ATTACKING IRAN: ISRAEL LOOKING FOR ANYWAY

ATTACKING IRAN: ISRAEL LOOKING FOR ANYWAY

"THE IRANIAN 'REVOLUTION' HAS FAILED SO IT'S BACK TO THE 'IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS' RHETORIC TO BOMB THEM INTO 'REGIME CHANGE'."

Yes, as I said, the "revolution" would fail in its initial iteration. Now it is back to the same old other lies and some twists on the "counter-revolution."

If at first you don't succeed, twist some more and just keep lying. Don't stop or it will all catch up with you and fail to numb the minds of the willing minions. That's the New Big Lie methodology. Probe for no comeback-answers that defeat the arguments/excuses on the merits. It's the methodology of amoral idiots in so-called high places.

This is the new Big Lie approach. Tell a whole bunch of lies, and just keep ranging back and forth putting everyone to sleep. However, it's having the opposite result. It's like cold water in the face of so many more people everyday who want to wake up to know the truth of the evil American Empire (aka the Beast) that even includes the current Iranian regime in an indirect way if looked at mundanely but a very direct way when viewed from the divine. Both are part of the Empire of selfishness that will fall.

So Obama said from Russia that "We [he] can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are." He said he has not given a green light for an attack, but he can't stop them from attacking. Slippery? Actually, lame. This stuff flies with lamebrains. Lamebrains come up with it, and lamebrains think it's clever. However, it's transparently stupid and no cover at all. These neocon Zionists aren't just at war with Islam. They're at war with intelligence. Don't rub two brains cells together. You're liable to be crucified. ("Obama: U.S. did not give Israel green light to attack Iran," by Natasha Mozgovaya)

Now, Netanyahu is floating the next idea probing around for what will pass. So, his neocon, fascist, Likudniks throw out there to see if anyone will be smart enough to block them instantly, "if we seem not to have asked and just go ahead and attack, won't Obama be able to say that he wasn't for it but the people have to cut the Israeli's slack and that it was really the intransigence of the Iranians who didn't ask 'how high' when we asked them to jump?"

Look, Likudniks, you come up with the hard evidence that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, or you'll never get any intelligent people to say that you even won in the mundane sense. There are no other routes. You can't say Iran supports this, that, or, the other and have that mean a thing when you're in violation of what, dozens, of U.N. resolutions and other provisions of international law. You can't just claim Iran has an illegal nuclear-weapons program (what, I'm now saying you must proved it's illegal? That's right!). You have to prove it. You can't complain about Iranian elections when your own elections are fraudulent and you're rabid nationalists and segregationists (Apartheid) yourselves. You think this is unfair because I'm lumping the U.S. and Israel together, taking the worst of each together? Too bad for you. You're an Empire together. You've both said you're joined at the hip. If you want to walk separately, then separate.

It's so obvious that stories are being compared behind the scenes before Obama and Netanyahu speak. The neocons in both camps (are there any anti-neocons?) conspire to dupe the masses. It's not working! You're failing miserably.

I'm fed up with the "guilty until proven innocent" approach against Iran. Iran can't prove a negative. The burden of hard, incontrovertible evidence that Iran is doing anything against international law rests solely with the accusers. The fact is that even if Iran is desirous of obtaining nuclear weapons, under international law, Iran may opt-out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty any time it wishes. So, where's your proof Mr. Barack Obama? Don't show us any Colin-Powell grade cartoons, as Colin presented to the U.N. and world as "proof" of Iraq's and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and intention to use them against the U.S. and others. By the way, if you don't block Israel from attacking Iran based upon the current zero-evidence against Iran, you will be complicit and an accessory. The U.S. funds Israel's military and fuels it with carbon fuels. You either cut all of that off or become guilty of all the death and destruction in Iran, just as you are already guilty of the needless deaths and destruction and pain and suffering in Pakistan (your proxy war) and Afghanistan. (I posted that last paragraph over on Facebook.)

Let me be clear here. Obama has not repudiated Joe Biden's statement.

Also, let me further clarify that the issue in Iran is war, death, destruction, and pain and suffering that the current counter-revolutionist in the form of the "Green Revolution" don't look out to as in their future if they aren't vastly more careful.

The neocons and false-Zionists are not concerned about doing to Iran what they've done to Iraq and are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will do that to Iran just as quickly as they can get around to it.

Yes, Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council are in grave error with their Islamic theocracy; however, is it for the neocons to say that taking the Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan wars to Iran is the only alternative?

There are peaceful options open to dealing with Iran. That's a fact. Destabilizing them rather than convincing them with open, honest, and direct debate is not the right approach. Of course, the Bush and Obama neocons are Machiavellian and not the least bit interested in subjecting the imperial system to having to answer questions from Ahmadinejad.

In the meantime, July 9, 2009, protesters in Iran are shouting, "Death to the dictator." Well, I can't get behind that. That's evil. Let God and Satan handle that without human hand or cursing. Just speak truth. They are also lighting fires in very many garbage cans all over Teheran. That's mindless too. Why pollute when you're complaining about corruption and the lack of freedom? Calling for death, cursing people (anyone), polluting, damaging private and public property, etc., is not proper conflict resolution. The Islamic theocracy must go, but this is not the way. What this does is set up the counter-revolution for failure too.

Also, as the incoming Director General of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), we expect Yukiya Amano to show great courage, as has his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, who was never cowed by the Empire but stood resolutely for hard evidence that Iran and Iraq were developing weapons of mass destruction and especially in the case of Iran, nuclear weapons. No such evidence has ever been forthcoming from the Empire, which is run by pathological liars to this day.

I rated that video as "poor" over on YouTube for the reason that when the election and protests in Iran began, I actually found myself wondering aloud (I posted it) who Press TV was backing in the elections because the coverage on their website seem slanted against Ahmadinejad. That's quite ironic considering the above video. Also, while I don't think the Press TV Limited representative handle the situation, his point that the BCC is an organ of the U.K. state is correct. The BBC certainly is propagandistic and not independently so. All media content is propaganda. This article is propaganda. There is propaganda for truth and there is propaganda for obfuscation. The video above is a hypocritical hit piece by the BBC against Press TV. There's no doubt about it. It is part of a plan to delegitimize the Iranian government while avoiding turning the same spotlight on the BCC, naturally. I don't hold with the Islamic theocracy, but the government of Britain is a farce.

As for the elections in Iran, James Petras writes the following:

During the entire day of voting, with opposition party observers at each polling place, no claims of voter intimidation or fraud were noted by the media, international observers or left backers of the opposition. Opposition party observers were present to monitor the entire vote count and yet, with only rare exception, no claims of vote rigging were made at the time. {"Obama's Rollback Strategy: Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the Boomerang Effect)"}

That's all very interesting, isn't it. It sure flies in the face of the claims of the knee-jerk liberal-left in the U.S. that is lined up with the neocons and neolibs (imperialists all).

As for the BBC and Britain, when will they bring Tony Blair to the bar (I believe that's how they say it over there, meaning haul him into public court to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity)? Until they do (and I'm not advocating a sentence other than planetary and cosmic working conscience), they will remain a farce with no room to speak about Iran or any other nation or state.

In addition, without any evidence whatsoever, the BBC commentator allowed that there is no way that the CIA or MI6 or the Mossad or one of their in-state operatives such as from the MEK or Jundallah could have killed demonstrators and in particular the young woman caught on video shot dead in the street and a rooftop sniper also caught on video. The BBC is engaging in thought-terminating techniques with that. It is not at all wild to wonder the role of the Western and Israeli intelligence (oxymoron) agencies and proxies.

Overthrowing governments is the Empires stock and trade. Murder is not beyond their pale at all. Only an idiot would think so.

George W. Bush even ordered assassinations. It was made public for effect.

In his January 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush said, "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." Everyone knew what that meant. They were killed extrajudicially. There was no guarantee of guilt. People being tortured to rat on others would give up people just to get the torture to stop. It's just a mindless, heartless, Satanic process let loose. You will not that even he admitted they were merely "suspected." Killing suspects in that way is murder in the first degree. It's a crime for which George W. Bush did not pardon anyone when he was Governor of Texas.

He flaunted his impunity as Emperor for a little season. Obama is now assassinating and murdering thousands and thousands directly and by proxy as a direct continuation of the Empire building of George W. Bush. Again, only an idiot would conclude otherwise. It's all obvious on its face. It's self-evident. It requires no digging for smoking guns. The smoking guns are plastered all over the mainstream news along with the thought-terminating propaganda. It's called psyops for psychological operations. It's perception management, as Donald Rumsfeld termed it. It's also called hypnosis (mass hypnosis). "Repeat after me: There is no conspiracy, there is no conspiracy, there is no conspiracy...." Do you fall for that? Are you that weak minded? There is a conspiracy. People sit around tables and decide how to dominate the world. You have to be in a trance to believe otherwise. Are you really so asleep as to imagine that the moment the most powerful people in the world gather behind the scenes that global domination is not on the table? How can you be that dumb? Global domination is always on the table, not to debate whether but to plan on how. Everything they do is geared toward it. Are there rivalries? Yes. There is more unanimity though that the system must not be blown. They each want to be at the top of their evil pyramid. If it's blown, none will get there. They are just too selfish for that. They'll genuflect to Satan and suffer his torturing ways for the rewards of evil rather than turn good that is unselfish.

Now, the doctor who worked on Neda (the young woman captured on video dead in the street from a sniper's bullet) wrote the following:

This lie questions the entire principles of this government. A government which questions the events of WWII,

[If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. — Ahmadinejad; hardly denial]

claims that there is freedom of speech in Iran, claims that there is no censorship, states that there are no political prisoners and that each individual enjoys full rights including regarding their sex, religion and race.
...
Neda was not the only victim. Are all the other victims the result of Western conspiracy?
...
I believe that all the citizens of the world will support me and thousands of other Iranians who have been beaten, murdered and imprisoned, in order to achieve freedom and join the rest of the free people.

Of course the government lies. Is the doctor attempting to de-tangle the Western conspiracy from the mess? Does he really believe that there are "free" people outside Iran?

Really, he is failing to tell the whole truth whether he knows it or not. The Western governments lie too. Also, if questioning the Iranian government is acceptable in an open and free society, then why is it a thought crime to want more and better refutation of holocaust deniers rather than simply jailing anyone who wants that process? That's not freedom. That's a police state.

Lastly, what is this "sex" in reference to but homosexuality and other issues of sexual license? Where does that end? Today's offense becomes tomorrow's "right." Many homosexuals will say that pedophilia and bestiality and necrophilia and incest and on an on offend them. All the same arguments in favor of homosexuality apply though. Harm is harm though. I don't hold with torture or other forms of coercion, but I will never agree that homosexuality is benign. That would be to agree with a lie.

Who's behind Mousavi? Who's another "brain"? We've heard that Mousavi has the backing of the multibillionaire Rafsanjani. We know there are many other elites who back him. Who's behind him and how far do those minds want to go and in what direction?

Well, for one, there is the very rich Iranian filmmaker, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who was the Mousavi campaign's manager no less. (The FP Interview: Mohsen Makhmalbaf; that's the Council on Foreign Relations' journal by the way. Consider the Rockefeller source.) Now, just how far does Makhmalbaf want to take Iranian culture in the direction of Hollywood and Bollywoord, etc.? How far toward decadence does he want to explore as an "artist"? What hedonistic license does he propose?

I'm not a backer of the mullahs of Iran in their police-state theism. I'm not though for the hedonism and decadence of Hollywood. I don't go to Hollywood to smash their equipment or their heads, nor would I hire anyone to do it. I don't though have to agree with their terrible politics and don't.

So, which coercive form of ideology is Mohsen Makhmalbaf promoting? He certainly is promoting force. He claims it's passive resistance. That's nonsense. There's nothing passive about his movement chanting death to various people. He's more akin to Robespierre than Gandhi. He's far from Christ. Is that the doing of Islamic culture or Hollywood or a combination of the two? I say it's a combination.

Makhmalbaf says the demonstrators want peace. Why do they chant for death? He's lying. He's misrepresenting. Makhmalbaf claims the last election was a coup. Where's his evidence? It has yet to be forthcoming. James Petras explained above that "with only rare exception, no claims of vote rigging were made" at the time of the voting. The 2-million-ballots-stuffed alleged by Makhmalbaf still couldn't account for the 11-million-vote spread. Where's the proof?

Of course, as Juan Cole as pointed out, Ali Khamenei refused to allow hundreds of reformers on the various ballots beginning with 2005. Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 largely on account of it.

Iran is a one-party dictatorship. Ali Khamenei is the dictator of Iran. There's no doubt about it. Bombing Iran is no solution though, and the Israelis don't want an Iran out from under the Empire in any case. Harsh economic sanctions are also no solution. Chanting death to Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others is no solution. Becoming a vassal of the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire is no solution. Henry Kissinger's methods are no solution.

The right method is to call out Ali Khamenei and the other mullahs to debate the logical merits of Islam and their version of Islamic law, aka sharia. They can be forced to debate on that level and lose. That's the only acceptable course of action. Let the truth prevail. They cannot abide being shown to be intellectual and spiritual cowards.

Makhmalbaf is arguing for modernity, but what is it? Is it moral? Will it remain moral? Is it an objective, absolute truth for eternity, or will it too be overthrown?

He calls Mousavi the Iranian Obama and says it's an insult for anyone to suggest that Obama is Bush-lite, as John Pilger does. I stand with Pilger long before standing with Makhmalbaf on that. One of my Black Christian brothers terms Obama a "darker shade of Bush." I concur.

Makhmalbaf is hoping for the same "duping" of the Iranian youth that has occurred to the American youth with Obama and his vacuous "Yes We Can." Yes they and he can bring in more hyper-militarism and death of innocents. It's what the world's been getting ever since Obama assumed office. We been getting greater coyness is all. Obama is just a more polished liar than was George W. Bush, who really never cared whether anyone caught him in a lie.

Oh, I'm not saying Obama isn't also a pathological liar. He is. I'm saying that he has much bigger plans than George had. Obama has messianic visions of grandeur. He doesn't want to be perceived in the history books as Machiavellian, which he is. He has messed up royally already though. He was doomed before he started.

Oh, and if you think that some Iranians are the only ones calling for theocratic dictatorship, just check out all the Jews who don't know God from a hole in the ground but rather worship the spirit of the dead-of-the-Holy-Spirit rabbi Kahane (Meir David Kahane). These people want the law of Moses and nothing but. They know next to nothing of Jesus Christ and actually want preaching Jesus's message to result in long prison terms if not worse.

Oh sure, I'm well aware of the Christian-Zionist prophecies that these "Torah Jews" will be wiped out and that the remnant of Jews will all believe in Jesus. That doesn't make supporting the Kahane-ites a proper thing to do. Who would you rather live under, Ali Khamenei or a Meir David Kahane? Avigdor Lieberman and the Yisrael Beitenu party are very similar to Kahane and Kahane's Kach party.

These people make out that standing against their brand of fascism is Nazism. Look at one of their main websites. They brag about intimidating major corporations into boycotting advertising on Facebook. That's the Jewish Internet Defense Force. What will they do now that I've linked to them, attack with some denial of service tactics — how honorable, how honest.

Do you know about the Jewish Defense League (JDL)? It's a terrorist organization. Then again, which self-styled Zionist organization wasn't or isn't? Every time Rudi Giuliani said, "the terrorists," do you think he meant the Irgun, the Stern Gang, and the Haganah too? The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry found the Irgun to be a terrorist organization. Why doesn't it say that in the Wikipedia article on the Committee? Do you think Giuliani meant Jabotinsky and the other Herzl followers who formed the current state of Israel that is not, I repeat, not living even remotely according to God's will?

Going backwards to Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, or Josiah or anyone else other than Jesus Christ isn't going to get them there either. There's a new standard revealed and declared. That's why it's the New Covenant, the New Testament, and comes with a New Commandment.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (John 13:34 KJV)

It doesn't mean to love as you have loved before Jesus spoke and did that Commandment. It means that Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

Did Jesus sacrifice on the battlefield dying with a worldly Zealot's sword in hand? He did not and neither should anyone else, ever.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.