A report in the Jerusalem Post reveals that the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will meet Elliot Abrams, arch neocon, facilitator of covert operations and some of history's most underhand dealings, prior to his meeting with Bush.
Now that is a serious worry for the world!
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
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.
8 comments:
Something seems to be going on.
Abrams sure is, as Carter said, "a very militant supporter of Israel".
And there is a constant feed of propaganda coming out of the usual places.
There was an interesting JPost spin today. It reported that the SMH was wrong to report that Ya'alon did not say "We have to consider killing him," in reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That way they could suggest he did and didn't say it at the same time, whilst also ensuring the idea of assassinating Ahmadinehad is "seeded" out there amongst the sheople.
Then there was Glick promoting that propaganda about the MV Iran Deyanat, which wasn't actually carrying any suspect cargo.
That was followed up in JPost today with a story that the "US foiled missile shipment to Iran" (from North Korea they claim). The most interesting point being that they claim this happened back in August.
It has to be asked: If the North Korean aeroplane did indeed have missile parts in its cargo back then, why leak the news only now?
Why wouldn't it have been used during the lead up to that little event they had in the US last month?
AS you suggest, something is brewing, but, like everything that happens in Israel, it's almost impossible to pin down.
Those slippery, sneaky, conniving Jews.
Isn't that just the general drift.
Actually, the general drift is more 'those slippery, sneaky, conniving neocons and Zionists'.
They're a bit like you really - slippery, sneaky, conniving - as demonstrated by the deceitful way you attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
Actually, I take my advice to link anti-zionism with anti-semitism from top Communist identities:
"fight all forms of racism, starting with anti-Semitism, even when, disguised as anti-Zionism, it aims at denying Israel’s right to exist."
"lately, anti-Jewish graffiti mentions the word Jew very seldom, while they attack Zionists instead."
- Giorgio Napolitano
http://www.ejpress.org/article/13381
This long-time Communist Party leader, and current President, must also be a slippery, conniving Zionist as well!
Now you're confusing 'communism' with 'left-wing'. Many 'communists' have succumbed to the same Zionist propaganda and rhetoric of 'anti-Zionism' being 'anti Semitism'. Many neoconservatives began their political careers as 'communists' and 'Trotskyists' and come out with the same confused crap as Napolitano.
If you think the aging 80 plus Napolitano is an example of how the modern left should think, then you should think again.
Rather than go with the propaganda, I prefer to accept the geo-political reality of the practitioners of right-wing Zionism being as racist as those that support anti-Semitism.
Actually, the general drift intended by my comments was much more straightforward. It was:
Those slippery, sneaky, conniving specific individuals (regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnicity), namely Eliot Abrams, some editors employed by JPost, and columnist Caroline Glick.
Why do I suggest these specific individuals are slippery, sneaky, and conniving?
Well, they've been spreading lies and those lies lead to consequences that can be harmful to a great number of innocent civilians who would otherwise live reasonably peacefully within various communities comprising people of various religious orientations and various ethnicities.
By the way, let no one be confused about Caroline Glick's warped view of the world.
Her latest column in JPost calls for George W Bush to do two things, the sooner the better and certainly before he has to hand over power to Obama:
(1) Pardon four men (Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman) all whom broke US laws and were convicted for breaking those laws; and,
(2) Break international law and bomb Iran.
She uses slippery, sneaky, conniving arguments to support (poorly) her point of view on what Pollard, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman did, and very slippery, sneaky, conniving arguments to support (very poorly) her view that bombing Iran would "save millions."
Most reasonable (and not slippery, sneaky, conniving) people see the most likely outcome of bombing Iran: catastrophic blowback.
Post a Comment