WAR NEWS FOR THURSDAY, April 20, 2006
The Mehdi Army in Basra on the 8th [December 2005]. Against the occupation but
currently in a state of truce, Moktada al-Sadr's militia is widely known to
have large weapons caches, and if the Shia turn against the Americans, they
will be the first to fight.
against a convoy carrying General Mohammed Namah, ead of operations command in
interior ministry, killed one civilian.
Namah's four bodyguards were
wounded in the blast.
attack Sunni mosque in the district of Saidiya, sparking an hour-long clash
before dawn with mosque guards and residents.
There were no casualties,
but the walls of the mosque and nearby houses were damaged.
the Um al-Maalif district, gunmen kill two Sadrist militiamen in a drive-by
of two al-Sadr loyalists found.
break into bakery in the Dora district and kill two workers.
killed and two others wounded in roadside bombing against police patrol in
In two separate
shootings, gunmen kill four civilians in and around Baquba.
killed in roadside bombing against passing patrol in Al-Khalis.
killed and five wounded in car bomb attack near British military patrol near
A British military spokesman said no casualties were suffered by
its forces in the attack.
officer from Saddam Hussein's security forces shot to death as he stood near
his house in Karbala.
killed and four others wounded when roadside bomb hits their patrol in Tal
doctor inside a hospital in Tal Afar.
Jaafari says he was longer insists on being PM,
saying his fate now rests in the hands of the alliance members. The announcement
on Thursday morning came just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to meet for
only the second time since a landmark election in December, with political
leaders still squabbling over top government posts.
Jawad al-Maliki, a key leader in the conservative Shia bloc, the United Iraq
said: "Jaafari has left the decision about his candidacy with the alliance."
"Mr Jaafari told the alliance
today that it was up to it to decide whether it feels it is necessary" to
have him as the next prime minister, "which means he is no longer insisting
on the post," al-Maliki said.
The Adhamiya battle in a nutshell:
Iraqi security forces from the Interior ministry (some believe to be accompanied
by militiamen) attempted to enter Adhamiya from the Raghiba Khatoun area around
1 am, Monday. Adhamiya residents and its dozens of watch
teams responded with heavy fire and thwarted the perceived attack.
The same, or another, force later attempted to enter from the other side through
Omar bin Abdul Aziz Street. The attack was repelled and several vehicles were
burnt. 7 to 12 residents were killed in the clash.
Thank you Amaraka
for your "Bloodlust" of your Judeo-Churchinsanity of anti-Christ
Electric power returned at 3 am and the area calmed down for a few minutes.
American helicopters were circling the area, and National Guards backed by an
American force soon arrived at the scene and engaged with what
it thought to be an insurgent force attacking the Adhamiya police station.
The residents continued to return fire and the random exchange lasted until 12
pm. By then, both sides had realised their mistake.
Adhamiya elders and local clerics rushed to clear the
misunderstanding with the National Guard. National Guards set up
checkpoints and helped restore security. The district was cordoned, residents
stayed indoors and stores remained closed, even at Raghiba Khatoun, which is
usely oblivous to whatever happens in other parts of Adhamiya.
There had been a previous understanding for a few months between the 2 parties
that, as long as Interior ministry forces do not enter Adhamiya, National
Guards (National Guards who are supposed to be
Protecting the wide open Borders of Amaraka) were free to patrol and
maintain checkpoints in the area. National Guards in return, turned a blind eye
to the many neighbourhood watch teams and even the 'Mujahideen' as long as they
don't target them. National Guards were considered allies and during the Samarra
events they stepped back in the shadows and watched as vigilant units took over
and patrolled Adhamiya at nighttime. There was at least one incident, a couple
of weeks ago, when a National Guard commander warned the 'Mujahideen' that
Interior ministry forces had entered the area, and
turned over his weapons to residents so they could defend themselves.
Tuesday, 6:45 am: a speeding vehicle drove by and fired a few shots at
a lethargic National Guard unit near the corner of Omar bin Abdul Aziz
and Siham Al-Mitwali streets. The unit responded with a rabid barrage of Douchka
and PKC fire, damaging several stores and hitting the nearby Al-Anbia'
mosque. The mosque guards snuck to Dhubat Street from back alleys, took
positions on a 3-floor building and started taking potshots at the National
Guards at the intersection of Omar and Dhubat streets. Other watch teams thought
it was another attack, and by 8 am the whole district
erupted into an inferno of machine gun fire. Amidst the chaotic
firefight, we could make out the familiar buzz of an American unmanned
surveillance plane in the air.
"Please refrain from firing at the mosque. Does a house of Allah have no
sanctity to you?" a haughty voice was broadcasting from the Al-Anbia'
mosque loudspeakers to the National Guards. "You are supposed to restore
order. Cease fire immediately or face the consequences. He
who has warned is henceforth excused."
The message only served to provoke heavier fire from both
American Humvees entered Adhamiya and returned fire at
everything that moved. The fire was random now and at 1 pm the situation
had calmed down again.
People were seen on the streets at 5 pm and bakeries and supermarkets opened for
a couple of hours. We went out for supplies; bread, petrol, cigarettes and
Pepsi. There was no electric power since Monday morning. We heard from friends
and relatives that life was going on 'normally' in other
parts of the capital; the obligatory car bomb or roadside bomb, politicians
still bickering, corpses still turning up at random locations, people still
being kidnapped and assassinated, you know, the usual everyday stuff.
Have you no SHAME Amaraka, IMPEACH the
TRESONOUS Vipers, Indict them, Convict them, PUT THEM in PRISON, Start with
Bushwhacker, His entire Talmudic Jewish staff, then Every single member of
Congress, Re-puppet Ken and Demoncrat, then move on to the Pentegram and REMOVE
every Treasonous Viper therein, and REPENT in the Name above Every Name, Call
out to the LORD GOD in REPENTENCE NOW......But "That ain't gonna
happen" and you will ALL see Everlasting shame for your Blasphemies
Tuesday night was calm. And except for another short clash near the Adhamiya
police station, nothing much has happened on Wednesday, yet. National Guards
were manning checkpoints all over Adhamiya and residents were cooperative. The
district is getting extremely difficult to navigate. As you can see from the
photos below, there are barricades blocking every street and back alley. The
area is now one huge fortress, armed to the teeth and expecting an attack any
This is the Washington Post's account of
Some interesting, and often conflicting, rumours and tidbits from Adhamiya
residents, just so you get an impression on what people are saying:
40 4wd and pickup vehicles from the Interior ministry tried to enter the area
Monday. They had black-clad Badr (or Mahdi) militiamen with them. Some were
dressed in police uniform"
were all Iranians."
"The resistance captured 13 (or 14)
Iranians Monday at Omar bin Abdul Aziz Street."
"They took the Iranians to a hidden
location because they will return to look for them."
"What's this bulls&^t about
Iranians?" an old lady of Iranian descent on our street.
"The attack Monday was punishment
for Adhamiya because they opposed Ja'fari's nomination as PM."
"The electricity outage
is punishment for the district because it fought back."
Guards were shooting at stores and local generators, they were shouting: 'Let
the Accord front compensate you.'"
"They were shouting: 'Let Adnan Al-Dulaimi
"The National Guards
are such treacherous bastards. They turned against Adhamiya."
"They want to turn Adhamiya into another
Fallujah or Tala'far. This attack has been planned for months."
"There were fliers
distributed a week ago warning Adhamiya residents that they will all be dragged
in the streets soon."
"They came from Sadr city."
"They came from Iran."
"The firefight was started by a few
troublemakers from Fallujah."
"The Americans did nothing to settle
to believe in the WaPo's journalistc integrity, Adhamiya residents basically
suspected anyone could be be behind the
attacks except the U.S.…]
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
Jamail: The Ongoing War on Truth in Iraq:Another glaring example of the
Cheney administration/US military's ongoing war on truth in Iraq is the open
wound which is Fallujah.
FooledYa at Falu-Jah
apostate Amaraka, Do not forget LON "Werewolf" Cheney
Heavy-handed assaults by the US military continue in
Fallujah, where as recently as this Monday three Iraqi civilians were killed,
along with 10 wounded in the Jebail district of the city. Of the 10 wounded, three
were women and two were children. According to Mustafa Karim, with an
Iraqi security force in the city,
"US forces fired
on houses in the
district following confrontations with armed groups in the vicinity." Karim
added that residents of Fallujah have been demanding an easing of the tight
security procedures imposed by Iraqi and US armed forces on the region since
November 2004, which have obstructed the passage of civilians into and out of
the region, and "Fallujah has been recently witnessing a renewed escalation
of armed confrontations between US forces and armed Iraqi groups."
In fact, fierce fighting in Fallujah has been ongoing since just a few months
after the November 2004 US attack,
which destroyed most
buildings and homes in the city of 350,000 people.
But the US military
doesn't want people to see that American soldiers are dying there on nearly a
daily basis as of late.
Rather than calling it Fallujah when soldiers die there, they prefer a sort of
Bermuda Triangle approach and use "Al-Anbar Province" for the location
of these deaths.
Let's have a brief glance at some soldiers killed recently in "Al-Anbar
* April 17, Department of Defense (DOD)
announced (hyperlink 'announced' with http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060417-12834.html
) the death of a Marine who "died April 14 from a non-hostile motor
vehicle accident in Al-Anbar province, Iraq."
Note the clue that several of these are
issued from "Camp Fallujah, Iraq."
* April 16, CENTCOM announced: "Camp Fallujah, Iraq - A Marine ... died
due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 15."
* April 16, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - Multi-National Forces (MNF) Iraq announced:
"Three Marines ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar
Province April 15."
* April 15, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced: "Two Marines died
and 22 were wounded due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province
April 13 ... Ten wounded Marines ... were evacuated to a medical facility at
* April 15, DOD announced: "four Marines died April 15 when their HMMWV
struck an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Al Anbar
* April 11, DOD announced: "Lance Cpl. Juana NavarroArellano, 24 ... died
April 8 from wounds received while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar
* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced: "A soldier ... died
from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province
* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced: "Two soldiers ...
died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 9."
* April 8, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced: "A Marine ... died
from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province
This is hardly a complete list of US soldiers killed in Fallujah, and some of
the aforementioned may not have actually been killed inside that city. However,
military announcements of the deaths of soldiers in other places mention the
name of specific cities, whether they occur in Samarra or Tal Afar or elsewhere.
Obviously the US military is being intentionally vague when it comes to their
admittance of losing American soldiers within the city limits of Fallujah. An
email I received Monday from one of my sources in Fallujah sheds much light as
to why this is the case, not only in Fallujah, but throughout Iraq.
Fallujah] is very active
and all the destruction to the city by American soldiers did not succeed to stop
them. You know the city was totally destroyed in the
November attack and is still surrounded and closed for anyone other than
citizens of the city. What is going on now is that the
Americans are trying to conceal their failure here by not letting anybody in.
There were at least five explosions today and more than one clash between
resistance fighters and US soldiers.
So all the military
procedures, together with the thousands of casualties, were in vain.
In short, the American Army seems to be losing control in
this country and God knows what they will do in revenge. I expect the worst to
warrants - Saddam 148, Bush 152: Saddam Hussein, we now hear, signed the
death warrants of 148 Shiite villagers who had risen up against him in Dujail in
1982, for which Saddam Hussein sits in the dock and could face the death
George Bush, in his
six-year tenure as Governor of Texas, signed 152 death warrants,
a record for any governor of any state in the history of
An example of what
George Bush is capable of is provided by the signing of the death warrant of
Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man of 33 with the brain of a
seven-year-old. Pleas of clemency were denied after a hearing which lasted
barely half an hour.
Saddam Hussein was derided because he invaded a sovereign nation - in the event,
Kuwait, which was stealing Iraq's oil by cross-drilling, and which had been
warned against this practice. George Bush invaded a
sovereign nation - Iraq, based on lies and deception.
George Bush accused Saddam Hussein of lying when he
claimed he did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. 'This man stiffed the
world,' he said. 'We know where they are,' the Bush regime said. Rumsfeld said
they were 'In Baghdad and Tikrit and north, south, east and west of there'.
Powell said, 'They are being driven around the desert, in vehicles'.
But the one who was telling the truth was Saddam Hussein and the one who stiffed
the world was George Bush. Where are the WMD?
Saddam Hussein was derided for his terrible prisons in
which prisoners were tortured. Yet what happened in Abu Ghraib under the legions
of George Bush defies logic, such was the shock and awe of the horrific scenes
of human suffering and sexual depravity meted out on prisoners by American
The US Armed Forces, of which George Bush is
Commander-in-Chief, attacked civilian targets with military hardware, something
Saddam Hussein never did. The USAF strafed civilian
areas with missiles, dropped cluster bombs in residential complexes, committed
acts of terrorism against women and children. Schools were destroyed, hospitals
were strafed, hotels were targeted, infra-structures were razed so that
billionaire contracts could be meted out for the reconstruction campaign.
Yet Saddam Hussein sits in the dock and George Bush sits
in the White House. What a telling statement in the injustice of today's world,
what a perfect comment on the hypocrisy of the USA, a country which likes
to brag about how egalitarian it is, about how concerned
it is for equal human rights yet in practice perverts every course of justice
and breaks every law in the book.
principle in a government guilty of war crimes: With the situation in Iraq
spiraling towards catastrophe—a sectarian civil war is intensifying and at
least 50 US troops have been killed there so far this month alone—Bush’s
praise for Rumsfeld’s leadership is highly provocative, and his refusal to
acknowledge the pressure building up within the military raises the troubling
question of how far the present confrontation will go.
Clearly, the Bush White House fears that to remove Rumsfeld would only
strengthen popular opposition to the war and further undermine the
administration. Rumsfeld, together with Vice President Dick Cheney—both
veterans of the Vietnam War-era Nixon administration—are the key architects of
the war. For either to be forced out could lead to the unraveling of the
administration as a whole.
In a government that is guilty of war crimes, the operative principle is summed
up in words spoken by Benjamin Franklin under radically different circumstances:
"We must all hang together, or we will assuredly hang
people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the
streets and lynched."
President George H.W. Bush, quoted by Sarah McClendon
Reporter) in her June 1992 Newsletter.
Fascismo: 'Fascismo' is the Italian for Fascism. Strictly speaking,
the term is relevant to the autocratic political movement that ruled Italy from
1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.
Fascismo, however, is also applied to Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler
and, loosely, to all other authoritarian-cum-totalitarian regimes since then.
Noahide Fascismo of
Fascismo is characterized by dictatorial
attempts to impose state control over all aspects of citizens' lives: ranging
from political and social to cultural, and economic. Fascismo
lauds the nation, state, or race as superior to individuals, institutions, or
groups composing it. As an attractive façade, and to whip up mass support, fascismo
uses popular rhetoric, calls for a heroic collective effort towards make-believe
goals and demands loyalty to a single leader or group of leaders.
"If you are not with
us then you are a "Terrorist" cries Bushwhacker of Dan
in a state milieu of insecurity. As people would sacrifice any thing to feel
secure from real or imaginary threats (economic, xenophobic, terrorism, crime,
etc.), national security remains the main rallying point of fascismo.
Toward this end, a sense of insecurity is pumped non-stop into every stratum of
societies in fascist states.
Lob those missiles at the
Proles, after all anti-Shema-Tism is necessary for the management of the
The most distinct characteristic of a fascist state, however, remains corporate
power and its sinister collusion with the state. Benito Mussolini - who knew
something about fascismo - had a more
down-to-earth description: "Fascism should more
properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate
Out of the three most dominant attributes of fascismo
i.e. corporate power, militarization of society and racism, the first two stand
out as the most common in fascist states. It is clear for all to see that these
two traits are now firmly entrenched in the greatest ever power on planet earth.
Fascismo has gate-crashed in the grand
United States of America. A group of leaders having manifest fascist leanings
have America in a stranglehold. Life is slowly being choked out of America's
The world watches on
in a dumbfounded awe.
Some past American leaders have been most prophetic about America's current
state of affairs. Abraham Lincoln, the great seer, once stated, "I
see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to
tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era
of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is
aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed."
Likewise, Kennedy once told the Americans "The biggest threat to
American democracy is corporate power, ". Sen. Huey Long was even more
accurate when he said, "I'm afraid, based on my own long experience
that fascism will
come to America in the name of national security."
A small but ruthless group of men, the "money power" described by
Lincoln, has stolen democracy from the American people. These men adhere to a
political philosophy that sends shivers up the collective spine of global
citizenry. To get a glimpse of where these men come from in their politics, it
would be appropriate to briefly familiarize ourselves with the ideas of their
lead guru, one Michael Ledeen, for it is this man's
portentous ideas that are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
|And I believe that he subscribes to the
fascist theories of Michael Ledeen. ... The "Son's of
the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch · Chabad
Satan Part 1A ...
www.samliquidation.com/phoenix_rising.htm - 166k -
- Similar pages
W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House - The War For Israel
|Who is Michael Ledeen? William O.
Beeman, Pacific News Service May 8, 2003 ... connected to the
extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, ...
www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html - 210k - Cached
- Similar pages
|"Chabad Lubavitch does not obey
the maxims of the synagogue. The young people stamp their ... The
Corner on National Review Online: "RNC by Michael Ledeen"
- 102k - Cached
- Similar pages
Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative
(talmudic Hassidim and their anti-Christ proselytes of
movement and the military actions it has spawned. A quick reading of the
brief rejoinder he gave to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft in
2002, regarding regime change in the Middle East, is enough to give an inkling
of which end of the political spectrum these men come from and where they are
that if we attack Iraq "I think we could have an explosion in the Middle
East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on
Terror." One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and
faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being
cauldronized, it is the Middle East today........."
The above was Ledeen's take on America's
foreign policy. For the internal control of America, in a paragraph in his
latest book 'The War Against the Terror Masters' , he has this to say;
destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We
tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art,
architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always
hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions
(whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace.
Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish
to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
existence-our existence, not our politics-threatens their legitimacy. They
must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance
our historic mission."
Given both his passion and his influence
over the men with the guns, the current ruling American elites, it would not be
far fetched to assume that fascismo has
finally arrived in the great United States of America.
|Closely connected to extremist Jewish
group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, ... Michael
Ledeen stands out as the one person who openly flaunts his ...
EA%20Essays/EAessaysPGL16.htm - 90k -
So who, if any, would stop this inexorable American march towards fascism?
To answer this question, let us first identify the groups of citizens who are
capable of effecting a change in the governance of a given country.
Any state, fascist or otherwise, comprises of two distinct sets of citizenry
that can profoundly affect the governance of that state, the elites and the
masses. These two sets may work together, or singly, to bring about the desired
change. When the elites only bring about a change, it is usually to further
their own perks and privileges. When the masses rise to do the same, revolutions
are the usual outcome with unpredictable consequences. The best results are
achieved when the two sets work in tandem to realize the wanted change in their
Unfortunately, in fascist, or fascism-prone states, the elites follow a
two-pronged strategy. One, to keep the masses in line and two, to siphon off as
much money as possible from the rabble to themselves. In dominant military
powers, like America, with vast capacities for waging war, maintaining that
country on a permanent war footing is the natural choice for fascist elites of
such countries. War, without doubt, is the most profitable
swindle of them all. Not only does war produce enormous wealth for the
elite, it keeps the sheeple divided, shocked, unable to present any kind of
resistance and easy to control with sham legislation in
the name of national security. It really is that simple.
America, for example, is estimated to have gone to war in no less than five
dozen places on the globe since WW II and has dropped, by some estimates, over a
hundred million tons of
bombs on foreign lands over the last 50 years.
Additionally, in America of today, money is already in the hands of the fascist
elites with less than 5% of the population now controlling over 95% of the
country's wealth. Avarice, though, knows no bounds and the present set of
American leaders knows this fact for sure. They, therefore, have been wooing
these very elites in a variety of ways. They give them tax cuts, help them
accumulate wealth without checks and balances and dangle the promise of new
markets for their produce with imperialistic expansion. Especially, shifting of
the tax burden from the elite onto the masses has been the corner stone of the
present cabal's internal economic policies.
Moreover, in today's America the elites are spread evenly in the two major
political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. While they may appear to
be on the opposite ends of the political scale, they have a commonality
of interest in looting the masses. The elites in Democrats, the
opposition in today's America, would much rather have common Americans direct
their fury into the electoral system rather than stir them to challenge the
ruling elites. For however fraudulent the election process may be, the practice
also keeps them in their positions of power and privilege. The ruling elite's
complicity in this sinister game, of course, is a definite given.
Therefore, American elite rising to check this relentless stride toward fascism
is a non-starter. And with nary a Gandhi, Mandela or King visible on the
American horizon, the elites and the masses working in tandem to bring about the
desired change seems equally non-viable.
That leaves us with the second set of citizenry capable of providing a serious
challenge to this apparently unstoppable march of fascism in the United States
of America--the common Americans. Though an ever-growing number of informed
Americans are indeed fighting a brave rear-guard action to stem the rot, much
more is needed. Only a massive awareness by common
Americans, the realization that they have only each other to bond with and their
willingness to challenge the powers that be of this illegitimate takeover of
their country, the destruction of their constitution and Bill of Rights, can
stop the ongoing fascist onslaught in America.
Upton Sinclair had once said:
capitalism plus murder."
What hope, if any, is there of stopping the unremitting slide toward fascismo,
this dangerous mix of capitalism and murder, in America? Will the lifeless body
of American dream replace the torch on the statue of liberty in a deafening
sheeple chant of viva fascismo? Or will the American masses transform
themselves into a seething, raging torrent to check the relentless march of
fascism in their country?
These, then, are the ultimate questions.
Munich - the name, not the movie - has long
been one of the neoconservative movement's most cherished political symbols, a
kind of short-hand description for everything the neocons despise about liberals
and their approach to foreign policy.
Munich equals appeasement - the worst sin in the neocon theology. It also stands
for weakness, cowardness, naivety and an amoral willingness to bargain with the
devil, as well as the failure to recognize that the devil never keeps his word.
Munich is a '30s newsreel of a feeble old man standing on an airport tarmac,
holding an umbrella in one hand and waving a meaningless scrap of paper in the
other. Munich is the betrayal of the Czechs and the perfidy of the French and
the sound of jackboots marching down cobblestone European streets. Munich is
Winston Churchill declaiming, with righteous thunder: "You have chosen
dishonor over war. You shall have both." Munich is the city you never ever
want to visit if you're the leader of the free world.
Now history, as opposed to the historical stereotype, is hardly so cut and
dried. There is considerable evidence that the British and the French knew full
well Hitler couldn't be trusted, and never expected him to keep the peace - for
long. They were playing for time to complete their own rearmament programs, and
worried (with good reason) about Germany's diplomatic feelers to Uncle Joe
Was it a bad call? Almost certainly. But more a Machiavellian miscalculation
than the wishful thinking of fools and cowards. However it later became
politically expedient to foist responsibility for the entire fiasco of the
West's response to Hitler's aggression on to the narrow shoulders of Neville
Chamberlain. Ever thus to losers.
Naturally, these historical details haven't kept the
and their pet rocks in the conservative media from digging poor old Neville out
of his grave - again - in order to illustrate their favorite analogy, this time
with Iran as Germany, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Hitler, the
Democrats as Chamberlain, the French as the French, and (of course) their own
courageous selves as Winston Churchill. Just yesterday, for example, I found
Hugh Hewitt comparing Iran's enrichment of several teaspoons of uranium to
Hitler's march into the Rhineland.
Leaving aside the specific deficiencies in Hewitt's argument - Hitler's move was
in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty, Iran's move flouts only a
non-binding "request" from the U.N. Security Council - you can make
the case that all this Munich-mongering actually turns the truth completely on
• It is the United States that may (again) be planning for aggressive war.
(For what that might mean legally for the planners, Google: "Hossbach
Conference" and "Nuremberg")
• It's the United States, not Iran, that appears willing to violate the
Nonproliferation Treaty to further its budding nuclear alliance with India.
• More to the point, it's the United States, not Iran, that currently has both
the weapons and the doctrine in place to launch a nuclear first strike on a
of rhetoric in media on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged
statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad:
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map?
To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to
liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's
President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end
of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of
war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their
indignation. It goes around the world.
But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.
It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at
our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:
say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism.
But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back.
[[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to
the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence
bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of
terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the
founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many
of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible.
All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini
started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the
regime even after the massacre of September 7  ]]] and said the removal
of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now
that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The
tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak
people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who
would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern
Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way
that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini]
said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could
imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that
one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in
handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with
whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the
occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.
We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a
new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever
accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat
of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor
in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new
wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world
too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
It's becoming clear. The statements of the
Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's
President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and
in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never
demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are
potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country
has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed.
Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his
aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in
Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in
this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.
based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions
by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared
brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)
Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into
the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified
political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all
means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime'
into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous
This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the
words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig -
namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.
Marginally we want to mention that it was the
former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul
D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without
any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the
discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is
Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine tagesschau.de writes the
following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new
wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the
Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave
of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call
disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in
Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world."
Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the
As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a
version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in
[ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?'
But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and
surely can be achieved. [[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said
that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent
governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge
[asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day,
when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's]
corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation
stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government
dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.]
and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the
tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day
witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said
it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this
regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we
can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein]
must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And
what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he
would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried
in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is
occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This
sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can
compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e.
country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts
the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the
Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini]
set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I do not
doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today
we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has
spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e.
Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is
The term 'map' to which the media refer at
length does not even appear. Whereas the 'New York Times' said: "Our dear
Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" the version
by MEMRI is: "Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods
[Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."
(source: http://memri.org, based on the publication of 'Iranian Students News
Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by MEMRI in squared brackets -- missing passages
compared to the 'New York Times' in triple squared brackets)
MEMRI added the following prefixed formulation to their translation as a kind of
title: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From
the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable". Thereby they
take it out of context by using the insertion 'i.e. Israel' they distort the
meaning on purpose. The temporal tapering 'very soon' does not appear in the
NY-Times-translation either. Besides it is striking that MEMRI deleted all
passages in their translation which characterize the US-supported Shah-Regime as
a regime of terror and at the same time show the true character of US-American
An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA)
yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah
Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world -
literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no
space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time.
The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free
and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the
ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first
into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all
literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the
original more and more. The perfidious thing
about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one
(intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about
which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.
Again following the independent translation: "I have no doubt that the new
movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is
spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of
disgrace from the Islamic world".
It must be allowed to ask how it is possible that 'spirtual movement' resp.
'wave of morality' (as translated by MEMRI) and 'wave of assaults' can be
equated and translated (like e.g tagesschau.de published it).
Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust?
"The German government condemned the repetitive offending anti-Israel
statements by Ahmadinejad to be shocking. Such behaviour is not tolerable,
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated. [...] Federal Chancellor Angela
Merkel proclaimed Ahmadinejad's statements to be 'inconceivable'"
(published by tagesschau.de 2005-12-14.)
But not only the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and the Federal Chancellor
Merkel allege this, but the Bild-Zeitung, tagesschau.de, parts of the peace
movement, US-President George W. Bush, the 'Papers for German and international
politics', CNN, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, almost the entire world does so,
too: Iran's President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.
What is this assertion based on? In substance it is based on dispatches of 2
days - 2005-12-14 and 2006-02-11.
"The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal
attacks against Israel and the Western states and has denied the Holocaust.
Instead of making Israel's attacks against Palestine a subject of discussion
'the Western states devote their energy to the fairy-tale of the massacre
against the Jews', Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a speech at Zahedan in the
south-east of Iran which was broadcasted directly by the news-channel Khabar.
That day he stated that if the Western states really believe in the
assassination of six million Jews in W.W. II they should put a piece of land in
Europe, in the USA, Canada or Alaska at Israel's disposal." - dispatch of
the German press agency DPA, 2005-12-14.
The German TV-station n24 spreads the following on 2006-12-14 using the title
'Iran's President calls the Holocaust a myth': "The Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and called
the Holocaust a 'myth' used as a pretext by the Europeans to found a Jewish
state in the center of the Islamic world . 'In the name of the Holocaust they
have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the
prophets' the Iranian head of state said."
The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on
2005-12-14 as follows: "'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.' [...] 'If you have committed the crimes so give a piece
of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set
up their own state there.' [...] Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on
holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets
[...] The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression,
displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and
spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we
say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'"
There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24:
"In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that
this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the
massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying
the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the
imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to
achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is
criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.
CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't
you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our
question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent
nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
The Washingtonian ''Middle East Media Research Institute' (MEMRI) renders
Ahmadinejad's statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: "...we
ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed
people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime,
you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you
committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at
their disposal - a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska - so
they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian
people will voice no objection."
The MEMRI-rendering uses the relieving translation 'great crime' and
misappropriates the following sentence at the * marked passage: "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." This sentence has obviously been left out deliberately because
it would intimate why the Israeli state could have forfeited the right to
establish itself in Palestine - videlicet because of its aggressive expansionist
policy against the people of Palestine, ignoring any law of nations and
disobeying all UN-resolutions.
In spite of the variability referring to the rendering of the statements of
Iran's President we should nevertheless note down:
the reproach of denying the Holocaust cannot be sustained if Ahmadinejad speaks
of a great and huge crime that has been done to the Jews.
In another IRNA-dispatch (2005-12-14) the Arabian author Ghazi Abu Daqa writes
about Ahmadinejad: "The Iranian president has nothing against the followers
of Judaism (Aholah
Ahmadinejad is against Zionism
well as its expansionist and occupying policy. That is why he managed to declare
to the world with courage that there is no place for the Zionist regime in the
world civilized community."
14: And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south:
also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.............
15:........ So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.
16: But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.
It's no wonder that such opinions do not go down particularly well with the
ideas of the centers of power in the Western world. But for this reason they are
not wrong right away. Dealing out criticism against the aggressive policy of the
Western world, to which Israel belongs as well, is not yet anti-Semitism. We
should at least to give audience to this kind of criticism - even if it is a
problematic field for us.
2006-02-11 Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA: "[...] the real holocaust
should be sought in Palestine, where the blood of the oppressed nation is shed
every day and Iraq, where the defenceless Muslim people are killed daily. [...]
'Some western governments, in particular the US, approve of the sacrilege on the
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), while denial of the >Myth of Holocaust<, based on
which the Zionists have been exerting pressure upon other countries for the past
60 years and kill the innocent Palestinians, is considered as a crime'
[...]" The assertion that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust thus is wrong in
more than one aspect. He does not deny the Holocaust, but speaks of denial
itself. And he does not speak of denial of the Holocaust, but of denial of the
Myth of Holocaust. This is something totally different. All in all he speaks of
the exploitation of the Holocaust. The Myth of
Holocaust, like it is made a subject of discussion by Ahmadinejad, is a myth
that has been built up in conjunction with the Holocaust to - as he says - put
pressure onto somebody. We might follow this train of thoughts or we might not.
But we cannot equalize his thoughts with denial of the Holocaust. If
Ahmadinejad according to this 2006-02-11 condemns the fact that it is forbidden
and treated as a crime to do research into the Myth of Holocaust, as we find it
quoted in the MEMRI translation, this acquires a meaning much different from the
common and wide-spread one. If the myth related
to the Holocaust is commuted to a 'Fairy Tale of the Massacre' - like the DPA
did - this can only be understood as a malicious
misinterpretation. By the use of misrepresentation and adulteration it
apparently succeeded to constitute the statements of the Iranian President to be
part and parcel of the currently fought propaganda battle. It is our
responsibility to counter this.
A dispatch by Reuters confirms 2006-02-21: "The
Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has [...] repudiated that his state
would want the Jewish state Israel 'wiped off the map'. [...] Iran's President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. 'Nobody can erase a country from the
map.' Ahmadinejad was not thinking of the state of Israel but of their regime
[...]. 'We do not accredit this regime to be legitimate.' [...] Mottaki also
accepted that the Holocaust really took place in a way that six million Jews
were murdered during the era of National Socialism."
The next step is to connect the Iranian President with Hitler. 2006-02-20 the
Chairman of the Counsil of Jews in France (Crif) says in Paris: "The
Iranian President's assertions do not rank behind Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'".
Paul Spiegel, President of the Central Counsil of Jews in Germany, 2005-12-10 in
the 'Welt' qualifies the statements of Ahmadinejad to be "the worst comment
on this subject that he has ever heard of a statesman since A. Hitler". At
the White House the Iranian President is even named Hitler. And the German
Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel as well moves over Iran's President towards
Hitler and National Socialism by saying 2006-02-04 in Munich: "Already in
the early 1930's many people said that it is only rhetoric. One could have
prevented a lot in time if one had acted... Germany is in the debt to resist the
incipiencies and to do anything to make clear where the limit of tolerance is.
Iran remains in control of the situation, it is still in their hands."
All this indicates war. Slobodan Milosevic
became Hitler. The result was the war of the Nato against Yugoslavia. Saddam
Hussein became Hitler. What followed was the war the USA and their coalition of
compliant partners waged against Iraq. Now the Iranian President becomes Hitler.
the saints of Jesus who is Christ forever more and now anti-Shemite Hitlers, say
the anti-Christ satans
And someone who is Hitler-like can assure a hundred times that he only wants to
use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. Nobody will believe him. Somebody like
Hitler can act within the scope of all contracts. Acting contrary to contract
will nevertheless be imputed to him. "Virtually none
of the Western states recognize that uranium enrichment is absolutely legal.
There is no restriction by contract or by the law of
nations. Quite the contrary: Actually the Western countries would have the duty
to assist Iran with these activities, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As long as a state renounces the bomb it is eligible for technical support by
the nuclear powers." (Jörg Pfuhl, ARD radio studio Istanbul 2006-01-11)
But - all this does not count if the Head of a state is stigmatized as Hitler.
Authors: Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas
Neumann (Germany), Translation to English: Erik Appleby [my emphasis in bold --
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I'm in
favor of Ahmadinejad, but even I didn't think he was brave enough to pick a
fight with the whole world." --- Iranian citizen Negar Rahimieh, waiting
for a taxi near an Iranian burger stand decorated with McDonald's-style golden