunt on a smaller scale at Fallujah.[3]

For all its military might the US has rarely been able to prevail against its enemies using its military might. America’s hegemony comes not from its military might, as the neoconservatives would like the world to think, or even as they would like to think themselves as demonstrated in the Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) Statement of Principles[4], but from its ability to fork out huge amounts of money (or, alternatively, withhold huge amounts of money) in order to affect an outcome favourable to them.

In the present circumstances, it may well be that the Bush administration will, indeed, attempt a final fling at a military victory but if it does, it will be in the face of a backlash of very negative public opinion not just from the rest of the world but also from most of the American people who have now had about a gutful of this ridiculous war. And this will especially be so if such a final fling results in huge loss of life – Iraqis or Americans – and even more so still if all it ends up doing is inflaming an even greater insurgency.

As for the myth of American exceptionalism; this is based solely on neoconservative arrogance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness. It is the projection of an American sense of superiority arrived at by having undergone a transition in history that no other nation has, so they think, endured and one which they believe all other nations should aspire to. Rings a bell? The Romans? Napoleon? The Germans during the Nazi era?

Harries says:

“American exceptionalism, the strange term used to identify the profound belief widely held by Americans since their beginning as a nation that it is their historical - indeed their divinely ordained - destiny to be, in the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, "tutors of mankind in its pilgrimage to perfection", or in the words of president Woodrow Wilson, that Americans are divinely "chosen to show the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty". However condescending and presumptuous others may find this conviction, it is deeply held and as natural to Americans as apple pie. It will certainly survive the Iraq experience and the demise of the neo-conservatives, who are merely its latest vehicle, not its inventors.”

Contrary to what Harries asserts, while American exceptionalism may not have actually been invented by neoconservatives per se (the term was first coined by that hero of the neocons, Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831) it certainly has been brought to the forefront of neoconservative and US foreign policy as a direct result of neoconservative propaganda particularly since that other neoconservative hero, Seymour Martin Lipset, wrote his book about it, entitled ‘American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged-Sword’ in 1997.[5] Neoconservatism, most certainly in the modern context, has been the vehicle by which ‘American exceptionalism’ has been promoted and, certainly, one would hope that with the demise of neoconservative influence in US foreign policy in the wake of the fiasco that is Iraq, the ridiculous notion of ‘American exceptionalism’ will also be seen to expire.

American pre-eminence is now on the wane and it is on the wane as a direct result of the neoconservatives pushing what they believed was American hegemony beyond the bounds that the rest of the world, particularly the Islamic world, will accept. The notion of American exceptionalism sums up all that the Islamic world, and much of the rest of the world beside, believes are the real values of Americanism – arrogance and hypocrisy. Hopefully, when neoconservatism has run its course, the values that the rest of the world associate with them will pass on with them.

[1] Owen Harries, ‘Don’t think it’s over’, The Australian, 19 December 2006. Available online:,5942,20948142,00.html Accessed 21 December 2006.
[2] Anthony Arnove, ‘Iraq: More Hellish Than Under Saddam’,, 20 December 2006 Available online: Accessed 21 December 2006.
[3] RAI News 24, ‘Fallujah – The Hidden Massacre’,, 8 November 2005. Available online: Accessed 18 December 2006.
[4] ‘Statement of Principles’, Project for the New American Century, 3 June 1997. Available online: Accessed 21 December 2006.
[5] Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. (W. W. Norton and Co. 1997).

Monday, December 18, 2006


Not content with having got the US to start a war against a sovereign nation that was not a threat to the US, the Jewish-American-led neoconservatives, whose allegiances lean heavily towards Israel’s interests, are now pushing for the US to commit more of its soldiers to fight and die in Iraq in a last ditch effort to purge Iraq of the enemies of Zionist Israel.

The neoconservative Weekly Standard reports[1] that members of one of the numerous neoconservative think-tank front organisations, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), have recently come up with a ‘plan’ that they claim will solve all of the problems the US are currently experiencing in Iraq. The plan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’,[2] written by neoconservative ‘strategist’ Frederick W. Kagan, son of Donald Kagan and brother of Robert Kagan, up there among the most influential of Israeli-American neoconservative families along with the Kristol’s and the Podhoretz’s, and written in conjunction with advice from retired army General Jack Keane, calls for some 50,000 more troops whose “…initial mission would be to secure and hold the mixed Baghdad neighbourhoods of Shia and Sunni residents where most of the violence occurs.” One can only imagine the death and destruction such a ‘mission’ would entail as the US create ‘Fallujah’ style massacres[3] in Baghdad.

Then, after securing Baghdad, there would be, according to the report, a “…full-scale drive to pacify the Sunni-majority Anbar province.” ‘Pacify’, of course, is a neocon euphemism for killing, as the plan calls for a final effort to purge the already stricken nation of resistance to US and Israeli hegemony in the region.

Fred Barnes asserts in his Weekly Standard article that the plan is “…one that is likely to be implemented” by President Bush.

The neocons it seems aren’t quite finished yet. One can only hope that cooler heads within the US administration will prevail thus preventing yet another US instigated bloodbath in a nation that surely has already seen enough blood spilled on all sides in order to satisfy the lust of the Zionist-American neocons and their right-wing Zionist allies in Israel.


[1] Fred Barnes, ‘We’re going to win’, Weekly Standard, 25 December 2006 Issue. Available online: Accessed 18 December 2006.
[2] Frederick W. Kagan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’, AEI Publication, 14 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 18 December 2006.
[3] RAI News 24, ‘Fallujah – The Hidden Massacre’,, 8 November 2005. Available online: Accessed 18 December 2006.

Friday, December 15, 2006


I usually know when I’m getting close to the mark with any assertion I make about Israeli operations in the occupied territories regardless of whether they are overt or covert or any assertion I make that is inconsistent with neoconservative ideology; the Israeli Loony Lobby apologists react by jumping up and down shouting ‘conspiracy theory’ and questioning my intellectual integrity.

In short, they protesteth too much.

In fact, its got to the point now where, if I don’t get a reaction, I wonder about whether I’m right or not!

In recent times a fascist/neoconservative, Dylan Kissane, has taken to making comments in response to some of my postings. Most of them I have left published but lately I have deleted comments because they were simply propaganda comments pushing his own fascist/neoconservative garbage and, since he now has his own blog, I will not allow him to use this blog to spew his fascist views.

In typical fascist/neoconservative fashion Kissane has taken to distorting the contents of my postings.

For example; in a post titled ‘A response to a right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist who uses the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend right-wing Zionism’ I stated:

“…the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.”[1]

In response Kissane deliberately and dishonestly distorted what I had written saying:

“That's right: the Holocaust is not about the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe.”[2]

Yet that is not what I said. I have stated that it was indeed about the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe but adding that there were many, many others as well that perished in the Holocaust.

With regard to Israeli operations in the occupied territories, my most recent post suggested strongly that there could well be more to the recent deliberate killings of children than mistaken identity within inter-factional fighting among the Palestinians saying that the Israelis have form[3] for this kind of false-flag operation whereby they, usually Mossad or its agents, commit some heinous crime and make it look as though someone else was responsible in order to create trouble between entities whether they are nations, political groups or rival individuals. Kissane reacted vehemently shouting ‘Conspiracy theory!’ and carrying on about how terrible it was that Hamas should do such things. If, indeed, it was Hamas then, yes, it is terrible. The problem is there wasn’t a peep from Kissane when the Israeli terrorist forces in the Gaza opened fire into innocent men, women and children, not a peep.

Kissane has no honesty or integrity left. He has become as deceitful and dishonest as the other warmongering lying Israeli Loony Lobbyists here in Australia.

Neocons reacting vehemently and dishonestly are a fairly typical neoconservative characteristic when one is getting close to the truth.


[1] Damian Lataan, ‘A response to a right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist who uses the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend right-wing Zionism’,, 1 November 2006. Available online: Accessed 15 December 2006.
[2] Dylan Kissane, ‘Lataan’s Way’,, 14 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 15 December 2006.
[3] Conal Urquhart, ‘Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity’, UK Guardian, 6 September, 2006. Available online:,2763,1563273,00.html Accessed 15 December 2006.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006


It is becoming increasingly clear that the recent deliberate shooting deaths of the three children of a Palestinian Fatah official were something more than just a culmination of a series of deadly tit-for-tat factional incidents between Hamas and Fatah in the complex world of Palestinian politics.[1]

The circumstantial evidence is pointing to ‘agent provocateurs’ as having been more likely responsible for these totally senseless killings. Since the targets were the children of a Fatah officer, the knee-jerk reaction was to blame Fatah’s rivals, Hamas. Naturally, Hamas denied it. However, Hamas have not just left it as a simple denial; they have emphatically denied and have also firmly condemned the killings.[2] Giving weight to Hamas’ denials is the fact that, while there is indeed some factional violence between Hamas and Fatah, neither side have ever been known to resort to deliberately killing the children of each others operatives.

And deliberate the killings were since it was well known that the children were always driven to school in a different car from the one their father used plus the fact that the killings took place at the school. The reality is that the killers had made no mistake about their intended targets.[3]

Clearly the killings were specifically designed to provoke already inflamed tensions between Hamas and Fatah and the only beneficiaries of this outcome would have been Israel as they continue in their classic ‘divide and rule’ campaign among the Palestinians. While the Palestinian factions argue among themselves as to who was responsible for the killings, the real culprits would by now be in a safe haven inside Israel.

Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organisation, have a long history of running false flag operations and this particular type of operation is not without precedent.[4] Israeli forces also have a long history of deliberately targeting children generally in the occupied territories including the killing of children by Israeli snipers.[5]

There would be no benefit at all to Hamas for killing the children of Fatah officers. There could only be the promise of retaliation which would mean the killing of more children which is not something either side would benefit from.

While there is no direct evidence to say that Israel’s Mossad was responsible, there is no doubt that the circumstantial evidence is enough for the finger of at least strong suspicion to be pointed in their general direction.

[1] Rory McCarthy, ‘‘They were targeting the children’: Gaza factions hit new level of horror’, UK Guardian, 12 December 2006. Available online:,,1969880,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12 Accessed 13 December 2006.
[2] Ibrahim Barzak, ‘3 Palestinian kids dead in Gaza drive-by’, Yahoo News, 12 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 13 December 2006.
[3] ‘Abbas condemns killing of PA official 3 children at Gaza school’, Ha’aretz, 12 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 13 December 2006.
[4] ‘Lebanon’s Army captures Israeli Mossad ‘Terrorist Ring’’, 14 June 2006. Available online: Accessed 13 December 2006.
[5] Robert Fisk, Roll Call of 322 Children Killed in the Intifada’,, 1 October 2002. Available online: Accessed 13 December 2006.

Friday, December 08, 2006


In a recent post at Webdiary Will Howard wrote:

“… Iran, as an individual country, has no valid claim against Israel. Israel does not occupy one square inch of Iranian territory. Israel has never fired a shot at Iran. Israel has never disputed Iran's legitimacy as a state, questioned its right to exist, or called for the Iranian regime to be "wiped from the pages of history." Iran is also not an Arab nation, so certainly cannot claim some grievance against Israel as part of some sort of Arab "unity." (For example, Iran is not a member of the Arab League).”[1]

Will Howard ignores entirely that it is Israel that is calling for Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program to be destroyed. He ignores entirely that Israel’s greatest ally and benefactor, the US, has, as a direct result of pressure from Jewish-American neoconservatives who form the Israeli Lobby in the US, named Iran as part of an ‘Axis of Evil’. It was even Jewish-American neoconservatives that came up with the phrase ‘Axis of Evil’.[2]

Iran, contrary to Will Howard’s lies and attempt to deceive, has every good reason to posture strongly against Israel; it has seen what has happened to that other nation that was named part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ by Israel and the US – Iraq.

More Will Howard lies and deceit.

[1] Will Howard, ‘Rectifying the Israel-Palestine issue’, Webdiary comment, 8 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 8 December 2006.
[2] Julian Borger, ‘How I created the Axis of Evil’, The UK Guardian, 28 January 2003. Available online:,12858,890310,00.html Accessed 8 December 2006.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006


Will Howard at Webdiary is still pushing the lie that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. In a recent posting at Webdiary he starts by saying: “Another point about the Iran nuclear confrontation…”

One first needs to ask: What ‘Iran nuclear confrontation’? Iran has not confronted anyone with anything nuclear. The only people doing any ‘confronting’ are the Israelis and the neoconservatives in the US – both of whom do have nuclear weapons.

Will Howard goes on to say: “The US, UK, France, China, and Russia could reduce their stocks of nukes, and agree on a Central Asia/Mideast nuke-free zone.” What garbage! If these countries reduced their nuclear weapon stocks by 90% they’d still be able to destroy the planet a couple of times over. And, as far as the Middle East is concerned, the only Middle East nation that has nuclear weapons is Israel and they are hardly likely to relinquish their weapons to create a nuclear free zone.

Will Howard continues by saying: “I think the people who are really scared of a nuclear-armed Iran, are not so much the Israelis, but Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.” [1] More garbage. As I have mentioned before, this tactic of wedging is typical Israeli Lobby practice. The reality, however, is that none of the Middle East nations need be scared of a nuclear-armed Iran because Iran is not nuclear-armed and nor is their any evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is intending to become so – except in the neocons and Israel’s propaganda-inspired imagination.

Elsewhere on another Webdiary post Will Howard has pedantically argued that the Shebaa Farms are not a part of Lebanon[2] and that, therefore, Israel is not on Lebanese land. He all but ignores the fact that, while who owns the land might well be in dispute, who doesn’t own the land is not in dispute – and that, of course, is Israel, yet they are the ones that are occupying the Shebaa Farms.

In the same post Will Howard asks sarcastically: “So why didn't the peace-loving Hezbollah at least give the UN a chance to reinvestigate the sovereignty of Shebaa Farms before launching Katyusha’s on "disputed" Zionist-occupied areas such as Safed?” The entire question is an attempt to obfuscate by inferring that somehow Hezbollah had attacked Israel because of the Shebaa Farms being occupied by the Israelis.

Safed[3] is nowhere near the Shebaa farms for a starters. And Hezbollah attacked towns like Safed in an effort to deter the Israelis from destroying Lebanon. Will Howard should be reminded that Israel had planned and launched its attack on Lebanon before Hezbollah retaliated with rockets.

Will Howard continues to lie and deceive.


[1] Will Howard, ‘Disarmament Blues’, Webdiary comment, 6 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 6 December 2006.
[2] Will Howard, ‘You say Denial I say “DeNile”’, Webdiary comment, 6 December 2006. Available online: Accessed 6 December 2006.
[3] Safed can be located on Google Earth at approximately 32° 57’ N and 35° 27’ E.

Monday, December 04, 2006


It seems that as well as labelling Will Howard a ‘liar’ and ‘deceiver’, I can now add ‘manipulator’. Trying to wedge left-wing commentators is an Israeli Lobby speciality that has been tried before and is often used as simply a distractive tactic to avoid a focus on some other lie or deceit that would have otherwise befallen them or that they have been caught out on.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work as far as I’m concerned. Roslyn Ross has a political view that I support wholeheartedly. Since the debate is not about me I have no interest in what Roslyn Ross or anyone else personally thinks about me.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever about calling a liar a liar and I will continue to expose Will Howard for the liar, deceiver and now manipulator, that he is.